The first antichrist taught a mythical Jesus

[eight bits]

Quote

... an ancient patristic author wrote that there was a Christian group who taught that the proto-orthodox Jesus was an enchantment devised by a First Century magician. According to this magican’s followers, he was the real historical figure whose words and deeds inspired Christianity, not Jesus. Jesus was a thing of smoke and mirrors, or maybe not even that.

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/2016/08/01/an-ancient-teaching-that-jesus-didnt-exist/

=====

It is often said that skepticism about a historically real Jesus is exclusively modern, no earlier than the Eighteenth Century. This contradicts what a Fourth Century Christian writer, Cyril of Jerusalem, reported about a heretical group devoted to Simon, a reputed magician active in Samaria during the First Century and a contemporary of Jesus and the Apostles.

Many early Christians believed that Jesus was not human. What distinguishes the teaching attributed to Simon is that Simon (allegedly) explained Jesus' words and deeds as being Simon's own magical performances. Jesus had no real existence, there was only Simon appearing in Judea and playing the role.

As with Jesus himself, the proto-orthodox stories about the nasty Simon kept getting more and more "difficult" to believe as time went on. The blog posting ignores all the lurid stories about Simon which are set in Rome (climaxing in his supposedly flying through the air over the Roman forum but being shot down by Saint Peter's surface-to-air prayer missiles). The emphasis is on the followers of Simon and their influence on other heretics, heretic rebutters and non-Christians during the church's early centuries.

There is similar or better quality evidence for a historical Simon as there is for a historical Jesus, but not as good (IMO) as there is for a historical John the Baptist. There is no evidence for Simon ever having gone to Rome. The evidence for the existence of followers of Simon for about as long as there have been followers of Jesus is excellent.

Thus we can conclude that "Jesus did not exist" may have been taught almost immediately after the first preachings that Jesus did exist. It is also possible that the Jesus story actually began as an adaptation of Simon's magical teachings, which according to Acts were already well-known in Samaria about the time when the first Christian church was beginning to get organized in neighboring Judea.

Edited August 2, 2016 by eight bits

[Leonardo]

Unfortunately, we also have Paul who also attests to a (admittedly somewhat intangible) Jesus. Unless that was that dastardly Simon, again playing tricks on unsuspecting innocents!?

Wouldn't it be interesting if Simon was (in reality) a traveling actor and satirist, whose act parodying a Judaic moshiach became the basis for a pseudo-historical Jesus?

[Davros of Skaro]

LOL! 

Doug will love this

If only Josephus new the influence his histories had though cherry picked.

[SHaYap]

 

Quote

 

Simon ben Kosiba (132-135 CE)

Sources: 'Abot de Rabbi Nathan A 38.3; Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 57a-58b; Genesis Rabbah 65.21 (on 27.22); Lamentations Rabbah 1.16 �45 and 2.2 �4; Palestinian Talmud, Ta'anit 4.5 (commenting on Mishna, Ta'anit 4.6); Palestinian Talmud, Nedarim 3.8 (commenting on Mishna, Nedarim 3.10-11a); Seder Elijah Rabbah 151; letters from Wadi Murabba`at (ed. P. Benoit, J.T. Milik and R. de Vaux); fifteen letters from Nahal Hever (ed. Yigael Yadin); Appian of Alexandria, Syrian war 50; Cassius Dio, Roman history 69.12.1-14.3; Eusebius, History of the church 4.5.2 and 4.6.1-4; Fronto, Letter to Marcus Aurelius; Historia Augusta, "Hadrian", 14.2; Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah 2.15; Jerome, Commentary on Daniel 9.24-27; Justin the Martyr, First apology 31.5-6 and Dialogue with the Jew Trypho 108.1-3
.
The story of Simon ben Kosiba's war against the Romans can be read here.

 

• livius org link

~

Not sure about the dates though ...

Quote

In the year 66 AD the Jews of Judea rebelled against their Roman masters. In response, the Emperor Nero dispatched an army under the generalship of Vespasian to restore order. By the year 68, resistance in the northern part of the province had been eradicated and the Romans turned their full attention to the subjugation of Jerusalem. That same year, the Emperor Nero died by his own hand, creating a power vacuum in Rome. In the resultant chaos, Vespasian was declared Emperor and returned to the Imperial City. It fell to his son, Titus, to lead the remaining army in the assault on Jerusalem.

• eye witness history link

~

Sometimes I do wonder if the collective historical records got all jumbled up during the multiple instance of 'Reformation' between then and modern academic scholarship ...

`

[eight bits]

3ye

Right, but the issue here is not a different Christ-Messiah, but a different Jesus. Simon the magical antichrist (supposedly) taught that Jesus was his creation, whom he magically made to seem to die in Judea.

The term "antichrist" (in its Greek cognate form, of course) first appears in the epistles of John. Cyril of Jerusalem says John applied it to Simon and the Simonians. Since Simon is a contemporary of Jesus and the Apostles, nobody could have been an earlier antichrist. For example, magician Simon has a century on Simon the leader of the second Jewish revolt against Rome.

The Simonians never persecuted Christians, so far as I know. They wouldn't likely have ever been a position to do so anyway.

[SHaYap]

@eight bits

I agree ... if anything the Simonians were as much persecuted along with all the other non Roman religions and then some ... especially in the early years of 'Heretical' pagan hunts ...

~

[Doug1029]

7 hours ago, davros of skaro said:

LOL! 

Doug will love this

If only Josephus new the influence his histories had though cherry picked.

Took me a long time to find it, but I love it.

But I'm a bit out of my depth here, so I should say no more.

Doug

[ChloeB]

15 hours ago, eight bits said:

3ye

Right, but the issue here is not a different Christ-Messiah, but a different Jesus. Simon the magical antichrist (supposedly) taught that Jesus was his creation, whom he magically made to seem to die in Judea.

The term "antichrist" (in its Greek cognate form, of course) first appears in the epistles of John. Cyril of Jerusalem says John applied it to Simon and the Simonians. Since Simon is a contemporary of Jesus and the Apostles, nobody could have been an earlier antichrist. For example, magician Simon has a century on Simon the leader of the second Jewish revolt against Rome.

The Simonians never persecuted Christians, so far as I know. They wouldn't likely have ever been a position to do so anyway.

Jesus was Simon's tulpa.

[Davros of Skaro]

19 minutes ago, ChloeB said:

Jesus was Simon's tulpa.

Jesus is people's imagination.

Matthew 1:23 (RSV)

"23 “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and his name shall be called Emman′u-el” "

Matthew 28:20 (RSV)

"20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” "

Isaiah 7:14 (RSV)

"14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman′u-el."

Emmanuel= God is with us

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Emmanuel

[ChloeB]

10 minutes ago, davros of skaro said:

11 minutes ago, davros of skaro said:

Jesus is people's imagination.

Matthew 1:23 (RSV)

"23 “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and his name shall be called Emman′u-el” "

Matthew 28:20 (RSV)

"20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” "

Isaiah 7:14 (RSV)

"14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman′u-el."

Emmanuel= God is with us

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Emmanuel

For the sake of this discussion, Jesus would not be imagination, but what imagination creates.

 

[Davros of Skaro]

42 minutes ago, ChloeB said:

For the sake of this discussion, Jesus would not be imagination, but what imagination creates.

Yes...The imagination created Jesus, but not in the woo woo that you desire.

Mark 10:35-37Revised Standard Version (RSV)

The Request of James and John

³⁵ And James and John, the sons of Zeb′edee, came forward to him, and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” ³⁶ And he said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” ³⁷ And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.”

 

2 Kings 2:9-10Revised Standard Version (RSV)

⁹ When they had crossed, Eli′jah said to Eli′sha, “Ask what I shall do for you, before I am taken from you.” And Eli′sha said, “I pray you, let me inherit a double share of your spirit.” ¹⁰ And he said, “You have asked a hard thing; yet, if you see me as I am being taken from you, it shall be so for you; but if you do not see me, it shall not be so.”

 

[SHaYap]

1 hour ago, ChloeB said:

Jesus was Simon's tulpa.

We're still not quite sure as the consensus is still neither here nor there in regards to who, which or how many 'Simon' there were ~

Perhaps Hillel Ha-Zaḳen knows ...

 

Quote

 

“If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?” (Ethics of the Fathers 1.14)

 

This is one of the sayings of Hillel the Elder (c.60 BCE – c.10CE) included in the collection of aphorisms known as the “The Ethics of the Fathers”. This is a tractate, or section, of the Talmud which comprises a few hundred wisdom sayings by 72 sages between the first century BCE and the second century CE.

Other sayings of Hillel recorded in the tractate are similarly thought-provoking:

 

“Be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace; be one who loves his fellow men, and draws them near to the Torah.” (1.12)

 

“Do not keep aloof from the community; be not sure of yourself until the day of your death; do not judge your fellow man until you have been in his place; do not say anything which cannot be understood at once, in the hope that ultimately it will be understood; and do not say: ‘When I have leisure I shall study’, for you may never have leisure.” (2.5)

Every child with a Jewish education also knows Hillel’s version of the 'golden rule' common to most religions. Asked by a non-Jew to summarise the Torah “while standing on one leg”, Hillel responded, “Do not do to others what would be hateful if done to you. That is the whole of the Torah. All the rest is commentary. Now go and study.”

 

• ijs org au link

~

[eight bits]

Chloe !

Long time, no see. Welcome back; you've been missed.

I was thinking tulpa, too.

The claim attributed to Simon, however, is that he had personally performed the words and deeds (actual and illusory) that became the founding legend of Christianity. So, Simon's Jesus seems to have been more of a glamour, something that he could control, than a tulpa, which once it was created would exist or seem to exist autonomously from Simon.

The surviving descriptions of Simon's activities are terse and lack details. Based on what I've read, I couldn't eliminate the following scenario.

Maybe Simon, originally from God-only-knows where, toured Judea and Samaria with a religiously themed magic act during the 30's. Part of his act might have been a death scene (simulated, of course, and afterwards, there he is, taking his bows, "resurrected" for all to see). Then after the show (or whenever) he offered exorcisms, healings and so forth. The Samaritans really got into his performance, so Simon settled there with Helen and they became big stars locally.

In that scenario, Simon would have been physically present in Judea, perfoming his illusions for live audiences. Some of the Judean audience might have been magicians themselves, who incorporated Simon's tricks into their own show, which they might have presented to the crowds in Jerusalem during the festivals.

[Davros of Skaro]

Here's a rendition of Simon with his troupe rehearsing the transfiguration scene with a newly incorporated "Deux Machina".

[eight bits]

davros

Funny picture, but maybe Simon was craftier than that.

Even today, we have violent-death-and-resurrection stage magic tricks like "sawing somebody in half." It's usually played very sedately nowadays. The victim often smiles while this is going on. But think of what is depicted - a living person is being sawed in half, for crying out loud. The opportunity of playing it for gore, with screaming, simulated agony and a final death swoon is obvious. I think many ancient audiences would go for that.

It is also interesting that one of the (many) legends of how Simon died is that he was buried alive, promising his disciples that he would rise again. Except he stayed in the ground instead.

That's how Houdini died in modern times - an escape trick which he had successfully performed many times went bad one time, and he drowned. "Bury me alive" sounds like the set-up for a magic trick. Maybe Simon performed such a trick, successfully often enough to establish a "dying and rising" trope for aspiring messianic imitators, but it only had to go wrong once.

Anyway, this is an orthodox claim - Team Jesus tells this of Simon. Unless they're lying, perish the thought, Simon apparently believes that he can do this trick; he suggests it, he's not being punished. He's a professional in all accounts. Anybody can have an accident on any given performance...

[SHaYap]

Evidently Peter was the consummate professional till the very last ...

~

~

[ChloeB]

On ‎8‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 4:15 AM, eight bits said:

Chloe !

Long time, no see. Welcome back; you've been missed.

I was thinking tulpa, too.

The claim attributed to Simon, however, is that he had personally performed the words and deeds (actual and illusory) that became the founding legend of Christianity. So, Simon's Jesus seems to have been more of a glamour, something that he could control, than a tulpa, which once it was created would exist or seem to exist autonomously from Simon.

The surviving descriptions of Simon's activities are terse and lack details. Based on what I've read, I couldn't eliminate the following scenario.

Maybe Simon, originally from God-only-knows where, toured Judea and Samaria with a religiously themed magic act during the 30's. Part of his act might have been a death scene (simulated, of course, and afterwards, there he is, taking his bows, "resurrected" for all to see). Then after the show (or whenever) he offered exorcisms, healings and so forth. The Samaritans really got into his performance, so Simon settled there with Helen and they became big stars locally.

In that scenario, Simon would have been physically present in Judea, perfoming his illusions for live audiences. Some of the Judean audience might have been magicians themselves, who incorporated Simon's tricks into their own show, which they might have presented to the crowds in Jerusalem during the festivals.

I missed you, Mr. Bits, it's been too long. I saw your thread, I had to pop in.  That being said, I'm a little rusty on the history.  Sorry about the delay.  I was just looking at a general history of Simon.  He does seem to be mixed all up with Jesus.  Funny thing in this link I noticed and we were talking about these magic shows per se, were they swapping magic tricks here? 

Quote

according to the New Testament account in Acts of the Apostles 8:9–24, after becoming a Christian, offered to purchase from the Apostles Peter and John the supernatural power of transmitting the Holy Spirit, thus giving rise to the term simony as the buying or selling of sacred things or ecclesiastical office.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Simon-Magus

The Simonian doctrine of salvation differed from that of the other Gnostic groups, for it promised redemption within the temporal order, sounds familiar?

[ChloeB]

Funny thing, we used to have talks about the mass delusion of the resurrection, maybe it was mass illusion!!

[eight bits]

Chloe

The Britannica article illustrates how hard it is to formulate a coherent historical Simon hypothesis.

One simplifier I would strongly recommend: any extant story set in Rome didn't happen. All such stories derive from Justin Martyr's false claim that there was a statue dedicated to Simon as a god in Rome, and Justin's "explanation" that Simon had gone there and wowed the Romans, who set up the statue. (Within a generation, Irenaeus upped that to wowing the Emperor Claudius, who personally set up a statue, and then later writers... you know how that goes.)

The situation is not quite as the Britannica article says,

Quote

Archaeological finds reputed to have confirmed Simon’s divinization have not proved genuine.

The statue Justin wrote about honored an obscure Italian god, Semo Sanco. Simon misread Sanco's inscriptions as "Simo Sancto" (the actual endings would vary grammatically). I think we have recovered two such statues, and there may have been several in Rome. Sanco was a kind of divine notary public or justice of the peace. People invoked him to solemnize contracts and witness documents. He had nothing to do with Simon.

There is no other evidence that Simon ever visited Rome, or had any following there. Everything from before Justin, including the rest of what Justin wrote, shows Simon as a regional celebrity, especially in Samaria and maybe known in neighboring Judea (perhaps a remark by Josephus refers to him). Even his alleged influence on the later Gnostic movement was said to be mediated through regional figures like Dositheus or Menander.

Once Justin put the idea of Simon's Roman Holiday in play, it became woven into proto-orthodox legends, tradition and mythology: that Peter had lived and died in Rome, that Peter and Paul were pals, that Paul died in Rome, etc.

Simon, then, became a colorful functional character, a Snidely Whiplash for holy warriors to shoot out of the sky. That aspect of his legend is fully literary in origin, and so there is no question about

Quote

The mythic form of these documents raises doubts as to whether the biblical Simon Magus and the Simon of later apocryphal sources are the same.

The "Clementine literature" (Fourth Century, maybe) on Simon comprises direct elaborations of what Justin, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus of Rome wrote (mid-Second into the Third Century). They had directly linked their Roman Simon to Acts' Simon, viewing Simon's conflict with Peter in Rome as a continuation of the conflict between them in Acts.

The incident in Acts teeters on the edge of historicity, although it could be yet another phony story with real characters salted in to make it "realistic." The Roman stories derive from a flat-out factual mistake (honest? It's hard to say; Justin wasn't a historian, and he surely had an axe to grind). The "magicians' contest" in the skies over Claudian Rome couldn't really happen, and if anything remotely like it appeared to have happened, then Suetonius would have had a field day with it.

[Davros of Skaro]

Here's a rare photo of Simon the magician abstaining from Pork.

[eight bits]

davros

You can joke about magicians all you want, however...

Neil Godfrey has just finished a series on his blog about whether there really was a rash of "messianic fever" at the time of Jesus. Although that's the conventional wisdom, and even skeptics like Carrier are on board, Godfrey shows just how thin the evidence is for that.

Here's a link to his summation post, which has links embedded to all four posts in his series,

http://vridar.org/2016/08/02/questioning-carrier-and-the-conventional-wisdom-on-messianic-expectations/

OK, maybe we don't know whether there were lots of messiah-wannabes, but there seem to have been plenty of magicians running around. Just in Acts, in addition to Simon, there's his contemporary Elymas Bar Jesus of Cyprus (Acts 13:4-12). Elymas is sometimes mentioned as another candidate for the magician Josephus talks about. Paul blinded Elymas when he got in the way of pitching a Roman proconsul. Religiously "justified" terrorism is nothing new, eh?

The city of Ephesus all by itself was crawling with magicians. Paul persuaded them to burn their books (19:18-19). Right before that comes the story of the Sceva Sons, the Seven Stooges of Exorcism. They're described as just some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists using Jesus' name without paying royalties.

Now, several Jewish exorcists are doing this at the time of Paul? So, when did they start using Jesus' name and title? Why don't they join up if they like Jesus as a person, and his church is open to them?

Acts seems to be asking us to consider that "Jesus Christ" may have emerged from Jewish magical circles as a catch phrase, an alternative to "Abracadabra," something wooly to intone in a magic spell.

Think twice when you joke about magicians. I think they may be key players in the mystery of Christian origins.

Edited August 6, 2016 by eight bits

[Leonardo]

It seems to me the words "magician" and "priest" are more or less synonyms, with the only difference being one professes allegiance to an organisation claiming temporal authority and demands compliance.

Maybe Dungeons and Dragons got something right - and "wizards" and "priests" only have that difference.

[Davros of Skaro]

Eight bits

I do not disregard an influx of Messianic wannabes in 1st century Palestine trying to fulfill OT prophecy. 

I personally do not find the Book of Acts credible. 

I will check out your link. Thanks

[eight bits]

Maybe, Leo

The Christians had a priestly system comfortably within a century of Paul's conversion (usually placed sometime in the 30's), and not long afterwards, it had a heretical branch with its own priestly system (Marcion and crew), competing with the proto-orthodox priests.

A historical problem is when did that priestly stuff start? Paul's churches seem priest-free and seem to offer lots of encouragement of free-lance magical goings on. The Jerusalem church seems anti-Temple and so anti-priest.

It's funny how Acts, which was apparently written in the priestly phase and looks back at the founding times, structures the confrontations with Simon. First Philip does a "magicians' duel," but Philip is introduced as holding a defined rank (deacon). Philip is never shown performing a deacon's duties though. Second, Peter and John show up, and they have their apostolic rank, but the main thing they do is confer the Holy Spirit... some kind of magical perfomance.

All that was arrayed against poor Simon, who has no rank, just popularity (and a reputation for effectiveness). Simon gets accused of many foul things over the next few centuries, but nobody accuses him of being a priest :).

Bottom line, then, Christians seem to make a distinction between magicians and priests in their own history. We can follow suit without needing some all-purpose definition that puts, say, Tacitus or early-career Josephus (two priests accoridng to their respective non-Christian faith's definitions) into one category and not the other.

davros

Acts isn't supposed to be credible. It's a window into Christian thinking from the time it was written. The "history" is laughable, and probably nobody cared what really happened anyway (or they would have told a minimally credible story).

The Party isn't always right, but it's always the Party. Acts is a snapshot of the Party line about the Party's early years. As such, it's very valuable. As history, less so.

Edited August 7, 2016 by eight bits

[Leonardo]

14 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Maybe, Leo

The Christians had a priestly system comfortably within a century of Paul's conversion (usually placed sometime in the 30's), and not long afterwards, it had a heretical branch with its own priestly system (Marcion and crew), competing with the proto-orthodox priests.

A historical problem is when did that priestly stuff start? Paul's churches seem priest-free and seem to offer lots of encouragement of free-lance magical goings on. The Jerusalem church seems anti-Temple and so anti-priest.

It's funny how Acts, which was apparently written in the priestly phase and looks back at the founding times, structures the confrontations with Simon. First Philip does a "magicians' duel," but Philip is introduced as holding a defined rank (deacon). Philip is never shown performing a deacon's duties though. Second, Peter and John show up, and they have their apostolic rank, but the main thing they do is confer the Holy Spirit... some kind of magical perfomance.

All that was arrayed against poor Simon, who has no rank, just popularity (and a reputation for effectiveness). Simon gets accused of many foul things over the next few centuries, but nobody accuses him of being a priest :).

Bottom line, then, Christians seem to make a distinction between magicians and priests in their own history. We can follow suit without needing some all-purpose definition that puts, say, Tacitus or early-career Josephus (two priests accoridng to their respective non-Christian faith's definitions) into one category and not the other.

Would it be fair to say that nobody who seems to support, or be an apologist, for the version of events as related in biblical scripture accuses Simon of being a priest?

I am not familiar with any extra-biblical sources, or sources which use the early scripture as reference, that mention Simon - save the one you have in your OP. Could not the qualification of Simon as "magician" (without being a "priest") not just be the newly-created Christian authority's means of de-legitimising him?

We have the word "magician" being derived from the more ancient "magi" - who were definitely priestly figures who performed divinations and oracles, so it would seem the referring to someone as a "magician" and not "priest" was based more on that person not being a member of the referrer's religious order, than on their actual "standing" in the larger society.

"Simon the magician" may have been a priest, just not a Christian priest and so denigrated as being "just a magician" in early Christian scripture and then naturally by those who used that as a reference for his existence.