The link between the interpolation "called Christ" and Simon Magus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

The link between the interpolation "called Christ" and Simon Magus

Post by Giuseppe »

Irenaeus informs readers that Simon Magus taught that he had appeared in Judea as the Christ and appeared to suffer crucifixion. A meaning may be that the Simon Magus (in the eyes of Irenaeus) claimed (and desired) identity with Christ but really he wasn't the Christ.
But I like another meaning as more probable: (in the eyes of Irenaeus) Simon Magus claimed identity with the Christ exclusively to deceive the Jews on the fact that he was Christ. But really Simon Magus didn't desire to be the Jewish Christ. For Iraeneus, he was a deceiver and only that.

In my view Simon Magus never existed. Acts invented him. But the Simon's historicity was believed so strong insofar the identity of the "heretic" camp - as distinct from the proto-catholic camp - became strong.

Even if Simon was mere invention, the his heretical claim (resumed easily as: "I am not really your Jewish Christ even if you Jews call me as the Christ") is essentially stricto sensu the message of the Earliest Gospel:

Jesus was "called Christ" by demons, by the people, by apostles, by king Herod, by Pilate, by the blind, etc. But Jesus was not the Christ.

Clearly the proto-catholics didn't accept this fact. But note what both proto-catholics and heretics shared, afterall: beyond of who was really Christ, it was a "fact", for them, that Jesus was "called Christ".

So in order to co-opt the heretics in their camp, the proto-catholics had to start from that same common belief. Hence the need of an interpolation in Josephus, Ant. 20:200, to make sure that Jesus was "called Christ" according to the same Josephus. And since that a brother of Jesus is named (James), then Jesus "called Christ" had to be really the Christ for the Christian readers of Josephus, while the same effect couldn't be obtained if Josephus had only talked about a Jesus "called Christ" without carnal brothers.

So the irony is that the name of Jesus Christ entered in a historical chronicle (the interpolation in Ant. 20:200 "called Christ") for the first time, as reaction and confutation to the same Earliest Gospel, and the latter's claim that the one "called Christ" was not really the Christ.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
OptimisticEndeavor
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:13 pm

Re: The link between the interpolation "called Christ" and Simon Magus

Post by OptimisticEndeavor »

I think you're presuming/reading into completely unrelated events far too much.

Instead of this rather convoluted chain of events, it's far more easier to posit that Josephus actually wrote "called Christ" to identify James, because his audience would probably be familiar with this Jesus and his relatives.
Post Reply