cheenc03a.pdf

SIMON MAGUS
Mmander, and pupils of Xlenander 'are alive ever
now ' (ucv ; 4601. i. 264). rhnl is to say, about 152 a,".
Justin, it is true, says ilk the same chapter, and often,
that Simou came to Kome under the emperor Claudius
or, it ,nay be (as Kreyenbuhl thinks), under (Claudius,
Xero (see sruov PETER. 53,d): but Kreyenbilh
supposes him to draw thir from another source withoul
regard to chronology. In truth, the Simon of Act!
shoxvs very little if any or tlir attributes of a Gnostic
leader of a sect, aud we must be on our guard againsf
holding him fur such, on the ground, merely, thal
tradition names no other. If \re assume a Gnosth
Simon of Gitra at the beginning of the second century,
then r e do not need, as Krevenbllhi at the same
tivie does, to deny the historicity of the Samaritnn
mngician named Simon in first ;entury-a historicity
which the rcasons adduced bv , Lioiius -. make veiv , mob- .
able. If, further, re hesitate shout identifying the
Simaritan with the Cyprian Simon-an identification
which ha5 nothing in its favour except that the naalr
and the quaiity of magician is the rvme in both casesre
find ourselves in the end accepting three penon:
named Simon. The point, however, is difficult todecide.
if) It is certain, however, from all our premises, thnl
not only Peter, but alro the Samaritan Simon of the
apostolic age, never appeared in Rome. It is told ol
Simon merely because by his figure Paul is intended.
The only writer who represents Simon as appearing in
Rome without Peter-Justin-in view of his fiction
about the statue of Sinron ir not entitled to credence,
especially as his statement alro, and not merely that oi
a simultaneous appearance of Simon always with Peter,
is quite easily intelligible if it be taken arresting on the
romance of Sirnon=Paul (g ir r, f). Whether a
Grlortic of the second century named Simon appeared
in Kome remains an open question ; but it is not 01
decisive importance for our present investigation.
The acceptance of a Samaritan Simon in the first
century does not, howei'er, by any means, ips0 focfo.
Aets8y-2r: Carry with it the ad\nowledgement of
SMOn =Paul, the credibility of Actr8y-s4. The
features enumerated in a preceding
section (5 ic, dl, which are by no means appropriate
to a magician. find r satisfactory
only when
if is recogniserl that the apostle Paul underlies this figure
alro. (a) Only Paul, not a magician, could have had
the wish to be able to impart thegift of the Holy Spirit.
and thereby attain equality of rank with the original
apostles ; and Simon's so rapidconversion to Christianity
can apply only to Paul, the narrative already presuppoeing
him to be a Christian and interesting itself
solely in his desire to be able to inlpart the gift of the
Spirit. In the same direction point also the words of
Peter (821): 'thou hast neither part nor lot (xA+~os) in
the matter' : for nhripot (RV .portion.' RVms 'lot')
is in 1x1 (cp 1 si) used of the apostolate. the attainment
of which hy a nragician is barred from the outset.
(6) Equality of rank with the original apostles was
refused to Paul alro by their party (I Cor. 91 : 'if to
others I am not an apostle,' etc.), for which reason the
apostle himself claims it with the emphasis which we
see (9 r 11 z Cor. l r Gal. I I Rom. 1 r-6). Now, it is
not difficult to discern in Peter's orher e~piessions also
in Acts8zr~3, trac- of the poiemic which war being
carried on against Pxul.
'Thy heart i\ not rigkt bcfr,re Gal' (7.. 2,) has a clore
rimllrrtly lo the eipr?ss!on used in 18.0 in addiesing Bars
. : ~llthou not cease to pervert the .,>At
\vays of the Lord ?' l t the =me time ~OWEVFI thephrireology
recalls r1io Grl. 2 i4: 'they wrlbed 'nor
(06% bpBoro60iocv)
accordink to the truth of the gorpel: So P~U!
evprerrer himrclf in Anrioch aCainrr Peter and his fellows.
Thus perceive that ActrSg-2, is the counrerprrt ro the
setting down of Peter by pan1 at ~"ti~~h and we are to
understand 823. Far thir uerx doer nor hean. sr in AV RV,
'thou art in the gall ofbitrcrncii and in the bond of iniquirs.'
'In the 5o17d' might be intclligiblt. bur 'iii the gail'nor. Thus
C;? XDX~Y . . . 6pj re G V T ~ i the ramE familis Hebraism we
find in MC. 195: 'I reexha: rholl art bittergrllandaniniquitour
SIMON MAWS
bond.' Pzul must have reenled like 'hitter gall'on account of
his opparili"ll i" Peter in Astioch, and an 'iniquiiour rorlnillt'
m so far as he endeavoured to prcrmt peter from again
withdrawing from table-fellowship with ,he Gentile Christians.
Latly, Simon's repcnlance(S24) ha3 its parrllelr(ir.,according
. .-,.
to s 9, it3 foundation) in the Ziotniliir and Klcogniilons (above.
8 .A)
(c) But, did Paul really offer the original apostles
money in order to obtain from them a recognition of his
equalitywith them? Certainly not. But it was merely
the hnirhing touch to the discovery of the Simun
romance when Volkrnar (Tsd. %cot. Johrdb. 1856, pp.
179.286) perceived that Paul, according to Jewish-
Christian scandal, war held to have done so when he
carried the great collection to Jerusalem on the occa-
sion of his last journey thither (r Cor. 161.~ 2 Cor. 8 1:
Rom. 1525-28).
On this presupposition, let us now ark what judgment
we ought to form as to the literary nctiviry of fl~r
Tend enc). author of Acts
Of ACts8y -%*,
(=)If the Samaritan
Simon was not a historical peison, the
author of Acts invented him in order to
ray that not Paul but a Samaritan magician was the
Simon with regard to whom Jewish-Christian stories
told that he had wished to purchase eqwlity with the
apostles with money, and had been repulsed by Peter.
If, on the other hand, a Samaritan Simon really did
exist, then also the anthor of Acts can nevertheless have
made use of him simply as a means for attaining the
same purpose. In this event. the representation that
the affair had happened hefure Paul's conversion, nruit
be regarded as specially effective.
(6) In order not to be compelled to attribute thir to
the author of Actr, Lipsius in his latest treatment
(Agok~. A$.-Geeeh. ii. Is, f ) assumed not only thzt the
Samaritan Simon had actually existed, but also that he
had an encounter with Peter.
(c) L~PS&I fmrther propounds it ar a possibility that
this s~bsfifution for Paul of the Samaritan Simon
already lay before the author in one of the sources of
Acts. This source, accordingly, it was which followed
the tendency to divert from Paul the charge of bribery :
the author of Acts, however, failed to perceive this
tendency, but relater the story as rrfening to the
Samaritan Simon in all good faith in its trustworthinerr.
(d) Ry way of suppart of some such expedient, it had
already been urged before Lipsius that the magician
does not wear Pauline features ; or at least not exclusively
Pauline features, but also Gnostic ones.
. .