Simon Magus, the Great Interpolation

I have complained many times of the difficulty in finding the truth about the origin and development of Christianity due to the widespread Christian practice of interpolating passages into the witnesses, especially the so-called neutral witnesses such as Seutonius,  Cassius Dio, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, and others. But as I read the church fathers I discovered almost all of those writing before the 4th century had also suffered interpolation. This causes me to be angered, frustrated, and saddened all at once.

But then a few days ago, as I tripped over another Interpolation in Origen, right after finding a rather mindless one in Irenaeus, and Epiphany happened. I realized that I was looking at the matter all wrong. These interpolations are telling us something very important. Of all the subjects concerning Christianity these interpolations seem to cover only a few points of contention. And they spread from one work to another, each reinforcing the other. But why were they done? What was so important about them?

Peter vs Simon Magus, Benozzo Gozzoli (c. 1460s)

Simon Magus, the Root of Heresy:
When gazing at the Gozzoli image to the left, where Simon Magus has gone splat on the pavement in front of Emperor Nero after Peter compels a daemon to release Simon while in flight, I realized there was a reason the Simon story was important. Why the pseudo-Clementine Recognitions and Homilies chose this character to play the role of the lead villain in Peter's tale. And why so many place him at the root of all heresies. So strong was this myth of heresy's origin with Simon that later scribes found it necessary to implant his story in earlier works which had no mention of him.

From Bit Player To First Villain:
Simon Magus appears briefly in Acts of the Apostles 8:9-24 (RSV given below), in what appears to be the role of stand in for an unknown heretic of the early second half of the 2nd century. [1] This passage  seems to be the seed from which the entire Simon Magus myth germinated.

But there was a man named Simon who had previously practiced magic in the city and amazed the nation of Samaria, saying that he himself was somebody great. They all gave heed to him, from the least to the greatest, saying, "This man is that power of God which is called Great." And they gave heed to him, because for a long time he had amazed them with his magic. But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed.

Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit; for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.

Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money, saying, "Give me also this power, that any one on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit." But Peter said to him, "Your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. Repent therefore of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity." And Simon answered, "Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may come upon me."

Interestingly this story appears to be a conflation of two stories. Verse 8:14 presupposes the report from Samaria in verse 8:25 has already happened (logically reported by Philip and Simon). That Philip vanishes from the scene in 8:14-24, in a chapter that is about his exploits, strongly points toward that section being inserted by the Lukan editor --whether his or drawn from another work-- and was not part of the Acts of Philip which the rest of the chapter was drawn.

There are already multiple myths and themes in the Simon Magus story; several elements of which will be expanded later.

The Rise of the Manichean Movement

Manichean Priests, Tarim Basin

In the mid-third century a new religious movement appeared which its adherents claimed to be following the teachings of its founder, one Mani or Manes, who lived and preached in the Persian Empire of the Sassanids (c. 216-276 CE). However this founder's life is somewhat enigmatic, not least of which is the name ascribed to him, which simply means "the illustrious one." A situation similar to the mysterious Valentinus, whose name means "the Strong one," which seems merely to be sects self designation in opposition their "weak" Christian opponents. However unlike Valentinus there is a Mani biography provided by his followers, [2] so it seems quite probable that the name is a title of reverence which was bestowed him.

Be that as it may, there is considerable confusion about the foundation of the movement, whether it has Christian roots or Zoroastrian or other Eastern influences. What is clear is that Manicheans appear to have picked up the Marcionite Bible and Antithesis, which we find referenced in Acta Archelai, [3] chapter 40 especially, which uses only the Marcionite text and arguments, but for Manichean objectives.

We of course need to be careful not to read too much into the Acta Archelai, as it is a fake debate, in the form of a play, much like Dialogue Adamantius or Justin's debate with Trypho. It is a type of literature popular with Christians, especially the orthodox to display the arguments against the public tracts of the groups they oppose. Clearly there was no debate between Archeaus and Manes, just as there was none between Justin and Trypho, or Adamantius and Megathius and Markus, nor between Peter and Simon Magus in the Clementines. We can tell because there is no originality or counter put forward by the heretics to any of the arguments put forward by the Orthodox champion, instead they perform as straw men who place forward a statement, which is refuted, without any significant counter argument, then on to the next point and so on, until the heretic is declared defeated. It is a typical formula you see in these disputations. The manner in which these Dialogues appear to be constructed is from earlier works against heretics, in a form like Tertullian's Adversus Marcionem, where snippets of the heretical texts and arguments are presented, and then refuted in length. These Dialogues are similar except that they take the form of theatrical debates. 

Simon Magus and the pseudo Clementine Literature
It is necessary to jump to the 4th century pseudo Clement Homilies and Recognitions to see the development of the Simon Magus myth before examining the supposedly earlier versions of the story that appeared after the Acts of the Apostles.

Relationship of Mani with Marcion
Acta Archelai in Chapter 6 opens with a supposed letter from Mani to Marcellus that is in fact a pastiche from the Pauline epistles.

Manichaeus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, and all the saints who are with me, and the virgins, to Marcellus, my beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace be with you from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ; and may the right hand of light preserve you safe from this present evil world, and from its calamities, and from the snares of the wicked one. Amen.


Augustine, Acta Seu Disputatio Contra Fortunatum Manichæum, Chapter 9 the Manichaen opponent quotes Philippians 2:5-8

Let this mind be in you that was also in Christ Jesus, who when He had been constituted in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied Himself receiving the form of a servant, having been made in the likeness of men, and having been found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and was made obedient even unto death.
Hoc sentite in vobis, quod et in Christo Iesu; qui cum in forma Dei esset constitutus, non rapinam arbitratus est esse se aequalem Deo; sed semetipsum exinanivit, formam servi accipiens, in similitudine hominum factus, et habitu inventus ut homo: humiliavit semetipsum, et factus est subditus usque ad mortem

What is most striking about this, is that like Tertullian Adversus Marcionem 5.20.3, 5

cum dicit quod in effigie Dei constitutus non rapinam existimavit pariari Deo, sed exhausit semetipsum accepta effigie servi, non veritate, et in similitudine hominis, non in homine, et figura inventus homo, non substantia, id est non carne. ... Sic et deus inventus est per virtutem, sicut homo per carnem, quia nec morti subditum pronuntiasset non in substantia mortali constitutum. Plus est autem quod adiecit, Et mortem crucis.

The one notable difference is factus in the quote by Fortunatus, supporting the presence γενόμενος in the Manichean text against the Marcionite text as reported by Tertullian. Be this as it may, both texts and arguments by the heretics make no use, and seem unaware of Philippians 2:9-11, the second half of the creed; a creed I have demonstrated elsewhere is from the Catholic editor, and not present in Marcion.

The Perfect Fit
When the Heresiarchs of the late 3rd through the 5th century were looking for an archetypical character to stand in for Mani, none fit better than Simon Magus.
 



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
[1] The Acts of the Apostles and the Gospel of Luke are long recognized as a two part book from various sources, compiled by a single author who is referred to as Luke. Without recapitulating the reasons I have given in other posts, the date of these two books is best placed around 175-180 CE, a few years before Irenaeus wrote. Suffice to say the dependence upon Josephus' works and Marcion, as well as a lost apocryphal acts of Paul, as well as certain theological tendencies all point toward a later 2nd century date. The Gospel of Luke is very likely the earlier of the two, and Acts of Apostles is dated a few years later. As a result the veiled reference to heretics are likely contemporary with the author, and so we should look in the era of 165-180 CE for such post-Marcionite personalities for a Simon prototype.
[2] Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis, Greek and English text is available on-line (link)
[3] Acta Archelai is a Latin document which is dated sometime after 278 CE and before 377 CE when Epiphanius wrote Panarion which contains the Greek text of much of this work. The most likely date for this work is in the first quarter of the 3rd century before the Nicene Council, when the challenge of Manicheanism was at its height and the religious direction of the Empire was unsettled.