Eusebius, EH.2.13-15: Simon the Sorcerer, Peter, and Mark

A new installment has been posted to the series on Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History: book 2, chapters 13-15 (listen here).

Notes and Commentary:

Eusebius here focuses on a tradition of Simon the Samaritan sorcerer, a false convert from Acts 8:9-25 as an arch-heretic who eventually settled in Rome.

He describes Simon as a demon-possessed magician who was fancied a god by his followers. He suggests that a statue to him was raised in Rome. Lake notes that Eusebius is likely in error here, suggesting that the statue, discovered in 1574, was inscribed not “to Simon a holy god” but “to the god Semo Sanctus” [Semo Sanctus being a Sabine deity].

Simon’s companion was a woman named Helena, whom Eusebius suggests was a former prostitute and whom Simon called the “First Idea” from him [a pseudo-Platonic or Gnostic concept].

Eusebius cites Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyons as his sources for these traditions of Simon as “the first author of all heresy.”

He notes that the false practices of Simon and Helena includes being “thrown into marvel” [ecstatic spiritual experiences] and indecent sexual conduct.

If Simon was the arch-villain, the hero was Peter, the leader of the Apostles, who came to Rome “like a noble captain of God” to preach the gospel and refute heresy.

He suggests that the Romans encouraged Mark, “Peter’s follower,” to compose the Gospel of Mark, written in Rome and commended by the Apostle. He also cites Papias for the tradition of Mark being written in Rome and his reference to Mark in 1 Peter 5:13, as well as the reference there to “Babylon” as a code term for Rome.

JTR

David Bentley Hart on Peter's Tears and A New Vision of Human Dignity

Image: Guercino, Peter Weeping With Keys, c. 17th century

One of the most poignant moments in the Gospel account of Christ’s passion is Peter’s reaction upon his denial of Jesus:

And Peter went out and wept bitterly (Luke 22:62; cf. Matthew 26:75; Mark 14:72).

In The Story of Christianity, David Bentley Hart reflects on the significance of this description:

This may perhaps seem a rather unextraordinary episode, albeit a moving one. But therein lies its peculiar grandeur. To us today it seems only natural that a narrator should pause to record such an incident, and treat it, with certain gravity; but, in the days when the Gospels were written, the tears of a common man were not deemed worthy of serious attention. They would have been treated by most writers as, at most, an occasion for mirth. Only the grief of the noble could be tragic, or sublime or even fully human.

The tears of Peter were therefore indicative of a profound shift in moral imagination and sensibility. Something had become visible that had formerly been hidden from sight. For Christian thought, God had chosen to reveal himself among the least of men and women, and to exalt them to the dignity of his own sons and daughters. And, as a consequence, a new vision of the dignity of every soul had entered the consciousness of the Gentile world (18).

JTR

Poole on Peter and Primacy in John 21:15-17

Image: Altar in St. Alexander Roman Catholic Cathedral, Kiev, Ukraine, with inscription from the Latin hymn "Tantum ergo" from Thomas Aquinas.

Here’s another note on Matthew Poole’s commentary on Christ’s post-resurrection commission of Peter (John 21:15-17). Poole suggests that Christ’s commission is not just to Peter but to “his church” and objects to any Roman Catholic notion that it suggests the “primacy” of Peter:

Christ replies: Feed my lambs: by which he understands his people, his church; not the pastors of it, (as if Christ by this had made Peter the chief pastor over the rest of the apostles,) but the community. The papists from this text argue for Peter’s primacy and authority over his fellow apostles, as well as over the members of the church. But Christ said not to Peter only, but to all the rest of the eleven, Matt. xxviii.19; Mark vi.15 [BTW, note Poole's citation of Mark's traditional ending], Go ye, preach the gospel to all nations; and it was to the rest as well as to Peter that he said, chap. xx.23, Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted. So as it is apparent, whether feeding only signifies instructing, or feeding by doctrine, or (as most judge) comprehends government, and signifies that universal charge which ministers have over the church, the same power which Peter had was also committed to the other disciples.

JTR