Simon Magus

Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament

1. The NT account. - Acts 8:9-24 gives the story of ‘a certain man, Simon by name,’ who ‘used sorcery, and amazed the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one (λέγων εἷναί τινα ἑαντὸν μέγαν): to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is that power of God which is called Great (ἡ δύναμις τοῦ θεοῦ ἡ καλουμένη μεγάλη).… But when they believed Philip preaching good tidings concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. And Simon also himself believed: and being baptized, he continued with Philip; and beholding signs and great miracles wrought, he was amazed.’ The news of the movement in Samaria brought Peter and John from Jerusalem, and through their prayers and the laying on of their hands, the believers received the Holy Spirit. Seeing this, Simon offered the apostles money, saying, ‘Give me also this power, that on whomscever I lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, Thy silver perish with thee, because thou hast thought to obtain the gift of God with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right before God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray the Lord if perhaps the thought of thy heart shall be forgiven thee. For I see that thou art in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity. And Simon answered and said, Pray ye for me to the Lord, that none of the things which ye have spoken come upon me.’

These verses tell all that is known definitely about this particular Simon. But in subsequent Christian literature the name became very prominent. A Simon Magus was described as an arch-heretic who was the antagonist of Simon Peter. Accounts of his teaching are given in heresiological works. An elaborate legend became current about his conflict with the Apostle. In modern times fresh importance has attached to this legend because the Tübingen school have tried to show that the oldest accounts are those in which Simon Magus is represented as a caricature of the apostle Paul, and the opponent of the apostle Peter. This has been used as a basis for their reconstruction of early Church history from the point of view that Peter and Paul were in conflict, and that the Acts of the Apostles was a conciliatory compromise. The question of the identity of this legendary Simon Magus-the disguised Paul-with the Simon of Acts 8 can be discussed best after some inquiry into the legend and into the references to Simon in Patristic literature.

2. The Simonian legend. -There are two chief sources of this legend. (a) The Clementine Homilies and Recognitions. These are two forms of an early Christian romance, the Homilies in Greek, the Recognitions in Latin. They relate the story of Clement’s search for truth until his reunion with the long-lost members of his family. According to the Homilies, in the course of his wanderings Clement met Peter at Caesarea in Palestine. The Apostle was to dispute next day with Simon of Gitta. The story of Simon is then related by two of his pupils: that his father’s name was Antonius, his mother’s Rachel; that he was a Samaritan of the village of Gitta, six miles from Samaria; that he was educated at Alexandria, and was skilled in the wisdom of the Greeks and in magic. Peter disputed with him for three days, after which Simon fled by night to Tyre. Peter followed him to Tyre and to Sidon and to Tripolis, whence Simon escaped to Syria. They met again in Laodicea, where the disputes were renewed. Simon managed to escape by changing the face of Faustus, Clement’s father, and making it like his own. This device, however, led to Faustus exposing Simon’s impostures. Meanwhile Simon reached Judaea .

In the Recognitions only one dispute is described-in Caesarea. But there is reference to a visit of Simon to Rome, where he is to be honoured with statues. It is probable that these versions are independent re-castings of a common original. The question in doubt is whether the original story told only of a conflict between Simon and Peter in Syria, or whether it related an earlier conflict in Syria and a later one in Rome.

(b) The legendary Acts of Peter and Paul. These tell the story of contests between Simon and Peter; but they place the scene in Rome. There are two forms of the story. (a) The Gnostic Acts (Actus Petri cum Simone) tell that after Paul left Rome, a stir arose in the city about a Simon who worked miracles and called himself the Great Power of God. He came to the city flying in smoke, and created a great sensation. Therefore Peter was bidden by Christ to go to Rome. The Apostle found Simon installed in the house of a Roman senator, and he attacked the Magian as a ravening wolf. When Simon refused him admittance, Peter sent a message by a dog, whose speech brought the traitor to the Apostle’s feet. By the aid of further miracles Peter silenced Simon till a public controversy was arranged before all Rome. Peter raised the dead, and exposed Simon’s attempts to work similar miracles. Simon then promised to fly to God. But in answer to Peter’s prayers he fell, broke his thigh, and was taken to Terracina, where he died.

(β) The Acta Petri et Pauli gives another form of the story. Paul is the companion of Peter in Rome. The success of their preaching made the Jews stir up Simon against Peter. He convinced Nero of his claims, and Peter and Paul were summoned to appear before the Emperor. After long discussion, Simon undertook to fly from a high tower. Paul was distressed, and prayed. But Peter adjured the angels of Satan not to help Simon, who fell to the ground and died.

The Apostolic Constitutions contains the whole story of a conflict in Syria and a conflict in Rome. Probably this is a piecing together of two stories, originally independent. It does not settle the question whether the Clementines and the Petrine Acts depend upon independent documents, as G. Salmon thinks (DCB[Note: CB Dict. of Christian Biography.], article‘Simon Magus’), or whether they severally elaborate two parts of one common history-an Ebionite Acts of Peter-which is Lipsius’ theory.

The substance of the story as it concerns Simon is that he travelled in Syria and as far as Rome, deceiving people by his magic and winning widespread adherence for his claims to Divine power; that he was opposed by Simon Peter, who exposed his deceit and brought to naught his efforts to impose on the people.

3. The Simonian system. -In addition to these legendary accounts of the contest between Simon Magus and Simon Peter, there are references to Simon in Patristic literature which give more trustworthy accounts of his life and teaching, (a) The earliest reference is in Justin Martyr’s Apology (i. 26, 56). He says: ‘After Christ’s ascension into heaven the devils put forward certain men who said that they themselves were gods; and they were not only not persecuted by you, but even deemed worthy of honours. There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitta, who in the reign of Claudius Caesar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him. He was considered a god, and as a god was honoured by you with a statue, which statue was erected on the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore this inscription, in the language of Rome: “Simoni Deo Sancto,” “To Simon the holy God.” And almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations, worship him, and acknowledge him as the first god; and a woman, Helena, who went about with him at that time, and had formerly been a prostitute, they say is the first idea generated by him. And a man, Menander, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparetaea, a disciple of Simon, and inspired by devils, we know to have deceived many while he was in Antioch by his magical art’ (26). In 56 is another reference: ‘But the evil spirits were not satisfied with saying, before Christ’s appearance, that those who were said to be sons or Jupiter were born of him; but after He had appeared and been born among men, and when they learned how He had been foretold by the prophets, and knew that He should be believed on and looked for by every nation, they again, as was said before, put forward other men, the Samaritans Simon and Menander, who did many mighty works by magic, and deceived many, and still keep them deceived. For even among yourselves, as we said before, Simon was in the royal city Rome in the reign of Claudius Caesar, and so greatly astonished the sacred senate and people of the Romans, that he was considered a god, and honoured, like the others whom you honour as gods, with a statue.’ (b) Later Patristic literature seems to gather its accounts of Simon’s teaching from some common ground-probably a lost treatise by Justin. Simon is said to have taught that he was the highest power-the Supreme God Himself, who descended to the lower world because its rulers ruled it all. He passed through its regions, appearing in every form necessary for the restoration of the lost harmony. Among Jews he manifested himself as the Son, in Samaria as the Father, and among other motions as the Holy Spirit. Helena (whom he had purchased in a brothel in Tyre) was his πρώτη ἔννοια, mother of all, by whom he had called the angels and archangels into being. She had been laid under bonds by her own children, but after many transmigrations had been rescued at last by the Supreme God-Simon-who came down to deliver her and to bring salvation to all men through the knowledge of himself. He liberated the world and those who were his from the rule of those who had made the world. Those who had hope in him and in Helena might freely do as they would, for men were saved according to his grace and not according to good works.

Such a system is obviously an amalgam of paganism and Christianity. It contains a good deal that is common to almost all the forms of Gnostic myths, and it borrows some of its ideas and not a little of its phraseology from Christianity.

4. The historical value of the story. -(a) One explanation of this tradition is that it is the legendary development of the story in Acts 8, under the influence of a continued conflict between Christianity and the Simonian Gnosis. The Tübingen school, however, explained it in a different way. According to Baur and his followers, the Ebionite Clementine literature contains a caricature of the apostle Paul. Instead of the Simon of the tradition being treated as a historical character, the name is to be interpreted as a term of reproach for Paul. Whenever Simon Magus is mentioned in ancient documents, Paul is meant. The contest between Simon Magus and Simon Peter really represents the conflict between Paul and Peter. So the Simon of Acts 8 was no real character but only a presentation of Paul. Thus, Peter’s refusal to give Simon Magus the power of the Holy Spirit is a covert account of the refusal of the elder Apostle to admit Paul’s claims to rank with them, backed though the claim was by a gift of money for the poor saints in Jerusalem. Starting from this standpoint, Baur’s school reconstructed the story of early Christianity with the conflict between Paul and Peter as the key. The Acts of the Apostles was interpreted as a compromise, a book written in a conciliatory interest but resting upon Jewish Christian myths only partly understood. The journeys of Peter and his visit to Rome are merely an ecclesiastical tradition reflecting the journeys of Paul, and expressing the belief of the Church that the great Apostle, who had withstood the Simon-Paul everywhere else, must have followed up his victory in the capital. This theory, ingeniously applied to Patristic and Clementine literature, and worked out with much skill, won many adherents for a time, despite the fact that it proved the presence of biased and fabricated history within primitive Christianity. But a reaction soon set in. In Encyclopaedia Britannica9 (xxii. 79) A. Harnack wrote, ‘On no other point are the proofs of the Tübingen school weaker than in this.’ In Encyclopaedia Britannica11 (xxv. 126) St. George Stock’s conclusion is, ‘The idea that Simon Magus is merely a distortion of St. Paul is absurd.’ It is not denied that the Clementine literature is marked by hostility to St. Paul. ‘The Clementine writings were produced in Rome, early in the third century, by members of the Elkesaite sect.… One of the characteristics of these heretics was hostility to Paul, whom they refused to recognize as an apostle’ (G. Salmon in Smith-Wace, DCB[Note: CB Dict. of Christian Biography.], London, 1877-87, iv. 687). But, though P. W. Schmiedel (in Encyclopaedia Biblica, article‘Simon Magus’) defends a modified position of the Tübingen school, most modern scholars would probably accept St. George Stock’s summing up in Encyclopaedia Britannica11: ‘In conclusion, there are of course some grounds for the Tübingen view, but they are wholly inadequate to bear the structure that has been raised upon them. St. Paul was a hard hitter, and Jewish Christians, who still clung to James and Peter as the only true pillars of the Church, are not likely to have cherished any love for his memory. This is enough to account for the hostility displayed against St. Paul in the Clementines. But to push the equation of St. Paul with Simon Magus further than we are forced to by the facts of the case is to lose sight of the real character of the Clementines as the counterblast of Jewish to Samaritan Gnosticism and to obscure the greatness of Simon of Gitta, who was really the father of all heresy.’ As F. H. Chase puts it in discussing Lipsius’ theory that the Simonian legend originated the story of Peter’s visit to Rome: ‘Lipsius’ theory is really an off-shoot of the Tübingen theory of the apostolic age. The main trunk is now seen to be lifeless. The branch cannot but share its decay’ (Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols)iii. 777b).[Note: Exp, 8th ser., v. [1913] 348 n.]

(b) If the Tübingen theory be recognized as ‘lifeless,’ there are three questions of importance bearing on the historical value of the Simonian legend.

(1) Is the Simon of the legends a historical person? Salmon’s answer may be accepted at once: ‘It cannot reasonably be doubted that Simon of Gitta is a historical personage. The heretical sect which claimed him for its founder was regarded by Justin Martyr as most formidable.… He speaks of it as predominant in Samaria, and not unknown elsewhere; that is to say, probably, he had met members of the sect at Rome. The existence of the sect is testified by Hegesippus and Clement of Alexandria’ (op. cit., p. 687 f.). There is nothing to throw doubt upon the definite statements of Justin Martyr about the Simon who is mentioned alongside of Menander and Marcion as the founder of a sect and the object of veneration.

There is less certainty about the details of his life. With regard to his birthplace-Gitta-Justin was a Samaritan and a good witness; and the statements of Hegesippus about his father and his mother, and his being trained at Alexandria, are quite possibly good tradition. Also the general ascription to him of magical powers probably reflects a claim he made. The persistent story of his journeys, coupled with the existence of Simonians outside Palestine, favours the view that he travelled, though considerable haziness hangs over the whole subject of his alleged visit to Rome.

(2) Is the Simon of Acts 8 a historical person? This question also may be answered unhesitatingly in the affirmative. ‘The Simon of the Acts is also a real person’ (Salmon, op. cit., p. 688). With the break-down of the Tübingen theory, and the re habilitation of Luke as a historian, all reasons for doubting the essential accuracy of the narrative in Acts have disappeared. That narrative relates to times of which Luke had no firsthand knowledge; therefore it may be coloured by later feeling. But Luke related it because it occurred, and because he had reasons for relating it. What those reasons were, and whether we know very much about Simon, can be discussed best when another question has been answered:

(3) Is Simon of Gitta the same as the Simon of Acts 8? This identity was generally assumed until Salmon questioned it in the article referred to above. He believes that Justin Martyr confused Simon of Gitta with Simon of Acts, and that the confusion has dominated all subsequent references to them. His chief argument is that the Simonian doctrine, being a variant of 2nd cent. Gnosticism, could not have been propounded by a Simon who lived in Samaria c.[Note: . circa, about.]a.d. 40. In support of his theory he adds: ‘If Simon had been really the inventor of the Gnostic myths, it is not credible that they should pass into so many systems which did not care to retain any memory of his name. On the other hand, if this mythology had been in Simon’s time already current, it is intelligible that he might make use of it in order to justify to his disciples his relations with a fallen woman.’ Salmon thinks that ‘the Simon described by Justin was not, as he supposed, the father of Gnosticism, but had found at the time of his teaching a Gnostic system already developed. It follows, then, that Justin’s Simon could not be identical with the contemporary of the Apostles; and the name Simon is so common a one, that the supposition of two Simons presents no difficulty.’ His conclusion is that ‘the Simon described by Justin was his elder only by a generation; that he was a Gnostic teacher who had gained some followers at Samaria; and that Justin rashly identified him with the magician told of in the Acts of the Apostles’ (ib., p. 683). This conclusion is supported generally by St. George Stock in Encyclopaedia Britannica11 (xxv. 126), who says that ‘Dr. George Salmon brought light into darkness by distinguishing between Simon of Gitta and the original Simon Magus.’ His conclusions are: ‘(1) That all we know of the original Simon Magus is contained in Acts; (2) that from very early times he has been confused with another Simon’; and he adds: ‘Before such an amalgam of paganism and Christianity could be propounded, it is evident that Christianity must have been for some little time before the world, and that the system cannot possibly be traced back to Simon Magus. Is it not this early struggle between Jewish and Samaritan universalism, involving as it did a struggle of religion against magic, that is really symbolized under the wild traditions of the contest between Peter and Simon?’ (ib., p. 127). ‘Justin Martyr was decidedly weak in history, and it is not unreasonable to suppose that he may have confused the Simon of Acts with a heretical leader of the same name who lived much nearer to his own time, especially as this other Simon also had a great reputation for magic. A full century must nave elapsed between the conversion of Simon Magus to Christianity and the earliest date possible … for the composition of Justin Martyr’s First Apology’ (circa, abouta.d. 152) (ib., p. 126). F. H. Chase also accepts this theory, saying, in reference to the Simonian legend, ‘the most probable account of its genesis is that it grew out of a mistaken identity’ (Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols)iii. 778).

(c) Before this modification of the view held so long as to the identification of the two Simons can be accepted, regard must be had to the following points.

(1) Are the references of Justin Martyr historically explicable on the theory that Simon of Gitta was a 2nd cent. Gnostic? Even if Justin was decidedly ‘weak in history’ (Stock), he must have acted ‘rashly,’ as Salmon allows (loc. cit.), if he identified two men who lived nearly a century apart, in a public Apology in defence of Christianity. His reference to a statue to Simon in Rome is generally regarded as a mistake, because in 1574 the base of a statue was dug up in the island in the Tiber to which he refers, with the inscription ‘Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio.’ It is supposed, therefore, that Justin mistook a statue dedicated to a Sabine deity for one erected to Simon. There is considerable force, however, in the plea of the editors of the ‘Ante-Nicene Christian Library’ that this is ‘very slight evidence on which to reject so precise a statement as Justin here makes; a statement which he would scarcely have hazarded in an apology addressed to Rome, where every person had the means of ascertaining its accuracy. If, as is supposed, he made a mistake, it must have been at once exposed, and other writers would not have so frequently repeated the story as they have done’ (Ante-Nicene Christian Library, ii. [1892] 29 n.[Note: . note.]).

It has also to be considered whether Justin could repeat (chs. 26 and 56) such a flagrant error as bringing Simon to Rome in the reign of Claudius and ascribing public honours to him, if the man Simon was not a generation older than himself, as Salmon’s theory suggests. Would such a tradition have grown up in the Roman community about a man who was almost their contemporary? And, if there was no tradition, was Justin likely to have made such a statement, even adding the plea, ‘As for the statue, if you please destroy it’ (56)? At any rate, would the story have been left unrefuted so that it could be accepted and repeated by later writers? If Simon of Gitta was a 2nd cent. Gnostic teacher, either he had not been in Rome, in which ease it is difficult to understand why Justin’s fallacious reference was not exposed, or he had been in Rome so recently as to make it difficult to understand why Justin pushed back the event for nearly a century.

(2) Further, it has to be noted that there is a real parallelism between the Simonian system and the slight account in Acts of the teaching of Simon Magus. The magical element is prominent in both. Simon in Samaria ‘used sorcery, and amazed the people,’ a trait very characteristic of the legendary Simon. Acts ( Acts 8:10-11) says Simon gave out ‘that himself was some great one: to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is that power of God which is called Great (ἡ δύναμις τοῦ θεοῦ ἡ καλουμένη μεγάλη).’ And Simon is said to have been specially struck with the ‘signs and great miracles’ wrought by Philip ( Acts 8:13). Now, in the Simonian system, Simon is said to have taught that he was the highest God, τὴν ὑπὲρ πάντα δύναμιν. He called himself ὁ ἑστώς, ὁ στάς, ὁ στησόμενος, implying his pre-existence and his immortality.

It would seem, therefore, that if the two Simons are different, the 3rd cent. Simon taught doctrines whose elements were taught by the earlier Simon; also that both were distinguished for sorcery and for magical powers.

The amalgam of paganism and Christianity which was characteristic of Gnosticism, and which was specially obvious in the Simonian system, is readily explicable in the teaching of Simon Magus, who, according to the story in Acts, was brought into intimate contact with Christian teaching without becoming a genuine believer.

(3) Is it not possible to find a mediating theory? First of all, we must think of the Simon of Acts as a convert whose conversion was sincere as far as it went, but was very superficial. He is not represented as resenting Peter’s rebuke. It abashed him, and made him penitent to the extent of asking humbly for the Apostle’s prayers. There is no contest between Simon and Peter in Acts. But is it not likely that, when Simon was brought face to face with the deeper meanings of Christianity, he failed to respond? Instead of advancing in Christian knowledge, he seceded from a community with which his connexion had been anomalous. This view is put forward also by W. M. Ramsay in Expositor, 8th ser., v. 348. Discussing the term ‘believe,’ he writes, ‘The example of Simon Magus seems conclusive. Simon believed ( Acts 8:13), and was baptized. Yet it is hard to suppose that he became in the final sense a Christian, although for the time he was a member of the Church. The language of Luke, on the whole, suggests the opposite. Simon, it is true, after baptism, “continued with Philip; and beholding signs and great wonders wrought, he was amazed” (ἐζίστατο). Yet no word is said to mitigate the final condemnation pronounced on him by Peter: “thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter; for thy heart is not right.” He is described, not as repenting, but only as asking in fear of the future that Peter should pray for him.

It seems beyond question that Luke knew the reputation which Simon acquired, and that he regarded the subsequent history of Simon as the natural result of what occurred at the beginning of his connexion with the Christians.’

But it need not be supposed that when Simon broke with the Christians he renounced all he had learned. It is more probable that he carried some of the Christian ideas with him and that he wove these into a system of his own. This system did contain some of the germs of later Gnosticism. Thus he became the leader of a retrograde sect, perhaps nominally Christian and certainly using some of the Christian terminology, but in reality anti-Christian and exalting Simon himself to the central position which Christianity was giving to Jesus Christ. The separation between Simon and the Christians would probably be widened by the departure of Philip soon after the apostles left Samaria. Philip had been the agent of the Christian movement, and it is not unlikely that on his withdrawal many Samaritans might easily fall again under the spell of Simon, especially if he were offering himself as a Christian leader.

Now if Simon was a pervert who originated an apostate sect-an anti-Christian sect, though a sect claiming Christian connexion-is it not comprehensible that two results happened? (a) Simon became the arch-heretic in the eyes of the Christians, and tradition was sure to be busy with his name. (b) The sect he founded became absorbed in later Gnosticism, but also contributed something to it. Gnosticism did not enter the 2nd cent, fully grown. A. C. Headlam (article‘Gnosticism’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols)ii. 188) remarks that ‘the developed Gnostic heresies of the 2nd cent, presuppose the NT,’ and that ‘the embryo Gnosticism of the NT takes its proper place in the history of religious development.’[Note: Vernon Bartlet, in Exp, 8th ser., v. 32, 33.]May not Simon have been one of the forerunners of Gnosticism; not, perhaps, its father, as tradition has supposed, but one source of some of its ramifications? A. C. McGiffert refers to this: ‘His effort to rival and surpass Jesus very likely began after his contact with the Christians which Luke records. His religious system was apparently a syncretism of Jewish and Oriental elements, and resembled very closely some forms of second century Gnosticism, if it did not indeed give rise to them’ (A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age, pp. 99-100). Without ascribing to Simon such prominence as is demanded by tradition, it is permissible to believe that he gave his name to a sect which became Gnostic but which retained a historical connexion with him, though its doctrines were modified largely in process of time.

In such circumstances we may find a historical basis for much of the Simonian tradition, whilst recognizing that tradition had been busy embellishing the story of Simon even long before the time of Justin Martyr. It may be assumed that he was born in the Samaritan village of Gitta; that he was a man of unusual attainments; that he received some training in Alexandrian philosophy; that he startled Samaria with his powers; that he was, for a time, nominally a Christian, but that he broke away from the Christian Church; that his knowledge of Christian truth was very shallow, and that he carried some Christian ideas over with him, but in confusion; and that his subsequent teaching was an amalgam of this crude Christian precipitate with Alexandrian speculation and with magic. It is probable that he travelled, preaching his new doctrines, practising his magical arts, and winning for himself and for his teaching something of the devotion with which he was regarded in Samaria. Whether he ever exhibited his skill in Rome, we have no means of determining; but at all events he was brought to Rome by popular legend and was represented as winning an extraordinary success in the imperial city. His disciples became a sect which bore his name and which persisted long after the death of the original members. Simon’s teaching contained some of the germs of 2nd cent. Gnosticism, which it may have done something to evolve and with which the Simonian sect became impregnated, though it still retained many of its early magico-Christian elements. Beyond this it seems impossible to go. What was actually taught by Simon cannot now be distinguished from what was taught by his followers. The story of Helena may be a Simonian doctrine rather than a fact. It cannot be said whether Simon Magus and Simon Peter ever met again after their encounter in Samaria; the record of their conflict is probably the romance which tradition has woven round the name of one who was known to have been a Christian once but was rebuked by Peter for his ignorance of Christian truth and who became subsequently an apostate.

(4) Coming back to the story in Acts 8, there seems no reason for doubting its essential accuracy (see 4 (b) (2)).

(i.) Luke’s account looks like history. There is no embellishment from the point of view of the Christian romancer. The story does not dilate upon the remarkable conversion, and it leaves Simon directly the purpose of the reference to him is fulfilled. The plain record is not embroidered; moreover, there is an almost tantalizing brevity, as in several of Luke’s stories, which belong to the history of the Christian Church and were not written to satisfy curiosity.

(ii.) This does not deny that the story may be coloured somewhat by being seen through the haze of a considerable interval. Luke was writing about events of which he knew nothing at first hand. Perhaps he had met the Simonian sect outside Palestine, and there may have been already some magnifying of Simon’s success in Samaria or some depreciation of his motives in Christian circles. At the same time, this ‘impressionist’ account of the incident would not justify such a criticism, e.g., as that of McGiffert: ‘Luke’s account of Simon’s dealings with the apostles can hardly be accurate in all the details, for it rests upon the assumption that the Holy Spirit was given by the laying on of the apostles’ hands’ (op. cit., p. 100 n.[Note: . note.]). All that the account suggests is that in this case the gift of the Holy Spirit was connected with the laying on of hands-a suggestion quite in harmony with the general tenor of Acts.

(iii.) Why did Luke insert the story? Salmon’s laconic comment is, ‘we need not ascribe to Luke any more recondite motive for relating the incident, than that he believed that it had occurred’ (op. cit., p. 688). This answers the charge that the incident is unhistorical. But it fails to take into account the modern estimate of Luke’s methods as a historian. Two motives may be suggested.

(a) Is not a sufficient reason Luke’s well-known plan of describing the first meeting between Christianity and rival systems? In  Acts 13:6-12 there is a careful account of the meeting between Paul the Christian and Elymas the sorcerer;  Acts 16:16-19 tells of the maid having the spirit of divination whom St. Paul delivered;  Acts 17:16-31 relates Paul’s first argument with the Stoic and Epicurean philosophers in Athens;  Acts 19:13-20 describes Paul’s success in conflict with the pagan dabblers in the black articleDoes not  Acts 8:9-24 tell the story of the earliest meeting between Christianity and a rival system? Simon Magus represented the magic of that time. When the gospel was brought to Samaria, thus making its first essay on non-Jewish soil, it was discovered to be mightier than the magic which exercised such a powerful influence over the contemporary world. It was a notable triumph for the young Christian faith that, on the first trial of strength with the world’s magic, the gospel not only lured the multitudes from the magician but even won the admiration of the magician himself, and at least his temporary adherence.

(b) If we may accept the existence in Luke’s time of a Simonian sect owing anything to this Simon Magus, would not another motive urge Luke to tell the story? Evidently the Simonian heresy always had a Christian tinge. This made it more dangerous to Christians than a gnosis which did not affect any Christian influence. Luke therefore would be anxious to disclose the true circumstances that accounted for the origin of the sect-circumstances highly discreditable to Simon. If the story in Acts tells exactly what happened, it was natural for the Church historian to relate it in order to guard Christians against Simonian errors, and to warn members of the sect against the mistake they were making in following such a leader as Simon instead of accepting the orthodox Christian faith.

It only remains to add that the influence of Simon Magus lingers in two directions. (1) The practice of presenting any person to an ecclesiastical benefice for money, gift, or reward is an offence against the law of the Church, known as ‘simony.’ An example of the offence occurs as early as the 3rd century. It was prohibited by many Councils, but it became well rooted in the mediaeval Church. Dante refers to it (Inferno, xix. 1).

(2) ‘Doctor Faustus’ of popular literature preserves several traits of the ancient magian. The story is reminiscent of the Simonian legend in several points. In Simon Magus himself there may be a suggestion of Mephistopheles.

Literature.-The three most complete articles on Simon Magus in English are in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols)(A. C. Headlam), in DCB[Note: CB Dict. of Christian Biography.](G. Salmon), in Encyclopaedia Britannica11 (St. George Stock). A. Harnack’s art[Note: rt article.]. in Encyclopaedia Britannica9 should also be consulted. See also F. H. Chase, article‘Peter (Simon)’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols), esp. pp. 773-775 for account of Gnostic Acts of the Clementine literature, and pp. 777-779 for discussion of Peter’s visit to Rome and the Simonian legend. P. W. Schmiedel, article‘Simon Magus’ in Encyclopaedia Biblica, gives the modern modified form of the Tübingen theory. There is a brief summing up of several of the questions involved in note on  Acts 8:9 by R. J. Knowling in Expositor’s Greek Testament, ‘Acts,’ London, 1900. J. B. Lightfoot discusses the Ebionite and anti-Pauline spirit of the Clementine literature in his essay on ‘St. Paul and the Three’ appended to St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians9, London, 1887, pp. 324-330; see also p. 61; W. M. Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the NT, London, 1915.

J. E. Roberts.

A Dictionary of Early Christian Biography

Simon (1) Magus, the subject of many legends and much speculation. It is important to discriminate carefully what is told of him by the different primary authorities.

The Simon of the Acts of the Apostles.—Behind all stories concerning Simon lies what is related Act_8:9-24 where we see Simon as a magician who exercised sorcery in Samaria with such success that the people universally accepted his claim to be "some great one," and accounted him "that power of God which is called great." We are further told that he was so impressed by the miracles wrought by Philip that he asked and obtained admission to Christian baptism; but that he subsequently betrayed the hollowness of his conversion by offering money to Peter to obtain the power of conferring the gift of the Holy Ghost. All subsequent accounts represent him as possessing magical power and coming personally into collision with Peter. The Acts say nothing as to his being a teacher of heretical doctrine; nor do they tell whether or not he broke off all connexion with the Christian society after his exposure by Peter.

The Simon of Justin Martyr .—When Justin Martyr wrote his Apology the Simonian sect appears to have been formidable, for he speaks four times of their founder Simon ( Apol. i. 26, 56; ii. 15; Dial. 20), and undoubtedly identified him with the Simon of Acts. He states that he was a Samaritan, born at a village called Gitta; he describes him as a formidable magician, who came to Rome in the days of Claudius Caesar and made such an impression by his magical powers that he was honoured as a god, a statue being erected to him on the Tiber, between the two bridges, bearing the inscription "Simoni deo Sancto." Now in 1574 there was dug up in the place indicated by Justin, viz. the island in the Tiber, a marble fragment, apparently the base of a statue, bearing the inscription, "Semoni Santo Deo Fidio," with the name of the dedicator (see Gruter, Inscrip. Antiq. i. p. 95, n. 5). The coincidence is too remarkable to admit of any satisfactory explanation other than that Justin imagined a statue really dedicated to a Sabine deity (Ovid. Fasti , vi. 214) to have been in honour of the heretic Simon.

Justin further states that almost all the Samaritans, and some even of other nations, worshipped Simon, and acknowledged him as "the first God" ("above all principality, power, and dominion," Dial. 120), and that they held that a woman named Helena, formerly a prostitute, who went about with him, was his "first conception" ( ἔννοια πρώτη ). In connexion with Simon, Justin speaks of another Samaritan heretic, MENANDER, and states that he (Justin) had published a treatise against heresies. When Irenaeus ( Haer. i. 23) deals with Simon and Menander, his coincidences with Justin are too numerous and striking to leave any doubt that he here uses the work of Justin as his authority, and we get the following additional particulars: Simon claimed to be himself the highest power, that is to say, the Father who is over all; he taught that he was the same who among the Jews appeared as Son, in Samaria descended as Father, in other nations had walked as the Holy Spirit. He was content to be called by whatever name men chose to assign to him. Helen was a prostitute whom he had redeemed at Tyre and led about with him, saying that she was the first conception of his mind, the mother of all, by whom he had in the beginning conceived the making of angels and archangels. Knowing thus his will, she had leaped away from him, descended to the lower regions, and generated angels and powers by whom this world was made. But this "Ennoea" was detained in these lower regions by her offspring, and not suffered to return to the Father of whom they were ignorant. In this account of Simon there is a large portion common to almost all forms of Gnostic myths, together with something special to this form. They have in common the place in the work of creation assigned to the female principle, the conception of the Deity; the ignorance of the rulers of this lower world with regard to the Supreme Power; the descent of the female ( Sophia ) into the lower regions, and her inability to return. Special to the Simonian tale is the identification of Simon himself with the Supreme, and of his consort Helena with the female principle, together with the doctrine of transmigration of souls, necessary to give these identifications a chance of acceptance, it not being credible that the male and female Supreme principles should first appear in the world at so late a stage in history.

It is possible that Justin's Simon was not identical with the contemporary of the Apostles, the name Simon being very common, and the Simon of the Acts being a century older than Justin. Moreover, Justin's Simon could hardly have carried his doctrine of transmigration of souls to the point of pretending that it was he himself who had appeared as Jesus of Nazareth, unless he had been born after our Lord's death. Hence it is the writer's opinion that the Simon described by Justin was his elder only by a generation; that he was a Gnostic teacher who had gained some followers at Samaria; and that Justin rashly identified him with the magician of the Acts of the Apostles.

The section on Simon in the Refutation of all Heresies , by Hippolytus, divides itself into two parts; the larger portion is founded on a work ascribed to Simon called the μεγάλη ἀπόφασις , which we do not hear of through any other source than Hippolytus. But towards the close of the art. on Simon there is a section which can be explained on the supposition that Hippolytus is drawing directly from the source used by Irenaeus, viz. the anti-heretical treatise of Justin. In connexion with this section must be considered the treatment of Simon in the lost earlier treatise of Hippolytus, which may be conjecturally gathered from the use made of it by Philaster and Epiphanius. Between these two there are verbal coincidences which prove that they are drawing from a common source. When this common matter is compared with the section in the Refutation , it is clear that Hippolytus was that source.

But one thing common to them was apparently not taken from Hippolytus. Both speak of the death of Simon, but apart from the section which contains the matter common to them and Hippolytus, and here they have no verbal coincidences. Both, however, know the story which became the received account of his death, viz. that to give the emperor a crowning proof of his magical skill he attempted to fly through the air, and, through the efficacy of the apostle's prayers, the demons who bore him were compelled to let him go, whereupon he perished miserably.

We may conclude that the story known to Philaster and Epiphanius, though earlier than the end of the 4th cent. when they wrote, is of later origin than the beginning of the 3rd cent. when Hippolytus wrote. That Hippolytus did not find his account of Simon's death in Justin may be concluded from the place it occupies in his narrative, where it is in a kind of appendix to what is borrowed from Justin; and also because this form of the story is unknown to all other writers.

The Simon of the Clementines .—The Clementines, like Justin, identify Simon of Gitta with the Simon of Acts; but there is every reason to believe that they were merely following Justin. Justin has evidently direct knowledge of the Simonians, and regards them as formidable heretics; but in the Clementines the doctrines which Justin gives as Simonian have no prominence; and the introduction of Simon is merely a literary contrivance to bring in the theological discussions in which the author is interested.

The Simon of 19th Cent. Criticism.—The Clementine writings were produced in Rome early in 3rd cent. by members of the Elkesaite sect one characteristic of which was hostility to Paul whom they refused to recognize as an apostle. Baur first drew attention to this characteristic in the Clementines and pointed out that in the disputations between Simon and Peter some of the claims Simon is represented as making (e.g. that of having seen our Lord though not in his lifetime yet subsequently in vision) were really the claims of Paul; and urged that Peter's refutation of Simon was in some places intended as a polemic against Paul. The passages are found only in the Clementine Homilies which may be regarded as one of the latest forms which these forgeries assumed. In the Clementine Recognitions there is abundance of anti-Paulism; but the idea does not appear to have occurred to the writer to dress up Paul under the mask of Simon. The idea started by Baur was pressed by his followers into the shape that wherever in ancient documents Simon Magus is mentioned Paul is meant. We are asked to believe that the Simon of Acts 8 was no real character but only a presentation of Paul. Simon claimed to be the power of God which is called Great; and Paul calls his gospel the power of God (Rom_1:16; 1Co_1:18) and claims that the power of Christ rested in himself (2Co_12:9) and that he lived by the power of God (13:4). In Acts 8 the power of bestowing the Holy Ghost which Philip does not appear to have exercised is clearly represented as the special prerogative of the apostles. When therefore Simon offered money for the power of conferring the Holy Ghost it was really to obtain the rank of apostle. We are therefore asked to detect here a covert account of the refusal of the elder apostles to admit Paul's claim to rank with them backed though it was by a gift of money for the poor saints in Jerusalem. Peter tells him that he has no lot in the matter i.e. no part in the lot of apostleship (see Act_1:17; Act_1:25); that he is still in the "gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity"—i.e. full of bitter hatred against Peter (Gal_2:11) and not observant of the Mosaic Law. We are not to be surprised that St. Luke Paulist though he was should assert in his history this libel on his master. He knew the story to be current among the Jewish disciples and wished to take the sting out of it by telling it in such a way as to represent Simon as a real person distinct from Paul. So having begun to speak of Paul in the beginning of c. viii. he interpolates the episode of Philip's adventures and does not return to speak of Paul until his reader's attention has been drawn off so as not to be likely to recognize Paul under the mask of Simon.

It is not necessary to spend much time in pulling to pieces speculations exhibiting so much ingenuity, but so wanting in common sense. If, by way of nickname, a public character is called by a name not his own, common sense tells us that that must be a name to which discreditable associations are already known to attach. If a revolutionary agitator is called Catiline, that is because the name of Catiline is already associated with reckless and treasonable designs. It would be silly to conclude from the modern use of the nickname that there never had been such a person as Catiline, and that the traditional story of him must be so interpreted as best to describe the modern character. Further, while obscure 3rd-cent. heretics, fearing the odium of assailing directly one held in veneration through the rest of the Christian world, might resort to disguise, Paul's opponents, in his lifetime, had no temptation to resort to oblique attacks: they could say what they pleased against Paul of Tarsus without needing to risk being unintelligible by speaking of Simon of Gitta.

Lipsius, whose account of his predecessors' speculations we have abridged from his art. "Simon," in Schenkel's Bibel-Lexikon, exercises his own ingenuity in dealing with the legendary history of Simon. The ingenuity which discovers Paul in the Simon of the Acts has, of course, a much easier task in finding him in the Simon of the legends. But since the history, as it has come down to us, leaves much to be desired as an intentional libel on Paul, we must modify the legends so as best to adapt them to this object, and must then believe we have thus recovered the original form of the legend. Thus, the Homilies represent the final disputation between Peter and Simon to have occurred at Laodicea; but we must believe that the original form laid it at Antioch, where took place the collision between Peter and Paul (Galatians 2 ). The Clementines represent Simon as going voluntarily to Rome; but the original must surely have represented him as taken there as a prisoner by the Roman authorities, and so on. It is needless to examine minutely speculations vitiated by such methods of investigation. The chronological order is—the historical personage comes first; then legends arise about him; then the use made of his name. The proper order of investigation is, therefore, first to ascertain what is historical about Simon before discussing his legends. Now, it cannot reasonably be doubted that Simon of Gitta is an historical personage. The heretical sect which claimed him for its founder was regarded by Justin Martyr as most formidable; he speaks of it as predominant in Samaria and not unknown elsewhere; probably he had met members of it at Rome. Its existence is testified by Hegesippus (Eus. iv. 22); Celsus (Orig. adv. Cels. v. 62), who states that some of them were called Heleniani; and Clement of Alexandria ( Strom. vii. 17), who states that one branch was called Eutychitae. It had become almost extinct in Origen's time, who doubts ( adv. Cels. i. 57) whether there were then 30 Simonians in the world; but we need not doubt its existence in Justin's time, nor the fact that it claimed Simon of Gitta as its founder. Writings in his name were in circulation, teste the Clementine Recognitions, and Epiphanius as confirming Hippolytus. The Simon of Acts is also a real person. If we read Acts 8 , which relates, the preaching of Philip, in connexion with c. xxi., which tells of several days spent by Luke in Philip's house, we have the simple explanation of the insertion of the former chapter, that Luke gladly included in his history a narrative of the early preaching of the gospel communicated by an eye-witness. We need not ascribe to Luke any more recondite motive for relating the incident than that he believed it had occurred. There is no evidence that this Samaritan magician had obtained elsewhere any great notoriety; and there is every reason to think that all later writers derive their knowledge from the Acts of the Apostles. We have already said that we believe Justin mistaken in identifying Simon of the Acts with Simon of Gitta, whom we take to have been a 2nd-cent. Gnostic teacher; but this identification is followed in the Clementines. In any case, we see that the whole manufacture of the latter story is later than Simon of Gitta, if not, as we believe, later than Justin Martyr. The anti-Paulists, therefore, who dressed Paul in the disguise of Simon, are more than a century later than any opponents Paul had in his lifetime, who, if they wished to fix a nickname on the apostle, were not likely to go to the Acts of the Apostles to look for one.

[G.S.]

Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible

Simon Magus . Mentioned in   Acts 8:9-24 , and described as using sorcery in Samaria and thereby amazing the people. He claimed to be ‘some great one,’ and was regarded by all as ‘that power of God which is called Great.’ When Philip reached Samaria, and, preaching the gospel, gathered many into the Church, Simon also fell under the influence of his message. We are told that he ‘believed,’ which cannot mean less than that he recognized that the Evangelist exerted, in the name of Jesus Christ, powers the reality of which he could not deny, and the efficacy of which ‘amazed’ him. He therefore sought baptism, and, being baptized, continued with Philip. The Apostles Peter and John came down to Samaria to establish the work begun by Philip, and by the laying on of their hands gave the Holy Ghost to the converts. This was no doubt evidenced by the miraculous gifts which were vouchsafed by God to His Church during its early years. The shallowness of Simon’s belief was now shown, for he offered to buy from the Apostles the power of conferring the Holy Ghost. Peter rebuked him in language of such sternness as to lead him to beg of the Apostle to pray that the judgment of God might not fall upon him for his sin.

Simon holds the unenviable position of being the one outstanding heretic in the NT: and from then until now his character has been held in particular odium. Ignatius, the earliest of the Fathers, calls him ‘the firstborn of Satan’: Irenæus marks him out as the first of all heretics: and later centuries have shown their sense of the greatness of his sin by using the word simony to indicate the crime of procuring a spiritual office by purchase. Justin Martyr mentions three times in his Apology , and once in his Dialogue , a Simon as a leader of an heretical sect. He states that Gitta, a village in Samaria, was his birthplace, and speaks of him as visiting Rome, and being so successful in his magical impostures as to have secured worship for himself as God, and to have been honoured with a statue, which bore the inscription Simoni Deo Sancto (‘to Simon the Holy God’). He further mentions that ‘almost all the Samaritans, and even a few of other nations,’ worshipped him as ‘first God’ (cf.   Acts 8:10 ‘this man is that power of God which is called Great’). He also adds that Helena, a fallen woman who accompanied him, was ‘the first idea generated by him.’ Justin does not specifically identify this Simon with the Simon of the Acts, but there can be no reasonable doubt that he held them to be one and the same.

There was discovered in Rome in 1574 the base of a statue bearing the inscription ‘Semoni Sanco Deo fidio sacrum Sex. Pompejus … donum dedit.’ It is therefore generally assumed’ and no doubt correctly, that Justin, being shown by the Simonians at Rome this statue of the Sabine deity Semo Sancus, was led to believe erroneously that it had been erected in honour of Simon. But this error of his regarding what had occurred in Rome need not invalidate his statements regarding Simon himself in Samaria and the progress and tenets of his sect, for he himself was a Samaritan and thus cognizant of the facts. Irenæus deals more fully with Simon and his followers, though there is good reason for assuming that he is really indebted to a lost work of Justin for his information. He directly identifies him with the Simon of  Acts 8:1-40 , places him first in his list of heretics, and makes him the father of Gnosticism. From the account he gives of the doctrines of the Simonians, it is clear that by his time they had developed into a system of Gnosticism; but it is very doubtful whether he is right in making the Simon of the NT the first setter forth of Gnostic myths. The beginning of Gnosticism is very obscure, but we may be fairly certain that it had not arisen as early as the scenes described in   Acts 8:1-40 . The Simonian doctrines as given by Irenæus are therefore doubtless developments of the heretical teaching of Simon, which, even from the short account in the Acts, would seem to have lent itself readily to Gnostic accretions. As time went on many fanciful additions were made to his history, until in the 4th cent. the legend reached its completeness. Throughout these romances Simon is found travelling about from place to place in constant opposition to Peter, uttering calumnies against the Apostle; but being pursued by Peter he is ultimately vanquished and discredited. The earlier forms of the story lay the scene of the travels chiefly in Asia Minor, and describe the final conflict as taking place at Antioch. The later forms, however, make Rome, in the days of Nero, the ultimate goal of the journeyings. Here Simon is said to have met his death through his conflict with Peter or with Peter and Paul. By one tradition the magician, seeing his influence waning, desired his followers to bury him in a grave, promising to rise again the third day. They obeyed, and he perished, for, as Hippolytus adds,’ he was not the Christ.’ By another tradition Simon is depicted as deciding to give to the Emperor a crowning proof of his magical powers by attempting to fly off to God. He is reported to have flown for a certain distance over Rome, but, through Peter’s prayers, to have fallen and broken his leg, and to have been ultimately stoned to death by the populace. Another form of the tradition represented Paul as a companion of Peter in the contest, and as praying while Peter adjured the demons that supported Simon in his flight, in the name of God and of Jesus Christ, to uphold him no longer. Simon thereupon fell to the earth and perished.

Renewed interest in the history of Simon was aroused in modern times by Baur’s maintaining that in the Clementine literature, where the most developed form of the legend occurs, Simon is intended to represent not the actual Simon of the Acts, but rather Paul, whom he (Baur) conceived to have been fiercely opposed theologically to Peter. Full information on this theory may be found in Hastings’ DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] iv. 523f., where its unsoundness is shown. It may be said to be now generally rejected.

It should be added that Hippolytus ascribes a work entitled ‘The Great Revelation’ to Simon, and quotes largely from it; and that the sect of the Simonians did not long survive, for Origeo states that he did not believe that there were in his day thirty of them in existence.

Charles T. P. Grierson.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

mā´gus ( Σίμων , Sı́mōn , Greek form of Hebrew שׁמעון , shim‛ōn  ; Gesenius gives the meaning of the Hebrew word as "hearing with acceptance"; it is formed from the root שׁמע , shāma‛ , "to hear"):

1. Simon, a Magician

2. Simon and the Apostles

(1) Simon and Philip

(2) Simon and Peter John

3. The Magicians and the Gospel

4. Testimony of Early Christian Writers

5. Sources of Legendary History

6. Traditions of His Death

7. The Simoniani

8. Was Simon the Originator of Gnosticism?

1. Simon, a Magician:

The name or term "Magus" is not given to him in the New Testament, but is justly used to designate or particularize him on account of the incident recorded in  Acts 8:9-24 , for though the word "Magus" does not occur, yet in  Acts 8:9 the present participle mageúōn is used, and is translated, both in the King James Version and in the Revised Version (British and American), "used sorcery." Simon accordingly was a sorcerer, he "bewitched the people of Samaria" (the King James Version). In  Acts 8:11 it is also said that "of long time he had amazed" them "with his sorceries" ( magı́ais ). The claim, given out by himself, was that he "was some great one"; and this claim was acknowledged by the Samaritans, for previous to the introduction of the gospel into Samaria, "they all gave heed (to him), from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is that power of God which is called Great" ( Acts 8:10 ).

2. Simon and the Apostles:

(1) Simon and Philip:

It so happened, however, that Philip the deacon and evangelist went down from Jerusalem to Samaria, and "proclaimed unto them the Christ" ( Acts 8:5 ); and as the result of the proclamation of the gospel, many were gathered into the Christian church. Many miracles also were performed by Philip, sick persons cured, and demons cast out; and Simon fell under the influence of all these things, both of the preaching and of "the signs." So great was the impression now made upon Simon that he "believed" ( Acts 8:13 ). This means, at least, that he saw that Philip was able in the name of Jesus Christ to display powers greater than anything he himself was acquainted with: Philip's power was greater by far than Simon's. He therefore came forward as one of the new converts, and was baptized. After his baptism he continued with Philip. The signs which accompanied the introduction of the gospel into this city did not cease, and Simon seeing them "was amazed." The word denoting Simon's amazement at the "signs" wrought by Philip is the same as that used to express how the people of Samaria had been amazed at Simon's sorceries. It is an indication of the nature of the faith which he possessed in the gospel - wondering amazement at a new phenomenon not yet understood, not repentance or trust in Christ.

(2) Simon and Peter and John:

News having reached Jerusalem of the events which had occurred in Samaria, the apostles sent Peter and John to establish the work there. These two apostles prayed for the converts that they might receive the Holy Ghost, which they had not yet received. And when they had laid their hands upon the converts, the Spirit was given to them. At this early period in the history of the church the Holy Ghost was bestowed in a visible manner which showed itself in such miraculous gifts as are described in  Acts 2 . Simon saw what had taken place, and then, instead of joining the company of those who had truly repented and trusted Christ, he came forward with the same amazement as he had previously shown, and offered money to Peter and John, if they would impart to him the power of giving the Holy Spirit to others. Peter instantly rebuked this bold and ungodly request, and did so with such sterness as to cause Simon to ask that the judgment threatened by the apostle might not fall upon him.

Such is the unenviable history of Simon Magus, as it is recorded in the New Testament. Later centuries have shown their estimation of the heinousness of Simon's sin by employing his name to indicate the crime of buying or selling price a spiritual office for a price in money - "simony."

3. The Magicians and the Gospel:

It is not strange to find the gospel brought into direct conflict with magicians, for in the 1st and 2nd centuries there were a multitude of such persons who pretended to possess supernatural powers by which they endeavored to deceive men. They flattered the sinful inclinations of the human heart, and fell in with men's current ways of thinking, and required no self-renunciation at all. For these reasons the magicians found a ready belief on the part of many. The emperor Tiberius, in his later years, had a host of magicians in constant attendance upon him. Elymas, with whom Paul came in contact in Cyprus "was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man" ( Acts 13:7 the King James Version). Elymas was one of those magicians, and he endeavored to turn away the deputy from the faith. Luke expressly calls this man "magus", Elymas the magus (  Acts 13:6 ,  Acts 13:8 margin).

The influence of such persons presented an obstacle to the progress of the Christian faith, which had to force its way through the delusions with which these sorcerers had surrounded the hearts of those whom they deceived. When the gospel came in contact with these magicians and with their works, it was necessary that there should be striking facts, works of supernatural power strongly appealing to men's outward senses, in order to bring them out of the bewilderment and deception in which they were involved, and to make them able to receive the impression of spiritual truth. Such miracles were wrought both in Cyprus and in Samaria, the spheres of influence of the magicians Elymas and Simon. These divine works first arrested men's attention, and then dispelled the delusive influence of the sorcerers.

4. Testimony of Early Christian Writers:

(1) The history of Simon Magus does not close with what is narrated in the Acts, for the early Christian writers have much to say in regard to him.

Justin Martyr, himself a Samaritan, states that Simon Magus was a "Samaritan from the village called Gittōn ." Justin also relates that, in the time of Claudius Caesar, Simon was worshipped as a god at Rome on account of his magical powers, and that a statue had been erected to him, on the island in the river Tiber, with the inscription Simoni Deo Sancto , that is, "To Simon the sacred god." Curiously enough, in the year 1574, a stone which appears to have served as a pedestal of a statue, was dug up in the Tiber at the spot described by Justin; and on it were inscribed the words Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio Sacrum , that is, the stone then discovered was dedicated to the god Semo Sancus, the Sabine Hercules. This antiquarian find makes it probable that Jstin was mistaken in what he said about a statue having been erected in honor of Simon Magus. "It is incredible that the folly should ever be carried to such an extent as that a statue should be erected, and the senate should pass a decree enrolling Simon Magus among the deos Romanos " (Neander, Church History , II, 123). The inscription found in 1574 shows the source of the error into which Justin had fallen.

There are many stories told by some of the early Christian writers regarding Simon Magus, but they are full of legend and fable: some of them are improbable in the extreme and border on the impossible.

(2) Jerome, who professes to quote from writings of Simon, represents him as employing these words in reference to himself, "I am the Word of God, I am the Comforter, I am Almighty, I am all there is of God" (Mansel, The Gnostic Heresies , 82). Irenaeus (Mansel, ibid., 82) writes regarding him: "Simon, having purchased a certain woman named Helena, who had been a prostitute in the city of Tyre, carried her about with him, and said that she was the first conception of his mind, the mother of all things, by whom, in the beginning, he conceived the thought of making the angels and archangels; for that this conception proceeded forth from him, and knowing her father's wishes, she descended to the lower world, and produced the angels and powers; by whom also he said that this world was made. But after she had produced them, she was detained by them through envy, since they were unwilling to be considered the offspring of any other being; for he himself was entirely unknown by them; but his conception was detained by those powers and angels which were put forth from her, and suffered every insult from them that she might not return upward to her father; and this went so far that she was even confined within a human body, and for ages passed into other female bodies, as if from one vessel into another. He said also that she was that Helen, on whose account the Trojan war was fought ... and that after passing from one body to another, and constantly meeting with insult, at last she became a public prostitute, and that this was the lost sheep. On this account he himself came, that he might first of all reclaim her and free her from her chains, and then give salvation to men through the knowledge of himself. For since the angels ruled the world badly, because one of them desired the chief place, he had come down for the restoration of all things, and had descended, being changed in figure, and made like to principalities and powers and angels, so that he appeared among men as a man, and was thought to have suffered in Judea, though he did not suffer.... Furthermore he said that the prophets uttered their prophecies under the inspiration of those angels who framed the world; for which reason they who rest their hope on him and his Helena no longer cared for them, but as free men could act as they pleased, for that men are saved by his (i.e. Simon's) grace, and not according to their own just works, for that no acts were just by nature, but by accident, according to the rules established by the angels, who made the world, and who attempt by these precepts to bring men into bondage. For this reason he promised that the world should be released, and those who are his set at liberty from the government of those who made the world."

5. Sources of Legendary History:

The chief sources of the legendary history of Simon Magus are the collection of writings known as The Clementines (see Literature , Sub-Apostolic; Peter , First Epistle Of; Peter , Second Epistle Of ). What is there said of him is, that he studied at Alexandria, and that he had been, along with the heresiarch Dositheus, a disciple of John the Baptist. He became also a disciple of Dositheus, and afterward his successor. The Clementines comprise (1) The Homilies , (2) The Recognitions , and (3) The Epitome . These three are cognate works, and in part are identical. The date of The Homilies may be placed about 160 AD. The contents comprise a supposed letter from the apostle Peter to the apostle James, along with other matter. Then follow the homilies, of which there are twenty. These record the supposed travels of Clement, a Roman citizen. Clement meets with Barnabas and with Peter. Then there is narrated a discussion between Peter and Simon Magus. This disputation lasts for three days, Simon maintaining that there are two gods, and that the God of the Old Testament is an imperfect being. Simon Magus withdraws to Tyre and then to Sidon. Peter follows Simon from place to place, counteracting his sorceries, and instructing the people. At Laodicea a second disputation takes place between the apostle and Simon on the same subjects.

The Homilies are not a Christian protest against Gnosticism, but merely that of one Gnostic school or sect against another, the Ebionite against the Marcionite. The Deity of Christ is denied, and He is regarded as one of the Jewish prophets.

In the legends Simon is represented as constantly opposing Peter, who ultimately discredits and vanquishes him. These legends occur in more forms than one, the earlier form selecting Antioch as the place where Simon was discomfited by the apostle and where he also died, while the later tradition chooses Rome for these events.

6. Traditions of His Death:

One tradition tells how the magician ordered his followers to bury him in a grave, promising that if this were done, he would rise again on the third day. They did as he wished and buried him; but this was the end of him, for he did not rise again.

Simon is said to have met his death at Rome, after an encounter with the apostle Peter. During this his final controversy with the apostle, Simon had raised himself in the air by the help of evil spirits, and in answer to the prayer of Peter and Paul he was dashed to the ground and killed.

According to another form of this tradition, Simon proposed to give the Roman emperor a proof of his power by flying off to God. He succeeded, it is said, in flying for a certain distance over Rome, but in answer to the prayer of Peter he fell and broke one of his legs. This tradition accounts for his end by saying that the people stoned him to death.

7. The Simoniani:

The Simoniani, the Simonians or followers of Simon, were an eclectic sect, who seem, at one time, to have adopted tenets and opinions derived from paganism, at another, from Judaism and the beliefs of the Samaritans, and at another still, from Christianity. Sometimes they seem to have been ascetics; at others they are wild scoffers at moral law. They regarded Simon Magus as their Christ, or at least as a form of manifestation of the redeeming Christ, who had manifested Himself also in Jesus. The Simonians were one of the minor Gnostic sects and were carried far away both from the doctrine and from the ethical spirit of the Christian faith.

Origen denies that the followers of Simon were Christians in any sense. The words of Origen are, "It escapes the notice of Celsus that the Simonians do not in any way acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God, but they call Simon the Power of God." In the time of Origen the followers of Simon had dwindled in number to such a degree that he writes, "I do not think it possible to find that all the followers of Simon in the whole world are more than thirty: and perhaps I have said more than there really are" ( Contra Celsus , i. 57, quoted by Alford, Greek New Testament ,   Acts 8:9 ).

8. Was Simon the Originator of Gnosticism?:

Irenaeus also has much to say regarding Simon and his followers. He makes the legendary Simon identical with the magician of  Acts 8 , makes him also the first in the list which he gives of heretics, and also says that it was from him that Gnosticism sprang. The account which he gives of the Simonians shows that by the time when Irenaeus lived, their system had developed into Gnosticism; but this fact does not justify Irenaeus in the assertion that Simon of  Acts 8 is the originator of the Gnostic system. The early Christian writers took this view, and regarded Simon Magus as the founder of Gnosticism. Perhaps they were right, "but from the very little authentic information we possess, it is impossible to ascertain how far he was identified with their tenets" (Alford, New Testament , II, 86). In the midst of the various legends regarding Simon, it may be that there is a substratum of fact, of such a nature that future investigation and discovery will justify these early Christian writers in their judgment, and will show that Simon Magus is not to be overlooked as one of the sources from which Gnosticism sprang. The exact origin of Gnosticism is certainly difficult to trace, but there is little or no indication that it arose from the incidents narrated in   Acts 8 . It cannot be denied that a connection is possible, and may have existed between the two, that is between Simon Magus and some of the Gnostic heresies; but the facts of history show widespread tendencies at work, during and even before the Apostolic age, which amply account for the rise of Gnosticism. These are found e.g. in the Alexandrian philosophy, and in the tenets of the false teachers at Colosse and in other places. These philosophical and theosophical ideas commingled with the influences of Zoroastrianism from Persia, and of Buddhism from India, and these tendencies and influences, taken in conjunction, were the sources of the various heresies known by the name of Gnosticism. See Gnosticism .

The Nuttall Encyclopedia

A sorcerer, one who by his profession of magic aggrandised himself at the expense of the people of Samaria, and who, when he saw the miracles wrought by the Apostles, and St. Peter in particular, offered them money to confer the like power on himself; Peter's well-known answer was not without effect on him, but it was only temporary, for he afterwards appeared in Rome and continued to impose upon the people so as to persuade them to believe him as an incarnation of the Most High. Hence Simony, the sin of making gain by the buying or selling of spiritual privileges for one's material profit.