On the Kabbalistic Myth of the Repentance of Vav

Irenaeus says:

Simon Magus was the first who said that he himself was God above the all [Book II]

Hippolytus says:

Now Simon affirms that he himself is He who stood, stands, and will stand, and that He is a power that is above all things.

The Second Treatise of Seth and Basilides argue that it was "Simon" who was crucified "upon" the cross:

They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross upon his shoulder.

Irenaeus similarly says that Basilides:

[Jesus] appeared, then, on earth as a man, to the nations of these powers, and wrought miracles. Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them. For since he was an incorporeal power, and the Nous (mind) of the unborn father, he transfigured himself as he pleased, and thus ascended to him who had sent him

In other words "Simon from above" was Jesus. Irenaeus clarifies that the Basilideans believe that:

it is not incumbent on us to confess him who was crucified, but him who came in the form of a man, and was thought to be crucified, and was called Jesus, and was sent by the father, that by this dispensation he might destroy the works of the makers of the world.

Pseudo-Tertullian describes it as follows:

it was not He who suffered among the Jews, but that Simon was crucified in His stead: whence, again, there must be no believing on him who was crucified, lest one confess to having believed on Simon.

All of this sounds very similar to the things said of those "zealots" or Cainites who venerate Judas. The Marcosians describe it as a mathematic equation 6 + 24 = Judas (30) but this is another story.

We must now consider also the manner in which kabala is called "magic" in Irenaeus. The Acts of the Apostles writes:

a certain man, Simon by name, who beforetime used magical arts in that city, and led astray the people of Samaria, declaring that he himself was some great one, to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This is the power of God, which is called great. And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had driven them mad by his sorceries

To this Irenaeus comments that:

Simon, then--who feigned faith, supposing that the apostles themselves performed their cures by the art of magic, and not by the power of God

At the heart of Simon's doctrine is the concept of the emission of a "power" much like that of the kabalists:

He affirms that the primary Power continues unknown to all, but that he himself is the person who has been sent forth from the presence of the invisible beings as a saviour, for the deliverance of men. The world was made by angels, whom, like Simon, he maintains to have been produced by Ennoea. He gives, too, as he affirms, by means of that magic which he teaches, knowledge to this effect, that one may overcome those very angels that made the world; for his disciples obtain the resurrection by being baptized into him, and can die no more, but remain in the possession of immortal youth.

Is this "simon from above" really the heretics declaring Jesus to be the angel "episimon"? Compare the discussion of Marcosians in Irenaeus. Irenaeus begins by identifying Marcus as:

a perfect adept in magical impostures, and by this means drawing away a great number of men, and not a few women, he has induced them to join themselves to him, as to one who is possessed of the greatest knowledge and perfection, and who has received the highest power from the invisible and ineffable regions above

What is the "magic" of Marcus? It is kabala viz.:

according to this magician, such [is] the figure of the element, such the character of the letter.

Hippolytus concludes that:

Marcus ... devoted [his] attention to magical arts and the Pythagorean numbers.

He speaks also of the "Ennoea" like the "Simon above":

And that power whom thou affirmest to be indivisible, thou dost nevertheless divide into consonants, and vowels, and semi-vowels; and, falsely ascribing those letters which are mute to the Father of all things, and to His Enncea (thought), thou hast driven on all that place confidence in thee to the highest point of blasphemy, and to the grossest impiety

And concludes:

Marcus, thou former of idols, inspector of portents, Skill'd in consulting the stars, and deep in the black arts of magic.

With regards to Marcus' "episimon" Irenaeus writes that the Father identified Jesus as the Episimon:

For that perfect being Nous, knowing that the number six had the power both of formation and regeneration, declared to the children of light, that regeneration which has been wrought out by Him who appeared as the Episemon in regard to that number

And again:

But, he alleges, before the Episemon of this name appeared, that is Jesus the Son, mankind were involved in great ignorance and error. But when this name of six letters was manifested (the person bearing it clothing Himself in flesh, that He might come under the apprehension of man's senses, and having in Himself these six and twenty-four letters), then, becoming acquainted with Him, they ceased from their ignorance, and passed from death unto life, this name serving as their guide to the Father of truth.

There is a word episêmon, so that part works. But the only names for the sixth letter of the Greek alphabet I know are wau, later replaces by digamma. This letter is not used in most dialects after the 2nd c. B.C., though interestingly the SOUND of it (= English “w”) survived in some dialects but was NOT INDICATED BY ANY LETTER. After that time most forms of the Greek alphabet would go straight from epsilon [from Hebrew and Phoenician HE] to zêta [from Hebrew and Phoenician ZAYIN]).

The point is of course that the equation of the "Simon from above" with the "Episimon" or vav of Marcus is the most convincing explanation for why only the Church Fathers see a cult of "Jesus as the Simon" existing. Irenaeus accuses the Marcionites for following "Simon" but they deny their association.

It must all come down to the interest in the redemption (or repentance) of vav.

Boid writes:

Don’t read too much into the prefix epi-. It doesn’t mean up above, it means on. Very soon after this period the sound of êta changed to the sound of iota (“i”) but I can’t say offhand if it could nhave happened by the time of Simon. When the Greek Fathers were writing the sound shift had certainly occurred, and so the Simonians OF THEIR TIME might have taken advantage of the better play on words.

I’m staying up a bit longer doing some routine stuff if you’d like to reply.