Implications of Marcion for early Christianity?

[RandyHelzerman]

And that's it. It doesn't go on to say what happens to Simon,

I'm a sucker for happy endings, but he *did* ask for Peter to pray for him. The guy who Christ is building his kingdom on. The key holder. The first pope. And Faul's worst enemy

If even handkerchiefs that Peter touched could cure cancer, I have to believe that--like a lost lamb to the fold, Simon Magus was corrected successfully.

It's in AH 3.3.4:

Touche'!!! Thanks for that.

[John2]

I'm a sucker for happy endings, but he *did* ask for Peter to pray for him. The guy who Christ is building his kingdom on. The key holder. The first pope. And Faul's worst enemy

If even handkerchiefs that Peter touched could cure cancer, I have to believe that--like a lost lamb to the fold, Simon Magus was corrected successfully.

But Zedekiah asked Jeremiah to pray for him and he met a bad end.

[RandyHelzerman]

But Zedekiah asked Jeremiah to pray for him and he met a bad end.

So if anybody prayed for by anybody they meet a bad ending? Surely if Simon Magus met a bad end Acts would have told us.

Remember all the stuff Peter did. He was possessed by the Devil after Jesus asked the disciples "who am I." He denied Jesus twice. And (according to John) he renounced fishing for men and went back to fishing. The NT is all about second chances.

[John2]

But Zedekiah asked Jeremiah to pray for him and he met a bad end.

So if anybody prayed for by anybody they meet a bad ending? Surely if Simon Magus met a bad end Acts would have told us.

Well, no, but I assume the author of Acts was aware of Jer. 37 and the stories seem very similar. A big shot (King Zediekiah/Simon Magus) gets chastised by a holy man (Jeremiah/Peter) and asks the holy man to pray for him. In one case the big shot meets a bad ending and in the other we are left hanging. Maybe the former was a model for the latter.

Remember all the stuff Peter did. He was possessed by the Devil after Jesus asked the disciples "who am I." He denied Jesus twice. And (according to John) he renounced fishing for men and went back to fishing. The NT is all about second chances.

But we know that Peter comes around because of what Jesus says in Mk. 14 ("You will all fall away ... But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee”) and what the young man says in Mk. 16 ("There you will see him, just as he told you”)

Jesus' family (who had thought he was crazy) also came around after Jesus died (Acts 1:14: "With one accord they all continued in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers").

But with Simon we are left hanging. Maybe everything was great for him after that. I don't know. But since it seems similar to Jer. 37, and since Peter's harsh rebuke is left hanging there ("you have no part or share in our ministry"), and since Simon was seen as a bad person by Peter (and Hegesippus and others), I'm thinking Simon had the ending that Peter wanted him to have ("may your silver perish with you"). Maybe not though, of course. It's just my guess.

[John2]

There's also Josephus, who I think mentions Simon Magus in Ant. 20, and he too appears to have a negative view of him ("a person whose name was Simon ... a Jew he was, and by birth a Cypriot, and one who pretended to be a magician") and says his influence came to naught (since the son Felix had because of Simon's influence on his marriage to Drusilla died during the Vesuvius eruption).

Some say this can't be the same Simon since he is said to be Jewish, but the last time I checked, Simon Magus is never said to be a Samaritan or even from Samaria in Acts, only that he preached to people there, and in any event, people who lived in Samaria (like Justin Martyr) were not necessarily ethnically Samaritan. So for me, Josephus is additional evidence that Simon Magus was a "bad" person.

[RandyHelzerman]

Well, no, but I assume the author of Acts was aware of Jer. 37 and the stories seem very similar.

For me, that's just a bridge too far. Acts is in the new covenant, the new testament. We are having a new relationship with God (and if you are marcionite, a completely different God )

But we know that Peter comes around because of what Jesus says

John2, why do you think Peter's story was written that way? Why air all of Peter's dirty laundry?

Its because *we* fail over and over too. We identify with Peter, because we do the same thing he did. And we are comforted by that identification, because it gives us assurance that *we* can be redeemed, even after falling short over and over. We need to know that we will be forgiven seventy times seven times. And we need to know that we should do the same to others, no matter how many times *they* let us down.

But with Simon we are left hanging.

I don't read it as hanging, the story has just come to its conclusion. The stars of Acts are Peter and Paul. The guest stars just come on for one episode, and then they are gone.

[andrewcriddle]

Ken, one of the reasons Secret Mark can persuade about its authenticity is that it gives a detailed explanation about what Jesus went to do in Jericho (an explanation that is absent in Mark).

Secret Mark clearly solves a problem in canonical Mark which troubles modern readers more than it apparently troubled ancient readers. Whether this is an argument for authenticity may be another matter.

Andrew Criddle

[Giuseppe]

Ken, one of the reasons Secret Mark can persuade about its authenticity is that it gives a detailed explanation about what Jesus went to do in Jericho (an explanation that is absent in Mark).

Secret Mark clearly solves a problem in canonical Mark which troubles modern readers more than it apparently troubled ancient readers. Whether this is an argument for authenticity may be another matter.

my point is not that it proves the authenticity of Secret Mark. My point is that it would prove the authenticity of Secret Mark if only Secret Mark was without the homosexual stuff (a stuff that per se disqualifies any claim to authenticity by Secret Mark, given the "coincidence" of the homosexuality of the his probable author).

In the case specific of *Ev, Mark and Luke, I note that *Ev is the only gospel where there is 4:23 plus the previous episode of a miracle in Capernaum, whereas Mark is without the equivalent of Luke 4:23 ("Do here as in Capernaum") while Luke is without the previous episode of a miracle in Capernaum.
Therefore we are justified to consider *Ev more consistent than Luke from this POV: in other terms, Luke shows editorial fatigue in this case.

[John2]

But with Simon we are left hanging.

I don't read it as hanging, the story has just come to its conclusion. The stars of Acts are Peter and Paul. The guest stars just come on for one episode, and then they are gone.

I stumbled upon a book that aims to rehabilitate Simon's image (Simon Magus, the First Gnostic?), but even here Haar notes (pg. 72):

Peter curses Simon, and urges him to repent; and, although Simon begs for Peter's intercession (v. 24) so that he might not be punished for his "sin," the reader is left to ponder the final outcome.


https://www.google.com/books/edition/Si ... frontcover

Simon doesn't even repent, He just asks Peter to pray that the bad things Peter predicted for him don't happen.

My guess is that the author of Luke/Acts knew Josephus and incorporated his "bad" guy magician Simon into his work, the same way they incorporated the "bad" guys Theudas and Judas the Galilean. Theudas and Judas remain "bad" guys in Acts and so does Simon.

[RandyHelzerman]

My guess is that the author of Luke/Acts knew Josephus and incorporated his "bad" guy magician Simon into his work, the same way they incorporated the "bad" guys Theudas and Judas the Galilean. Theudas and Judas remain "bad" guys in Acts and so does Simon.

In a sense it’s silly to be talking about how a fictional character’s story goes on, after that author has stopped writing about him

Kind of like asking whether Sherlock Holmes turned to the dark side.