Page 420

Page 420

Simon Xsgne Simon THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG has likewise been maintained that Simon Magus is to be identified with the heresiarch Simon of Gitta, who should, on this hypothesis, be dated in the early part of the second century, but for this theory there is not the slightest ground, especially in view of the testimony of Acts, Clement of Alexandria, and Jus tin. It is, on the other hand, not improbable that Simon Magus is to be identified with a Jewish ma, gician named Simon who acted as a go-between for the procurator Felix of Judea. This Simon is de scribed by Josephus (ant., XX., vii. 2) as a Cypriot, but this statement probably rests upon a confusion of the Cyprian capital, Cittium (Hebr. Kittim), with the obscure Samaritan village of Gitta (Hebr. Gittim). All evidence goes to prove that Simon was what his epithet Magus implies-a sorcerer. This was the motive for his association with the apostles in Sa maria, but while it would seem that he pretended to be, in the pagan sense, a god in human form (cf. Justin, Apol., i. 26), there is no indication that either Acts or Justin regarded him as a g. ASorcer-pseudo-Messiah; and even the apoa er Syncre- ryphal Acts and the pseudo-Clementine tized with literature characterize him as a false the Sun. Christ merely on the ground that he was the first-born of Satan (cf. Tgna tius, Epist. ad Trallenses, longer version, xi.). It is true that the heresiologists describe him as the su preme God and even as the Redeemer, but a careful study of the sources, particularly of the extant fragments of his " Great Announcement " (pre served by Hippolytus, Philosophumena, vi. 6 sqq.), shows that imon himself made no claim to Mes siahship,_this velug, at n u ed 16'hilnhy-fiis disc les. With this falls the them "thatlmon NTagzus was the, _folulder of_& nnivgraal_religionintended to rival Christianity~ fQUde~ and he was noteven-Ale fasectinhe-sensethat such heresiarchs as Mar cion_ were. The very fact that-Simon himself be ,c~Te the subject of Gnostic speculation shows_that he- was t_ e-founder of .Gnosticism, nor do the earlier sources so represent him; it was onl his f_o_llq3vers who made this claim for him. Hi~y, then, Simon was but A,, ~s~,p,,r.~c.~e?'er who asserted, that fie was a, go. on, aided by the high famTwiiich he enjoyed throughout Samaria (cf. Acts viii.), beached its culmination in his i_dentific 'LL with the -,mta sa-,fig ~,Jostrttr was united with that of ,thg_.,.92>3--g~iltlcALAawte" This is confirmed by Simon'_s._o9mpanion,. Helena, wtio is-unknown to Acts, the apocryphal Acts, the Alexandrine heresiologists, or the " Great Announce ment," but whose name (" Moon "), combined with the immoral past ascribed her and her Tyrian home, obviously points to the Tyrian moon-goddess with her licentious rites. How long this cult of Simon Magus, which had evidently arisen long before the time of Justin, persisted in Samaria and other re gions is unknown, but ;U the days of _Origen the " Simonians " we re__exceedingly _few~ in uuhilier_.m

Palestine and the neighboring countries (Contra Celsum, i. 57), and by the time of Epiphanius (Hwr., xxii. 2) they had become extinct, On the other hand, they had spread widely 4p the West before 200, and there In ' W

,tshe,c,'Cvg~cf. Hippolytus, Philosophumend, vi. 15). They seem to

420

have developed a sect essentially occult and libertine in character, worshiping Simon (cf. Irenaeus, Hcer., T. xxiii. 4), and finally giving rise to two systems, that of the " Great Announcement " and that described by the heresiologists who based their writings upon Justin.

The authenticity of the " Great Announcement " has been assailed both because of its similarity to other Gnostic systems recorded by Hippolytus and

on account of its divergence from 6. The Simon's teachings as described by other Twofold heresiologigts. Neither of these arguSimoniaa menu, however, is sufficient to prove System. the document spurious, especially in

view of the confirmation of Hippolytus by other heresiologista; and the true explanation of the divergencies between the Philosophumena. and Justin lies in the fact that there were two Simonian systems, one influenced by Alexandria and the other by Syria. The former influence is especially evident in the doctrine of the Godhead as " He that hath stood," which finds a close parallelism in the Philonian system, and is also perceptible in the purely allegorical method of Biblical exegesis adopted by the " Great Announcement " (cf. also the account in the pseudo-Clementine Homilies, ii. 22 sqq.). It is uncertain whether the " Great Announcement " was written in Alexandria, but at all events its citation of non-Samaritan prophets and of Proverbs shows that it was composed neither by Simon nor by any of his Samaritan followers. The account given by Justin and those who drew upon him, on the other hand, indicates that the second Simonian system was evolved in Syria, its elements being a syncretism of Babylonian mythology and Hellenistic allegory (for the latter cf. Irenaeus, Halr., L, xxiii. 4; Epiphanius, Ht>'r., xxi.). Both the Alexandrine and the Syrian form of Simonianism are unique in the history of Gnosticism in that they make a historic personage the supreme God, and, although destitute of any real Christian spirit, both show Christian influence, the Alexandrian " Great Announcement " using written Gospels and the Petrine and Pauline epistles, and the Syrian system comparing Helena with the lost sheep of Matt. xviii. 12 and Luke xv. 6. (Hells WAITZ.)

In St. Peter's in Rome in the west division of the left aisle is an oil painting on slate by Francesco Vanni, " The punishment of Simon Magus," representing Simon Magus's fall from the skies at the prayer of St. Peter.

BIHLIOURAPHY: As an indirect source may be taken into account the excerpts from the Apophasis in Hippolytus, Hcar., VI., vii.-xviii (Eng, transl. in ANF, v. 78-81), on which cf. H. Stahelin, in T U, vi (1891). The most of the sources are named in the text, but the principal ones may be summarized here for convenience: Acts viii. 5-24; Justin Martyr, I Apol., xxvi., Ivi., and Tr,;pho, cxx., both in ANF, vol. i.; Hegeaippus, in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., IV., xxii. 5, in NPNF, 2 ser., Vol. i.; Irenaus, Han, L, xxiii. l-4, in A NF, vol. i.; Clement of Alexandria. Strom., IL, xi. 52, VIL, xvii. 107-108, in ANF, vol. ii.; Origen, Contr. Celaum, i. 57, vi. 11, in ANF, vol: iv.; the Clementina; Eusebius, Hiat. eccl., IL, i. 12-15, in NPNF, 2 aer., vol. i.; Gregory Nazianzen. Oratio. xxiii. 18. xliv. Consult: F. C. Baur, in Tiibirger Zeitachrift fur Theologie, 1831, pp. 114-138; ·idem, Paulus, pp. 85 sqq.. 218 sqq., Tubingen, 1845; H. Simson, in ZHT, xi (1841), 15-79; A. Sehliemann, Die CZenaentinen, Hamburg, 1844; A. Hil-