WordType Designs™
Driven To Distractions©
The Sound of One Hand Clapping©

A rchive Date
[ 11-06-2005 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Religion ]
      [http://www.mahatmarandy.com/sacrilege/SimonMagus.htm

      PAUL SIMON MAGUS
      June 2001

      1. PREMISE
      I believe that the 'Apostle' Paul and Simon Magus are the same person.
       
      2. BIBLICAL SUPPORT FOR THIS NOTION
       There is none.

      The bible never considers these two characters in conjunction with each other. They never meet 'On Screen' as it were, and it seems the pointed attempt of Scripture to present these two characters as diametric opposites. Paul is presented as 'all good', whereas Simon Magus is presented as more or less 'All Bad'.

      The obvious question is why the hell I would associate the two, and how I could even for a moment suppose that they are one character, literarily divided in twain by some anonymous writer who's motivations I'll guess at later. Most people would consider my conclusion to be sacrilegious if not blasphemous and even most dispassionate scholars would probably regard the idea as ludicrous. My reasons we'll go into shortly below.
       
      3. IS THE BIBLE RELIABLE AS A HISTORICAL DOCUMENT?
      Without prevaricating about the shrubbery on this one, no, it's not.

      There are two schools of thought on the bible's veracity. The first states that the bible is the inspired word of God, and is completely literally true, blah blah blah.

      The second states that while the bible is not true with regards to the miraculous stuff like the resurrection, or the parting of the red sea, it is, at least historically accurate on all the mundane stuff. This point of view, which is still favored by many scholars, despite the fact that it it's clearly an apologetic position and can not be substantiated by any close observation of the facts.

      The First Viewpoint (The Inerrant Bible) is easily disproved. Here's just a few random examples off the top of my head:
      • (1) The Gospel of Matthew places Jesus' birth at the appearance of the 'Star of Bethlehem' in about 6 or 7 BC. The Gospel of Luke, however, places the birth of Jesus at the time of the 'Census of Quirinius', which took place in 7 AD. There is a thirteen or fourteen year gap between these dates! Clearly, the author of Matthew has never heard of Luke's account, and Luke, appears never to have heard of the 'Star' story at all.
      • (2) The Gospel of Matthew gives a genealogy of Jesus' ancestors all the way back to Abraham. The Gospel of Luke does likewise. Matthew lists 41 generations (And curiously miscounts them, saying that he's listing 42 generations), whereas Luke lists 53 Generations for the same period of time, and only about twelve names are on Matthew's list!
      • (3) The ruling family of Judea in the New Testament Period were the Herods, a group of people descended from Antipater, the man who captured Judea for the Roman Empire. At absolutely no point does the New Testament ever know which particular Herod it's talking about. For instance, the gospels tell us that the baby Jesus, Mary, and Joseph fled to Egypt to escape the wrath of Herod the Great. Except, of course, that Herod the Great died two years before Jesus was born.
      • The New Testament account of another Herod getting killed by an Angel more or less squares with Josephus' history of the period, but he says (Considerably more reliably) that it was Herod Agrippa II who died, a completely different guy than the one the Bible says died in this manner.
      • (4) The Book of Acts is very free in quoting 'prophecies' to justify it's actions, most of these are from the Psalms. However Every Single One of them is quoted out of context, used to support some course of action which the original Psalm is not even remotely related to.
      • (5) None of the accounts of Jesus' resurrection (four in the gospels, one in Paul's letters, and a sort of 'cameo appearance' in Acts) correspond with each other in any of  the details, sequence of events, or any even the day of the week! 
      • (6) Despite it's alleged antiquity and having been written by the Disciple Luke, there is absolutely no historical reference to the existence of the Book of Acts prior to 177 AD. Several noted early church fathers, discussing which books they consider to be 'Scripture' just a generation prior have never heard of it!
      • (7) Paul says in his letters that after his conversion (Which he never gives any details on) he went to Arabia, where he spent 'three years and had an abundance of signs and visions.'  The Book of Acts, covering this same period, is completely unaware of these three years.

      Again, in Paul's letters, he says he later came to Jerusalem and stayed fourteen days, meeting only James who is the Lord's Brother, and Peter.

      "Of the other apostles, I saw no one." Acts, however, says that Paul stayed longer, and met all the Apostles. After this, Paul says "I did not return again to Jerusalem for Fourteen years. Before God I swear I do not lie." Acts, again, is unaware of this, or chooses to ignore it, and has Paul in Jerusalem numerous times during this fourteen year period.

      Those are just a few examples of how the Inerrancy of scripture is, itself, and errant belief. 

      The second view, that the bible is historically accurate, excepting for the supernatural stuff, is also shown to be false by the same examples, since the New Testament clearly does not agree with what we know of the history of the period, nor does it even agree with itself very well.

      A wiser view might be to compare the New Testament to a kind of historical romance novel, like Gone with the Wind, which is set in an actual, historical period, and involves some real characters, but is, for the most part, concerned with entirely fictional people who are set in a sort of idealized-but-not-terribly-accurate version of real events. This view is worthy of a lengthy discussion of it's own, but I don't want to get sidetracked, so we'll move on.
       
      4. WHAT OTHER HISTORICAL RESOURCES ARE THERE?
      Surprisingly, there is a paucity of reliable histories about this period of history, at least insofar as it concerns us. The best source is Josephus' books on the period, his Autobiography, his Antiquities of the Jews, and last, and least, his War of the Jews.

      There are isolated letters here and there, like from Pliny the Elder, (1st Century) or Clement of Alexandria, (2nd century) that survive, either on their own, or quoted in other sources.

      There are the Dead Sea Scrolls, which don't seem to directly concern this stuff, but on closer inspection may give us some ideas of what's up. There's rabbinical sources, for which the same is also true. More interesting and pertinent are the Nag Hammadi Codices, a collection of previously lost books, which were discovered in Egypt in 1945, which I'll refer to here and there later on.

      And there's the bible itself, which, though not reliable, shouldn't be completely dispensed with. After all, though Gone with the Wind may not be a particularly accurate portrayal of the Civil War, it does accurately reflect the opinions of the survivors of the southern defeat, and how THEY saw the war, from a vantage point two generations hence. It may not actually be history, but it's useful. Paul's letters, actually having been written by Paul himself, can probably be taken at face value, especially where they differ from the Gospel and 'Acts' accounts of the same events, which I've shown they do quite a bit.

      One surprisingly useful source is a Roman Christian 'Novel' called by the woefully unpoetic name of the "Pseudoclementine Recognitions." This book, ostensibly by Bishop Clement of Rome (AKA Flavius Clemens, executed for 'Impiety' in about 97 AD), is generally disregarded as a work of fiction from the 4th century, though some source are quick to point out that much of it can be accurately dated as early as the 2nd Century.

      Whatever the original purpose of the original draft of the Recognitions, it appears to have been regarded primarily as entertainment, and has been freely revised by numerous authors up until it reached it's present composition at some point in the fourth century. Given it's fairly low regard in church circles, it was spared the purges that destroyed most early Apocryphal and Jewish-Christian writings after the Council of Nicea.

      I discount the entire second half of the novel as simply a work of fiction with no particular importance, however the first half appears, on the whole, to be older. It's surprisingly Jewish. (Peter refuses to eat with Gentiles, etc.) It has long been thought that the Recognitions is simply an expanded, fictionalized version of part of Acts, but a casual reading shows this isn't the case, since the Author of the Recognitions makes numerous 'errors' (Departures from the biblical narrative) that no late Christian would make.

      The book concerns Flavius Clemens (Clement's) Conversions to Christianity, and his travels with Peter, who is in a series of debates with Simon Magus.
       
      5. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE, ANYWAY, AND WHY SHOULD I CARE? 
      Simon Magus (Simon the Magician) was the leader of a curious cult that shows up in  chapter 8 of the Book of Acts, and though the depiction of him in Acts is rather threadbare, we do get the idea that Simon is saying he's God, and he's saying it in such a way that a lot of people appear to believe him. He's converted by Philip The Evangelist and joins Christianity, then has a run in with Peter, whereupon he is called on the carpet, begs forgiveness, and, though the story is left open-ended, apparently becomes a good Christian from then on out.

      The Pseudoclementine Recognitions expand on Simon's philosophy a bit, and make it clear that his conversion to Christianity was only apparent, and ended when Simon realized it was no longer to his advantage to be a part of the Church. Peter and Clement follow Simon around Palestine, challenging him with a series of public debates in which they refute him, and publicly prove him to be wrong. After several of these debates, Simon proves himself to be a coward as well, and abandons Palestine for Rome, whereupon the book ends.

      Bishop Irenaeus, writing about 180 AD in his Adversus Haereses calls Simon the First Heretic, and states that he came to Rome, where he was very popular and founded a very successful cult, was honored as a god, and ultimately died under mysterious circumstances involving the government. (Irenaeus says he fell to his death while trying to levitate, but this is just stupid, and no one else mentions it) His cult is said to have flourished after his death.

      The Apostle Paul, (Herodias Saulus - though the book of Acts goes to great lengths to hide his real name) originally persecuted 'Christianity', then had some kind of conversion experience, and then apparently operated on his own initiative for three years (in 'Arabia') without any real contact with the established Christian leadership in Jerusalem, until he eventually came to Jerusalem himself, and became part of the organization. Thereafter followed a big run-in with Peter, after which time we're supposed to believe he's a Good Christian from then on out. Eventually, he leaves Palestine entirely for Rome, whereupon the Book of Acts ends.

      Numerous sources tell us that Paul, ostensibly under house arrest, was very popular in Rome, and ran the very successful Christian Church in Rome, was honored as an Apostle and ultimately died under mysterious circumstances involving the government. (Eusebius [4th century] says that Peter and Paul were executed in each other's presence on the same day, which is just stupid since Clement's Epistle to James indicates that Peter was already long dead by then.)

      The careers of these two men - if indeed they are separate people, which I don't believe they are - parallel each other. I realized last week, suddenly, that the story of Simon Magus is essentially the story of Paul compressed to one chapter, for reasons I'll explain below.

      Paul's significance in Christianity is paramount, since he's the one that opened the faith up to Gentiles, an idea which apparently hadn't occurred to anyone prior to him. Prior to Paul, the faith was reserved only to Jews, and to people who first converted to Judaism.
       
      6. THE BELIEVERS WERE FIRST CALLED 'CHRISTIANS' IN ANTIOCH
      Neither the gospels, nor Acts, nor any of the epistles specifically state what the followers of Jesus called themselves, however there is a line in Acts concerning it. "The Believers were first called 'Christians' in Antioch." This takes place perhaps a decade after Jesus' crucifixion, and begs the question 'what did they call themselves previous to Antioch?'

      The short answer is that we don't know, however the most likely name is "Ebionim", which means 'The Poor'.

      There are numerous scattered references to these 'Ebionites' throughout the new testament, though one has to look to find them. For instance, Jesus specifically says 'blessed are the ebionites' (The Poor.) In Acts, there are numerous references to sending money back to Jerusalem to help these 'ebionites' (The Poor).

      In one of his more rancorous letters, Paul states that the one stipulation on his apostleship was that he not forget the Ebionites (The Poor), which he gets quite defensive about. Most people take this at face value and assume that the early church was concerned with the plight of the poverty-stricken, which it of course was, however it also seems to have been the name of the organization which Jesus started.

      Interestingly, the Ebionites are listed in a number of heresologies (Lists and explanations of heretical groups, by a variety of authors.) Everyone seems to agree that these Ebionites were the first or second heretical group to split from Christianity.

      Those that say they're first generally don't mention Simon Magus. Those that say they were second only place Simon Magus before them. The point of all this is that it becomes very clear that these 'Ebionites' were already a very large, organized, prosperous group by the end of the first century, and much more long-lived than most 'heresies' which, with a few exceptions, don't seem to generally have outlived their founder.
       
      7. WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF ALL THIS EBIONITE STUFF?
      I don't believe that the Ebionites were a heretical group, per se. I believe that the Ebionites were the ORIGINAL version of Christianity, the religion created by Jesus. Ebionitism is now completely extinct, essentially wiped out in the Second War With Rome in the 130s AD.  I believe the religion we now call Christianity started out as a heretical form of Ebionitism, and then continued on, parallel to Ebionitism until the destruction of that religion in the 2nd century, after which time it survived 'solo' down to the present day.
       
      8. WHAT DOES ALL THIS HAVE TO DO WITH SIMON MAGUS AND PAUL?
      I'm getting to that. Patience. I'm being as concise as I can.
       
      9. WHAT DID THESE EBIONITES BELIEVE? (THE SON OF MAN)
      That's a subject of much debate, since the Gospel of the Ebionites survives only in fragments quoted by Epiphanius in 375 AD. from these, it's clear that they had an Adoptionist theology, by which I mean that they didn't believe that Jesus was BORN the son of God, but rather BECAME the son of God at the time of his baptism.

      In other words, God 'Adopted' Jesus. Irenaeus reports that the Ebionites used only Matthew's gospel (In a heavily redacted fashion), and deny the virgin birth. Epiphanius actually confused Matthew with this gospel. It has 'Harmony' elements from the other gospels, suggesting that it's authors were at least aware of the existence of other Gospels, and cut and pasted a bit, though this is just a guess. Written sometime prior to 200 AD, probably quite a bit prior, but after Matthew's publication, which itself came out no earlier than the late 80s AD.

      These Ebionites 'adoptionist' theology seems to revolve around a supernatural figure called 'The Son of Man'. The Son of Man shows up in the New Testament as well, but there the name is taken to be a euphemism for Christ, though it's meaning is unclear. Close reading shows this isn't the case. Some times when Jesus refers to the 'Son of Man' he is clearly speaking about himself in the third person, sometimes, however, he's speaking about one who is yet to come, sometimes in past tense about stuff that happened in the past, and sometimes it's just impossible to tell what he's referring to. In his book on the early church, Robert Eisenman put forth an interesting theory that seems to hold water and explains all this.

      The Son of Man, he said, was the first thing created by God. This first creation - the divine Logos (As echoed in the first chapter of the gospel of John) itself made every subsequent creation. In other words, God said 'Let there be light' and the actual words themselves did the work, and then continued on afterwards with their own independent existence, because how can something directly created by God ever truly cease to be? "Everything was made through him and without him was nothing made that was made," as John's gospel says.

      This 'Divine Logos' idea, though an import from Greek philosophy, does appear to be consistent with the more esoteric Jewish theology at the time. "Messiah was created like one of the archangels, yet greater," the Ebionites said. This idea probably started out with Daniel 7:9, it's resonated in the Apocryphal book of Ecclsiasticus 1:5-11, and developed more fully in the Apocryphal book of Enoch 47:3-7. One might question my decision to quote or cite apocryphal sources, but the bible itself does so in the Epistle of Jude, which also quotes Enoch, as I've done here. More recently, Hugh Schoenfeld (The Original New Testament) flat out says on Pg 552 that "The Christians believed the heavenly Son of Man had incarnated in Jesus at the time of his baptism."

      To put this concept more plainly: Some sects of Judaism in the 1st centuries BC and AD appear to have believed there was a supernatural being called the 'Son of Man.' This being was independent of God, but was God's First Creation, and more powerful than anything else in creation. As the Living Word of God, this 'Son of Man' incarnated itself in one or more 'Just' men in each generation. This wasn't like an 'avatar' or even a 'reincarnation', but, they believed more like a possession (For lack of a better word.). One person of exemplary righteousness in every generation - Noah, Abraham, Elijah, John the Baptist, people of that stature, if not necessarily those people specifically - would arise, through perfectly human means. They were perfectly human and mortal, until, at some point, the 'Son of Man' descended upon them, and took up residence within them.

      From that point on, the person is a duality: A human soul sharing a body with the Son of Man. When the 'host' dies, or does something unworthy, or is in particularly dire straits, the Son of Man leaves them and moves to another host. Thus, the direct line of communication to God is kept open, regardless of what happens to the Host.

      Seem far fetched? Well, yeah. Of course. Any theory of the Divine invading our world is going to seem that way. For what it's worth, however, this one is no worse than most of the stuff in the bible. This whole 'Son of Man' thing is, at any rate, a very clever compromise between a 'Divine, eternal, supernatural' Messiah and a 'Davidic, human, mortal' Messiah. Thus, even though Messiah might change bodies periodically, it was always the same messiah. I am not stating that this was the DOMINANT Jewish belief at this time, merely that some esoteric schools of Judaism like the Rechabites and the later Ebionites seem to have believed in it. Make of this what you will. Catholics believe in transubstantiation, Protestants say transubstantiation is nonsense, but both groups are Christian, just to pick a random doctrinal comparison.

      This 'Son of Man'/Interchangeable Host idea becomes even more plain in the 1st Apocalypse of James, one of the books recovered from Nag Hammadi in '45. It concerns the first post-resurrection appearance of Jesus. In this book, Jesus' first appearance is to his brother, and apostle, James (Presumably the same 'James who is the lord's brother' that Paul talks about in his letter). Jesus has just died, and James is atop the Mount of Olives with Simon bar Cleophas (Also known as Simon the Zealot). After three days, Jesus shows up and talks with James, explaining why he died, and what needs to be done now. James becomes distraught at one point, and Jesus tells him flat out that he is not really Jesus, but rather "I am He who was within me." In other words, Jesus is dead, but the Son of Man has survived, and is the one talking with James.

      This is taken a step further, when, after explaining some stuff, The Son of Man re-names James, telling him "You are now The Just". As we've seen, the Son of Man seems to have inhabited only the most Just (Righteous) person in any generation. Re-Naming something in the bible generally symbolizes re-birth. Thus Abram became Abraham, and Jacob became Israel and so on. The obvious implication of this passage is that James is about to become a new person, his roll in the world is about to change. Immediately after re-naming "James the Just",  the Son of Man apparition (Still looking like Jesus) kisses James squarely on the lips, and immediately disappears. James the Just, the new receptacle of the Son of Man, takes Simon B. Cleophas back into Jerusalem to tell the others what happened.

      Thus we see the passing of the messianic banner from Jesus to his successor (And brother) James. Even Eusebius, writing in the early 4th century acknowledges that James was the head of the Jerusalem church for thirty years following the death of Christ. This is echoed to some extent in the bible itself, in the Gospel of Luke, by the Road to Emmaus appearance, which, we're told in that Gospel, is the first appearance of Jesus.

      24:13 Now that very day two of them were on their way to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. 24:14 They were talking to each other about all the things that had happened. 24:15 While they were talking and debating these things, Jesus himself approached and began to accompany them 24:16 (but their eyes were kept from recognizing him.) 24:17 Then he said to them, "What are these matters you are discussing so intently as you walk along?" And they stood still, looking sad. 24:18 Then one of them, named Cleopas, answered him, "Are you the only visitor to Jerusalemwho doesn't know the things that have happened there in these days?"

      These two are specifically identified as 'of the twelve', and our friend Clopas here is a very likely contender for being the 'Simon bar Cleophas' who was the second person on hand when Jesus appeared to James the Just in the 1st Apocalypse of James. Jumping ahead a bit,

      24:28 So they approached the village where they were going. He acted as though he wanted to go farther, 24:29 but they urged him saying, "Stay with us, because it is getting towards evening and the day is almost done." So he went in to stay with them.

      24:30 When he had taken his place at the table with them, he took the bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. 24:31 At this point their eyes were opened and they recognized him. Then he vanished out of their sight. 24:32 They said to each other, "Didn't our hearts burn within us while he was speaking with us on the road, while he was explaining the scriptures to us?" 24:33 So they got up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem. They found the eleven and those with them gathered together 24:34 and saying, "The Lord has really risen, and has appeared to Simon!"

      Note that we are given 'Clopas' first name: Simon. This makes him 'Simon bar Clopas', which I take to be a scribal error for 'Simon bar Cleophas', the apostle. Thus this story parallels the one in the 1st Apocalypse of James. It's interesting to note, however, that the author of Luke goes out of his way to avoid naming who the 'other' apostle was. Clearly it must have been James, and we know that, whatever supernatural events may or may not have surrounded the transition of power, this 'James' went on to lead the church for the next three decades. Did James fall from favor with European Christianity? Probably, but I digress.

      Ah, but what about Jesus' body? Well, the Gospel of Peter, a fragmentary source that appears to be referred to tangentially by the Gospel of Matthew, - Matthew clearly disapproves of Peter's version of the facts - clearly dates from the late first or early 2nd centuries. It states in no uncertain terms that Jesus' resurrection was a strictly spiritual thing. Two men enter the tomb and take Jesus' body, which is clearly dead. Afterwards, an apparition exits the tomb, converses with heaven, and leaves. Again, here we see the inherent 'Son of Man' duality, as reflected by the dead body of Jesus, and the living Son of Man, which has only been inconvenienced.

      So Jesus WAS the Son of Man, and James BECAME the son of man. Did Jesus originate this idea? Probably not. The Zealot movement began in 6 AD with a man named Judas the Galileean, and his mysterious sidekick, Zadoc, a name with priestly allusions. Josephus intimately ties these Zealots with a 'Fourth Sect' in Judaism (The previous three being Phariseeism, Sadduceism, and Essenism.), and says that they were ultimately responsible for the Jewish War. Even casual observation can show that these zealots were intimately tied in with Jesus and his followers, and three of Jesus' apostles can be shown clearly to be Zealots. Several others can be shown to be zealots by inference. If the 'Jesus Movement' and the 'Zealots' are the same, or even overlap to a significant degree as they appear to, then the we can make an educated guess that this whole thing goes back to the founder of the Movement, Judas the Galilean. That's supposition. The Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist would appear to be another instance of the passage of the Son of Man. All the gospels save John are careful to include it, though it's equally clear that none of them know quite what it means.

      In any event, we can establish something of a chronology here: the Son of Man passed from Judas the Galilean (possibly) to Zadoc (Possibly) to John the Baptist to Jesus (Very Likely) to James the Just (Definitely) to Simon bar Cleophas (Definitely) and then we loose the chain.
       
      10. SIMON MAGUS AND EBIONITE THEOLOGY
      To bring all this around to some semblance of a point, Simon Magus, as presented in Acts, and in the Recognitions, is presenting a theology that is virtually identical to the Son of Man doctrine that I've detailed above, but with one big difference: Simon is telling everyone that HE is the new Son of Man (Which he generally calls the 'Stans' or Great Power, but otherwise his doctrine is indistinguishable from what I've described.), and not James or anyone else.

      It would seem that Simon had either been an Ebionite at some point, and left the group (As is suggested by several early sources which say he was originally a follower of John the Baptist who left after Jesus came to power) or, more likely, founded a new, similar philosophy using what bits of Ebionite theology he could pick up, and started his own religion, converting people from Ebionitism to his own parallel beliefs. (Which is suggested by several other sources.)

      This same behavior is observed of Paul's' followers in acts, when we're told that they came across a man who "Knew only the Baptism of John." In other words, there's none of this 'Baptism of the Holy Spirit' stuff. Shortly thereafter, these followers of Paul prevail upon this man and "Explain the word of God to him more adequately." Henceforth, he becomes a staunch 'Christian', and helps convert others who didn't know about this 'holy spirit' stuff. The implication is clear: Some, possibly most, Ebionites didn't accept this 'holy spirit' stuff, whereas Paul's Christians did. The groups are similar, but not considered interchangeable doctrinally.

      At this point it might be handy to refer to Paul's' followers, from whom we are spiritually descended, as "Christians" and the followers of James and the Jerusalem Church as "Ebionites" to reflect this early, important doctrinal shift. Despite their odd belief in the Son of Man, the Ebionites seemed to believe less supernatural hokum with regard to miracles, the salvific power of Jesus' death, and so forth, than the more European Christians did. For instance, Justin Martyr states that the first ten bishops of Jerusalem (Including James and Simon) still observed the Jewish Day of Atonement. It's unthinkable for a Christian to do this, since Jesus' death allegedly atoned for all sins once and for all. Clearly, then, Jesus' own brother, and his successors didn't believe Jesus' death was an atonement, nor did the Ebionites.

      Again, I don't believe there's any real difference between the Ebionites and the Church that Jesus set up.
       
      11. PAUL'S CONVERSION TO THE FAITH
      The Apostle Paul never speaks of his conversion in his letters, other than to say that it involved a post-resurrection appearance of Jesus in some way. The Book of Acts paints a dramatic picture of this as happening en rout to Damascus for unclear purposes, and involving a man named Ananias. There is no reason to believe this story in Acts is any more valid than any of the other creations it's author, but it's noteworthy to mention that the Acts account seems to borrow heavily from the account in the 1st Apocalypse of James.

      Jerome tells us the following about the Gospel of the Ebionites,

      I recently translated into Greek and Latin the gospel called the "Gospel of the Hebrews," the one that Origen also frequently uses. After the resurrection of the Savior, it says 9:1 "The Lord, after he had given the linen cloth to the priest's slave, went to James and appeared to him. 9:2 (Now James had sworn not to eat bread from the time that he drank from the Lord's cup until he would see him raised from among those who sleep.)" 9:3 Shortly after this, the Lord said, "Bring a table and some bread." 9:4 And immediately it is added: "He took the bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to James the Just and said to him, "My brother, eat your bread, or the Son of Adam has been raised from among those who sleep."           (Jerome, On Famous Men 2)

      In 1st Apoc. James, we find a consistent picture with this. We find James atop the mount of olives, "Eating and Drinking nothing, and seeing no one" for three days. Simon Cleophas is there as well, but seems to come and go. Suddenly, James sees Jesus/The Son of Man, with an odd inference that Jesus was there all along, and James simply couldn't see him for some reason. Anyway, James is scared at first, but then Jesus makes a show of eating in front of him, and then mentions James eating and regaining his strength.

      Paul's own conversion story makes a point of involving the details about "Eating and Drinking Nothing for three days, and seeing no one" after seeing Jesus, and then "Eating and regaining his strength" afterwards. In a very matter of fact way, even James' re-naming as "James the Just" appears, after a fashion, when Saul (Paul's real name) decides to re-name himself "Paul" some time later on.

      In other words, whoever wrote Acts is 'borrowing' details from James' visions, and attaching them to Paul. Why? Who Knows. Very likely it's simply because the author of Luke didn't know the circumstances of Paul's conversion, and decided to make up his own.
       
      12.PAUL AND EBIONITE THEOLOGY
      Paul says a great number of things in his letters that don't make any sense, but a lot of them begin to be understandable if one is familiar with Ebionite theology regarding the Son of Man. Specifically, he says this regarding his conversion: "When it pleased God by his grace to reveal his son in me."  This is generally taken to mean 'Reveal his son [to the world] through me' because to take it at face value doesn't make any sense. Unless, that is, one understands the Ebionite idea of the Son of Man, and then it begins to make a spooky amount of sense. In fact, most of Paul's arrogant, insubordinate behavior begins to make sense (In one of his letters, he refers to Jesus' own brother, James, as an "Arch-apostle, those who write their own recommendations…and claim to be something, but whatever they are is no matter to me." He later goes on to refer to his superiors in the church as 'Weak' and makes a pun about Circumcision, stating that he wishes they would be 'Cut off entirely'. Most of these points are rebutted by someone named James (We're generally told it's James the Apostle, but it could also be James the brother of the Lord) in the Epistle of James. Make of that what you will.

      It seems apparent to me that Paul believes HE has the Son of Man living within him.
       
      13. WHAT I THINK HAPPENED
      This guy named Saul is a Herodian, one of the ruling family. Josephus details how someone named 'Saulus' and the Temple Treasure (Also a Herodian) put together a band of thugs to persecute the people belonging to this 'Fourth Philosophy' which, in this passage, he variously associates with the Essenes and the Zealots, both groups which have been associated with Jesus and his followers. These are our 'Ebionites'. This is fairly consistent with the portrayal of Saul's persecution of the Church in Acts, and dead-on perfect with the Recognition's portrayal of these events.

      Following a personal attack on James by Saul himself, the Ebionites go to ground and leave Jerusalem. Most head to Jericho, some head to the wilderness of Perea, the area across the Jordan where John the Baptist preached. Eventually, some of the leadership of the Ebionites come back to Jerusalem, though the main headquarters appears to have been in Jericho after this point. Interestingly, the dead sea scrolls were found in Qumran, just a few miles outside of Jericho. The dead sea scrolls refer to the wilderness of Perea as 'The Land of Dam Eskas' (I'm sure I'm spelling That wrong) which translates out as 'The Land of the New Covenant' and, of course, phonetically sounds like 'Damascas'.

      Saul appears to have pursued the leadership of the Ebionites. Recognition says he was specifically trying to capture Peter, who he mistakenly thought was the leader of the organization, has some kind of nervous breakdown, and sees signs and visions. Perhaps they're legitimate, perhaps not, I don't personally care. Whatever he saw it kind of incapacitates him. Somehow he comes into the company of a man named Ananias. I don't know much about this guy named Ananias, except that he was some kind of Jewish trader, and I suspect he was either an Ebionite, or someone who had been an Ebionite, but had left the faith. I can't prove that, though.

      Anyway, Saul is 'Beset by signs and visions' in this period. Again total supposition on my part, I think that Ananias might have taken this to mean that Saul was, in fact, a prophet, and may have discussed Ebionite matters with him. Using Ananias' information to give form to the visions produced by his nervous breakdown, Saul begins to believe that the Son of Man is within him. And, being a rather compelling crazy person, Saul manages to convince Ananias of this as well. Or not. I honestly don't know, this is all supposition on my part, but it seems rather logical based on what happens next.
       
      14. WHAT ROBERT EISENMAN THINKS HAPPENED NEXT
      Robert Eisenman's book, James the Brother of Jesus, is a fantastic, though difficult, book that completely re-draws the map on early Christianity, and it's origins. Eisenman points out that despite the frequent mentions of Saul's early travels to Antioch, there is actually no evidence of an early Christian community there prior to the beginning of the 2nd century, either historically, or literately, except in the letters of Saul in the New Testament.

      What he suggests is that when Saul says he went to Antioch, etc, he's not talking about the Antioch on the Mediterranean, he's actually talking about another city entirely. Outside of the Roman Empire, in the southeast of modern Turkey (Asia Minor) there was a small kingdom called "Adiabene." The capital of this kingdom was called "Antioch of the Assyrians". It was ruled by a young king named Izates. This was an Arabic kingdom. The people were Semitic, and apparently even had legends of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishamel, and were aware of Judaism, to which they felt they were tied, but were pagan and happy that way.
      Queen Helena of Adiabene was the mother of King Izates. About the same time Saul is said to have had his conversion experience, Helena developed an interest in Judaism. She did not convert, but followed the Torah as closely as she was able without conversion, thus making her a 'God Fearer' according to Josephus.

      Also according to Josephus, right about this time, a Jewish trader by the name of Ananias, and his unnamed traveling companion, show up in Adiabene, and, after some intrigue, make themselves known to the Queen. In fairly short order, Ananias' [unnamed] companion manages to talk the Queen into conversion to some 'new' form of Judaism that "Did not require circumcision"  She talks to her son, and he, too, converts to this 'new' sect.

      It's worth noting that 'Arabia' can have two meanings in this period. It can mean the Arabian Peninsula, as we mean it today, or it can mean 'Any Arab Land', which Adiabene certainly is. This, then, could jibe with Paul's assertion that he spent 'Three years in Arabia."  Thus, Eisenman suggests, that when the bible says 'the believers were first called Christians in Antioch', what it's actually talking about was a cult started by a crazy man who misunderstood the doctrine of an esoteric sect of Judaism and converted the royal family of Adiabene in the city of Antioch-of-the-assyrians.
       
      15. JERUSALEM FINDS OUT
      Eusebius, in the 4th century, reports the legend of king Abargus, master of a 'great land to the east'. In this legend, a letter is sent to Jesus by a mysterious king of the east, inviting him to live in his land and so forth. The letter is sent by a Jewish trader named Ananias. In the legend, Jesus politely turns down the offer, but heals Abargus of his many ills. After Jesus' resurrection, the Apostle Thomas is sent east to Abargus' kingdom, and converts them to the true faith.

      There is not much to support this legend, however it is worth noting that Abargus is the name of King Izates' father, and of course, the appearance of Ananias.

      A more likely explanation for what happened is that after some time, -three years?-  James in Jerusalem (Or Jericho) got word of what was going on in Adiabene, and sent someone to investigate. This someone is alternately named Thomas, Thadeus, Jude, or Judas Thomas, depending on who you talk to, but Judas Thomas seems to turn up most commonly.

      Whoever this legate of James was, he's immediately pissed off when he gets to Adiabene. He finds the uncircumcised gentile king reading the torah, and immediately threatens him with death (Typical zealot punishment for that infraction), unless he's circumcised. He then proves to Izates that he does, in fact, need to be circumcised to follow the Torah, for anyone who is guilty of breaking the least of the law breaks it all. Izates relents and allows himself to be circumcised, fully converting to Judaism, as does his mother. Shortly after this, Queen Helena moved to Jerusalem, where she was to remain for the rest of her life, doing great works of charity for the Ebionim (The Poor) for which she is still greatly regarded in Judaism to this day.
       
      16. FALLOUT
      Prior to this time, no one seems to have been interested in converting Gentiles to Ebionitism. Saul is the first person to think of it. He makes his way back to Jerusalem (Eventually), where he is kept out of touch with anyone other than James and Peter for two weeks, while they debate what to do with him.

      On the one hand, he's a loon, and a liability, and he's perverting their teachings. ON the other hand, he single-handedly converted a pagan kingdom to Ebionitism, after a fashion, which has resulted in a greatly improved financial status for the sect.
      Ultimately they appear to decide that Gentiles do not need to fully convert to Judaism, but they do need to at least follow the Noahic covenant (No food sacrificed to idols, no carrion, no blood, and avoid sexual immorality), and be as forthright as possible. Acts supports this decision, but places it about seven years later on, though, as we've seen, Acts chronology is quite wonky, and must be taken with a grain of salt. Acts version of the event takes place when one of Saul's own letters swears he isn't even in Jerusalem.

      Saul is 'reigned in', so to speak. He is made 'Apostle to the Gentiles' (Who no one much cares about, despite the fluke with Helena and Izates) and sent on his way, with only the stipulation that he 'remember the Ebionites' (The Poor), which Saul himself says "Is what I had every intention of doing."
       
      17. RECAP
      I surmise that Simon Magus and the Apostle Paul are the same guy. I've pointed out that the New Testament is not a particularly reliable witness with regard to historical events. I've raised the question of what the 'Believers' were called prior to being called 'Christians' at Antioch, and suggested that they were probably called Ebionites. I've pointed out that the Ebionites were regarded as heretical by European Christianity, which was founded by the Apostle Paul. I've shown that the Ebionites were essentially an esoteric sect of more normative Judaism that were expecting the imminent coming of the Messiah, and that their theology was basically adoptionist: Any Exceptionally Just (Righteous) individual could 'Become' the Messiah when they were possessed (For lack of a better word) by a Supernatural being known as "The Son of Man." I've also suggested that this alleged 'Son of Man' passed from Jesus to his brother James at the time of Jesus' death. We've seen how Saul, a Herodian, initially persecuted the church, then had some kind of 'conversion experience' during which all the sources would seem to imply he came into the company of a man named Ananias.  According to Dr. Robert Eisenman, Saul and Ananias went to Adiabene (Antioch of the Assyrians), and converted the Royal Family, and suffered 'three years of signs and visions' in Arabia (Which we supposed to be Adiabene). This cult, started by Saul, was based somewhat on Ebionite teachings, and Saul's own personal 'revelations', 'And the Believers were first called 'Christians' in Antioch.' Eventually, I surmise, this came to the attention of James and his Ebionites in Jerusalem, who sent out a legate to find out what was going on. This person reigned in Saul and the Royal Family of Adiabene. Eventually it was decided to let Gentiles join the Ebionites without fully becoming Jewish first, and Saul was made "Apostle to the Gentiles", instructed to "Remember the Ebionites" (Presumably with money), and sent on his way.
       
      18. THE FAMINE IN THE TIME OF CLAUDIUS
      In the mid-40s AD, a great drought and famine hit Palestine and the Eastern Empire. This famine was so bad that most of the historians of the time mention it, at least in passing, which allows us to date some things fairly positively. This famine lasted about three years, and Judea was particularly hard-hurt by it.

      Our friend Queen Helen of Adiabene had already moved to Jerusalem by this period, and she became renowned for her acts of charity to The Poor ("Ebionim"), for which she is still highly regarded by modern Judaism, as I've said. Essentially what she did was use her substantial fortune to buy grain from Egypt, which was the only location convenient to her that hadn't been hit by the famine, and ship it back to Jerusalem. There, presumably, it was distributed to the Ebionites, and others in want, by "The Seven" who are named in Acts chapter 6.

      The introduction of "The Seven" so early in Acts is problematic, and, as such, is generally ignored by modern scholarship. Their names, we're told, were Stephen, Philip, Prochorus, Nikanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nikolaus. This is curious because these are mostly Gentile names, and Acts repeatedly tells us that there aren't any Gentiles in the Church yet. Nikolaus, we're told, is a "Proselyte from Antioch", which is also curious, since our buddy Paul hasn't even been introduced to the story yet, much less 'Converted', and thus there should be no Christians in Antioch yet, Gentile or Jewish. Stephen, of course, becomes the first Christian Martyr two chapters later, and the manner and structure of his death is quite odd. He seems to serve no purpose in the story, other than to be introduced, and then killed off in a dramatic fashion, which provides clues about the motivations of the author. Philip, likewise, comes to the forefront of the story for about two chapters, particularly in regards to Simon Magus. For this, Philip is called "The Evangelist." After the account of the Ethiopian Eunuch, which we'll detail more below, Philip abruptly disappears for fifteen chapters or so, until a cameo appearance later on, when he puts Paul up for the night. Thus, our buddy Philip the Evangelist is associated with both Simon Magus and Paul.

      Many have commented on how odd it is, with Twelve Apostles hanging around, to ignore eight of them entirely, and concentrate on the exploits of such second-banana characters as Philip and Stephen, but, again we have clues about the motivations of the Author: Either he didn't know anything about the apostles, or he knew about 'em and was intentionally ignoring them.

      The appointment of 'The Seven' is further problematic, since we're told their job is to distribute food. This seems odd, unless the Apostles were running a soup kitchen or something, given how early we are in the era of the Church. Why would the distribution of food be a big hassle? Why would it be a big enough hassle that the Apostles would set up a bureaucracy specifically to take care of it? Well, under ordinary circumstances, it shouldn't have been. That means the circumstances must have been extraordinary, like a famine or something. Of course there is no famine at this point in Acts, or in the world at large.

      The Famine isn't introduced until about halfway through the book.

      Thus we have Gentiles in the church when there aren't supposed to be any, and a bureaucracy set up to distribute food when there shouldn't theoretically be any real need to do so.

      Obviously, we're dealing with an anachronism.

      The Author (Or more likely, a later redactor) of Acts has shuffled events around to meet his needs. The introduction of "The Seven" presumably should have taken place later in Acts, after Saul's conversion, and prior to the introduction of the Famine. They've been moved here for reasons we shall detail later. This is yet another example of Acts' wonky chronology.

      In any event, Given Saul's association with both Antioch (Of the Assyrians, presumably) and Gentile Christians and the Famine, and a slew of other clues, it seems fair to assume that Saul was one of Queen Helen's agents, in charge of buying grain in Egypt and sending it back to Jerusalem. It even makes sense that she would choose "Gentile" Christians (As she herself was) to do the distributing. In other words, she probably did use "The Seven" to make sure the food got properly portioned out to the Ebionites
       
      19. THE REDACTION OF THE BOOK OF ACTS
      By now, anyone can see Acts' narrative is full of historical holes, and seems positively obscurantist on some points. This is not surprising, since, as I've pointed out, no one seems to have ever even heard of the book prior to 177 AD. It seems unlikely that the book was actually written by Saul/Paul's traveling companion, "Doctor Luke," as tradition tells us. Anyone who knew Paul personally would have been long dead by 177 AD, and it's unlikely a book like Acts would have been written, then just stuck in someone's library for a century before anyone thought to publish it.

      Eisenman, of necessity, goes into great detail about the book of Acts, unlocking it's symbolism, correlating it with then-current historical references, and so forth. I can't hope to do his work justice here, but suffice it to say that he feels whomever wrote Acts is intentionally trying to hide the 'true' history beneath a sloppily-written 'tabloid' history, which demotes unpopular or threatening characters to the background of the story, or removes them entirely, and which attributes all that is good in the universe to Paul. He never specifically says whether the book was written in it's present form, or was redacted by a later author, but there are a number of clues in both directions. Eisenman himself appears to entertain both notions, but seems - again without ever clearly stating it - to think that the current slipshod mess we call Acts is more or less original.

      I, myself, disagree. I think it's too sloppy to be the work of one author. My own opinion is that the "Original" book of Acts, perhaps published in the 150s or 160s was a propaganda piece, probably composed by the Roman Church for the obvious purpose of legitimizing their claim on authority, and to 'sanctify' their Patron, Saul/Paul. I don't pretend that this 'original' Acts was in any way accurate or honest - it was propaganda, after all - but I do think it was perhaps somewhat more accurate than the book we have now. I suspect that in the 20 or 30 years following it's publication, the Jewish Origins of the Christian Church and some of it's founders, became vastly more embarrassing and unpopular. James, Jesus' brother, for instance, was unrepentantly Jewish, as was his successor, Simon Cleophas. They were also militant and they commissioned activities that a member of an underground organization might see as "Freedom Fighting", but which most of the rest of the world would probably see as Terrorism. To put it more plainly: Nero claimed that the Christians burned Rome, yes? Have you ever wondered why the entire civilized world believed him, even without a shard of evidence? Whether or not Christians actually burned Rome is not important, what's important is that Everyone did believe Nero's accusation, and the reason they believed it, quite simply, is because that's the kind of thing that Christians actually did in those days.

      The jargon I'm using is a bit hard to follow, so I'll try to explain it. The organization that Jesus started was (Probably) called "Ebionitism", a militant sect of Messianic Judaism, as we've seen. The cult that Herodias Saulus (The Apostle Paul) started was called "Christianity," and based, somewhat on a radical re-interpretation of Ebionite teachings. Eventually, Saul/Paul and his "Christians" were absorbed (Forced?) into the older body of Ebionitism, with Paul focusing on converting Gentiles, and James focusing on the coming war with Rome. At some point prior to the War with Rome (66-70 AD), Paul again left the Ebionites, and focused entirely on his "Christians" in Greece and Europe, who were now, more or less, independent of the Ebionites in Jerusalem.
      Follow all that? Thus, the term "Christian", when used by a European of the period, is a bit misleading, since your average Roman didn't distinguish between the two overlapping groups. "Christians" were the followers of Jesus, based in Judea, and stretching out through the world, and they were terrorists. (This is probably due to the fact that "Christian" is a catchier name than "Ebionim" and more Latin/Greek friendly.) This may explain why the Roman church has always gone out of it's way to portray the 'Hippie Love' aspects of Jesus, to the exclusion of the more violent things he did, like, for instance, "Cleansing the Temple" of the moneychangers.

      Thus, for our purposes, we're distinguishing between the Ebionites and the Christians, but at this time, the breach wasn't permanent, nor formal, and many people likely thought of themselves as both, however no one at the time was likely to distinguish between the groups. Except their leaders, James and Paul, of course.

      Therefore it's not surprising that as time passed, the Jewish origins of Christianity would become more and more problematic, and Acts may have become openly embarrassing for some people. Thus, it needed a rewrite.

      I surmise that it was 'cut and pasted' by some well-meaning Christian. The embarrassing characters were demoted, removed, or re-named, and a number of the more incriminating passages were shuffled around. Thus, 'The Seven' are moved earlier, and yes, Stephen really is introduced only to be killed off dramatically. This was done to detract from the importance of another character, who was originally killed off at the climax of the book. His death scene was moved forward, trivialized by attributing it to Stephen, and conveniently forgotten. And now Acts has no conclusion, it just ends abruptly, a fact that, curiously, no one ever seems to notice.

      I spent about three years 'Reconstructing' what I consider to be the "Original Draft" of Acts, and consider it to be about 90 to 95% accurate, and I'll be happy to provide a copy to anyone interested. Suffice to say the anachronisms of "The Seven", Philip, and The Stoning of Stephen are resolved quite nicely, though, of course, it's up to the individual to decide if I really managed to recover the original book, or if I'm full of crap.
       
      20. THE ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH 
      After Stephen, Philip, and the rest of "The Seven" are introduced in the "Modern" version of Acts, Stephen is promptly killed. We're not told that Saul did it, but we are told that he was there, giving his approval. He did not 'whack' Stephen himself, but he had him whacked. Philip and the rest hightail it out of Jerusalem, and Philip comes to Samaria, where he meets and converts Simon Magus. Then Peter comes up from Jerusalem, and bestows "The Gift of the Holy Spirit" on all the new converts, whatever that means. Simon sees this and attempts to buy the Holy Spirit. Peter damns Simon for this, Simon begs forgiveness, and apparently joins the Church in earnest. End of story.

      Then Philip is mystically transported into the wilderness, where he sees an Ethiopian Eunich, a servant of Queen Candace (Or Candakes). Philip baptizes the guy, and then essentially disappears from the story until he puts Saul up for the night fifteen chapters and fourteen years hence.

      Ignoring the supernatural transporter, this story is replete with problems, but I'll stick to the two most prominent: (1) Ethiopians were not ruled by a queen. (2) Neither Candace nor Candakes are Ethiopian names.

      Now, I've showed how 'Arabia' could mean either 'Arabia' in specific, or any Arab land in General, and we've seen how Paul's 'Three years in Arabia' could very well dovetail with his time in the Arab kingdom of Adiabene. Similarly, "Ethiopian" at this period could mean a person from Ethiopia, or any dark-skinned person. In fact, many Romans really didn't distinguish much between those who were "Black" Africans and "Swarthy" Arabs and such. Thus, "Ethiopian" in context could well mean the same condescending thing that "Darkie" meant in the 1950s, namely, anyone who wasn't white.

      So we have Philip, who is associated with both Paul and Simon Magus, as well as being associated with the Famine. We've established that Philip's appearance here is anachronistic, and probably a gloss for another character. (Peter?) Thus, it's shouldn't be too hard to accept that what's going on here is probably in some way associated with the famine, and transplanted earlier in the story by our sloppy hypothetical redactor. The Ethiopian Eunuch story should probably take place during the famine. The Eunuch is the servant of 'A great queen', who we're told in Ethiopian, but may well just be a swarthy Arab type. What swarthy Arab types have we met thus far, that do anything of note during the Famine? Why, our old patron, Queen Helena of Adiabene!

      This story is probably based on the actions of Paul as a grain buying agent for the Queen, in her relief efforts during the Famine of Claudius. Unfortunately, we can't get any more specific than that with the fragments we've got. Was the 'servant' actually an Eunuch, or is that a sly jab at 'Those of the Circumcision' (I.E. the Jewish Christians, the Ebionites) who so angered Paul, and whom he wished "Would be cut off entirely" (again referring to circumcision).

      I should point out that I didn't figure this one out. I'm not that cool. This one, too, is attributable to Eisenman.
       
      21. PERSONA NON GRATA 
      So the Famine ends, and Saul/Paul is a hero, and everyone is happy. His Gentiles, mostly Arabic Adiabenes, have contributed greatly to the financial solvency of the Ebionites, and rescued them from a potentially disastrous famine. Saul apparently goes back to Antioch-of-the-Assyrians, and seems to run the Church there. This seems to involve a lot of Prophecy, or at least Prophets, along with Barnabus, Saul himself, and our buddy Ananias (Cleverly disguised by our Redactor as "Manaen", and then glossed further by saying he was a foster brother of Herod, which actually applies not to Ananias, but rather to Paul himself!) Paul, Barnabus, and co apparently made periodic recruiting trips ("Missionary Journeys") to Europe, and started several gentile churches, while using Antioch as a base of operations.

      If we can take things at face value, always a dicey proposition when regarding Acts, this arrangement appears to have gone on for between five to seven years (Depending on weather we count the time of the Famine itself). Something happens to knock Saul from favor with James and the boys back in Jerusalem.

      We don't know specifically what happened, but it's not hard to figure the generalities of it. It's made clear that the Gentiles had a less stringent code of behavior imposed upon them by the Jerusalem establishment : No blood, no carrion, no food sacrificed to idols, no sexual immorality. Paul's letters make it quite clear that he was unwilling even to submit himself to these lax restrictions. He says he will refrain from eating Food sacrificed to Idols if it will make his brother Christian stumble, but clearly thinks it's stupid. He then turns this argument around, to make it seem that whoever is offended by that, themselves, are weak and stupid, and, clearly he has no sympathy about it. Elsewhere he rails on about this requirement again, culminating with saying that 'All things are possible' though Christ, clearly meaning that any such code - and by extension, the beloved Jewish Law itself - is ridiculous.

      This was a stupid stance for him to take, seeing as his superiors were Jewish.

      Cephas (Simon Cleophas?) comes to Antioch, and lays down the law, literally. Jerusalem has had quite enough of Saul and his arrogance and insubordination. Acts tells us there was a conference in Jerusalem at this time to decide the matter, but Saul claims not to have been there at this time. Acts depiction of the even is, again, probably anachronistic, since Peter is present, and he seems to have exited the story some ten chapters earlier, following a prison break.

      There is another possibility as to what happened. Actually, neither is mutually exclusive, both may well have happened. We've seen that there is an Ananias associated with Saul at the time of his conversion, the Conversion of the Royal Family of Adiabene, and in the high church administration in Antioch. We've also seen, via the Abargus legend, that there was an Ananias involved in the first communication between the Eddeseans/Adiabenes and the Jerusalem Church. These all appear to be the same guy. There is, however, one more Ananias in Acts that we haven't considered.

      Early on in Acts, the Believers are selling their property and giving the money to the Apostles. A guy named Ananias, and his wife, Saphira, sell some property, and decide to keep some of the money themselves. They give the bulk of the proceeds to Peter, and tell him it's everything they got for the property. Peter knows they're lying, and calls down the judgment of the Holy Spirit on him, whatever that means, and Ananias drops dead. Some time later, his wife comes in, not knowing that Ananias is dead, and attempts to continue the lie. She is killed by the 'Holy Spirit' as well. End of Story.

      The odd thing about the Ananias and Saphira story is that it's fairly vindictive and bloody and rather abruptly episodic. It has little to nothing to do with the stories before or after it, is never referred to again. Despite all Peter's exposition to explain what he's doing, the judgment seems brutal and unjust. Beyond all this, the question raised by the story is 'So what?' Some people lied, the Holy Spirit killed 'em, and Peter officiated, what's the point?

      As we've observed, someone cut-and-pasted the narrative of Acts, moving sequences around to suit their needs. These needs are generally propagandistic and Pauline, meaning they make Paul look better, and/or make others look worse. The most logical assumption is that this Ananias and Saphira story initially took place at some other point in the story, and was moved to it's present location by the Redactor.

      Saul is in Antioch, as is Ananias. Something goes wrong, and Peter comes out to check up on things. (Actually, Saul's letter says Cephas, and Acts says Peter. There's a lot of confusion surrounding things where these two are concerned. The Gospel of John flat out says that Peter and Cephas are the same person called by different names ['Peter' means 'Rock' in Greek, 'Cephas' means 'Rock' in Aramaic], but in his letters, Saul appears to be talking about two different people. He clearly means someone different by 'Peter' than he does by 'Cephas'. Clement of Alexandria agrees with Saul in this, stating that "Cephas was an Apostle, whereas Peter was merely a disciple.") Remember, when Saul was made 'Apostle to the Gentiles', his stipulation was to 'Remember the Ebionites', by which we can probably assume James meant Saul was to send back regular offerings for the Ebionite treasury. This agent from Jerusalem checks the books in Antioch, and finds a discrepancy. Someone has been keeping a bit of cash for themselves. Cephas (or Peter) does the typical Zealot thing, he kills the thief. If his wife was in on it, he might well call down a little Old Testament-styled justice upon her as well.  

      If this Ananias is the same guy that's been hanging out with Saul in the story, that it might explain a few things. I believe he is the same, and this is part of whatever gets Saul shunned. This is my own theory, and, so far as I can tell, no one else has ever suggested that the Ananias killed by Peter (or Cephas) in early Acts is actually one of the leaders of the Antioch Church. If it's true, however, it will answer many questions.

      In any event, the decision is made, and Saul looses. This results in a schism, between the Torah (Law)- Abiding Ebionites, and Saul's own followers. Apparently Saul came out the worse for wear, since he lost a lot of his followers. John Mark left. "Even Barnabus" he says, clearly with some pain at his friends' abandonment. This might support the supposition that Ananias was corrupt, and executed for his corruption. An act like that would certainly appall many virtuous folks in the church. A good guess at a date for this would be around 52 or 53 AD. About ten years after his 'Conversion', whatever exactly is meant by that, and about seven years after his first trip to Jerusalem to see James and Peter.

      Paul teams up with some Gentile converts - Silas, Lucinus, etc, they appear to be the only people that will have anything to do with him at this point - and heads to Europe for more 'missionary journeys', revisiting the same places he's been before. It's unclear if he's actually going to these places, or if the author has simply duplicated the earlier trip, but we'll take it at face value this time out. The important thing is that Saul is extensively operating in Gentile Europe from this point out. Though Acts puts a positive spin on it, he had mixed success. The Greeks, adept at philosophy, clearly thought Saul's teachings to be nonsense. The Jews (Always described nebulously and negatively) keep attacking Saul, and they're clearly organized. They even follow him from town to town, and try to cover up their attacks by starting riots, and then assaulting Saul or his friends in the ensuing confusion, a well-documented Zealot tactic. Acts goes to great lengths to avoid mentioning who these "Jews" are, but some of them clearly believe in Jesus, and from this we can conclude that they are Saul's former comrades, the Ebionites.

      Saul twice attempts to enter Asia, by which the bible means Asia Minor, the modern-day nation of Turkey. Both attempts fail, for some reason, which Acts attributes to The Spirit of Jesus, and never bothers to explain why, in particular, Jesus doesn't want Saul to go to Turkey.  A good bet might be that Turkey (The province of Asia) is bordered on the southeast by Adiabene, a kingdom known to be friendly to those same Ebionites that are apparently trying to assassinate Saul. This may seem paranoid, however a few chapters later, when Saul is again in Jerusalem, everything is going well, until some "Jews from the province of Asia" see him, and then a riot breaks out and they try to kill him. We'll never know exactly what happened when Cephas had his run in with Saul, but clearly it pissed a lot of people off. Even the Adiabenes themselves seem to want him dead. This, too, might support my allegations of misappropriations. Remember, Saul converted the Adiabenes, and therefore would presumably have been in high regard with them. Something happened to turn them against him, and fairly quickly. What could better do that than suddenly discovering your 'Apostle' was on the take? Granted, even my revisionist interpretation of the story only implicates Ananias, but, really, what kind of Rum Prophet wouldn't know that one of his fellow prophets is on the take? Either way you slice it, there was no way Saul could get out of that debacle with his reputation intact.

      During this whole period, Saul is clearly trying to start his own church or cult organization, and he's trying to recruit from people who knew him previously. His epistles contain all kinds of references to some sort of Letters of Introduction that Saul, clearly, ain't got. The Pseudoclementine Recognitions explain this by explaining that the European churches operated somewhat like communist cells. No one was allowed to speak in one, unless they brought a letter of introduction "From James the Just in Jerusalem, or whoever is to succeed him." Clearly, since his shunning, Saul is no longer in a position to get such a letter, and thus spends a good deal of time trying to bluster his way in to churches to speak.
       
      22. ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE 
      In 59 or 60 AD, after seven years of this, Saul "Shaved his head in keeping with an oath he had taken." This is standard behavior for someone who had taken a Nazaritic Vow. Nazaritic Vows were taken by devout Jews in this period for various reasons. Generally, the person swore an oath to God to either do something in particular, or avoid doing something in particular. The Thing in question could range from Sexual Abstinence to Giving Up Smoking to Swearing Not To Eat Nor Drink Until You've Killed Such And So. The period of a Nazaritic Vow was generally seven years, unless the oath itself had some kind of built-in expiration clause. For instance, Swearing Not To Ear Nor Drink Until You've Killed Such And So would mean that you were under oath until you killed them, but once they were dead, you could eat and drink again.  The catch was this: violating your oath was punishible by death. Zealots and Sicarii, and presumably Ebionites as well, regularly took such oaths, and enforced them. They were not to be taken lightly.

      When under oath, one did not drink wine, or do anything unclean, nor were they allowed to shave or cut their hair. If the oath ran for the full seven years, one's hair and beard could get quite long. This had ritualistic meaning to the Jews, but it also allowed people under Nazaritic Vows to stand out in a crowd. People wouldn't offer you beer if you looked like a Nazarite. It just wasn't seemly.

      When the oath period ended, the person under oath went to the Temple or a synagogue, and shaved their head and beard, to show everyone that they were no longer under oath. Clearly, when Saul shaved his head here, it meant that he was no longer under oath. But what oath? What had he promised to do, or not do? Typically, Acts doesn't say, but we can guess by looking at the sequence of events.

      Nazaritic Vows last seven years. Saul had a falling out with Cephas just about seven years prior to the time he shaves his head. During the intervening period, he was Apostolia Non Grata. No sooner is his head shaved, then he begins to head straight to Jerusalem, even though all his friends advise against it.

      Thus, whatever happened in Antioch with Cephas when Saul was shunned, it culminated with Saul being placed under a Nazaritic oath to stay the hell away from Jerusalem, for whatever reason, until the seven years were over. Why? Don't know. No idea. It may have been considered lenient. The more militant Ebionites (The Sicarii) may have wanted him dead, but he was sent off under oath to 'think about what he'd done'. If this is the case, then the Sicarii wouldn't have attacked him, as we saw them doing earlier. However we can also interpret this to mean that whatever Saul promised to do or not to do, he wasn't entirely faithful, in which case - *schhhhk* - the sound of daggers slowly unsheathing could be expected. But I really don't know.

      Anyway, Saul heads directly back to Jerusalem, stopping briefly at Philip's house. When he gets back to Jerusalem, he meets James and everyone, and James points out that there are "Thousands of young men in Jerusalem, and all of them are Zealous [Zealots] for the Law".  After some deliberation, Saul is sent to the temple to pay for the purification rituals for some of his friends. No sooner is he there, then he's spotted by some of those "Asian Jews" I mentioned before, and a riot breaks out.
      The Roman Army comes by to restore order, and sees the mob pounding the shit out of Saul, or about to. Saul says, suddenly, that he's a Roman Citizen, and entitled to protection. The Centurion agrees, and after a brief, confusing exchange that Saul clearly doesn't want the crowd to hear, (Centurion: "May I ask you a question?" Saul: "Do you speak Greek?" [The Crowd would mostly have spoken Aramaic]) he addresses the mob, which starts the riot anew. Thereupon, the Centurion takes him into custody.

      After a couple of days, Jerusalem hasn't calmed down, so they decide to move Saul up-country, to a Herodian fortress where Governor Felix is living. He stays there two years, allegedly in protective custody, though even the Bible admits there's no charge against him, and the folks in the fortress have no idea what to do with him. Clearly, he's got the run of the place.
       
      23. THE RETURN OF SIMON MAGUS, IF, IN FACT, HE EVER LEFT
      It's at this point that we can begin to tie this whole mess up, and our best piece of evidence is this quote from our old buddy, Josephus:

      2. (141) But for the marriage of Drusila with Azizus, it was in shortly afterwards dissolved, under the following circumstances: (142) While Felix was procurator of Judea, he saw this Drusilla, and fell in love with her; for she did indeed exceed all other women in beauty, and he sent to her a person who's name was Simon, one of his friends; a Jew he was, and by birth a Cypriot, and one who pretended to be a magician; and endeavored to persuade her to forsake her present husband, and marry him; and promised, that if she would not not refuse him, he would make her a happy woman. (Josephus, Antiquities, 20:7:2)

      Just to give a little back story, here, Felix was the Roman Procurator (Governor) of the province, and Drusilla was a Herodian princess. She was a shrewd manipulator, and, through a series of shrewdly planned marriages and divorces, she had become the wealthiest woman in Judea. She was the product of the Herodian King Herod Agrippa I and Cypros. She was somewhat Maccabean. What that means is that two generations before, king Herod the Great attempted to legitimize his power by marrying one of the daughters of the former (Jewish) ruling family of Judea, the Maccabees. This marriage produced a couple sons, and then, her usefulness at an end, Herod had her killed. One of these sons married Herod's daughter by another wife, they had kids, and blah blah blah all the way down to Drusilla. The point is that she was royalty on all sides of her family, and was also pretty much the end of the Maccabean line. As such, though she didn't really observe Jewish Law any more than any of the other Herodians did (They had a positive loathing of it), she was at least somewhat circumspect. She may even have considered herself a Jew on some level. Azizus, her most recent husband, actually had himself circumcised and formally converted to Judaism, specifically so she could marry him.

      Felix had absolutely no intention of circumcising himself, of course, and as we've seen, tried to talk Drusilla into ditching her husband and marrying him. Now, she was reputed to be beautiful, but certainly her money didn't hurt the equation any, especially with a rising star like Felix. Still, she wouldn't marry a gentile. Felix was unable to persuade her, so he calls in his friend "Simon…a magician". In Latin, that would make him Simon Magus.

      This Simon Magus eventually talks Drusilla into forsaking Judaism, ditching her husband, and marrying Felix. Thus, Simon Magus was able to talk Drusilla into doing something that Felix could not. Felix, of course, would have had logic, lust and money on his side, but met with no success, therefore whatever argument Simon Magus presented to Drusilla, it must not have involved any of those three points. So what could it have been? By process of elimination, Religious. Simon Magus presented a religious argument that salved Drusillas' concerns.
       
      24. SIMON MAGUS AND THE APOSTLE PAUL ARE THE SAME GUY 
      Up until now, we've shown how what little we know of Simon Magus roughly parallels the life of Herodias Saulus, more commonly known as 'The Apostle Paul.' We've seen how there are characters such as Philip and Ananias who link the two. We've shown how there's a lot of misdirection in Acts, but managed to track down a lot of the possible meanings of some curious events that it records, some of which were interpolated by a later Redactor of the book, and some of which were original with it's Author. Both are charismatic svengalis. Both aren't particularly trustworthy. Both have their outs with Peter. Both appear to be getting on pretty well in Rome until both die in uncertain circumstances involving the Senate. Their live parallel each other to an astonishing degree.

      And now both of them are in the same place at the same time! You see, the fortress that Saul was taken to following the riot and his arrest in Jerusalem, is the very same fortress that Felix and Drusilla and Simon Magus are staying at! More to the point, they're both in the same place at the same time, trying to do the same thing!

      Simon Magus apparently converts Drusilla to his whacky Ebionite beliefs in order to get her to ditch her husband, and mary Felix, right? Both Felix and Drusilla show up, arm-in-arm, at this point in Acts, and Acts makes no bones about the fact that Saul is trying to convert 'em both! "I would that you would some day become as I am" Saul says during one of these audiences. Felix, rightly in my opinion, regards Saul as a madman, but Acts is careful to point out Saul and Drusilla ("A Jewess") chatting amiably. Therefore Simon Magus and Saul are in the same place at the same time, both plying religious arguments on Drusilla.
      Now, as we've already seen, Saul isn't particularly respectful towards Jewish Law, and has made a career of strife with those he calls 'Of the Circumcision.' We've also seen how Saul converted Adiabene to 'A form of Judaism that did not require Circumcision.' (Which was, of course, Saul's own brand of Ebionitism: Christianity). We've also seen that Drusilla wouldn't marry Felix because he wasn't circumcised.  Felix calls in Simon Magus to convert her to some belief in which Circumcision isn't required, and as we've seen, this seems to be Saul's view as well. Apparently he/they are successful because Felix and Drusilla do, eventually, get married.

      It should also be noted that Herodias Saulus - Saul/Paul - is Drusilla's cousin. Her parents are Herod Agrippa I and Cypros. Saul's parents are Antipater II and Cypros (A different Cypros) Agrippa I is the son of Bernice, as is Antipater II. Therefore, Drusilla would already be acquainted with Saul. If you're trying to force a conversion on your girlfriend, and you bring in a false prophet to do it, who better than someone she's known all her life? Who better than a first cousin?
       
      25. WHY?
      Insofar as I know, I'm the only person to have realized that Saul and Simon are the same guy. Eisenman simply states that Felix apparently had a fetish for keeping these "False Prophet" types on the payroll, and leaves it at that. As for me, however, the coincidences are simply too great to be explained any other way. We've seen how Acts plays hard and fast with facts in favor of making Saul look good. If any of my theories here are correct, it was probably a damn hard job making an insubordinate, hallucinating lunatic like him appear even remotely acceptable, much less sanctified. We've seen how Acts shuffles the pieces around willy-nilly to accomplish this end, even when the portrait in Acts is dead opposed to the one Saul paints of himself in his letters. In his letters, Saul has no use for authority, and is constantly fighting with someone about Jewish law, and openly claims to be beholden to no one, and makes bad anti-Semitic jokes about Circumcision and/or Castration. Acts, meanwhile, portrays him as a brave, but obedient soldier of Christ, a happy part of a larger army, an army which, curiously, is very ill defined, but which Saul clearly doesn't run, and is merely a happy part of. Acts also regularly violates Saul's own sequence of events, vis a vie his letters.

      Numerous characters that Saul was associated with would very shortly become enemies of the empire. James the Just in Jerusalem was gearing up for a full-scale rebellion against Rome, which appears to have been working on a tight schedule. His brother, Simon bar Cleophas (Cephas?) would actually lead that rebellion following his James' untimely death. Queen Helena and the Adiabenes (Also called "Edeseans") were allies of the Ebionites in this war, and thus were enemies of the empire, which may explain their near-complete omission from the bible. At the same time, the Herodians themselves would fall from Roman Grace, and be perceived - correctly - as small, petty, and inept leaders of a jerkwater province that was never anything but trouble. Paul, of course, is a Herodian, and mentions in one of his letters that he's friends with Epaphroditus, a member of the 'house of ceasar.' This is the same Epaphroditus who was the patron of Josephus, and commissioned Josephus to write his various histories. He's also the Epaphroditus who was the personal secretary to Emperor Nero, and who was intimately involved in Nero's "Suicide". Epaphroditus was later killed by Nero's nephew, Dominitan, in what amounted to a sort of 'Palace Purge' of Christians in the mid-late 90s. In one fell swoop, Epaphroditus, Clement (Flavius Clemens), Josephus, and several others are all executed, apparently in reprisal for Epaphroditus' role in Nero's death. (In today's terms, we'd politely call it an 'Assisted Suicide', but apparently Dominitian had reason to believe it was flat-out murder, sanctioned by the Ebionites to end Nero's persecutions of them.) Remember, the Romans don't seem able to distinguish the Militant Zealot/Ebionite Jews from more normative Jews or Christians in this period.

      The point is that in the generation after Saul came to Rome, Saul's friends on both sides of the equation would become very embarrassing to be associated with. On the rebellious side, Saul openly consorted with, and -for a time- was subordinate to such arch terrorists as James the Just and Simon Cleophas. On the Establishment side, the Herodian establishment, of which Saul was a part proved themselves to be about as embarrassing to the empire as possible. If one wants to chart a middle, moderate, course, then one comes across people like Epaphroditus, a gentile Christian who apparently executed the Emperor, or Flavius "Clement" Clemens, a member of the imperial household who actually led the Ebionite/Christian cell in Rome. Even Felix, a cynical Roman, wasn't immune, given his scandalous roll in advising General Titus to burn the temple in Jerusalem. Every person Saul knew in his Apostolic period was either inherently undesirable and an enemy of the empire, or else became undesirable and an enemy of the empire. Saul liked to move in circles of power, attempting to play them off of each other, and gain power for himself in the process. This worked for him for a time, but "To be near Zeus is to be near the lightning bolt" as the old Greek proverb goes. Or, as Jesus himself says in the Gospel of Thomas, "To be near me is to be near the fire." To play power against itself is to court destruction.

      Thus, the (theoretical) redaction of Acts. The Original Version of the book was probably equally propagandistic, but more straightforward. It was probably even conciliatory. With the destruction of the Ebionites in 136 AD, the Roman Church was now operating entirely on it's own authority, was composed almost entirely of Gentiles, and wanted to rid itself of it's Ebionite origins. At the same time, they probably wanted to increase their power and prestige in the greater church network, since the center of that network had just collapsed. Originally, Acts was probably intended to patch over the various sects differences, focus on the common points, and paint a propagandistic picture of one big happy family of God, which never, for a minute, actually existed. Whoever wrote it probably meant well, even if he was a bit self-serving and disingenuous.

      The Simon Magus story probably began with this first draft of the book. It's purpose was probably to be a stand-in for Saul at some of the more embarrassing points in his career, like the episode in unfortunate Ananias incident in Antioch. People knew this stuff happened, or talked about it, but if one could produce a book, allegedly of great antiquity (Though in reality brand new) that contained those events but attributed them to a different person, or in a different order, it would take some of the sting out of them. People might even assume that the version of the story they heard was simply a misunderstanding of the version they read. Such is the permanence of the written word, particularly when you're dealing with a sect that worships the divine word (Logos), as per the introduction to the Gospel of John.

      Even so, there were some events the Author couldn't erase, and these he let stand. Even a negative example has value, and Saul himself bragged about his 'bad days' prior to his conversion. One has to leave a few of those incidents in, in order to explain what Saul was talking about.   

      The Redactor, a generation later, had less noble intentions, and cut-and-pasted the book to cover up anything that didn't meet with his understanding of Christianity, as it existed in the late 2nd Century. Thus, most of the surviving references to James, including his death scene, are removed, or re-attributed to other people. Thus, Saul becomes almost an avatar of the divine on earth, which, ironically, the crazy old bastard probably thought he was.

      Fortunately, as I've said, the Redactor did a really bad job, so I've been able to reconstruct most of the original draft.
       
      26. CLUES AND VARIOUS ODDS AND ENDS 
      The Pseudoclementine Recognitions deals primarily with Peter, Clement, and their run-ins with Simon Magus. Saul only shows up once in the book, in a flashback sequence in which Peter tells Clement about a vicious attack on James on the temple steps which almost killed him. This attack parallels the 'Stoning of Stephen' to some degree, but in Recognitions, no one seems to have ever heard of Stephen or Philip. (This is odd, since Philip is intimately associated with Simon Magus, but he's nowhere to be seen. Ergo, this is a clue that Philip's role in the conversion of Simon is a comparatively recent embellishment to the story) There are certain words that Recognitions only uses to describe Simon Magus. Particular among these is it's use of the phrase "The Enemy."
      The one exception to this rule is when describing the attack on James by Saul. There, Saul is also described as "The Enemy" in a way that is usually reserved for Simon.

      This has prompted more than one person to comment on how 'confused' the narrative seems on this point, and how the Recognitions doesn't seem to quite know the difference between Saul and Simon. Some have suggested that the story might have originally told of an attack on James by Simon Magus himself, and some later author, for whatever reason changed it to Saul. This is true in a way no one suspected: It did contain an attack on James by Simon, and, in fact, still does, because Saul and Simon Magus are the same guy. The author of Recognitions may have been fuzzy about this, but that simply serves to indicate that the artificial distinction between the two 'characters' was still formative at the point it was written.

      "Ah," the astute reader will say, "But Simon Magus was a Cypriot, and Saul is from Tarsus" Well, maybe he is, and maybe he ain't. As I've repeatedly said, if it comes from Saul's letters, we can probably take a fact at face value. If it comes from Acts, written a century after Saul died, we need to take it with a grain of salt. At no point does Saul ever say that he's from Tarsus in his letters, that's entirely a product of Acts. Acts isn't above inventing stuff when it suits their needs. For what it's worth, Cyprus (Land of the Cypriots) is a big island right off of Tarsus. Also for that matter, though Josephus says Simon was from Cypress, opinion about this is divided.  Eusebius, for instance, goes into a diatribe about early heresies, and (quoting Justin) states that :

      One of them was Simon, a Samaritan of the village of Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius C'sar performed in your imperial city some mighty acts of magic by the art of demons operating in him, and was considered a god, (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2:13)

      My point here is that we really don't know where either Saul or Simon are really from. For that matter, Saul is apparently dark enough to be mistaken for an Egyptian at one point in Acts. He denies this, and claims to be from Tarsus, but the bottom line is that we don't have enough information on the subject.

      "Ok," you say, "But Simon Magus had a wife, and Saul didn't. Therefore Simon and Saul aren't the same guy." That's all well and good, but there are two things that a person taking that stance is not aware of: (1) Saul was a member of the Sanhedrin. Members of the Sanhedrin were required to be married, or else they couldn't join. (2)

      And Paul does not hesitate, in one of his epistles, to greet his wife, whom he did not take about with him, that he might not be inconvenienced in his ministry." (Eusebius, ecclesiastical History, 3:25 - Quoting our buddy Clement [Flavius Clement] who personally knew Saul)       

      So if he had a wife, what happened to her? I don't pretend to know. The Clement/Eusebius may be correct, she may have just been a burden so Saul abandoned her. That doesn't seem beyond him. Or maybe she died. Or maybe she's the person 'Saphira' is based on. I don't place a lot of stock on this last assumption, but it might explain a few things we are yet to see. Who knows. This is another of those points that the bible is loath to discuss.

      Simon Magus, traditionally, is associated with Asia Minor, an area that, as we've seen, is central to Saul's entire story. Saul is allegedly from Asia (Tarsus), Adiabene borders on the southeast of Asia Minor, both Antiochs (The Traditional one, the 'real' one, Antioch-of-the-Assyrians) are near to Asia Minor, following Saul's excommunication, he is twice denied entry to Asia Minor by "The Holy Spirit", and, of course, once he gets back to Jerusalem some "Asian Jews" immediately try to murder him.

      Interestingly, I have not been able to find a legitimate source that mentions Simon Magus. I have found lots of Heresologies (Books discussing Heresies) that mention him, and of course the Bible and the Recognitions, but these are all biased sources. Josephus mentions him in passing, but I've found nothing other than these. All these sources are, to some extent, mutually dependant. Eusebius is based on Justin, who is based on the bible, which is based on Josephus's off-hand mention. There does not appear to be an independent source that testifies to Simon's existence, at least not so far as I have been able to find.

      In other words, Simon Magus appears to have no real existence outside of the bible. There is no historical verification of his existence, which is odd, considering how popular he was alleged to be.

      So where did the name 'Simon' come from? I don't know. Maybe a middle name? Favorite Childhood Pet? Imaginary friend? No idea.
       
      27. ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE AGAIN 
      After two years in what appears to be protective custody, Saul is sent off to Rome. Even Acts doesn't claim to understand this, since they state there's no real charge against him or reason to hold him. His "guard" lets him roam free, and hang out with his friends. Saul even goes so far as to advise escaping prisoners to stay with their guards, even though this will doubtless cost most of them their lives. There follow some adventurous escapades which are, to some extent, mythologized. For instance, on the island of Malta, Saul is bit by a poisonous snake, and the locals assume this means he'll die. When he doesn't they decide he must be a God. Of course Malta does not now, nor has it ever, had any snakes, poisonous or otherwise. Eventually, they come to Rome, and Saul is put under house arrest. (In the Herodian Villa in the city?) Again, he appears to have free rein, and it's unclear if the guard is there to keep him from escaping (In which case, he's doing a piss-poor job of it), or if he's there to protect Saul from 'the Jews' who have been trying to kill him for about nine years by this point. Probably the latter.

      Tradition tells us that Peter and Paul are executed on the same day, and some point in the late 60s or early 70s, however this, to me, seems unlikely. Recognitions preserves a letter from Clement to James the Just in Jerusalem, reporting the death of Peter, explaining how he (Clement) is now in charge of the 'Believers' in Rome, and politely awaiting further instructions. The letter is overwritten to some extent, but I think it is, at root, authentic. If so, it must be written prior to James' death in 62 AD, and the most likely time is in the years between 60 and 62 AD. Saul, meanwhile, doesn't die until the late 60s AD. There are numerous legends surrounding the death of Peter, most notably the 'Quo Vadis' legend, all of which appear to be largely groundless. Even so, several of these legends place Saul, Peter, and Simon Magus all together in Rome at the same place and time, before the Senate.
      At any rate, getting back to acts, no sooner is he settled in, Saul summons the local Christians. They tell him that they've received no word about him from Jerusalem, thereby tacitly supporting our assertion about the Churches requiring Letters of Introduction from James, or his successor. It's also worthy of note that Saul's letter to the Romans is remarkably restrained and circumspect, and he admits to some trepidation about working with a church that he, himself, didn't start. Acts tells us that some of the Christians accepted him on face value, and others disputed him, which is probably pretty much on the money. At this point Acts ends, rather abruptly.

      Just about two months after Acts ends, James the Just is executed by the Sanhedrin, without sanction from the Romans. (The Sanhedrin was not allowed to execute people, except with Roman permission) He was stoned, again, roughly paralleling the stoning of Stephen. In fact, their last words are reputed to be the same. A huge scandal ensued, culminating in the Jewish High Priest being impeached, and replaced with a more tractable successor. At about this time, Simon Cleophas (Cephas?) became the new leader of the Jerusalem Church. There followed almost immediately an increasing level of violence in Judea. Antipas, a Herodian and the Temple Treasurer put together an army of mercenary thugs to go around Judea killing and/or robbing Ebionites, and these atrocities were followed by Ebionite counter-attacks. These exchanges expanded for two years, until 64 AD. Everyone in Rome heard of these battles, and was suitably upset by them.

      Catholic Tradition tells us that Saul was released from Prison, and went to Spain. For once, the tradition is likely correct. Saul probably didn't stay in Rome all that long, and retired to the Herodian estate in Spain.

      In 64 AD, Rome burned, and Emperor Nero blamed it on the Christians. No one doubted this because there had been all kinds of similar terrorist activity by the Ebionites (Christians/Zealots) for the last two years. In fact, though the modern church denies any culpability in this, there is really no proof that the Ebionites didn't set fire to Rome, and quite a bit of circumstantial evidence to suggest they did. Yes, Nero was insane, but that's no reason to assume he was lying all the time. And there were two secret Christians close at hand, Epaphroditis, who later assassinated Nero, and Flavius Clemens. I have no trouble believing that either of these men could have done it, if they got orders to do so from Simon Cleophas.

      Suddenly the Romans begin persecuting Christians, and getting aggressively involved in Palestinian politics. Saul comes back on the scene, as per Josephus,

      (214) Costobarus also, and Saulus, did themselves get together a multitude of wicked wretches, and this because they were of the royal family; and so they obtained favor among them, because their kindred to Agrippa: but still they used violence with the people, and were very ready to plunder those that were weaker than themselves. And from that time, it principally came to pass, that our city was greatly disordered, and that all things grew worse and worse among us. (Josephus, Antiquities, 20:9:3)

      Presumably Nero would have called him out of retirement and said something like "You kill your old friends, or I kill you."

      Would Saul really have fought and killed his former comrades? Well, obviously, according to Josephus, he did. Why would he have done it? Well, most obviously, he appears to be crazy to me, but that, by itself, might not be sufficient. He is insubordinate, and cowardly, but again that might not be enough. I believe it all stems from anger over whatever happened in Antioch a decade before. Remember, he had a showdown with Cephas. Saul clearly didn't much care for James the Just, but he was at least deferential to him. But James is now dead, and Cephas is running the church. Cephas sure seems to have killed Ananias, and been responsible for Saul's fall from Grace, to put it poetically. To put it more straightforwardly, if Saul fell on hard times and was excommunicated, it was Cephas that caused it to happen. Not only was he expelled, but he was forced to live a considerably more hardscrabble existence, and he lost Barnabus, and most of his other close friends. He may have lost more than that.

      I don't place a lot of stock in this, I merely put it out here as speculation, but I mentioned in passing that Saphira may have been Saul's wife, rather than Ananias'. There's no way to support that idea, absolutely no facts or historical references exist whatsoever, but if she was his wife, and was involved in the misappropriation of funds in Antioch, there would be absolutely no way Saul could either claim Ignorance, nor ever again claim to be a prophet. If Saul is Simon Magus, then his personal theology was tied up with his wife. If she turned out to be evil, or at least a thieving liar, then Saul's own reliability was shot forever, and, of course, she was the love of his life as well. And if she was Saphira, then Cephas, James' successor, was the one who killed her.
      That would easily be enough for a man - a crazy man at that - to try and murder his former friends.

      Anyway, this undeclared civil war (Both within and without of Christianity) goes on for a year or so, until the Zealots lead an open revolt. They have a series of initial successes, and Antipas is killed. The Romans dispatch Vespasian, and his halfwit son, Titus, to deal with the rebels. Thus begins a three-and-a-half year war to re-take Judea, which was the bloodiest war Rome ever fought. More than a million people died. The final siege of Jerusalem was so bad that good Jews were reduced to cannibalism. If one realizes how repugnant such an idea is to a Jew, you can get an idea how bad the war was, how bad the slaughter was.

      During he siege, Saul emerges as something of a moderate, advising the Jews to open their doors and welcome the Romans back.  He disappears during this period, either the Jews themselves had had enough of him, and killed him, or else his Roman Masters had had enough of him, and hauled him back to Rome, and killed him. Either way, Saul died. Personally, I think the latter is more likely, since all the legends of Saul involve him dying in Rome.

      Epaphroditus (Apparently) assassinates Nero, and makes it look like a suicide. Vespasian is called to Rome to be the new Emperor. He leaves his halfwit son, Titus, in charge. Titus is advised by the flagrantly anti-Semitic Felix, and his newly anti-Semitic wife, Drusilla, to invade Jerusalem through the Temple, which results in the Roman forces burning it to the ground, and, effectively, gutting the soul out of both Judaism and Ebionitism, and freeing Saul's emerging Christianity from it's Jewish roots forever. After all, we're told repeatedly that 'Jesus is the Temple,' aren't we? "Tear down this temple, and in three days, I shall resurrect it.'
       
      28. DENEAUMENT 
      Simon Cleophas and the core Ebionites escaped to Pella when it became apparent they were loosing the war, and there maintained the Ebionite organization for a time. He died around 97 AD, but we don't know the name of his successor, though he's reputed to be a son of Saint Jude. After that we loose the thread of leadership entirely. Though the Ebionites would survive until the 130s, they were clearly in decline from 70 AD on.

      Vespasian was a good emperor. Epaphroditus, still in the official circles, commissioned Josephus to write his histories. A major point of Josephus' "Jewish War" seems to be to pin the blame for the destruction of the Temple on the Jews themselves, and take the blame away from Titus. Impiety was a great crime in Roman society, and all temples, regardless of which god they were for, were sacrosanct. Defiling any temple was grounds for immediate execution. Felix and Drusilla had a son, Antionius Agrippa. Felix was now a war hero, and didn't want to be embarrassed by a Jewish bride, so he took her money, divorced her, abandoned his son, and set them up with a pittance and a villa in Pompey. A fitting end for a woman who's rise to power had, itself, been based on strategic marriages. She and her son, Antonius, were killed in the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD.

      After Vespasian died, his idiot son, Titus, also a war hero, thanks to Josephus' popular histories, becomes the new Emperor. Apparently the best-selling "Jewish War" saved Titus from execution, and in reward, Titus adopted Josephus into the royal family, re-naming him 'Flavius Josephus'. Eventually, Titus died, and with hem ended the Flavian dynasty. Dominitian came to the throne, and appears to have initially been a pretty good emperor, until he recognized the traces of a Christian conspiracy all around him. He banished his own empress, executed Epaphroditus and Clement, and apparently Josephus as well, and began the first really systematic, organized persecution of Christians. Thus culminated in 97 AD, when Jesus' last surviving brother, Cephas, was executed. He was succeeded as head of the Ebionites by one of his nephews, a son of Saint Jude, but we don't know his name. A year or so later, the Revelation of Jesus Christ was published.

      As the first century ended, virtually everyone who knew anything about Jesus, or his family, or Saul were dead, either the victims of war, assassination, or various purges. Saul appears to have had more disciples in Europe, James et al had more in the middle east. The two groups gradually grew more and more remote from each other, until there wasn't any direct contact anymore. All that were left were legends, and a few people who were intent on making sure their side of the schism came out looking better than the other one. With less and less direction from the family of Jesus, the European Christians were left adrift. Saul's numerous disciples stepped in to the void, and preached their hippie-love version of Christianity, distancing themselves intentionally from both their Jewish Roots, and the Truth of what happened. This 'set of lies agreed upon' eventually evolved into what we know today.
       
      The End
      Copyright 2001, Mahatma Randy
       
      HOME]


Some pages may require Adobe Acrobat Reader™


Copyright and Fair Use Information: The contents of this web site is protected by international copyright laws and may not be reproduced in any form or manner whatsoever, if for the purpose of resale or solicitation of a donation. The essays included here, may be reproduced only if: 1)They are not altered in any way; 2) reproductions must be accompanied by this copyright page ; and 3) it is given freely and without charge.
Fair use: The fair use of copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified in above sections, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is fair use the factors to be considered include : (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and; (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market value of the copyrighted work.
Home | About Narrative? |Contact
Copyright © 2025. All Rights Reserved
HAG122125 (1998 -2026)