Encyclopaedia Biblica/Silver (Piece of)-Simon Magus

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Encyclopaedia Biblica
Thomas Kelly Cheyne and John Sutherland Black
Silver (Piece of)-Simon Magus
see Encyclopaedia Biblica for other articles, typographic issues, links to PDF copies, and public domain status

SILVER, PIECE OF[edit]

Upr-ypiA), Mt. 26:15. See STATER, ad fin.

SIMALCUE[edit]

(ciNMAAKOYH [AJ), 1 Macc. 11:39 AV. RV IMALCUE.

SIMEON[edit]

  • Where settled? ( i).
  • Gen. 34:49 (2).
  • Deut. 33 (3).
  • Judg. 1 (4).
  • 1 Ch. 4 (5).
  • Extra-biblical? (6).
  • Conclusion (7).
  • Name (8).
  • Genealogical lists (9).
  • Geographical lists (10).


Simeon (JWDS? ; CY/vxeoON [BAL] ; see below, 8} was the brother 3 of Levi and Dinah (Gen. 34:25, J ; cp 49:5). What genealogical scheme underlay this representation we do not know. 4 In the scheme followed by the final redactors Simeon had five full brothers ; how many sisters (Gen. 37:35, J ; 46:7, D) we are nowhere told.

1 The Hittites (1888), 95.

2 We do not add 1 K. 22:47 (see JEHOSHAPHAT).

3 On crtN in Gen. 49 see 8, i.

4 It is natural to suppose a genealogy that made Simeon, Levi, and Dinah the only children of their mother. We cannot assume this with confidence however. Simeon and Reuben form a pair in Gen. 48:5 (P), and Simeon is styled brother of Judah in Judg. 1:3 (J).

1. Where settled.[edit]

Moreover, Simeon the brother of Dinah figures as a tribe in the district of Shechem, whereas the Simeon whose cities are enumerated in the well-known lists (10) is there connected with the S. country and associated with Judah rather than Israel. 1 It has been customary to identify these two Simeons. It is not impossible, however, to hold that there were more Simeons than one (see below, 6). If, however, we identify them, are we to regard the two representations as variant theories, belonging to a time when the real life of the tribe had been forgotten ? Or may we suppose that they both contain reminiscences of history, that in fact Simeon lived, let us say, in the neighbourhood of Shechem and then removed to the S. ? There would be more chance of giving confident answers to these questions, if we knew whether the framers of our sources had actual knowledge of a Simeon tribe or Simeon families ; if, for example, we could point with confidence to sanctuaries which at least had been distinctively Simeonite, where therefore there might have been preserved a tradition of Simeon s having come S. from the highlands of central Palestine. It is, no doubt, natural to suppose that Beersheba was such a sanctuary. It may very well have been ; it was certainly famous, and, in particular, was at least at times in touch with northern Israel. The difficulty is to prove that it, or any other definite spot, was Simeonite. Simeon is never mentioned as a component part of the southern kingdom. 2

2. Gen 34:49.[edit]

Still, although we may not be able to point with confidence to any contemporary statement about Simeon in the literature accessible to us, the editors whose work has reached us may have had such evidence lying before them. 3

i. It must be remembered that the end of J's story of the Shechem exploit ascribed to the tribe has been lost. That may have told of Simeon's removal towards the south. From the fact that the redactor suppressed the passage we may plausibly conjecture that what it narrated was more or less of the nature of a catastrophe discreditable to 'Israel'. It may therefore have been historical, and may have come from a time when Simeon was still really a tribe. How a later writer would have told (and did tell) the story we can perhaps see from Gen. 35:5 : After the incident which forms the subject of chap. 34 the Israelites moved off leisurely, their god having interfered in their behalf so that there fell on the natives of the land an awe such as fell on the Greeks when Apollo brought the seemingly vanquished Hector back to the fight strong as ever (Il. 15:279+). So, a later writer thought, must it ever fare with Israel. The older story, however, told not of Israel, but of Simeon and Levi. 4 All that a later editor was willing to retain of it was the remonstrance of Jacob : you have brought a disaster (cn~Qi ) on us, in making us abominable to all the natives of the land ; as we are but a small company they will band them selves against us and defeat us, and we shall be destroyed.

ii. What the sequel of the older narrative was can probably be inferred from Gen. 49:5-7. Even there we are not told explicitly what happened; but there was a power to fulfil itself in the father's curse (cp BLESSING AND CURSING) : I will divide them in Jacob, And scatter them in Israel. What meaning the writer would put into these words is uncertain. Steuernagel thinks that Jacob is here a tribe name and that the verse means that Simeon was dispersed in the highlands of central Palestine (Einwanderung, 104), some, however, perhaps wandering southwards (ib. 15). As treating of the early fortunes of Shechem, the story of Gen. 34 is dealt with elsewhere (see EPHRAIM, 6, DINAH). Dinah was perhaps supposed to have disappeared completely (see DINAH, 6) ; what the real history of Levi was is a difficult question (see LEVI, LEVITES, GENEALOGIES, 7). It is with Simeon that we are here concerned.

1 Cheyne, however, suggests that the Shechem - story also dealt originally not with central Palestine, but with a district on the N. Arabian border, in or near the Negeb (cp MOSES, 18) ; SHECHEM, 2.

2 On Simeon's never being assigned to either kingdom cp Graf, Stamm Simeon, 19 ; also, on theories connecting him with the northern kingdom, ib. 33. For the Chronicler s notice see below, 5, iv.

3 On 1 Ch. 4:38-41 see below, 5.

4 There seems, however, to have been an independent story which did speak of 'Israel'. See Gen. 48:21-22 [E] (cp Gunkel in HK (2) ad loc.), and the legend in Jubilees 34:2-8 (cp Charles ad loc. and the literature cited by him).

3. Dt. 33.[edit]

That it was not always counted as a tribe appears to follow from its absence from Dt. 33 (blessing of Moses). 1

It has been questioned, however, whether the omission of Simeon in Dt. 33 is original.

Not only does LXX{AL} apply v. 6b to Simeon (xoti (ru/ueo>i [LXX{B} om. <r. [s]] eiTTta TroAus ei/ apifyioi), to whom the words, however they are to be taken (REUHKN, 4), are quite as applicable as to Reuben. It has been thought also (Graetz, Gesch. 2:1:486-487, Heilprin, Hist. Poet. Heb. 1:113-114; cp Halevy, /. As., 1897a, pp. 329-31) that 70. perhaps belonged to Simeon (there might be a play on the name in 'Hear' ). If these proposals were combined the Simeon saying 2 would read :

Let Simeon be a small company.
Hear, Yahwe, his voice,
And bring him in unto his people.

The case for such a text, however, is not strong (see Driver, ad loc.). 3

If the passage really mentioned Simeon in some such way it would seem to imply that Simeon had somehow come to be severed from 'his people'. That would be an interesting variant of the view of Simeon represented in the 'Jacob Blessing' (Gen. 49), where Simeon is not detached from his people but dispersed among them.

Moreover if Simeon is really mentioned in the Esarhaddon tablet to be discussed later (6, iii. ), a position of detachment for Simeon at a comparatively late period would be established by contemporary extra-biblical evidence. Gen. 49 (and 34) is, however, by no means the only biblical reference to movements on the part of Simeon.

4. Judg. 1[edit]

Of special interest are the references in Judg. 1 , as giving a theory, doubtless widely held, as to Simeon's arrival on the scene. There, as we have seen, Simeon's brother is Judah (vv. 3, 17). Israel, having agreed to a division of the land among the tribes, inquires of Yahwe who is to begin the attack. The answer being 'Judah', Judah asks Simeon to join in the expedition, promising to return the favour later. Simeon consents, and the two peoples advance against the Canaanites, defeating them signally at Bezek, if the text is sound (see BEZEK). Whether the tradition made Simeon and Judah then settle in the central highlands is not clear. 4 The meagreness of the account of Judah's campaign suggests that the old story of Judah's advent was lost or suppressed : we hear of Caleb's appropriation of Hebron, Othniel's of Debir, the Kenites of the district of Arad (Judg. 1:16 ; on the text see the comm. ), and Simeon's of Zephath-Hormah ; 5 but nowhere are we told where or how Judah settled. 6 It is difficult to think that this is accidental : the redactor would have told of Judah s southward progress if he could. Perhaps one reason why he could not was that, as Graf suggested (Stamm Simeon, 15), the district which ultimately bore the name of Judah was entered from the S. If Judah is primarily the name of the southern kingdom, which consisted of Kenites, Calebites, Jerahmeelites, Simeonites, and other southern elements, the settlement stories would naturally deal with the fortunes of its component parts'. 1 Even, however, if the other Judah elements entered from the S. , Simeon might first have lost a footing temporarily gained in Central Palestine. That might account for the Shimeon at Semuniyeh (right across Esdraelon from Ibzik) of Josh. 11:1, 12:20 if that is the true reading (see SHIMRUN, and below, 6, ii. ). On the other hand the story of the partnership of 'Judah' and Simeon may not rest on prehistoric relations so early as the settlement. It may reflect a later time.

It has been thought, for example (Wi. GI 2:201 n.), that underneath what now appears in 1 Ch. 4:24 as a mere list of names it is possible to detect a statement relating to a migration of Simeon southwards. According to this theory Simeonites were settled in the southern part of the territory out of which Saul carved an extensive Benjamite state (above, col. 2583, n. i), and rather than yield to him they moved south. That would be a likely thing to happen, especially if the Simeonites were not firmly settled. Of course such a movement would agree passably with the suggestion of Gen. 49 and the story in Gen. 34. Nor is there anything impossible about an origin such as Winckler proposes for the genealogical list. Still, the suggestion in question is perhaps hardly convincing enough (see below, 9, i.) to form the basis of a definite theory of the history of Simeon.

1 On its omission in Judg. 5 see below, note 4.

2 This theory thus suggests that the Judah saying is : 7* ii.

3 On the various proposals see further, Graf, Der Segen Moses, 24-26 (1857).

4 If so, are we to suppose that old tradition did not always distinguish between Judah and 'Levi'? (Gen. 34). Only in this connection can the absence of any reference to Simeon in Judg. 4 or Judg. 5 have any significance.

5 To infer from the Hormah exploit being elsewhere (Nu. 21:3 see HORMAH) given to 'Israel', that some assigned to Simeon in early times a position of great importance would be precarious.

6 Gen. 38 is somewhat different.

5. 1 Ch. 4.[edit]

To the same period was assigned by Dozy a movement, or movements, on the part of Simeon of which the Chronicler's account is still in the form of a narrative, although it contains a good many names. The passage (1 Ch. 4:38-43) contains several statements, the relation of which to one another is not clear, the text being more or less doubtful. 2

  • (a) According to 4:38-40 certain Simeonites pushed down to the district of Gedor or Gerar in search of pasture for their sheep.
  • (b) According to v. 41 these men went in the time of Hezekiah and smote 3 ._._. and the Meunim who were 'there' and

banned them and dwelt in their place.

  • (c) According to v. 42-43 some of them (500 with 4 leaders) went to Mt. Seir and smote those who were left of the fugitive Amalekites and settled there.

i. According to Benzinger these three statements are divergent accounts of the same thing (KHC, 17-18), all of them being later insertions into the Chronicler's work. A question more important than the date of their insertion is whence they were drawn. We must allow for the possibility that they come from a good source. Of coarse that need not imply the correctness of the reference to Hezekiah. 4 There is nothing in itself improbable in the Hezekiah date. The Meunim seem to be mentioned under Uzziah, also Arabs in Gur ( = Gerar? and Syi for Sjn? : Winckler, KAT (3) 143, n. i : 2 Ch. 26:7 ; cp MEUNIM, b}. A little later, under Manasseh, according to one interpretation of a passage in a cuneiform tablet, we find Simeon as a whole reckoned as belonging to Musri, not Judah (below, 6, iii. ).

ii. Dozy (De hraeliten te Mekka [1864], 56 [Germ. Trans. 50]), however, thinks that v. 31b shows that the events belong to the time of Saul, and in an extremely ingenious manner works out the following theory:-

When Saul's expedition was sent with orders to extirpate the Amalekites, the king was spared and brought back (1 S. 15:3, 15:9). In Yethrib-Medina it was told that when the disobedient army returned to Palestine they were exiled for their disobedience and returned to the Amalekite land 6 (60-61 [53-54]). The force sent would likely be Simeonite (the most southern tribe, 63 [56]). Afterwards, when David punished the Amalekites for their attack on Ziklag, 400 escaped (1 S. 30:17), to be destroyed later by 500 Simeonites who settled in Seir (1 Ch. 4:42-43 : p. 56-57 [50]). In Hezekiah's time an interest was felt in these Simeonite exiles (56 [49], 72 [64]) and Is. 21:11-12 is an invitation to them to come back (67-73 [60-65]). I" tlme they came to be called Ishmael (103-110 [93-99]) ; cp below, 8 iii.

Dozy's reason for assigning the Simeonite movement to the time of Saul does not seem cogent : v. 31b ('these were their cities unto the reign of David') is not the Chronicler's; it is a maiginal gloss which has intruded so as to sever 'and their villages' (v. 32) from the words to which the parallel Josh. 19 shows that they belong (so Be. ad loc.). Nor can Dozy s other combinations be accepted (for a sober criticism see Grafs review, ZDMG 19:330-351 [1865]).

iii. N. I. Weinstein (Zur Genesis der Agada, 2:91-156 [1901]), however, adopts most of Dozy's combinations, and adds others of his own.

He tries to show that the Minim of Talmudic literature are the Meunim of the OT, and they in their turn Dozy's wandering Simeonites, whose name he supposes later writers to have avoided on account of a reproach under which they lay, substituting Meunim or Minim. Much of this seems open to the same kind of criticism as Dozy s discussion.

iv. On the other hand, there seems no definite reason to urge in support of the view that the Chronicler's statements are a late invention (We. Prol. (5) 212 ; ET 213). Why should he invent such a story? Elsewhere the Chronicler seems to treat Simeon as belonging to northern Israel [but cp Crit. Bib. 16, on Is. 97-104] (2 Ch. 15:9 : Ephraim, Manasseh, Simeon; 34:6: Manasseh, Ephraim, Simeon, Naphtali). It would be a strong point in favour of an early source for the state ments in 1 Ch. 4:39-43 if it could be proved that Simeon was still a current name in S. Palestine in the seventh century B.C. (see 6, iii.).

1 In this connection we may note the absence of all mention of Judah from the Shechem story in Gen. 34:39. See above, section 4, n. 4.

2 For Cheyne's view of the text see MEUNIM, a.

3 On the text compare Winckler, MVG, 1898, pp. 48+

4 Dozy argues that it is only the writing down that is ascribed to Hezekiah's time (Israel, te Mekka, 56 [49]). Bertheau thinks the reference is intended to include the expedition. It is difficult to see how the person who inserted the notice could apply it to any other than the time of Hezekiah.

6 The Gedor of v. 39 is thus the jidar or sanctuary at Mekka (89 [80]), 'the valley' (of v. 39) is E. of Mekka (92-94 [83-84]), which received its name from the great fight ( "I2T H3O = Macoraba : 81 [72-73].

6. Extra-biblical references?[edit]

At this point, accordingly, we may conveniently turn to extra-biblical sources in search of references.

i. We may begin with the attempt to find such in Thotmes III's list of 119 places of Upper Rtnu.

No. 35 is Sha-m-'-n-' and no. 18 Sha-m-'-n-'-w (var. Sha-m-'-'-w), which looks like the plural of no. 35. We may grant the similarity of the names to Simeon (cp the spelling of Sha-ra-ha-na); but we cannot infer much. We cannot locate them. According to W. M. Muller, they, at least, were not in the S. as the list (he believes) does not include names in the S. of Judah. Cp also col. 3546, number 35, and notes 2 and 3. The conjecture, therefore, that Simeon (with Levi) was an early settler in Palestine (Hommel, AHT 268 ; Sayce, Early Heb. Trad. 392) remains a hypothesis.

ii. Nor are we much better off a century or more later in the Amarna correspondence.

There is a letter (KB 5, no. 2203) from Shamu-Addu, prince of a place called Sha-am-hu-na, which is phonetically = Simeon, and is definitely indicated as the name of a town (alu) ; but we cannot tell where it lay. Steuernagel inclines to identify it with the Symoon (^.v^oiav [symooon]) of LXX{B} in Josh. 11:1 (LXX{AFL} ^.o^ep<ai [someroon], MT pip:?, SHIMRON, i) mentioned with Achshaph, and Symoon (so Buhl, Pal. 215) with Semuniye {2} (see below, iii., a [i]). There is nothing to make the identity of Samhuna with one of the places mentioned in the Karnak list improbable (so also Meyer, Glossen, 73). If the identity be held probable, it would appear to stand in the way of connecting Simeon in any very definite manner with the Habiri as Steuernagel proposes to connect the Leah tribes generally.

iii. Unfortunately, none of the later Egyptian lists contains a name resembling Simeon. It might be surmised that the old towns, or at least their names, had died out. Sayce conjectures that Simeon preceded Judah in the occupation of S. Palestine, and had disappeared by the time of David (Early Heb. Trad. 392). There is a passage, however, in one of the fragments relating to the successful Egyptian expedition of Esarhaddon, which must be taken account of.

'From [country] Mu-sur, says Esarhaddpn, 'I marshalled my camp (karasju ad-ki-c), to Me-luh-ha I directed my march, 30

kasbii-kakkar from [city] Ap-ku which is in (or 'by') (pa-ti) [country] Sha-me-n[a] to [city] Ra-pi-hi to (a-na'i-te) 1 the Wady of Musur'.

1 Dozy (70 [63]), Gratz (Gesch. 2:1:485: a theory later abandoned) follow Aq. Sym. Theod. in inserting fugitives (Tli = cuyoi TaO [pheugontas] as subject to 'call'. On a supposed reference to Simeon in Mic. 1:15 (Movers, Unterstich. lib. d. Chron. 136; Hitzig, ad loc.) see Graf, Stamm Simeon, 32 ; on a supposed connection of Massa of Prov. 30:1, 31:1 (Hitzig, Spruche Sal. 310-311 and others) with Simeon, see ib. 34, and on other supposed references see Weinstein (as in 5 iii.).

2 Petrie, also, places Shamhuna in Galilee (Hist. Egypt, 2:317).

If this is really the text of the tablet it is the reading of Budge, Peiser, Craig, and (doubtfully) Rogers - it is important ; the district (mat) in which Ap-ku lies is not, as has been supposed, Samaria, but Sa-me-n[a], a name which might be an Assyrian representation of Simeon. 3 According to this, there was probably in the first half of the seventh century B. C. a district known to the Assyrians as j[j, ]Djr, apparently somewhere in Palestine. The next question is, Where ?

a. The district contained, or had on its border (pati), a town called Apku, which lay 30 kasbu-kakkar from Rapihi - Raphia = er-Refah. What the length of a kasbu-kakkar was is uncertain 4 (11.25 kilom. [ = 7 Eng. mi.]? or 5.25 kilom. [ = 3.5 mi.]). The average day's march in this inscription is 2 kasbu-kakkar.

  • (1) If the day's march was about 7 mi., 30 kasbu-kakkar from Rapihi would give the site of Apku as somewhere about 100 mi. from er-Refah - that is to say, about as far as, e.g., between Dothan and Jenin. It might then be a question whether Sa-me-n[a] is not perhaps a clerical error for Sa-me-ri-na. 'Aphek in Sharon' (cp APHEK, end) seems too far S. Fik, E. of the Sea of Galilee, with which Schrader identified Apku (KAT (2) 204) is some 135 mi. from er-Refah ; kal'at esh-Shema SE. of Tyre, with which sanda (MVG, 1902, p. 58 [2:74]) connects the district of Samen[a], identifying Apku with 'Aphek in Asher' of Josh. 19:30, is over 140mi. ; Semuniye (above, ii.), somewhat over 110mi.
  • (2) If the day s march was about 14 mi., 30 kasbu-kakkar from Rapihi would make Apku some 200 mi. from er-Refah that is to say farther than Berut. Afku (in B4 on map facing col. 3736 ; cp APHEK, 1) seems to be about 215 mi. from er-Refah.

1 Hommel, literally, 'to the borders of' (Aufsutze, 295).

2 In 3 R. 35 no. 4 obv., 1:11, the name is read [1870] Sa-me-ru. G. Smith (TSBA 3:457 [ 874]) does not quote the name, but (Assyr. Discov. 312 [1875]) renders it Samaria ; similarly in W. Boscawen's text (TSBA 4:93 [1875]),and Strassro. Alph. Verzeich, p. 533, no. 4238 : Sa-me-[ri-na], the reading followed by Schrader, (KAT (2) [1882]) and Delitzsch (Par. 286). Meanwhile Budge, however, Hist, of Esarhaddon [1880], 118, reads Sa-me-na (without query). This is rejected (emended?) explicitly by Tiele (BAG 350, n. i [1888]), and silently by Winckler (Unters. z. altar. Gesch. 98 : translit. text [1889]). Later, however, the original was examined by Peiser and J. A. Craig and declared to read Sa-me-na (MVG 3:1:8 [1898]) which is likewise the reading (shown shaded) of Rogers ('Two Esarhaddon Texts', in Haverford College Studies, no. 2, 1889). The present writer examined the tablet, and is convinced that the reading Samerina is quite impossible (so also Budge, and C. A. Thompson, in conversation). There are several possibilities ; but Samena seems most likely. See also 6 iii, a. (i).

3 On Ass. en = Heb. on (for an) see Delitzsch on 'Samaria' {Ass. Lesestucke, (4) 193-194). For disappearance of 'ayin at the beginning of a syllable, cp ibel from ibal = ib'al (Sj 3 11 ).

4 Cp Del. ?ar. 177-179, and C. H. W. Johns as in n. i, col. 4530, and the literature cited there and in Muss-Am. Dict. 414.

5 Since the above was written, E. A. W. Budge has given his reasons for rejecting the view of Winckler (Hist, of Egypt, 6 pp. 9-30). It can hardly be claimed, however, that they settle the question,

  • (1) The fragment (83, 1-18, 8:36) cited by Winckler as apparently mentioning Musri and Mi[sri] side by side must, indeed, be left out of the argument. It is broken off so close to the upright wedge of 'is' that it is illegitimate to argue as if the character were complete, and therefore 'is'. It might quite well be luh (KAT (3) 145, n. 3). Budge and King go further, and say that they can see clearly a trace of the head of a second upright wedge (the present writer, after examination of the tablet, is inclined to think that they may be right). The reading would then probably be Mi-lu[h-ha] as Winckler suggests (KAT (3) 145, n. 3: mi for me would be unusual [Wi.] : the reff. in the index to Bezold's Catalogue yield no parallel; still, in Khors. 103, Oppert and Menant [Journ. as. 6 ser. i, begin., 1863] give mi, though Botta, Mon., pl. 150. l. 9, gives the usual m[e], and Winckler's edition follows). Winckler's theory, however, by no means falls with the surrender of this reading. He never treated the tablet as the main justification of his theory (see Musri, etc., i).
  • (2) Budge's other arguments, however, seem open to criticism as inconclusive. In particular, the translation of ana keputi eli mat Musri (Kl. In. 34) by 'to the wardenship of the Marches of Egypt', although following time-honoured precedent, has never been justified. The phonetic value of NI.GAB when it means gate-guardian, as in 'Descent of Ishtar' passim, is pitu or mushelish (5 R. 136, 137); when its phonetic value is kepu (as a comparison of Rost, Plate 23:16 ki . . . ti with Plate 376, NI.GAB-u-ti, shows that it is in the Esarhaddon passage [cp what is said by C. H. W. Johns on the phonetic value of NI.GAB in his careful discussion of the kepu office in Assyrian Deeds and Documents, 2:84-88, which the present writer did not see till after this note was written]), it means governor. Schrader admitted twenty-four years ago that 'governor over Egypt' was impossible (KGF 265) ; only, he gave up 'governor' instead of giving up 'Egypt'. On kepu see also Johns, Doomsday Bk. 9.

b. The attempt to do justice to the Apku part of Esarhaddon's statement, however, raises a difficulty in what precedes.

(i) Esarhaddon seems to say that when he directed his march to Me-luh-ha he was in Musur and there marshalled his camp, starting from Apku. Now, Mu-sur is nowhere used of N. Palestine. It has been argued with great force, however, by Winckler (and by no Assyriologist disproved 5 ) that Musri is sometimes to be understood as referring to the neighbourhood of the Negeb of Judah.

Winckler, accordingly, conjectures that the Same[na] in question was in Musri, used in the sense just indicated, Apku being the Apheka of Josh. 15:53 , where it is assigned to Judah. The Joshua context suggests the neighbourhood of Hebron ; at all events, somewhere in the hill country of Judah. This theory would give us the most interesting and remarkable datum that, about a generation and a half after the fall of Samaria, the name Sim[eo]n was at least known as a geographical term denoting a district not far from Hebron, and the further datum that the Assyrians counted it to Musri. This would have some bearing on the theory which finds Simeon referred to in Dt. 33 (see above, 3) and explain the prayer for its return to Judah. Many interesting problems would thus assume a new aspect ; but the point most important for our present object would be the establishment of such a contemporary geographical use of the name Simeon as would virtually prove a real knowledge of a Simeonite people in S. Palestine, which would give us a valuable starting-point for dealing with the Hebrew Simeon legends.

There is, however, a difficulty in the way of identifying Esarhaddon's Apku with the Judahite Aphek of Josh. 15:53. Hebron is barely some 60 mi. from Raphia, which could equal 30 kasbu-kakkar only if the kasbu-kakkar were some 2 mi. If that is not tenable, the Hebron Apku theory could be maintained only by supposing that '30' (since there is no doubt about the reading) is a mistake of the Assyrian scribe or of the source from which he compiled. 1 Placing Apku in S. Palestine is, therefore, not beyond criticism.

(2) On the other hand, the difficulty of a N. Palestine site for Apku hardly seems to be quite as great as Winckler suggests.

It is no doubt natural to suppose that Esarhaddon was him self in Musur when he set out for Meluhha ; but ad-ki-e is not quite unambiguous.- Esarhaddon might then, from a N. Palestine Apku have ordered his army out of Musri and have marched himself to join it. Sa-me-na might in that case be connected, perhaps, with one of the places in Thotmes III.'s list mentioned above ( 6, i.) (so Shanda, [2:58, 2:74], n. ; cp above, 1-2).

There remains, however, against the N. Palestine theory, the difficulty emphasised by Winckler :

How came Esarhaddon's army to be in Musri so as to be called forth by Esarhaddon, unless that were, as Winckler suggests, simply the stage on the expedition reached at the point in the narrative ? And, if so, how was Esarhaddon not with the army?

1 Or by regarding kasbu-kakkar as not a technical measure but a general term : 'long journey' (cp C. H. W. Johns, Assyr. Deeds and Documents, 2:208).

2 The contexts in which it oftenest occurs give it the meaning of 'muster, marshall forces where one is' (e.g., in Taylor Cylinder, 5:23 : assemble your army [pu-uk-hir um-man-ka], muster your camp [di-ka-a karasha-ka]) ; but it need not imply presence ; cp 4 R. 48:12, 13a : 'Bel will call forth (i-da-kash-sum-ina) a foreign foe against him' (Del. Ass. HWB).

7. Conclusion.[edit]

We must thus, apparently, be content to leave the problem open for the present. Simeon may be mentioned in contemporary documents belonging to the sixteenth century, the fifteenth, or the seventh ; but we cannot be sure. The hope of securing a fixed starting-point for the story of Simeon in strictly contemporary evidence is for the present not fulfilled. Any day, however, new material may enable us to decide the question. Meanwhile, we must be content with possibilities.

When the character of the development which resulted eventually in the formation of the kingdom of Judah is fully considered, and the suggestions of affinity with Ishmaelite, Edomite, Kenite, etc. are allowed for, it is natural to conjecture that Simeon stands for one of the unsettled elements of the southern population fused more or less permanently into a state by David, especially when it is noted (cp Sayce, Early Hebrew History, 392) how many (5 out of 11) of the towns (1 S. 30:27-31) to which he is said to have 'sent gifts' appear in the list of Simeonite towns, for there does not seem to be between the lists any literary connection (below, 10). According to Land (De Gids, Oct. 1871, p. 21 ) Simeon was very possibly an Ishmaelite group that attached itself to Israel. 1 If we think that Beersheba was markedly Simeonite, interesting problems arise connected with such names as Abraham, Isaac, (cp Stade, GVI 1:155), Samuel's sons, David, Amos.

8. Name.[edit]

i. In all the statements we have referred to, the name has borne practically the same form. It appears to consist of the radical shm' with the nominal termination on=an. 2 What view of the name was taken in early times we cannot say. It is not necessary to suppose that the story of Leah's gratitude for the hearing of her supplications (Gen. 29:33) was a very early explanation. It is exactly parallel to the explanation of the cognate name Ishmael (Gen. 16:11, J).

The name Simeon has been connected by Hitzig (GVI 47), W. R. Smith (J. Phil., 1880, p. 80), Stade (GVI 1:152), Kerber (Die rel.-gesch. Bedeut. d. Heb. Eigenn. 71) with the Arabic sim' said to mean the offspring of the hyauna and the female wolf (Hommel, Saugethiere, 304), and Hall (SBOT, ad loc. and 114) proposes to read Gen. 49:5 : Simeon and Levi are ohim (for ahim : 'brothers' 3), in the sense of 'howling creatures', perhaps 'hyaenas'. Unfortunately, ohim occurs only in Is. 13:21 and its meaning is not known (Che. SBOT, 'jackals'; but Duhm, Marti, probably 'wild owls' ; cp Staerk, Studien, 2:18 [1899]). Smith supports his explanation by citing the Arabic tribal names Sim', 'a subdivision of the defenders' (the Medinites), 4 and Sam'an, 'a subdivision of Tamim', and compares such names as Zabyan (zaby, gazelle), Wa'lan (wa'l, ibex), Labwan (labwa, lioness), with which he classes such Hebrew names as Zibeon (ny^Si hyaena), Ephron (jnsi 1 , -\sy, gifr, calf of wild cow).

If Simeon is really mentioned by Esarhaddon's scribe as Sa-me-n[a] ( 6 iii. ), it would seem that the name was at that time, at least, sometimes pronounced Sam'an. On the other hand, there was, as we have seen, a place-name pronounced Shamhuna in the fourteenth century B. C. (above, 6 ii. ), and there is a contract tablet dated in the thirty-sixth year of Artaxerxes I. which mentions a man named Sha-ma-ah-u-na (Hilprecht, no. 45, l. 2), brother of Ia-hu-u-na-ta-nu (=Jehonathan). B Later, as a personal name, Simeon became common (see SIMEON ii., 1-6, and SIMON, 1-13 ; SIMON PETER, 1a, b cp, for Palmyrene inscriptions, Lidzbarski, Ephemeris, vol. i. , index (under f7iysc1 ).

ii. The name appears in regular gentilic form as Shim'oni, SIMEONITE ( jyaw : cp Reuben, Reubeni).

LXX, however, everywhere represents the gentilic by the noun form (trvfitiav [someioon] : in Nu. 25:14 '31CBn becomes in LXX riav cr. [toon s.] [AFL om. Toil [toon]]). It is possible, therefore, that the <ru/J.eiav [symeoon] of LXX{BNAQr} in Zech. 12:13 implies that Shimei, j;"r was known as an alterna tive form of the gentilic {6} (cp WRS, J. Phil. 996 [1880]), just as in Arabic there is the similar pair ending in -'i and -ani respectively (WRS, 80).

iii. Names containing the three radicals ynw [AHSh] are so common, especially in the neighbourhood of S. Palestine, that they would be enough in themselves to suggest the theory of dispersion underlying Gen. 49. In that theory there may be more than popular fancy. We cannot here profitably discuss W. R. Smith s view that 'the dispersion of the tribe Simeon is most easily understood on the principles of exogamy and female kinship' (J {hil. 996 [1880]). A historical connection of some kind, however, between at least some of the various cognate names seems extremely probable.

We find Shimei as Simeonite (1 Ch. 4:27), Levite (Ex. 6:17), Reubenite (1 Ch. 5:4) - all Leah tribes - Benjamite {1} (2 S. 10:11 etc. ; cp 1 K. 4:18), and in the family of David (2 S. 21:21 Kt.) as the name of the only brother mentioned in old sources (Bu. on 1 S. 16:9 in KHC); besides which we find cognate names like Eshtemoa, and Ishmael, 2 pronounced now in Egypt, Isma'in 3 (cp Bethel, Betin ; Reubel, Reuben). 4

Not only are the names Simeon and Ishmael cognate. There seem to be also in the genealogy of Ishmael points of contact with that of Simeon (see MIBSAM, MISHMA), to which we now pass.

1 Cp Dozy s view, above, 5 ii. (small type, end), and below 8 iii.

2 Cp Noldeke, ZDMG 15:806 [1861].

3 Gemini, according to Zimmern (ZA 7:162-163) and Stucken (MVG, 1902, p. 189).

4 He does not allude to Dozy's daring hypothesis referred to above (5).

5 The gentilic (amelu) Sha-ma-u-nu-ai occurs along with (amelu) Pu-ku-du-ai in a letter to 'the king' (K. 1248). What '[city] Sha-am-'-u-na (so, according to the text in Del. Lesestucke,(4) not [as in KB 2:106] Sa-am-u-na), son of Marduk-apil-iddina' in Sennacherib's Taylor Prism inscription (5:355) can mean it would be hard to say. Sha(?)-ma-'-gu-nu was the name of one of the sons of Bel-ikasha (ruler of the half-Aramaean tribe of the Gambulai) executed by Ashur-bani-pal. Samuna in Sa-mu-na- aplu-iddina (Johns, Doomsday Bk. 8:1:6 = K. 8179) and in Sa-mu-nu-ia-tu-ni (Ass. Deeds and Doc. 160 R. 11 = K. 279) is doubtless Kshmun (Doomsday Bk. 16).

6 The Shemaiah also of 1 Ch. 4:37 appears in LXX{B} as tru^tiav [symeoon].

9. Genealogical lists.[edit]

i. As in the case of Reuben, P's genealogy of Simeon occurs in Ex. 6:15 as well as in the usual passages. The list is as follows:-

Gen 46:10 = Ex. 6:15 Nu. 26:12 1 Ch. 4:24
5XlOi* [YSV'L] 5XlO [NSV'L] 5XlO]* [NSV'L]
l'O't [YSYN] l'O't [YSYN] l'O't [YSYN]
7i7Xt ['HR]
l']'t [YKYN] l']'t [YKYN] ]'7't [YRYB]
7i7yf [TsHR]] i77if [ZRH] i77if [ZRH]
5iXwi [VSh'VL] * 5iXw* [Sh'VL] 5iXw* [Sh'VL]

The Gen. = Ex. list seems to contain three names each appearing twice : 5XlOi [YSV'L] = SiNgf [Sh'VL], pa [YSYN] = p3 [YKYN], and inN ['HR] = inS- [TsHR]. Nu. changing one sibilant, gives mi [ZRH] for ini [TsHR], and drops its double (inx). 1 Ch. 4 further shows 3) [YRYB] for J 3" [YKYN].

Winckler thinks that we have here a case the converse of what is suggested elsewhere with regard to ISSACHAR ( 7): the Chronicler's list is, he thinks (GI 2:201, n. i), the corruption of a sentence telling that the b'ne Shim'on went southwards when Saul contested with the Zarhites. 5 On this suggestion see above ( 4, end).

If the list be taken for a real 'genealogy' it is difficult to choose between the variants (see the special articles).

Bertheau decides in favour of Jakin as against Jarib, but only for the (weak) reason that it occurs thrice. He thinks that the best known Simeonite clan was Shaul (Shaul's mother is known as a Canaanite and he alone has [three] sons, of whom Mishma in turn has three). It would seem that some popular story was current about this Shaul and his Canaanite mother. According to Jubilees 34:20 her name was Adibaa, and according to 44:13 she was a woman of Zephath, which, according to Judg. 1:17, was the city captured by Simeon and called Hormah. In Gen. Rab. 80 she is said to have been Dinah (cp Charles, Jubilees, 206).

ii. In the Chronicler s special genealogy (1 Ch. 4:25-26), which appears in MT thus-

Shaul
¦
r T + ¬
¦ ¦ ¦
Shallum Mibsam Mishma
¦
r T + ¬
¦ ¦ ¦
Hammuel Zaccur Shimei

the names, apart from the Ishmaelite Mibsam and Mishma and the Judahite Ham(m)uel, need not be old (cp Gray, HPN 236) : indeed LXX{B} omits Hammuel and Zaccur, and Shimei might be a duplicate of Mishma . Moreover, they all appear in LXX{BA} as descendants in progressive-generations of Shaul.

iii. Still more suspicious looking is the peculiar list in vv. 34-37. (On the number, thirteen, 1 of the names, some of which are supplied with genealogies, see below, 10, i.).

It maybe noted, however, in connection with Simeon s being a brother of Levi, that the names brought into prominence in the list - Shaul, Shimei, Ziza 2 (traced back five generations 3 ) - are known otherwise as Levitical names (cp GENEALOGIES i., 7 [v.]).


1 Note also Jamin and Saul as Simeonite names (1 Ch. 4:24).

2 Cp Graf, Der Stamm Simeon, 23, Ewald, GGA, 1864, p. 1274, and above, 5 ii. 7.

3 Indeed the note on the name in Gen. 16:11 (J) is .tin 1 yDP "] 3V SN. with jy as in the case of REUBEN ( 7 i.).

4 How cautious it is necessary to be in reasoning from similarity of names appears from the remarkable fact that Saul as well as Shimei is a Simeonite name, and that Samuel, who discovered Saul, is brought into relation with Beersheba, the most famous of the towns claimed for Simeon. Shemuel b. Ammihud is the name of the Simeonite representative in the partition of W. Palestine (Nu. 34:20).

5 nut? rnt 3"v inx pa* Vx in pycr 33% This might be made more plausible perhaps by reading 1C3, instead of tho strange 113, for icj of Sxiaj \ t> ut tne clause Vint? nil 3"V in* is not convincing.

6 Cp P's Simeonite census prince Shelumiel b. Zurishaddai (Nu. 1:6, 2:12, 7:36, 10:19), from whom Judith is said to be descended (Judith 8:1). Salu (K^D- but LXX{B} <raAjuu>r [salmoon], Hi- <raAu>/i [saloom]) was the father of the Simeonite Zimri who was slain with the Midianite woman, Nu. 25:14 (see 10, a, end). The other names assigned to Simeon are Shaphat b. Hori, the 'spy' (Nu. 13:5), and Shephatiah b. Maacah, the ruler ( Ch. 27:16).

10. Geographical lists.[edit]

a. The theory of the statistical writers evidently was that Simeon was gradually merged in Judah : the Simeonites first settled amongst the Judahites (Josh. 19:1, 19:9) and then, in the time of David (1 Ch. 4:31b - it is a marginal gloss to the whole list : see above, 5 ii) were lost in Judah. It would appear that there was a time when the Judah list in Josh. 16:21-32 lacked exactly those cities which in Josh. 19 are assigned to Simeon, for when they are omitted the total, twenty-nine (instead of thirty-six), is correct. The fact remains, however, that all the Simeonite cities are somewhere or other assigned to Judah. It has been noted that whereas we hear of the Negeb of Judah (1 S. 27:10), of Caleb (30:14), of the Kenite (27:10), of the K e rethi (30:14), of Jerahmeel (27 10), we nowhere hear of the Negeb of Simeon (Graf, Stamm Sim., 14). Whilst naturally no attempt is made to sketch a boundary line, it is clear that Simeon was supposed by the writer of Josh. 19:1-9 to be found in the SW. of Judah.

The slighting of Simeon 1 in the partition of W. Palestine has been connected (Weinstein, Gen. der Agada, 199) with the story of Zimri in Nu. 25:14 ; so also (Gen. rab. 99 ; Num. rab. 26 ; Rashi, and others) the fact that Simeon is the only tribe that falls in the second census (Nu. 2:11, 2:14) enormously (from 59,300 to 22,200) below its size in the first (Nu. 1:22-23). 2 It is difficult, however, to extract any more history out of the first story than out of the second.

b. The list of Simeonite cities appears in four forms, which are here shown side by side.

SIMEON|colspan="2"|JUDAH
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Josh. 1J:2-6 1 Ch. 4:28-31 Josh. 10:26-32 Neh. 11:26-29
i. i. i. i.
Beersheba Beersheba Shema Jeshua
sheba
Moladah Moladah Moladah Moladah
Hazar-gaddah Heshmon
Bethpalet Bethpalet Bethphelet
Hazar-shual Hazar-shual Hazar-shual Hazar-shual
Beersheba Beersheba
[Bizjothjah = its villages ] Balah Bilhah Baalah
lim
Azem Ezem Azem
Eltolad Tolad Eltolad
Bethuel Bethuel Chesil
Hormah Hormah Hormah
Ziklag Ziklag Ziklag Ziklag
Beth-marcaboth Beth-marcabot Madmannah Mekona
Hazar-susah Hazar-susi Sansannah
Beth-lebaoth Beth-birei Lebaoth its villages
Sharuhen Shaaraim Shilhim
ii. ii. Etam
Ain Rimmon Ain Rimmon Ain and Rimmou En-rimmon
ii.
Ether Ether
Tochen
Ashan Ashan Ashan

The names have been given in the forms under which they are discussed in the separate articles, where account is taken of the variants in LXX. It will suffice here to note that in list (1) LXX{B} inserts Oa\xa [thalcha] after Rimmon; in list (3) LXX{BA} omits Heshmon and LXX{A} identifies ASHAN (v. 42) with ASHNAH (v. 43). In list (4) LXX{L} follows MT; but LXX{BNA} omits all except Jeshua and Beersheba.

1. The main list (i. ) appears to consist of thirteen towns agreeing with the thirteen (1 Ch. 4:34-37) names (some with genealogies attached) of their inhabitants who afterwards migrated to Gerar (1 Ch. 4:39).

ii. The main list of towns is followed by a supplementary list (ii. ) of four (Ain Kimmon being a single place, and Tochen preserved only in 1 Ch. 4:32), agreeing with the four captains who migrated to Mt. Seir.

iii. Of the list of nine Judahite or Simeonite towns assigned to the priests (1 Ch. 6:57-59 [6:42-44] = Josh. 21:13-16) only ASHAN (q.v. ; in Joshua miswritten AIN) is ever called Simeonite.

H. W. H.

1 In the Chronicler's expanded version of the Hexateuch list (1 Ch. 4:24-26) it is necessary to include Simeon himself to make up the full thirteen.

2 In the form Zizah ; see ZINA.

3 Ending in LXX{B} with Simeon himself (a\<u.t<av [symeoon] for Shemaiah).

4 On the varying ethical judgment on the conduct of Simeon in Gen. 34 see Gunkel ad loc. and Charles BK. OF JUBILEES, on 30:2-6.

5 In the case of the other four Reuben (3000), Ephraim (8000), Naphtali (8000), Gad (1000) the fall is slight.


SIMEON[edit]

(fiypE> ; cy/we^N [BAL] ; see SIMEON i. , 8, i. , end), i. EV accurately SHIMEON, in the list of those with foreign wives (EZRA i., 5, end), Ezra 10:31 ( B N A Ze/ueaw).

2. Grandfather of MATTATHIAS (1 Macc. 2:1); see MACCABEES i. , 2.

3. A devout man of Jerusalem, mentioned in Lk.'s Gospel of the Infancy (Lk. 2:22-39). He was gifted with the 'holy spirit' - i.e. , the spirit of prophecy - and had learned by revelation that he should not die without having seen the Messiah. Having been supernaturally guided to the temple courts, he saw the child Jesus brought in by his parents, according to custom, on the completion of the period of the mother's purification. He then burst into an inspired song (vv. 29-32), known to us as the Nunc Dimittis (cp HYMNS, 3). He could now depart, like a relieved sentinel, and could transmit to others the happy tidings of the dawn of the Messianic day (see GOSPELS, 39). For Mary he added a special word of prophecy, pointing to the different results of the preaching of the Cross of Jesus, which would lead some to a new life, and others to anguish at his crucifixion (vv. 34-35). See further, J. Lightfoot on Lk. 2:25.

It is possible to regard Simeon as a poetic personification of that inner circle of Jewish believers which formed the true SERVANT OF THE LORD (q.v.). Long had it waited for the fulfilment of the prophecies of salvation, and now (i.e., when this 'Gospel of the Infancy' was written) its members were passing one by one into the company of believers in Jesus. Nor need we be startled to find an imperfect parallel to the story of Simeon in one of the legends which cluster round the birth of the Buddha (see Carpenter, The Synoptic Gospels^), 155).

4. RV, SYMEON (Lk. 3:30). See GENEALOGIES OF JESUS, 3.

5. RV, SYMEON, 'that was called Niger' (cy/V\ea)N 6 KaXovftevos Nfyep [o kaloumenos niger] [Ti. WH]), is mentioned along with Barnabas, Lucius, Manaen, and Saul, among the prophets and teachers in the primitive church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-2). See MINISTRY, 37. Niger was probably his Gentile name, whether chosen with any reference to his complexion we cannot tell ; the name was not uncommon (see Dict. Gr. and Rom. Biogr. and Mythol.}.

The list of the first preachers of the Gospel given by Epiphanius (Epiph. Opera, 1:337, ed. Dindorf) closes with the names Dappo/Sap [barnaban], /cal An-eAA.-rji> [kai apellen], Vovfyov [rouphon], Ni yepa KOUTOUS Aotjrov? T<av ej35ofi7]KOi Ta Svo [nigera kai tous loipous toon ebdemekonta duo].

6. RV, SYMEON (Acts 15:14). See SIMON PETER, 1.

SIMON[edit]

(c I MOON ; = 'snub-nosed' ? a Greek name [see SIMON PETER, l1a] of frequent occurrence among post-exilic Jews [p^D] ; cp JASON ; see SIMON PETER, 1b.

The persons who bear the name in LXX or NT are :

1. Simon Chosameus (CIMCON \OCAMe.OC [B] . . . XOCOMA.IOC [A]), 1 Esd. 9:32 = Ezra 10:31, SHIMEON [b. Harim].

2. Son of Mattathias surnamed THASSI (1 Macc. 2:3 ; Bcurffu [A], 0acr(T| [KVJ ; thasi [V] ; ^fiD X [Syr.] ; Jos. Ant. 12:6:1, 0am). See MACCABEES, i, 5.

3. Son of Onias, 'the great priest', whose praise is set forth in Ecclus. 50. It is doubtful whether Simon I. ('the Just') or Simon II. is alluded to ; cp ECCLESIASTICUS, 7 ; CANON, 36 ; ONIAS, $ 4-7.

4. A Benjamite, who, wishing to avenge himself upon Onias, informed Apollonius of the existence of huge sums of money in the temple treasury (2 Macc. 3-4). The account of the attempt of HELIODORUS (q.v.) to seize the treasure is well known. See APOLLONIUS, MENELAUS, ONIAS, 6. He is called the irpoardr^ rov Itpov [prostates ou hierou] (84) or temple overseer, and it was perhaps his duty to look after the daily supplies of the temple. Cp TEMPLE, 36.

5. Named in Mt. 13:55, Mk. 6:3, together with James, Joses, or Joseph, and Judas, as one of the brethren of Jesus. He is not mentioned elsewhere in the NT ; but it is not impossible that he is identical with the Simeon, son of Clopas the brother of Joseph, mentioned by Hegesippus as 'cousin german' (dve^ibs [anepsios]) of Jesus, who succeeded James in the bishopric of Jerusalem and suffered martyrdom in the reign of Trajan. See CLOPAS.

6. Surnamed the CANANAEAN, AV CANAANITE (6 Kavarcuoj : Mt. 10:4, Mk. 3:18), or the ZEALOT (6 Z^Xwr^s, Lk. 6:15 Acts 1:13) ; named as an apostle in all the four canonical lists (APOSTLE, i ). There is no doubt about the superiority of the reading Kavavaios [kananaios] to that of TR, Kavavirrj^ [kananites], though the latter has the support of X ; but although the writer of the Third Gospel and Acts took it as representing, and has translated it, 'Zealot' (see ZEALOTS), many modern critics (cp JUDAS, 9, 2) are inclined to take the word as a Greek modification of ;x:p or Kji?, meaning, 'a man of Canan', or Cana' (there were several Canas). Simon does not reappear in the NT history. In ecclesiastical tradition he is usually mentioned in conjunction with Judas of James ; and indeed in some western authorities in Mt. 10.) the epithet Zelotes is given to Judas not to Simon, Judas Zelotes taking the place of Thaddaeus. 'The addition of Zelotes is probably due to a punctuation of Lk.'s text which might not seem unnatural if no connection of sense were recog nised between Kavavcuos [kananaios] and fT/XorrrJs [zelotes]' (\VH). Simon the Zealot is frequently identified with the Simon (Simeon) of Clopas mentioned by Hegesippus (ap. Eus. HE 3:32) as a descendant of David who was alive in Jerusalem in the days of Trajan and suffered martyrdom under the consular Atticus ; but this identification is not made by Hegesippus or Eusebius themselves, and appears to be first met with in the Chronicon Paschale, Pseudo-Hippolytus, and Pseudo-Dorotheus, all of which call him Simon Judas.

Later ecclesiastical tradition varies as to the field of Simon's apostolic labours. One set of legends places his activity in Babylon or on the shores of the Black Sea. But, as Lipsius points out (Apokr.-Ap.-gesch. 3:142+), these representations have probably arisen from a confusion with Simon Peter who writes from 'Babylon' and addresses the Christians in 'Pontus'. Another set of legends, especially met with in late Greek writers, represents him as preaching in Egypt, Libya, Mauretania, and Britain ; but the same districts are also assigned by some traditions to Simon Peter. In the Western church the festival of Saints Simon and Judas is observed on Oct. 28. The Breviary lesson for the day has it that 'Simon Chananaeus qui et Zelotes, et Thaddaeus qui et Judas Jacobi appellatur in Evangelic, unius ex catholicis Epistolis scriptor' evangelised Egypt (Simon) and Mesopotamia (Jude) respectively, and afterwards went together into Persia and ended a successful ministry there in a glorious martyrdom.

7. Of CYRENE [q.v.] (Zf/iow Kvpnvaios [Ti. WH]), perhaps a Hellenistic Jew, who came from the country and was compelled to carry the cross for the crucifixion (Mt. 27:32, Mk. 15:21, Lk. 23:26). Afterwards he was reckoned among the seventy 'others' (apostles), Lk. 10:1, and he was said to have died on the cross birep Xpiffrov [hyper christou] - i.e. , for the sake of Christ. The Basilidian and perhaps also other Gnostics believed that he died in place of Jesus ; cp R. A. Lipsius, Apokr. Apostelgesch. 1:195-196, 1:204, 3:427. According to Mk. he was the father of ALEXANDER and RUFUS [qq.v. ]. W. H. Ryder (JDL 17:196-197, 1898) thinks that Simon's eldest son was Alexander, his second Rufus, his third Tertius, and his fourth Quartus all Christians living in or near Rome when Mark wrote. Living among Gentiles, Simon gave his sons Greek and Latin names. This Rufus has been conjectured by many to be the same as the Rufus of Rom. 16:13. E. P. Gould, St. Mark, 2897 (1896), remarks 'It is the height of foolish conjecture to identify this Rufus, the son of Simon of Cyrene, with the one in Rom. 16:13 : St. Mark will only indicate that the names Alexander and Rufus were known to the early church'. Deep indeed is our ignorance on such points.

W. C. v. M. (No. 7.)

8. 'The leper' of Bethany, in whose house the woman anointed Jesus with the contents of the alabaster cruse (Mt. 26:6, Mk. 14:3 ; cp MARY, 25). An incredible apocryphal story makes him the husband of Mary the sister of Martha ; cp LAZARUS. [The designation 'leper' has greatly exercised the critics. It is worth recalling, however, that the mother of JEROBOAM [q.v. i] is called in MT nyns. 'a leper' (1 K. 11:26), and that Naaman in the extant recast of an older story (2 K. 5:1) is represented as jni-p, 'a leper'. In both cases the original tradition stated that a Misrite was referred to. It is possible that the Simon referred to was said to have come (like 'that Egyptian' in Acts 21:38) from Egypt to Jerusalem, and that the original narrative (in Hebrew) called him nssn. Cp also 'Simon of Cyrene'. Chajes (Markus-studien [1899], p. 75) supposes an original Hebrew reading 1 uvn, 'the humble' - i.e. , 'pious' (as often in Talmud). 'One who had been a leper' is at any rate a miserable explanation. T. K. c.]

9. The Pharisee, in whose house the penitent woman anointed Jesus hands and feet ( Lk. 7:40). Cp GOSPELS, 10, and MARY, 25. Against the identification of this anointing with that of Mary of Bethany, just before the Passion, see Plummer (209). The theory is at any rate ancient, for, as Plummer remarks, Origen on Mt. 26:6 contends against it. It is also supported by Keim (Jesu von Nasara, 3:222), Holtzmann (HC (2), 273, (3) 346), and Scholten (Het Paulinisch Evangelie, 254). The last-named scholar is of opinion that 'the influence of Paulinism on the changed representation of Luke is unmistakeable', and that 'leper' in Mt. and Mk. was a symbolic phrase for Pharisee. Without committing ourselves to this, we may reasonably hold that here, as often in collections of traditions, a germ-idea received conflicting developments.

10. A tanner of Joppa with whom Peter lodged (Acts 9:43). The reference to his trade is significant ; the narrator suggests that Peter was losing his old prejudices. It is said that a wife could claim a divorce from a husband who became a tanner (Mishna, Kethuboth 7:10). Cp HANDICRAFT, 5 ; JOPPA (end).

11. The father of Judas Iscariot, Jn. 6:71, 13:2, 13:26.

12. For Simon Magus, see below (special article). On the Great Apophasis see GOSPELS, 91 (and references ).

13. For Simon Peter, see below (special article).

W. C. v. M. (No. 7. )

SIMON MAGUS[edit]

CONTENTS

  • Introductory : Acts 8:9-24 (1).
  • Extra-canonical data (2-3).
  • Simon = Paul (4-7).
  • Four distinct Simon-figures (8).
  • Anti-Pauline and Anti-Gnostic polemic ( 9-11).
  • Historical Simon-figures (12).
  • Conclusion on Acts 8:9-24 (13-14)
  • Literature ( 15).

1. In Acts.[edit]

Simon Magus is mentioned in the NT only in Acts 8:9-24.

(a) In Acts 8:5-8 we read that Philip the Evangelist preached the Christ in the city of Samaria, and wrought many miracles of healing. Next (vv. 9-13), we are told that Simon had previously to this bewitched the people by his magical arts, giving out that he was some great one, and being declared by them to be that power of God which is called Great. After that men and women had received baptism at the hands of Philip, Simon also did so, and continued with Philip, full of amazement at his miracles. Meanwhile (vv. 14-17), at the instance of the apostles in Jerusalem, Peter and John had come to Samaria, and through laying on of hands had obtained the Holy Ghost for those who had been baptised. Upon this, Simon (vv. 18-24) offered them money and desired the same power, but after a severe rebuke from Peter, finally besought the two apostles to pray for him, that the punishment they had threatened might be averted.

(b) This narrative contains much that is strange. That, instead of the city of Samaria (as in vv. 5:8-9) the country of Samaria should be named in v. 14, may be set down to a pardonable want of exactness. The designation of Simon as 'that power of God which is called Great' and his designation of himself as 'some great one' l are not intrinsically incompatible with his sorcery ; but it is very surprising that the sorcery is referred to twice (vv. 911) and that its second mention is preceded by the same word (irpoafixoi> [proseichon], 'gave heed') as had already been employed in v. 10.

This appears to indicate that the two explanations of his popularity come from two different sources. By the reference to his sorcery, he would, in that case, be characterised as a mere yorjs [goes] of the sort that was very abundant in those days ; 'that power of God which is called Great' would signify something much more exalted. Now, it is not easy to imagine that an editor would have introduced v. 11 if he had already found vv. 9-10 lying before him in his text. It is more probable that v. 10 was interpolated, and that in the process 'took heed' (TrpoaetXov [proseichon]) was borrowed from v. 11. The close of v. 9 (Simon's giving out that he was some great one) can in that case have belonged to the original text, for it is far from conveying necessarily anything nearly so high as 'the power of God which is called Great' ; but it is hard to believe that 'bewitching, and bringing the nation of Samaria into a maze' (fnayeviav KOL efio Tai/oui TO (Bros rrjs Sajuapeta?) also should come from the author of v. 11. Perhaps the original text had vv. 9-10a (down to 'great', /neyaAov [megalon]); the redactor beginning with 'saying', Aeyorres [legontes] (v. 10b), added the designation of Simon as the power of God that is called Great, and then thought it necessary to return in v. 11 to the idea of sorcery (from which attention had meanwhile been called away), and in doing so borrowed 'took heed' (-n-povelxov) from v. 10a and ee<rrajcli/<u [exestakenai] from v. 9 (ef undviuv [existanon]). This renewed mention of Simon's sorcery, however, was not indispensable ; v. 12 could quite as well have followed directly on v. 10. It would have been equally superfluous if it had been inserted by the redactor in v. 9 (faayevuv [mageuoon] to 2a/napei as [samareias]), had v. 11 belonged to the original text (in which case the whole of v. 10, on account of the Trpocrfl\ov [proseichon], would have to be attributed to the redactor). If there is reluctance to assign to any redactor the doubled mention of the sorcery, there remains only the alternative that a copyist who acted as independently and arbitrarily as the copyist of D (or a preliminary stage of D; see ACTS, 17, i) substituted at his own instance the other reference to the magical practices for that which he found before him ; that then, upon comparison of this transcription with an unaltered copy, the new form of the idea was written upon the margin, and then was taken by the next copyist for an integral portion of the text left put by his predecessor by an oversight, and was accordingly introduced into it at what seemed to be an appropriate place.


(c) The idea that only apostles (by laying on of hands) can procure the gift of the Holy Ghost is quite unhistorical (see MINISTRY, 346 ). From this, it would not at once follow, however, that it is a later insertion ; for the whole passage may be equally unhistorical.

At the same time it is, in fact, apparent, that vv. 14-18a introduce a representation which in the actual connection is surprising. According to v. 13, Simon has been only astonished at Philip's miracles : as for the bestowal of the Holy Ghost, he wishes to be able to do the same. In a sorcerer would it not have been more natural to desire to possess the miraculous power of Philip (cp SIMON PETER, 33d)? Among the scholars, therefore, who separate sources in Acts (see ACTS, 11), we find Van Manen, Feine, Clemen, Jungst supposing that in the source Simon did seek to purchase Philip's miraculous power with money. On this supposition it is simplest to regard the last word of v. 13 (ef lo-raro [existato], 'he was amazed') and vv. 14-18a (down to Tfvev^a [pneuma]) as interpolated. In this case, in the immediately following context, we must regard, at least, v. 10, the 'them' (aurois [autois]) instead of 'him' (air [autoo]) in v. 18, Peter in v. 20 and the plurals Sei/^re [deethete] and tJprJKaTe [eirekate] in v. 24 as adjustments caused by the interpolation.

1 Perhaps originally it ran merely as in 5:36 elvai nva eavrov 'that he was somebody' - and 'great' (ficyav) may have been merely an explanatory gloss to 'somebody' (riva [tina]) ; cp the neuter tivain [einai ti], 'to be somewhat', Gal. 2:6, 6:3.

(d) However plausible this separation may seem to be, it by no means completely solves the riddle of our passage. The problem still remains quite dark, how it was that the editor could ever have come to interpolate, at one and the same time, into a source which consistently represented Simon as a sorcerer (v. 9 or 11), and as wishing to possess still greater magical powers, two such foreign elements as the designation of Simon as the power of God that is called Great and the communication of the Holy Ghost through the apostles (vv. 10, 14-17). The two have not the slightest connection with each other. It might perhaps be suggested that the designation had been borrowed by the editor from a second source, and that the reference to the Holy Ghost was his own contribution ; but this would not furnish us with any intelligible motive for his proceeding. Yet it seems highly necessary that we should discover such a motive ; for a second surprising point which is not cleared up by separation of sources, and hardly can be, is the question how it could come to pass that a man to whom the whole people of Samaria gave heed, and showed high honour, should have been so easily converted to Christianity, and that as a sorcerer, he should so little resemble the Bar-jesus of 13:6-12 who quite naturally opposed the Christian missionaries so strenuously. Moreover, it is surprising that the story lias no close ; we are not told what in the end became of Simon. Here, once more, can it be seen how useless it is to carry out separation of sources merely on the ground of indications of broken connections, while not concerning oneself at all about the deeper questions relating to the composition of a piece, and about tendency criticism. The solution of the problem can be led up to only by widely extended investigations.

1 An-b Kiafifi ; Aeyoju.eVj? TiTTtav [apo koomes legomenes gittoon]. Thus Gitton would be a possible form of the name. YirTiav [gittopn], however, is certainly gen. pl., since Gitta is met with elsewhere also as the name of a town : in Josephus (rerra [gitta] or Terrav [getta], gen. rYrnjs [gittes] or Tirrwv [gittoon]; see, e.g., Ant. 6:13:10, 319-321) for the Philistian Gath, in Pliny (HN. 5:19:75 [5:17:75]) for a place on Carmel (Getta), and in the Philosophumena (6:7) we have 6 rirnji/os [o gittenos] (not rirrwcos [gittoonos]). For further details see Lipsius, Petrussage, 33, n. In all the editions of Justin known to the present writer, indeed, the word is accentuated TiTTtav [gittoon], and so also in Eus. HE 2:13;3 and Epiphanius, Haer. 21:1. In that case the nominative would be Ftrrai [gittai]; this, however, in view of the gen. rirrr;? [gittes] is quite unlikely. If both genitive forms are to be explicable, the nominatives must coincide. Cp rofioppa? [gomorras] (2 Pet. 2:6) alongside of Top-opptav [gomorroon] (Mt. 10:15), Auo-rpai/ [austran] (Acts l4:6, 14:21, 16:1) alongside of Avorpois [austrois] (14:8, 16:2, 2 Tim. 3:11), vareipav [thuateiran] (Rev. 1:11: so in Lachmann, and as an alternative reading in WH) alongside of Qvare ipoi? [thauteirois] (2:18, 2:24), and uareipaii [thuateiroon] (Acts 10:14), AvSSas [auddas] (Acts 9:38) alongside of the accus. \vSSa [audda] (9:32, 9:35). Similar variations are found in 1 Macc, in the cases of ASiSa [adida], Baifio-oupa [baithsoura], Ta^apa [gazara]. The word form 'ex vico Gethonum' (Clem. Recogn. 2:7) rests upon a misunderstanding.

2. In the Church Fathers.[edit]

Simon, to begin with, plays a great part in the writings of the Fathers.

(a) Justin (about 152 A.D.) cites him as an instance to prove that, even after the ascension of Jesus, the demons caused men to come forward who gave themselves out to be deities, and were actually worshipped as such. Such was a certain Samaritan named Simon, of the village of Gitta, 1 who performed feats of magic by demonic arts in Rome during the reign of Claudius, was held to be a god, and was honoured by Senate and people with a statue in the middle of the Tiber, between the two bridges, bearing the inscription in Latin : 'Simoni deo sancto', and almost all the Samaritans, as well as a few people elsewhere, worshipped him as 'the first god' (TOV irpCirov Oeov], 'the god above all rule and authority and power' (6ebv inrepavw TrdaTjs apxrjf leal e^ovffias nal 5vvd[j.ews), and declared a certain Helena, who had formerly lived in a house ot evil fame, and afterwards travelled about with him, to be the 'first thought' that had proceeded from him (wpuTij tvvoia. [proote ennoia]: see Apol. 1:26, 1:56, 2:15, Dial. 120).

(b] The base of the pillar referred to was dug up on the island in the Tiber, at the place indicated by Justin, in 1574 ; the inscription runs : 'Semoni Sanco deo fidio sacrum. Sex. Pompeius . . . donum dedit'. Thus, the pillar was dedicated to the Sabine god Semo Sancus (cp Ovid Fast. 6:213-218), and not by Senate and people, but by the piety of a private individual.

As Justin has gone so far astray here, Lipsius (BL 5318; Apokr. Ap.-gesch. 2:1:34-35) ventures to trace back also the alleged worship of Simon and Helena by 'almost all the Samaritans' to misunderstanding of certain sacred pillars or massebahs (see MASSEBAH), to wit those of Hercules-Melkart, the 'king of the city' of Tyre and the Tyrian moon-goddess Selene-Astarte, whose impure worship is alluded to in the reference to the house of evil fame (according to Iren. Haer. 1:16:2 [1:23:2] and according to the quotation of Justin, Apol. 1:26:3 in Eus. HE 2:134, it was in Tyre). In the pseudo-Clementine Recognitions Helena is actually called Luna, that is to say, Selene (2eArj>>T) [selene]), and according to the Homilies (2:23) she was among the companions of John the Baptist (of whom Simon was the first) the only woman - thus only 'half man' (ij^uwv ai6po? [hemisu andros]), to indicate that these 30 companions really represent the number of days in a lunar month, which are not 30 complete days but only 29.5.

(c) What we read about the 'first god' (Trpwros 0e6j) and his 'first thought' (irpdjT-rj ZWOLO.} is taken from the Gnostic system which is attributed to Simon. We may suppose Justin to have given full information as to this in the work cited by himself in Apol. i. 268, but now lost, entitled ffuvTayfjia. Kara TraffHiv aipecrecoc [syntagma kata pasoon aireseoon], which was used by later heresiologists from Irenaeus (Haer. 1:16 [1:23]) and the author of the Philosophumena (6:7-20) downwards. Harnack (Lehrb. d. DG (2) 1:206-208) finds in Simon a new 'universal religion of the supreme God', Lipsius nothing more than the ordinary Gnosis which had become widely diffused in Syria from about the time of Trajan, and is known to us mainly through the Ophites, with this difference alone that here Simon takes the place of Jesus as the Redeemer. According to Kreyenbiihl (Evang. d. Wahrheit, 1, 1900, pp. 174-264) Simon was not a founder of a religion, but the first genuine philosopher of religion, to whom belongs the undying merit of having been the first to formulate and scientifically to elaborate the fundamental principle of all Christian philosophy, namely, an 'anthropological pantheism' or an 'absolute and universal theanthropologism' (240).

In the 'Great Announcement' (airo^a^i? jieyaAr; [apophasis megale]), attributed to Simon, which is first mentioned in the Philosophumena and copiously extracted from, Kreyenbuhl discerns, not, like all other critics, the work of a later Simonian, but a genuine production of Simon himself. For our present purpose it is not necessary to discuss this question or to set forth the Simonian system, for which the reader may consult Lipsius (BL 5:316-317) and Hilgenfeld (Ketzergesch., 1884, pp. 163-186).

(d) Suffice it to observe here that all the church fathers from Irenaeus onwards make Simon the prime author of all heresies, and inform us that he was regarded not merely as a leader of a sect, but also as a manifestation of the supreme Deity, as Messiah, also by the name of 'the Standing One' (6 e<rru>s), or, more precisely, according to the 'Great Announcement' (Philos. 69:13) as 6 ecrroiy, crrcis, (TTT/cro/Ltevoj - i.e., 'the permanently Abiding'. Cp further, 11 e,f.

Pseudo-Clem. Homm. and Recogg.[edit]

3. (a) On the Gnostic Simon.[edit]

(a) This interpretation of the expression 'the Standing One' is confirmed also by the pseudo-Clementine Homilies (2:22 : ws dn crTncrbuevos del 'as imitating that he shall always stand') and Recognitions (2:7 :'negat posse se aliquandodissolvi, asserens carnem suam ita divinitatis suae virtute compactam ut possit in aeternum durare'). According to Recogn. 1:72, Simon further designated himself as 'virtutem summam excelsi Dei qui sit supra conditorem mundi'. Cp 14d.

(b} We thus find in Simon's case also application of the Gnostic distinction between the supreme Deity and his subordinate, the creator of the world or demiurge. The supreme Deity is incomprehensible and unknown to all (Recogn. 2:37-38).

He sent forth the creative Deity to make the world ; having done so, the latter declared himself to be God, and demanded observance of the Mosaic law. To Simon, also, is attributed the doctrine that the souls of men proceed from the supreme God (who at the same time is called The Good), but that they have been let down into captivity within the world. The body is their prison (2:57-58). This enables us to understand what is meant when we are told that Simon deniud the resurrection of the dead (Hom. 2:22). It can be explained from 2 Tim. 2:18, according to which the false teachers, who are simply Gnostics, declared that the resurrection was past already, By the resurrection they understood the soul s arrival at knowledge of its heavenly origin, and its superiority to the body which is its prison. Therefore, in their view, for all Gnostics the resur rection has already come about, and they consistently denied any future resurrection of the body.

(c) These data may be sufficient to show that it is a form of Gnosticism that the pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions are combating in the person of Simon. If they contained nothing more they would accordingly be seen to have arisen, at the earliest, sometime in the second century.

Other indications which do not need to be discussed here lead us to the beginning of the third century (so Lipsius, 2:1:37, n. 2 ; Harnack, Lehrb. d. DG (2), 1:266 : beginning or middle of third century, according to TLZ, 1902, p. 570, even as late as the 4th cent., before Eus. [HE 3:38:5] this after Chapman [below, 15] had disputed their employment by Origen), and to infer a Catholic redaction of both writings (so Harnack, l.c.), or at least of the Recognitions (so Lipsius, l.c.). The story as to the members of Clement's family who became separated as non-Christians, and after their conversion find one another and recognise (whence the name 'Recognitiones', aptryi-uipiovuioi [anagnoorismoi]) one another, both in a bodily and in a higher sense, has a purely edificatory purpose. Apart from the final redaction (see above) the proper standpoint of the authors - a Gnostical Jewish Christianity - does not point back to the oldest times, and can hardly have exercised much influence. Thus, from what has been said up to this point, it might well appear that these writings 'contribute nothing towards a knowledge of the origin of the Catholic church and doctrine'. This is, in fact, the opinion of Harnack {Lehrb. d. Dogm.-Gesch.(2), 1:268), and in his view, indeed, 'it may be regarded as certain'.

4. (b) On Simon=Paul.[edit]

The pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, however, contain yet another element of the very greatest importance. In them Simon displays features which are unquestionably derived from Paul, and plainly show him to be a caricature of that apostle drawn by an unfriendly hand,

(a) The principal passage is Hom. 17:19. Here Peter says to Simon:

'If, then, our Jesus, manifesting himself in a vision, made himself known to thee also, and conversed with thee, in doing so it was as one who is wroth with an adversary, and therefore speaks by visions and dreams [Nu. 12:6-8], or, it may be, even by revelations which [yet] were external. But can any one be qualified for the teaching office through a vision? And if thou wilt say, "It is possible", then (I ask) Why did our teacher for a whole year continually converse with those who were awake? And, further, how are we to believe thy word that he even appeared to thee? How can he have appeared to thee, when thy manner of thinking is wholly contrary to his doctrine? But if thou hast for even so much as a single hour been made blessed and instructed for the apostleship by a manifestation of him, then pray declare his doctrine, set forth his words, love his apostles, and strive not against me who companied with him. For indeed thou hast come forward as adversary against me who am a firm rock, the foundation of the church [Mt. 16:18]. If thou wert not an adversary (acTiKet>ei<os [antikeimenos]) thou wouldest not slander me and revile my preaching, in order that I, when I utter that which I have heard from the Lord face to face, may find no credence, plainly as if I were a condemned and reprobate person [read Kai e/noO a&oKifiov OVTO? [kai emou adokimou ontos]; cp 1 Cor. 9:27]. But if thou sayest that I am condemned (ei KaTeyixaa-^eifov /ne Ae -yeis [ei kategnoosmenon me legeis]), in doing so thou inveighest against God who revealed Christ to me, and inveighest against him who on account of this revelation did call me blessed [Mt. 16:17]', and so forth.

What Gnostic ever personally withstood Peter ? According to the incontrovertible statement of Hegesippus (ap. Eus. HE 3:32:7-8), Gnosticism arose from the times of Trajan after that the sacred choir of the apostles had deceased. For what Gnostic had it ever been possible to be, like Peter, a personal disciple of Jesus during his lifetime upon earth? What Gnostic ever gave himself out to be an apostle ? What Gnostic ever claimed to have been qualified for the apostolate by a definite vision which he described ? And who ever except Paul (Gal. 2:11) spoke of Peter as 'condemned' (KaTeyvwcr/dvos [kategnoosmenon])? Thus, it was at Antioch that 'Simon' assailed Peter and spoke evil of his preaching, and it was his vision on the way to Damascus (for Paul, according to 1 Cor. 9:1, Gal. 1:1, 1:12, the basis of his claim to the apostolate) that is here intended to be reduced ad absurdum by a dialectic that really has much to say for itself. Already in chaps. 14 and 16 it is urged that such a vision could have been produced by an evil demon, just as well as by Jesus.

(b) Nor is this all. The words of Peter in his Epistle to James prefixed to the Homilies (chap. 2) relate also to the same incident in Antioch:

'Some of the Gentiles have rejected my doctrine which is in accordance with the law [of Moses], while imputing to me a certain lawless and nonsensical doctrine (&vofj.6v nva KO.I (f>\vapwdri SL8a<TKa\iav) of the hostile man. And indeed while I was in my journeyings some took in hand by manifold interpretations to wrest my words unto the dissolution of the law, as if 1 myself also were of such a mind but did not openly proclaim it' (cp the charge of hypocrisy, Gal. 2:12-13).

Nay, more, in Hom. 20:19 = Recog. 10:61, it is related that Faustus, father of Clement, to whom Simon has by witchcraft given his own outward semblance, is in Antioch constrained by order of Simon publicly to proclaim his repentance in the following words:-

'I, Simon, declare this to you, confessing that I have unjustly slandered Peter. For he is no false teacher, no murderer, no sorcerer, nor any other of those wicked things which I in my wrath formerly accused him of. I, myself, who have been the author of your hatred against him, beg of you to cease from your hatred of him ; for he is a true apostle of the true prophet sent by God for the salvation of the world. . . . And now I will tell you why it is that I have made this confession. Last night angels of God severely scourged me, the godless one, as being an enemy (e^tfpos [exthos]) to the herald of the truth. I beseech you, therefore, if ever I again should come forward and venture to speak against Peter, do not listen to me. For I confess to you: I am a magician, I am a false teacher, I am a sorcerer. Perhaps it is possible by repentance to wipe out my past sins'.

If the father of Clement did not occur in an older form of the book, we may conjecture that this confession was originally there put directly into the mouth of Simon. What is said about his chastisement is a malicious allusion to the declaration of Paul in 2 Cor. 12:7, as to the cause of his malady, that an angel of Satan (ayyeAos Sarai/a [aggelos satana]) had been sent to buffet him. It is important to observe that in Recog. we have the sing. : 'an angel', not the pl. 'angels' as in Hom.

(c) If we have here a well-ascertained case in which an utterance of Paul regarding himself is spitefully twisted to his discredit, soon also we find more of the same kind elsewhere.

In the course of his vindication of himself Paul had, with great reserve, declared that he had once been carried up into the third heaven (2 Cor. 12:1-2). This is made ridiculous in Rec. 2:65 : si putas facilem menti tuae accessum esse super coelos et considerare te posse quae illic sunt atque immensae illius lucis scientiam capere, puto ei qui ilia potest comprehendere facilius esse ut sensum suum qui illuc novit ascendere in alicujus nostrum, qui adsistimus, cor et pectus injiciat et dicat quas in eo cogitationes gerat.l The doctrine of Paul that to eat meat offered to idols is not forbidden (see more fully under COUNCIL, 11) is distorted into the story that Simon in the market-place entertained the people of Tyre with the flesh of a sacrificial ox and with much wine, thus bringing them under the power of the evil demons (Hom. 7;3 ; cp 4:4). This distortion is all the more worthy of attention, because the author, in connection with it, gives admonitions in the very words of Paul 'to abstain from (or not to be partakers of) the table of devils' (TpaTT-e ^Vjs Sai^oixav aTre ^ecrSai, or jixr) ijLfTa^afj.ftdi/fitr, 748; cp 1 Cor. 10:20-21). In view of the miracles which Paul himself claims in 2 Cor. 12:12, Rom. 15:19, it is easy to understand that he came to be spoken of as a magician. In the enumeration of the magical powers of which 'Simon' makes his boast in Recog. 2:9, the 'when bound I can loose myself . . . when confined in prison I can make the barriers open of their own accord' ( vinctus memetipsum solvam ... in carcere colligatus claustra sponte patefieri faciam ) specially recalls Paul's liberation from prison at Philippi (Acts 16:23-26). Even if this liberation is unhistorical (ACTS, 2), it found belief after it had been related, and it can have been related a considerable time before the date at which Acts was written. Once more, let us take another word that is used, not indeed by Paul himself, but with reference to him by a follower. In Acts 9:15 he is called a chosen vessel of the Lord ; in Recog, 3:49, Simon is called a vas electionis of the devil. 1

1 'If you think that there is easy access for your mind above the heavens, and that you are able to conceive the things that are there, and to apprehend knowledge of that immense light, I think that for him who can comprehend these things it were easier to throw his sense which knows how to ascend thither into the heart and breast of some one of us who stand by, and to tell what thoughts he is cherishing in his breast'.

(d) In this violent polemic it is not surprising to find thrown back at Simon - i.e. , Paul - the charges which Paul had himself levelled at his opponents.

In 2 Cor. 11:13 Paul calls the Judaising emissaries at Corinth 'false apostles' (\jjfv&air6<TTO\oi) ; in Hom. 16:21 Peter says that Jesus foretold false apostles (i/fevfiaTrdoroAot), false prophets, the forming of sects and lists for supremacy, all which seem to him to have taken their beginning with Simon the blasphemer of God. In 2 Cor. 11:14 Paul proceeds : 'And no marvel ; for even Satan fashioneth himself into an angel of light' ; in Recog. 2:18, Simon is called the malignus transformans se in splendorem lucis. According to Hom. 2:33 wickedness (Kakia.) sent forth its comrade in arms, Simon, like a serpent (cos ofyiv [...ophin]; cp 2 Cor. 11:3), according to Hom. 11:35, as one who preaches under a pretence of truth in the name of the Lord and sows false doctrines (TrAai/j; [plane]), and it was with reference to him that Jesus (Mt. 7;15) foretold the coming of ravening wolves in sheep's clothing. Here, also, may be recalled a saying which does not come from Paul himself, but from the author of Acts. This writer puts into Paul's mouth (20:29) the prophecy that after his departure grievous wolves shall make their appearance in Ephesus, not sparing the flock. It is very probable that reference is intended here to the Jewish-Christian school of thought, which was prevalent in Ephesus under John in the last third of the first century. Paul himself had already in 1 Cor 16:9 spoken of the many adversaries (curticctyievot rroAAoc [antikeimenoi polloi]) in Ephesus. This expression, also, is taken up and turned against himself in the passage already cited under a, above.

(e) More especially we find recurring in the pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions three designations which are already referred to in the epistles of Paul as having been made use of against him.

When in 2 Cor. 6:8 Paul says of himself, 'as deceivers and [yet] true' (ios irAapot Kai aArjSeis), the censure implied in the word n-Aai/os [planos] is just as little purely imaginary as is that contained in 6:9 : <o ayvoovfj.ei oi, w? 7rai6evd/ixei oi ( 'unknown', 'chastened'), etc., or that repudiated in 4:5 ('we preach not ourselves'), or that hinted at in 3:1 ('are we beginning again to commend ourselves'?), cp 5:12. All these charges had actually been made, otherwise Paul would not have needed to repel them (9e). The word most fitted to stick as a term of reproach was 'the deceiver' (6 TrAai o; [o planos]), and in point of fact it does reappear in Hom. 2:17, which represents Jesus as having foretold that 'first must come a false gospel by the instrumentality of a certain deceiver' [the gospel of freedom from the law] (irpwrov \jiev&es <5ei e\6eli> evayyf\LOv VTTO TT\OLVOV TIVOS). Cp the TrAa ir; [plane] in the quotation (11:35) cited under d, as also the miracles which Simon works (2:33), 'to astonish and deceive' (?rpbs Karon-A^f iv KOI arraTT)! ), or (7:4), the expression 'deceived before by Simon' (IITTO TOW . . . ~S,ifj.tavo<; n-poan-aTijtfeVTes), or the deceptiones of Simon {Recog. 3:65), his 'slanders' (6io/3oAat [diabolai] : Hom. 3:59).

Notice further that, according to Gal. 1:10, it was made a reproach against Paul that he sought by his doctrine to please men ; this comes up again in the words of Peter in Hom. 1810 : 'Since ye have thus spoken to please the multitudes who are present' (en-eiSr/ opecncoi Ttus TOIS na.povaiv 6\Aoi oii-rws <)??).

Above all, however, it is of the constant designation of Simon as enemy (o exftpos dvOpunros [o echthros anthroopos], or simply as o fx@pfa&gt [o echthros]; inimicus, see, e.g. , above, b] in both writings, that we are able to infer from Gal. 4:16 with a high degree of probability that it had already been applied by his Galatian adversaries to Paul. It is difficult to see how Paul could have felt any occasion to ask the Galatians whether he had been the enemy of the Galatians by his preaching of the true gospel, that is of the gospel freed from the law (this is what is intended by aXriBevuv iifuv [aletheuoon hymin]: 4:16) if he had not been spoken of to the Galatians as being their enemy. Here should be added Mt. 13:28 (see below, 6c).

(f) This 'homo quidam inimicus' according to Recog. 1:70-71 raises a tumult against James the episcoporum princeps at Jerusalem, snatches a firebrand from the altar and with this begins a general Jewish massacre of Christians ; he throws James down headlong from the top of the steps, so that he lies as one dead. After three days the Christians who have fled to Jericho learn that the hostile man has received from Caiaphas the high priest the commission to persecute all Christians, and armed with written missives ('epistolae') from him is about to go to Damascus in order to begin the persecution there, believing that Peter has betaken himself thither 1 (cp Acts 8:3, 9:1-2, 22:4-5, 26:9-12, Gal. 1:13, 1 Cor. 15:9 ).

(g) Even the style of Paul is plainly imitated in a mocking way. In the recantation (Hom. 20:19) of Simon mentioned above (b) we have his Seonai V,UM>V [deomai hymoon], ('I beseech you': Gal. 4:12), aiV6s ^70} [autos egoo] ('I myself': 2 Cor. 10:1 ), elStvai i>/aas 0Au [eidenai hymas theloo]('I would have you know': 1 Cor. 11:3), Trapa/caXui otV [parakaloo oun] ('I beseech therefore' : Rom. 12:1, 1 Cor. 4:16; cp Eph. 4:1, 1 Tim. 2:1); elsewhere rl ydp [ti gar], ri ovv [ti oun], etc.

1 This very drastic kind of polemic is exemplified in the NT also. The Gnostics who are controverted in the Epistle of JUDE (q.v., 2), in common with all Gnostics, divided mankind into the two categories of 'psychic' and 'pneumatic' ; they held themselves to be pneumatic. This the author turns round the other way in v. 19 : 'these are they who make a division [i.e., between psychic and pneumatic ; not, as in AV, 'who separate themselves', or, as in RV, 'who make separations'], sensual, not having the spirit'. There is a still closer parallel to this substitution of the devil for God in Rev. 224. It is hardly to be supposed that the followers of Jezebel made it their boast that they 'know the deep things of Satan'; we may be perfectly certain that their boast was that they knew the deep things of God. All the more sharply sarcastic is the form of the phrase: 'Know . . . the deep things of Satan, as they say'. But it is Paul who is the author of the claim to possess the spirit that searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God (1 Cor. 2:10-12). Cp 6b.

5. Apocryphal Acts.[edit]

So also with the apocryphal Acts of Peter and Acts of Peter and Paul (as to which see SIMON PETER, 32-34). Whilst in the apocryphal correspondence of Paul with the Corinthians which belongs to the Acta Pauli (see SIMON PETER, 39 e, n.) the doctrine attributed to Simon is Gnostic, in the Apocrypha just mentioned Simon appears less as a gnostic than as a wonder-worker ; but that by him the apostle Paul was originally meant is manifest here also.

(a) The question of Paul to Simon : 'Why didst thou deliver up circumcised men and compel them to be condemned and put to death'? ( dta. rl crv TTfpLTfT/j,rj- diroKTavdrjvai ; see SIMON PETER, 34 e) is decisive. There is no Gnostic who could have had either such power or such inclination. The words can refer only to what Paul did according to Gal. 1:13, 1 Cor. 15:9, Acts 8:3, 9:1-2, 22:4-5, 26:9-12. In this way what follows gains in cogency, the original reference to Paul being not so absolutely palpable without this key.

(b) In the (pre-Catholic) Acta Petri, Simon is spoken of as inimicus, 'condemned' (4a, e, and SIMON PETER, 33d), and even the Greek word TrXctvos [planos] (4?) has found its way into the Latin text ; according to the Actus Petri cum Simone (4:12, in Acta Apocr. i. p. 49, l. 13 and p. 60, l. 4) not only is Paul called ('magus' or) 'planus', but Simon also is described as 'planus (et deceptor)'. In the (Catholic) Acta Petri et Pauli (43) Nero makes it clear that Simon persecutes Peter and Paul out of envy, and is a 'manifest enemy' (-TrpoSr/Xos ^X#pjs [prodelos echthros]) of both and of their Master.

(c) In the disputation on circumcision touched on above (a ; cp SIMON PETER, 34 e, 39 c}, Simon warns the Emperor against believing Peter and Paul, as they are circumcised and therefore worthless persons. Paul makes answer : before we knew the truth we had the circumcision of the flesh ; since then, only the circumcision of the heart. Peter adds : if circumcision is something bad, why art thou circumcised, Simon? It will be manifest at once that only the words of Peter, not those of Paul, are any effective reply to the reproach of Simon. If with Lipsius (II. 1 360) we remove those of Paul as being a later addition (cp SIMON PETER, 35 e), then the pure antithesis between Simon as the opponent and Peter as the defender of circumcision comes to light. This, however, is directly contrary to the whole representation of Peter elsewhere in these Acts ; for here he figures as the one who is doing away with the law (SIMON PETER, 34 a, 39 r). In so far, however, as Peter defends circumcision the effect is to take away his complete agreement with Paul (the accentuation of which is nevertheless one of the main objects of the book; see SIMON PETER, 35 d), for here it is only the circumcision of the heart that Paul stands up for. Thus in our present passage it is not at all the Catholic Peter, but the original genuinely Jewish-Christian Peter with whom we have to do, and this is our evidence that his opponent was not originally a Gnostic, but simply an opponent of the Judaising of Christianity, in other words, no other than Paul.

1 He is not here expressly called Simon. Should this be intentional, this passage would then have to be relegated to section 6 as being direct polemic against Paul.

(d) To Paul also applies the further accusation in the same passage, that 'Simon' found it necessary to give himself out falsely to be a Jew and to put on the semblance of strict observance of the law in order to deceive the people whom otherwise he would not have been able to win over to his erroneous doctrine (see SIMON PETER, 34e). This clearly points back to 1 Cor. 9:20 : 'to them that are under the law (I became) as under the law, not being myself under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law'. We recognise also, however, the charge which, according to Gal. 5:11, 1:10, was made against Paul by his Judaistic opponents, that outside of Galatia he still continued to preach circumcision, for everywhere he shapes his doctrine so as to please men (see GALATIANS, 13, middle).

(e) With this accords (even if not conclusive as evidence) the favour which Simon finds with Nero. After Nero had proved himself the most dreadful enemy which Christianity had, it must have suggested itself very readily to the adversaries of Paul to lay it to Paul's discredit that he had so expressly enjoined obedience to Nero (Rom. 13:1-7) and that Paul's captivity had been so mild (Acts 28:30-31). As a result of his submissiveness such a partiality of the emperor as we find him expressing for Simon in the Catholic and also in the pre-Catholic Acta (SiMON PETER, 33 h] seemed natural. Cp below, 12b.

(f) Lipsius (3:1:363-364) has even conjectured that the story of the seeming beheading of Simon (secion 34c) has at its root malicious misrepresentation of the beheading of Paul.

In order that Paul might not have the glory of martyrdom his traducers had it that he had not been beheaded, but by a trick had brought it about that a ram was decapitated in his stead. To this was then added the further touch that he presented himself to the emperor as one who had risen from the dead, in order thereby to secure acknowledgment of his divinity, and of the truth of the promise he had previously made, of a return from death after three days. This promise is met with also in quite another form in the Philosophumena, 620, where Simon suffers himself to be buried by his disciples, and proposes to rise again after three days, but does not revive (see SIMON PETER, 32a, n. 1). Evidently the theme has gone through several variations. In accord with it is what we read in the Catholic Acta, that Nero causes the body of Simon, who has fallen down from the clouds, to be watched for three days so as to know whether he will rise or not (see SIMON PETER, 34c). With Simon's promise Lipsius confronts the statement of the Acts of Paul (= 'Martyrium Pauli', 4, 6 = Pseudo-Linus, 'Passio Pauli', 8, 18, in Acta Apost. Apocr. 1:112-116, 1:32, 1:42) that it was Paul who foretold to Nero his return after his beheading and who also fulfilled this prediction.

(g) Lastly, mention must be made of the attempt of Simon to fly to heaven (see SIMON PETER, 33[-34], 34 [-35]). The supposition lies close at hand that here too we have a malicious perversion of the saying of Paul that he had been caught up to the third heaven (2 Cor. 122) and that precisely the story of his fall and of his death was connected with this because the appeal to this rapture into heaven was regarded as a flagitious piece of self-glorification, and, should the conjecture of Lipsius just mentioned prove correct, the beheading of Paul was not regarded as being the true end of his life.

At the same time it must be observed that Simon s flying is reported in two forms. Alongside of the statement, just recorded above, that his desire was to reach heaven by it, we find another much simpler one that his intention was simply, by a brief flight, to give proof of his magical powers, and thereby secure public attention (SIMON PETER, 33a, 34c). For this we have an authenticated parallel. Suetonius (Nero, 12) relates that a flying professor who had undertaken to play the part of Icarus in a representation of mythological scenes organised by Nero, in the circus on the Campus Martius (that is to say, exactly on the scene of the alleged attempt of Simon), at his first attempt fell to the ground close beside Nero, who was bespattered with his blood. If it was this or some similar occurrence that suggested the ascription to Simon of the attempt at flight, the statement that Simon's intention was to fly to heaven is a further development. The possibility remains that the story was manufactured with 2 Cor. 12:2 in view ; yet we cannot be confident of this. In the pseudo-Clementine tfotnititl we find merely that Simon flies occasionally (2:32), and in the Recognitions (2:9) this takes the special form that Simon promises : si me de monte excelso praecipitem, tanquam subvectus ad terras illzesus deferar. What seems to lie at the basis of this is the promise of Satan to Jesus in the temptation on the pinnacle of the temple (Mt. 4:5-6 = Lk. 4:9-11). The evidential value of the arguments ad duced at the beginning of this section, however, is not impaired by the ambiguous character of the indications last adduced.

6. Analogous polemic against Paul.[edit]

How small is the right of any one to set aside any such polemic against Paul as being from the outset impossible is shown by the fact that in early Christian literature the same thing is found also without intervention of the mask of Simon and even occasionally with express mention of the name of Paul.

(a) Epiphanius (Haer. 30:16, end) tells us that in Ebionitic Acts of the Apostles was found, regarding the apostle Paul, the statement that he was the son of a Greek mother and a Greek father belonging to Tarsus, that he had spent some time in Jerusalem and there desired the daughter of the high priest in marriage, on which account he became a proselyte and accepted circumcision ; but, having after all failed in his suit, in his wrath he wrote against circumcision, the Sabbath, and the law.

(b) In Rev. 2:14, 2:20 it is said of the followers of Balaam and Jezebel that they eat things sacrificed to idols and commit fornication. The two classes of persons are thus identical in spite of their different names. Nor are the Nicolaitans [cp NICOLAITANS] distinct from them, for we read (2:15) : so also hast thou them that hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans in like manner' (orrws ^x s Kai ff b (not : <rv KO.I) Kpa.TovvTa. s rr/f dida-xty TUV ^\ lKO\a.lTLt>V OjUOCWS).

That is to say, 'In that thou (the church of Pergamos) hast the Balaamites, thou hast also [in the same persons] those that hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans in like manner as the Church of Ephesus has '(2:6). Now the Nicolaitans at Ephesus are in 2:2 said to be apostles who have been found to be false ; and of the adherents of Jezebel we are told in 2:24 that they profess to have known the depths of Satan. All these accusations fit Paul ; the last of them must be understood in the manner indicated above (4c, n.). To eat meat offered to idols and to commit fornication had been indeed sanctioned by Paul if we take fornication in the sense that has been indicated under COUNCIL, 11. As he had already called his opponents false apostles (2 Cor. 11:13) it is not surprising if we rind them hurling back this reproach at himself and his followers (cp 4d). The later the date to which the epistles in Rev. 2-3 are assigned (see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 11) the more easily possible does it become that in them it is no longer Paul himself, but a later school that is being controverted, a school which made perhaps a more thoroughgoing use in practice of this doctrine of freedom from the law than he himself made, or which even abused that principle ; but neither is it possible to show from the text itself that it cannot by any means have been directed even against Paul. On 13:11-17, see 7b.

(f) Even in the First gospel, in all probability, it is Paul who is alluded to alike as the 'enemy' (e%^p6s avGpiairos [echthros anthroopos]), of Mt. 13:28, and as the 'least' (e\cix"rros [elachistos]) in the kingdom of heaven ; see GOSPELS, 112c, 128c. Cp above, 4e, end.

(g) As for the canonical book of Acts, the polemic against Paul which underlies 8:9-24 and 24:22-26, and which is artificially turned aside by the composer, will come under our consideration later (13-14, 12b ; cp also BARJESUS). Kreyenbuhl (214-216 ; 15 below), it may be added, sees also in Acts 14:8-20 and 19:11-19 a similar proceeding on the composer's part.

In Lystra Paul was only stoned ; the divine worship which he is represented as having received, rests only on the detraction of his Judaising adversaries, who thereby, as elsewhere in the person of Simon, wished to represent him as a man who owed his success with the Gentiles - these, according to Kreyenbuhl, are figured in the lame man blind from his birth - to magical arts. The magical efficacy assigned to the handkerchiefs and aprons touched by him (19:12) is held in like manner t<j be an invention due to a similarly hostile intention. In the Nicolaus, also, of Clement of Alexandria (Strom, 3:4:25, p. 522, ed. Potter), who, when he had been rebuked by the apostles for jealousy, offered his beautiful wife to any one who chose to marry her, Kreyenbuhl also (190-191) finds Paul who gave up the chaste virgin, the primitive church, to the Gentiles, and thus to fornication. Such conjectures hardly rise to the level of probability, even although the difficulties suggested by stories of this kind when literally taken remain worthy of attention.

(e) Similarly it is necessary to receive with caution the view of Preuschen (ZNTW, 1901, pp. 169 [186]- 201), that the form of Paul underlies the delineation of the Antichrist in the Christian Apocalypse of Elias, 1 although the coincidences, especially also with the Acta Pauli, are some of them really striking.

Preuschen himself says that a searching investigation as to the history of the origin of this Apocalypse is still needed. According to Schurer (TLZ, 1899, pp. 4-8), it is later than Clement of Alexandria. If this be so, the features of the picture of Paul cannot have been transferred to the Antichrist for the first time when Paul s high place had become undisputed ; that must have occurred much earlier, when the hatred against Paul was still alive and did not shrink even from such a distortion of his picture as this. In the transference of these features to the Apocalypse of Elias now before us, misunderstandings, however, can easily have crept in. This admonishes to great caution. Moreover, Preuschen s work is not yet completed.

7. Simon as Antichrist in Apocalypses.[edit]

At the same time, however, Preuschen s view regarding the Apocalypse of Elias leads to the Antichrist in question whetlier perhaps the figure of Simon may not also underlie the picture of the Antichrist in apocalyptic writings.

(a) Preuschen (l.c. 173-176) answers this question in the affirmative so far as Sibyll. 3:63-74, 2:165-170 are concerned. That in 3:63 the expression 'afterwards shall Beliar come forth from the Sebastenes' ( en de ~f(laffT r]v&v 7;ei BeXtap /nfToiriffdev), ^f^affTrjvoi [sebastenoi] has never as yet been satisfactorily explained is true.

2e/3acrros [sebastos] is the Greek rendering of Augustus, a name of honour which Octavian first received in 27 B.C. Should ZefSatrrrjioi [sebastenoi], however, mean, not people of Augustus, but people of Samaria, neither is this designation possible at an earlier date than 27 B.C., for it was not till then that Samaria received the name Sebaste. In order to be able to maintain the very tempting interpretation which refers the widow ruling the world in 3:75-80 to Cleopatra, and the triumvirate clearly indicated in 3:51-52. to Antony, Octavian, and Lepidus, and thus fixes the date of the whole piece 3:36-92 as falling somewhere between 40 and 30 B.C., scholars have found it necessary to take the expression SejSno-TrjTOi [sebastenoi] as proleptically possible even before the official bestowal of his name of honour upon Augustus, or to regard the verse in which it occurs as an interpolation. Preuschen understands the world-ruling woman (v. 75) of Rome (that in v. 77 she is called a widow, and that in vv. 47, 52 Rome is designated by its own proper name he does not take into consideration) and then interprets the Beliar who is to arise from among the Samaritans as referring to Simon the Magician. It is correct to say that the rather vague delineation here and in 2:165-170 presents no obstacle to stand in the way of this identification ; but the identification is not yet thereby established.

In fact, it appears even to be directly excluded if v. 69 is correctly 'interpreted' : Beliar is to seduce many men, namely 'as well faithful and elect Hebrews as also lawless ones, and other men who never at all heard of God' (Trtoroiis T e/<ATOis 8 HfSpaiow; ayo,u.ovs re /cal aAAovs ape pas o invet oinrod ciAios OeoO eia-fjKOucrai ). Julicher, who was the first to interpret Beliar as referring to Simon Magus (TLZ, 1896, 379), finds mankind here divided into three classes :

  • (1) Christians (TTKTTOUS eKAeKroi s [pistous eklektous]),
  • (2) Jews ( EjSpat ovt aro^ious [hebraious anomous]), and
  • (3) Gentiles (aAAoi/s avepas [allous aneras], etc.).

In that case, however, the third re ought to have come after E/Spouovs [hebraious], not after ar 6/u.pvs [anomous]. Grammatically possible would be another threefold division :

  • (i) TTKTTOUS [pistous],
  • (2) fxAexTOvs E/3pai ous [eklektous hebraious].
  • (3) avoit-ov; KO.I diAAous arevpas [anomous kai allous aneras], etc.

Only, in that case the TTIO-TOI [pistoi] would certainly not mean Christians ; otherwise the E(3paioi [hebraioui] would not be called CKAEKTOI [eklektoi]. If the passage is due to a Christian, as Julicher supposes, then the only right construction is that which takes ai/o/oious [anomous] as a predicate of E/Spoous [hebraious], as above. Moreover, in the third class just supposed the KO.L [kai] would have a disturbing effect. If the re [te] after dvo^ovs [anomous] could mean 'and', then it would be permissible to render Kai [kai] by 'also': 'and also other godless men'. There, however, after dvofiavs [anomous] must mean 'as also' since that after TTICTTOUS [pistous] means 'as well' ; consequently Kat [kai] can only mean 'and'. The only unexceptionable translation is accordingly the following : 'As well faithful and elect Hebrews as also lawless ones, and other men', etc. As these other men are the Gentiles, only Jews can be meant by the lawless ones. If on this rendering one were to seek for Christians also, they must be indicated by the 'faithful' and elect Hebrews, in other words must be exclusively Jewish Christians, which will hardly he supposed by any one. Rather does the author divide the Jews into the two classes of the 'faithful and elect' and the 'lawless', placing the Gentiles alongside of them. In that case, however, the passage is not the work of a Christian, and therefore it does not relate to Simon Magus ; for it was only among Christians and not at all among Jews that Simon Magus passed for a person so objectionable and at the same time so important that he could be identified with the devil.

1 German translation from the Coptic by Steindorff in TU 173, 1899; as Apocalypse of Sophonias already published by Stern in 2. J. agypt, Sprache, 1886, pp. 115-135, and in French by Bouriant, Memoires de la mission archiologique au Caire, 1:2:260-279 (885) ; not to be confounded with the Jewish Apocalypse of Elias cited by the Church Fathers ; see Schurer, GJV (2) 2:673-076, ET 2:3:129-132.

Nor yet even among Christians was any such estimate put upon him at so early a date as in the apostolic age ; he acquired it by the enhanced importance which came to be attached to him through the romance of which he was the hero. Thus if Simon should be meant we should have to reject as too early the dating of Preuschen, who understands by the three men who destroy Rome (v. 51-52) Galba, Otho, and Vitellius (68 and 69 A.D.) and by the fire from heaven (v. 53-54) the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 A.D. Moreover the second dating cancels the first ; for that Galba, Otho, and Vitellius had destroyed Rome could no longer be believed after 69 A.D. Geffcken (TU 23:1 p. 15), who agrees with Julicher as regards Simon Magus, judiciously leaves the date undetermined. Yet it is altogether wrong to take vv. 36-92 or even only vv. 46-92 as a unity. In the passage before us the destruction of the world by fire is predicted as something new no less than three times (53-61, 71-74, 84-87); and moreover the destruction of Rome by the three men just referred to follows upon the reign of the Messiah over all the earth (46-52), whilst of course it must have preceded it, and the reign of the widow over the world follows upon the destruction of the world together with Beliar and his followers by fire (71-77), and also upon the destruction of Rome by the three men already related in vv. 51-52, which would be equally inappropriate whether the widow be taken as meaning the widow Cleopatra or Rome. Thus only vv. 63-74 come into account as a unity for our present discussion.

(b) Simon the Magician has been detected in the 'other beast' of Rev. 13:11-17 (which in 16:13, 19:20, 20:10 is called the 'false prophet') in recent years by Spitta (Offenb. d. Jon., 1889, pp. 380-385) and Erbes (Offenb. Joh., 1891, pp. 25-27). This identification may in some measure suit the wonderful works which are attributed to this beast in 13:13-15a. Rut it no way suits the regard for the worship of the Emperor in vv. 12, 15b, and the exclusion of those who have not the mark of the beast on hand or forehead from the buying and selling, unless we choose to suppose that the figure of Simon furnished merely the outlines for this second beast which were filled in by the author with essentially new features.

Still less have Volkmar (Comin. z. Offcnb. Joh., 1862, pp. 197-213), Blom (Th. T, 1884, pp. 175-181) and Kappeler (Theol. Ztschr. aus der Schweis, 1893, pp. 40-62, 65-69) succeeded, without resort to the greatest lengths of allegorical interpretation, in finding the apostle Paul in the second beast ; on any literal exegesis, not even the miracles which cause no difficulty when referred to Simon can, by any possibility, be assigned to Paul.

(c) In so far, however, as, after the example of Gunkel (Schopf. u. Chaos, 1895) and Bousset (Antichrist, 1895), the line taken is that of seeking in the leading apocalyptic forms merely renewals of older figures, whether of mythological or of literary origin, which assumed once for all a normative character that underwent only slight modifications when applied to new circumstances and conditions, it may certainly be worth while to inquire whether Paul, or Simon, or the features in the figure of Simon which have been de rived from Paul, have contributed elements to the shaping of these renewed apocalyptic figures. Preuschen's aim is nothing less than to show that it was by the introduction of the form of Paul that the figure of Antichrist, originally thought of as a ruler, assumed the character of a false teacher, so that both types of Antichrist thenceforward existed alongside of each other.

8. Four forms of Simon distinguished.[edit]

After the survey just made of the appearances of Simon in the literature of early Christianity, our next task must be to ascertain what results, if any, must be claimed.

(a) In the first place, it has become evident that we have to do with three distinct magnitudes which meet us, now here now there, under the form of Simon. To these must be added as a fourth a Jewish magician of Cyprus, Simon, a guard of the procurator Felix, who employed him to draw away Drusilla from her husband, Azizus king of Emesa, and procure her in marriage for himself (Jos. Ant. 20:7:2, 141-142). To him we shall return afterwards (12b, 12c, 12e}. Meanwhile, the three figures that have come before us in the literature we have hitherto been surveying are :

  • (1) the Samaritan magician as Acts, on the first impression, seems to present him;
  • (2) the Gnostic, founder of the Gnostic sect of the Simonians;
  • (3) the distorted image of the apostle Paul.

(b) It is indispensably necessary that we should distinguish these three forms as sharply as possible, and especially necessary in cases where they may have come to be mixed up in one and the same writing. In this sense, we have already treated separately the Gnostic and the perverted image of Paul as they are found in the pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions (3-4) In these writings Simon appears as a magician also ; but if thereby the magician who, according to Acts, made his appearance in the very first years of Christianity, is to be understood, then the Gnostic system ascribed to him does not at all fit, for it is of much later date.

Now, magicians have existed in all ages, and thus it were easily conceivable that the author of the Gnostic system in question, in the second century, was really also at the same time a magician. As against this suggestion, however, two considerations must be borne in mind ; not only that Gnosis and magical arts are united in the fancy of the Church fathers (who attributed to their adversaries, without discrimination, all kinds of evil things) more easily than they are in reality, but also that, on this view, we lose all connection with the Samaritan Simon of the earliest Christian times, a connection which is nevertheless presupposed in so far as Simon is opposed by Peter. If, in view of this, we decline to give up the connection, we must nevertheless recognise that in the pseudo-Clementines all the three forms of Simon are mixed up with one another so as to form a completely impossible figure. The case is similar in the apocryphal Acts ; only, there the Gnostic features in the person of Simon are not very prominent. On Acts 8:9-24 see section 14.

(c) If, then, we desire to get at the truth of the matter, it is an exceedingly perilous thing to be too readily prepared to find a harmonious picture, instead of various features derived from distinct sources. Thus, the argument is very widely current that, inasmuch as in the Simon of the pseuflo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions a Gnostic tendency is being controverted, he cannot, at the same time, have any Pauline features; in fact, the myth has even come into being that Lipsius too, in conceding the Anti-Gnostic character of these writings, has also given up their Anti-Pauline character. Similarly, it is often supposed that nothing more is required than the postulate of the actual existence of a Samaritan magician of the name of Simon, in order to make it possible to set aside all supposed reference to Paul in the narrative of Acts 8 : or, where a little more caution is exercised, it is supposed that the same result can be reached by the observation that the figure of Simon there exhibits Gnostic characteristics.

9. The Anti-Pauline polemic older than the Anti-Gnostic.[edit]

If once we are prepared to keep these different characteristics strictly separate, and at the same time to recognise their presence together (should they happen to be present together) in one and the same writing, the next question for us comes to be whether the Anti-Pauline polemic is older than the Anti-Gnostic.

(a) One might suppose that the answer could not be doubtful, seeing that Paul himself was before Gnosticism. The consequences, however, which have been deduced by the Tubingen school from this view of the case cause many to shrink from accepting this result, however obvious.

These critics are utterly averse to making the admission that any such intense hatred could really ever have been directed against Paul, as would follow from the malignant and perverse representation of him implied in the Homilies, and Recognitions, and in the apocryphal Acts, should it be the fact that the passages in question date from the earliest Christian times. The ideal of Acts, that the multitude of them that believed (as also the apostles) were of one heart and soul (4:32) dominates the current conception of that period much too strongly to make it possible for many to recognise as historical any conflict of so profound and far-reaching a character as that revealed in these writings.

(b) Only, what is it that is done in order to avoid the unwelcome admission of its historical character ? Any attempt to explain away the hatred which these writings breathe against the Simon with whom they deal, promises little success. Thus, of necessity, one is driven to the assertion that the Anti-Gnostic interest is in these authors the original one and the Anti-Pauline features are merely later introductions, much in the same way as an artist, in order to give greater life to his picture, will introduce into it here and there a few additional touches, but without altering the nature of the work as a whole.

(c) This assumption, however, of the posteriority of the Anti-Pauline polemic in these writings is completely untenable. How should the writers have come to make precisely Paul their target? If there had been a conflict between him and another school of primitive Christianity from which these writers were not perhaps far removed, the conflict was nevertheless buried at the death of Paul.

It is coming to be more and more generally recognised that the real Paulinism hardly survived the lifetime of its author (so Harnack himself, Lehrb. d. DG (2) 1:46, n. i, 1:52-53, 1:78-79, 1:116, etc.). Whilst the most general of all its results - the admission of the Gentiles to Christianity without observance of the law - was accepted in its own interests by the Church now beginning to be Catholic, every other special interest which Paul had promoted, and even his services in connection with the carrying out of the universalism which now was taken as a thing of course, passed into oblivion. Already the book of Acts represents Peter as the real originator of this, and Paul as but his follower in it (ACTS, 4). Simultaneously, however, this book and the whole of that literature and period gave to Paul more and more a place of honour beside Peter (see MINISTRY, 36), and his writings during the second century gained more and more of a canonical position.

Thus, partly forgotten so far as his conflict with the attitude of the original apostles is concerned, and partly highly honoured as an apostle of bygone days : how should Paul ever come to be in the second, or, so far as the pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions are concerned, even in the third or fourth century, the object of so fanatical a hatred? It is a psychological impossibility. Add to this that the writers, by the introduction of Pauline features, would have been making unrecognisable the picture of that which they wished to combat (10a).

(d) Harnack has felt this, and drawn the consequence which is the only possible one: 'perhaps the Pauline features of the [pseudo-Clementine] magician altogether are an appearance merely' (Lehrb. d. Dogm.-gesch. 1 (2) 269). In the light of our preceding investigations, the boldness of this proposition will be apparent.

How could such a judgment be possible, or that of Headlam (J Th. St. 1901-1902, pp. 53-54) : 'With the possible exception of one passage, there is not the slightest sign of anti-Paulinism, and nowhere is there any opposition to St. Paul' ? Is it, perchance, due to the fact that Headlam has his eye only on the real Paulinism and finds that the polemic of the pseudo-Clementines and apocryphal Acts does not touch that, and then omits to ask whether the authors perhaps precisely by their malicious distortion of the image of Paul deliberately wished to harm him more than would have been possible by means of any honourable polemic?

(e) The examples of polemic against Paul without the mask of Simon, already adduced in section 6, must have shown how deep the antipathy to Paul went, and how widespread it was even where we have not to do with writings which clothe themselves in the form of a romance. The epistles of Paul himself, however, contain still more traces of this.

In 4e, 5d, we have already touched on what admits of being inferred from Gal. 5:11 (still preaching circumcision), 1;10 (seek to please men), 4:16 (exOpos [echthros]), 2 Cor. 6:8 (nAovos [planos]). Paul's self-commendation in 2 Cor. 3:1, 5:11-12, his preaching of himself (4:5), and his claim to have been taken up into the third heaven and into Paradise (12:2-4), needed only to be exaggerated a little and the charge of self-deification was ready. To these have to be added, further, the charges which Paul would not be found repudiating so emphatically if they had never been made against him : such as that he walks in carnal wisdom (2 Cor. 1:12), writes other things than appear (1:13), says Yea and Nay in the same breath (1:17), corrupts the word of God (2:17), seeks to be lord of the faith (1:24), uses his power for the destruction of the churches (10:8, 13:10), when present is weak but comes forward in his letters with the greatest claims (10:9-10). From his refusal of financial support for himself, the inference was drawn that plainly he was conscious of not being a real apostle, otherwise he would have made use of the privilege of those who were (1 Cor. 9:15, 2 Cor. 11:10). To this it was added, further, that he applied to his own uses the collections which he caused to be made for the poor in Jerusalem (2 Cor. 12:16-18, 7:2, end). Finally, 'chastened' (naiSfvofievoi [paideuomenoi]) in 2 Cor. 6:9 can only be understood as meaning that his malady had been interpreted as a divine punishment for his opposition to the Christianity of the original apostles.

(f) All these charges and reproaches, however, proceed, in the last resort at least, from the Judaizers who came to Corinth or to Galatia and sought to turn against Paul the churches which he had founded - in other words, from the representatives of that school which speaks in the pseudo-Clementine writings and apocryphal Acts or at least in their sources. If one desires not to be unjust to them, one will even have to concede that Paul had provoked them to the utmost by his persistent advocacy of his own views, by his unsparing attack even upon Peter at Antioch (Gal. 2:11-21), by his blunt judgment upon things which they regarded as sacred, by the anathema he pronounced upon their gospel (Gal. 1:8-9), by his biting sarcasm (Gal. 5:12), and by his sweeping condemnation of everything about them (2 Cor. 11:13-15). We are only too readily inclined to take sides with Paul and to find in his case certain things to be perfectly correct, which in his adversaries we would either condemn without qualification, or even declare to be historically impossible. Whether, for example, Paul says that his opponents are servants of Satan (11:15), or whether the pseudo-Clementine Recognitions say that Paul is a chosen instrument of Satan (3:49) comes to very much the same thing ; and, viewed from their standpoint, Paul must really have seemed to them quite as much the enemy of the truth as they to him - for after all he was doing away with the law concerning which they could quite honestly feel convinced that it had been laid down by God as of perpetual obligation (see COUNCIL, 3, begin.). Instead of denying the manifestly-patent fact that the opposing schools, within the borders of primitive Christianity, carried on their controversies with the utmost violence, we ought rather to be unfeignedly glad that the Christian religion possessed within itself sufficient vitality to enable it to survive so severe a crisis.

(g) There is accordingly but one presupposition only, by means of which it will be really possible to hold the anti-Pauline features in the pseudo-Clementines to be more recent than the anti-Gnostic, namely the assumption that the principal Pauline epistles are more recent than the Gnosticism, which the pseudo-Clementines combat. So Loman (Th.T, 1883, pp. 25-47), Meyboom (ib. 1891, 1-46), and Steck (Galaterbrief, 325-335 [1888]). It makes little difference here, whether on this view the two things are also regarded as contemporaneous. Marcion passes for the chief representative of the gnosis which is controverted. We note further that Meyboom finds the polemic in the Homilies the fresher, and derived more from direct observation of the two views he opposes, Marcionitism and the Antinomism set forth by the canonical Paul ; that of the Recognitions he finds more colourless and confused.

Against the denial of the genuineness of the principal Pauline epistles altogether, see GALATIANS, 1-9.

10. Anti-Pauline and Anti-Gnostic polemic: how connected.[edit]

If then it is impossible to deny the existence of the Anti-Pauline polemic or to maintain that it is later than the Anti-Gnostic, the next question comes to be as to how it came to be connected and even combined with the Anti-Gnostic in such a manner as we see , especially in the Homilies and Recognitions.

(a) Harnack, in so far as he does not explain the Anti-Pauline element as only seeming (above, 9d), says upon this point (loc. cit.) that the pseudo-Clementines 'before aught else controverted Simon Magus and his followers . . . , but also the apostle Paul, and seem to have transferred Simonian features to Paul, and Pauline features to Simon'. The question still remains, however, Why they did so? If they depicted Simon or Paul otherwise than each of them in reality was, they only obscured the picture of each, whilst in the polemic that was being waged, it must nevertheless have always been a matter of primary importance to depict the adversary in such a way that every one could clearly recognise him. The literary skill of the authors must accordingly, on the assumption of Harnack here presupposed, that they wrote their works as we now have them without making use of any sources, be ranked very low ; in reality, however, it is admittedly very considerable. By the judgment we have quoted, accordingly, Harnack has merely raised another problem, not solved the one in hand.

(b) Harnack proceeds (loc. cit.), 'Yet it remains also possible that the Pauline features, borne by the magician, came first into existence in the process of redaction, in so far as in the course of this the whole polemic against Paul was deleted, but certain portions of it were woven into the polemic against Simon'. The assumption underlying these words is of the utmost importance. We see Harnack here reckoning, as he had not yet done in the preceding sentence, with literary antecedents of the pseudo-Clementine writings.

This is in point of fact indispensable, if only for the reason that we find the Homilies for considerable stretches dealing with the same matters as the Recognitions, and then again diverging widely from them and also changing the order of the occurrences which both relate in common. Further, in Recog. 3:74-75 it is said that Clement, at the instance of Peter, wrote down and sent to James in ten books (the so-called Kypvytiara [kerygmata] of Peter) the discourses held by Peter in his disputation with Simon in Caesarea, and in the same place is given a list of the contents of this writing which shows that it dealt with things which occur also in the pseudo-Clementines of to-day. To this must be added the family romance, and other matter which again points to a separate origin (above, 3c).

And yet it is precisely this question as to possible sources of this literature that we may not propound if Harnack s dictum is to hold good that these writings cannot be called into requisition in any investigation regarding primitive Christianity, because they did not come into existence at all until the third or fourth century. Granted that their present form is not older than the third or fourth century, nevertheless their sources certainly are older, and it is the bounden duty of the historian to look into them. Harnack withdraws himself from the task, although he has himself recognised its existence in the sentence we have quoted. Finally, immediately afterwards he goes on to say as quoted above (9d), 'the Pauline features of the magician are perhaps only apparent'. The student who finds himself disinclined to follow this path out of the difficulty which Harnack himself treads so hesitatingly, has no longer to face the question whether one is to 'believe' in a primeval Simon-romance (so Harnack ; see SIMON PETER, 31n), but whether one is prepared in discharge of the duty of a historian to probe the matter to the bottom.

(c) That Harnack's hint of the result to which this would lead (above, b, begin.) is a happy one cannot be said. How are we to conceive to ourselves even so much as the initial juxtaposition of an anti-Simonian and an anti-Pauline polemic, which Harnack even presupposes at a certain stage of his hypothesis where he does not yet take account of a fusion of different sources ? But why afterwards was the anti-Pauline polemic deleted ? How crime it about that nevertheless certain portions of the polemic against Paul got themselves woven into that against Simon ? From mere confusion ? No doubt some transference of traits that suit Paul to Simon has occurred ; but this can be explained with any psychological probability only by supposing that the hatred against Paul in those circles, within which these writings took their rise, still con tinued to be active, and that what this hatred had found to be worthy of detestation in Paul, was involuntarily imputed, without any basis of fact, to other persons also simply from the need it felt to give itself air. This is only a proof of the original strength and bitterness of the hostility in question against the apostle. In him his enemies saw the embodiment of all that was detestable, nay devilish. If now, in course of time, there arose other teachers whose position resembled his, yet was not identical with it, the inclination was only too natural, in those who disapproved, to fix their attention only on the points of agreement, and to carry over, without alteration, to the newcomers the sentence of condemnation that had long ago been pronounced upon Paul, and all the words of censure in which it had been conveyed 'enemy', 'false teacher', 'devil's tool', 'magician', 'deifier of self', and the like. Without the existence of a deeply-rooted hatred against Paul that continued to be active down to a later time, all this would not have been possible ; but as soon as its existence is recognised, the mingling of the attributes of distinct persons is no longer unintelligible. In like manner also in that case one is in a position to under stand that people of this fanatical sort, when un questionably new characteristics emerged, did not allow themselves to be led by this to recognise that a new thing had appeared, that was not to be identified with the old, but simply regarded the new characteristics in question as a fresh development of the long familiar and detestable characteristics of the original adversary.

(d) One new characteristic of the kind just referred to, undoubtedly, was the divine worship implied in the erection of a statue in Rome (above, 2a). Even the most fertile imagination could hardly have constructed this out of the image of Paul.

Lipsius, therefore (2:1:40-41), is probably right when he supposes this assertion about Simon to owe its origin to the stupid misunderstanding of Justin, and to have found its way into the Recognitions only after Justin s statement had become current. Here it is even put in the mouth of Simon as a prophecy : 'adorabor ut dens, publice divinis donabor honuribus, ita ut simulacrum mihi statuentes tanquam deum colant et adorent' (2:9 ; cp 3:63 where Rome is expressly named as the place). It is, however, as great a misunderstanding of the meaning of Lipsius as that already (8c) noted when Erbes (Z.f. Kirchengesch. 22, 1901, 13-14) reports it in the following terms: that the Clementine story of Peter's conflicts with Simon in Rome can only have arisen on the foundation of the statement of Justin. Lipsius does not say this of these conflicts in general, but expressly only of 'the Gnostic figure of Simon'. From the view which Erbes adopts, he draws the conclusion that 'we have no need at all to go into the question as to the sources and the strata of that [pseudo-Clementine] literature, and are now already in a position to affirm that the legend which brings Peter in conjunction with Simon Magus to Rome, cannot have arisen until after 147 A.D. [i.e., after Justin]'.

What Lipsius holds, and at the same time what we too, it would seem, ought to hold, is the exact opposite of this. If, through an error of Justin with reference to a certain Gnostic, a statement arose which subsequently came to be incorporated in the pseudo-Clementines, we have all the more pressing occasion for inquiring what was the form which these writings exhibited, and what the picture of Simon which they presented, before the introduction of such Gnostic features.

(c) Lipsius, it is true, since 1876 (JPT 636-637, Apokr. Ap.-gesch. 2:138-139, 2:363) has abandoned his earlier attempt to reconstruct, as a single writing, a purely Anti-Pauline, pre-Gnostic source which should embrace the whole of the existing Anti- Pauline material that we now find dispersed in the pseudo-Clementines and the apocryphal Acta - not, however, because it had been shown to be wrong, but simply because it could not be proved to be right. All the more decidedly, however, does he maintain that this whole Anti- Pauline polemic existed in an oral form before the introduction of the Gnostic features. This is in fact the least that we must suppose, unless all the facts which we have pointed out regarding the polemic against Paul are to be simply denied. Nor should a renewed attempt to find in the Clementines a written source of this kind be simply banned as impossible. Attention must, however, be called also to the fact that the position held by Lipsius has only in appearance been made worse by the new turn he has given to it, and in reality has been improved.

It can appear to be more questionable if it is unable to find support on any written source capable of being separated out from tlie writings before us, and if the possibility has to be reckoned with that the Anti-Pauline legend existed for long only in an oral form, and was reduced to writing only after the Gnostic features had been combined with it. Nor is this really difficult to suppose. The mixture of features, and the difficulty felt in keeping them clearly separate, become easily intelligible on the assumption that the writing was done at a late date ; but the certainty of the existence of a mass of matter that was originally purely Anti- Pauline is not destroyed by the absence of any book in which this had been committed to writing. The hatred against Paul which still finds expression through the present forms of the writing which have been so much worked over, was strong enough to secure that every one, even without their being committed to writing, should know perfectly well what was the nature of the charges brought against Paul.

The positive advantage offered by the new form of the hypothesis of Lipsius is a chronological one. On the supposition of a written source, difficulties can be raised by the question as to whether it is really older than the period of Gnosticism (from about 100 A.D. ), from which the non-Pauline features of the legend are derived. In presence of a legend that existed orally only, this difficulty disappears ; for such a legend naturally must have existed since the days of Paul, in whose own letters we have already been able to point out so many of the features which it presents (9c).

11. Original oneness of anti-Pauline elements in Ps.-Clem, and Apocr. Acts.[edit]

If originally it was Paul who was attacked under the guise of Simon alike in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions and in the Apocryphal Acts (above, 4-5), the question in evitably arises whether this happened in the two groups of writings independently, or whether both groups have a common origin.

(a) The first view is favoured by the circumstance that the pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions deal exclusively with encounters in Palestine and Syria, the Apocryphal Acts only with encounters in Rome. In many instances scholars have contented themselves with establishing this fact and then holding the question as at once settled.

(b) The idea, however, which underlies this whole polemic against 'Simon' is most distinctly against this, the idea, namely, that Peter has to follow Simon into every place where the latter has spread his erroneous teaching.

That this is Peter's task is everywhere taken for granted as a. thing of course. Take, for example, Hom. 14:12, where we find Peter saying that Simon is in Antioch (with Annubion); 'when, then, we get there and come upon them, the disputation can take place'; out of a large number of other passages we may point also to 1:17 where Peter speaks of himself as having come in upon Simon 'as light upon darkness, as knowledge upon ignorance, as healing upon disease' (eTreASwi ws CTKOTOJ rJMas, MS ayvoiq yvuxris, ws i-otrw tatris). According to 4:6 none but Peter can cope with Simon, and his companions complain that he has sent them on this occasion before him. In Recog. 3:65 Peter says: 'Since Simon has gone forth to preoccupy the ears of the Gentiles who are called to salvation, it is necessary that I also follow upon his track so that whatever disputation he raises may be corrected by us' (Quia Simon egressus est aures gentilium qni ad salutem vocati sunt praevenire, necesse est et me vestigia ejus insequi, ut si quid forte ab illo disputatum fuerit, corrigatur a nobis), and in 3:68 we read that 'Simon has set out, wishing to anticipate our journey ; him we should have followed step by step, that wheresoever he tries to subvert any there he might forthwith be confuted by us' (Simon praecedere yolens iter nostrum profectus est, quern oportuerat e vestigio insequi, ut sicubi aliquos subvertere tentaret, continue confutarettir a nobis).

In view of such passages as these it is not conceivable that the plan of the Homilies and Recognitions became limited to conflicts between 'Simon' and Peter in the East, as soon as it was known to the author that Simon had come also to Rome. But this was in point of fact actually known to the author, unless one is prepared to deny that the apostle Paul is meant by 'Simon'. Even if it is a Gnostic Simon that is controverted in the Homilies and Recognitions, it was Paul who supplied the basis for this Gnostic figure (above, 9-10) ; and it is only with the original oneness of the anti- Pauline elements in the Homilies and Recognitions on the one hand and in the Apocryphal Acts on the other that e have here to do.

(c) Nor yet are direct indications wholly wanting in the Homilies and Recognitions that the conflicts must be continued in Rome also.

Thus in Rec. 3:63-64 we read of Simon s going from Caesarea to Rome saying that 'there he would please the people so much that he should be reckoned a god and receive divine honours' (dicens se Romam petere ; ibi enim in tantum placiturum ut deus putetur et divinis donetur honoribus); see above, 5:2a. With this it agrees that Peter makes the request of Clement who is brought to him by Barnabas: 'travel with us, participating in the words of truth which I am going to speak from city to city, as far as Rome itself' (awo&tvaov r)f*ii /ueTaAap./3di wi> r<ur rtjs aArjfleias Adyta!/, &v Kara. TrcAty TroieicrScu fxeAAw fJ-f^pi Pw/xJJS ain-rjs : Hom. 1:16=Recog.1:13 iter age nobiscum et audi sermonem veritatis quern habituri sumus per loca singula, usquequo ad ipsnm nobis perveniendum sit urbem Romam ; cp 1:74 : usquequo deo favente perveniatur ad ipsam quo iter nostrum dirigendum credimus urbem Romam). So also in the Epistle of Clement to James prefixed to the Homilies (ch. 1) Peter is spoken of as being he 'who as being fittest of all was commanded to enlighten the darker part of the world, namely the West, and was enabled to set it right' (6 TTJS Sva^euii TO <7<coTei> OTfpoi TOV KOCT/XOU /ue pos ws irai Tiav ixayuJTepo? (ftiariffai KtAeutrtfeis Kai icar- opftio-ai. Svvr)6fif), and as having died in Rome.

The value of these passages as evidence becomes greater in proportion to the fulness of their agreement with the fundamental idea set forth above, under b. AH the more significant, therefore, is the simple ignor ing of them by Harnack and Clemen who do not accept this idea, and all the bolder the view of Chase (Hastings, DB 3775b) that they 'are so incidental in character that they may well be the interpolation of a later editor, the writer, for example, who composed the Epistle of Clement to James, prefixed to the Homilies'.

(d) Of equal importance is the fact that the Apocryphal Acts which deal only with conflicts in Rome contain references back to earlier conflicts of Simon with Peter (and Paul) in the East.

For the pre-Catholic Acts, 17, 23, see SIMON PETER, 33 c, ci, and for the Catholic Acts see chap. 17, where Simon says of Peter and Paul : 'They have turned aside all Judaea from believing in me' (fiteVrpeii/ai/ o\rjv rrjv lov&aiav TOV ny iricrTeveiv f/.oi), to which Peter makes answer, 'Thou hast been able to impose upon all, but upon me never ; and those also who have been deceived, God has through me recalled from their error' (na<ri SC eTriOecreius r\ovvr]0^. efj.oi S ovSfTrore Kal O.VTOVS &f roi/s efaTraTryfeVras oY ejnov 6 fob? eK TTJS ioia<s TrAanjs areKaAeVaro). Simon again holds precisely similar language in chap. 28 where he mentions all Palestine and Caesarea as well as Judaea (according to the Recognitions it was in Caesarea that the last great disputation between Simon and Peter occurred). With this it agrees that in the pre-Catholic Acts (ch. 5), in exact parallelism with the pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, Peter receives from Christ in a vision the following instruction: 'quem tu ejecisti de Judaea approbatum magum Simonem, iterum praeoccupavit vos Romae . . . crastina die proficiscere', whereupon Peter says to his Christian brethren 'necesse est me ascendere Romae [for Romam] ad expugnandum hostem et inimicum domini et fratrum nostrum' [for 'nostrorum'] (cp SIMON PETER, 34c, 33b).

Thus the pseudo-Clementines and the Apocryphal Acts alike make it plain that both of them have the underlying idea of a controverting of Simon by Peter in the East as well as in Rome, even although only the one half is developed in the one group of writings and the other half in the other.

(e) The attempt has been made to meet this by pointing out that church fathers mention the presence of Simon in Rome while at the same time not speaking of controversies between him and Peter. This is indeed true of Justin, who knows nothing of any presence of Peter in Rome at all (above, 2 ; SIMON PETER, 30g), as also of Irenaeus (1:16 [1:23 ]; about 185 A.D.) and Tertullian (Apol. 13 ; cp De anima, 34, 57 : about 200 A.D. ) who elsewhere do speak of the appearance of Peter in Rome (see SIMON PETER, 25b, 26a, and, conversely, the mention of Peter and Paul without Simon, 41c). Only, this argument from silence cannot prove that Simon really did make an appearance in Rome without any conflict with Peter.

In the writings of the church fathers the first mention of this conflict occurs in the Philosophumena, about 235 A.D. (see SIMON PETER, 39d). Amongst the sources of this work, however, must unquestionably be reckoned the avvra.yp.0. irpbs arracras ras aipe creis [syntagma pros hapasas tas haireseis] of Hippolytus, written about 200 A.D., even if Hippolytus may not be held to have been the author of the Philosophumena itself; and Lipsius has made it probable (JPT, 1876, p. 607) that this avv-ray^a [syntagma] of Hippolytus, now no longer extant, already contained the conflict between Peter and Simon. If this be so, it can no longer be asserted that the tradition of the conflict is later than the opposite tradition of Tertullian and Irenaeus. Moreover, it cannot be maintained that these two authors had any urgent occasion, in the particular connections in which they were writing, to mention this conflict if they had known it.

(f) In the case of Justin such an occasion un deniably did exist ; and, moreover, Justin as being the earlier (about 152 A.D.) is also the most important witness. He, however, as already pointed out, knows nothing of Peter s presence in Rome. Thus what he says about Simon admits of explanation without any difficulty, even if a tradition was already in existence before his time to the effect that Simon had been controverted by Peter in Rome. One part of this tradition that about Simon s presence in Rome - he found himself able to accept (in fact he held it to be confirmed by the statue, which he brought into con nection with Simon ; see above, 2a), the other - that about Peter's presence in Rome he was unable to accept. Why he could not, is a matter of indifference ; what is certain is that one who, as Justin does, regards all the twelve original apostles as having engaged in missions to the Gentiles, and is completely silent about Paul (MINISTRY, 36a) would have had no difficulty in accepting the presence of Peter in Rome, if he was in possession of credible information to this effect. One must reflect that the circles from which the traditions relating to the controverting of Simon by Peter emanated enjoyed small repute in the church, and certainly no mistake will have been committed if we suppose that it was Justin's knowledge of the Roman tradition, which he acquired on the spot, that prevented him from believing in the presence of Peter there (cp SIMON PETER, 40d}.

(g) As soon as the later hypothesis of Lipsius, which as we have seen (above, 10e) has most to recommend it, is adopted - viz., that the entire anti-Pauline polemic existed, in the first instance, in oral tradition - we are all the less in a position to doubt that from the beginning it formed a unity ; and sayings of church-fathers about a presence of Simon in Rome without any conflict with Peter cannot, on the other hand, be regarded as proving anything, if only because they are all of them much later, since the oral tradition just referred to must have come into existence during and shortly after the lifetime of Paul.

(h) Nor can the fact that in the Homilies and Recognitions only the eastern conflicts are dealt with, and in the Apocryphal Acts only the Roman be held as having force against this conclusion, even if we are not able to explain it.

At the same time, we may certainly conjecture that the resi dence and the geographical horizon of the various authors had a determining influence on the selection of the places which they made the scenes of their romance. Otherwise, the Homilies and Recognitions would certainly not have confined themselves to Palestine and Syria, but would have included Asia Minor and even Macedonia and Greece as well, where also Paul had exercised his missionary activities. Moreover, neither the Homilies and Recognitions, nor yet the Apocryphal Acts (though this does not hold true of them in the same degree) exhibit unity of conception in their present form. We cannot tell whether older forms of them would not give us a clearer insight into the original oneness of this whole body of literature.

12. What Simon (or Simons) historical?[edit]

Having now examined the Simon-romance in all its ramifications, our next question must be: what element of historical truth (if any) is there attaching to Simon?

{a} 0f the four simon figures distinguished above (8), the caricature of Paul in the Homilies and Recognitions and in the Apocryphal Acts was interpreted as having its basis in the historical Paul and no other historical person whatsoever by the Tubingen school, followed by Noldeke (in Lipsius, Ergansungsheft, 32-33) and Ludemann (below, 15), as also at an earlier date by Lipsius.

On this interpretation the explanation of the name Simon is that Paul, whose real name of course could not be mentioned, was the opponent of Simon Peter and thus was the false Simon ; he was called a Samaritan, it was held, because he was a Jew, and yet also no Jew since he rejected the law of Moses. On all other features, see above, 4-7, 9-11.

(b) Krenkel (below, 15), to explain the caricature of Paul, calls in the Cyprian magician Simon, who stood high in favour with Felix because of his services in helping him to win Drusilla (above, 8a).

As Paul also was well treated by Felix when in prison at Cssarea (Acts 24:22-26), it was a comparatively easy thing for Jewish-Christian slander to assert that he really was identical with the Cyprian Simon, and that, using this name, in order the more easily to gain followers he gave himself out to be the apostle Simon Peter. This last conjecture is altogether improbable ; but the first also goes somewhat far, although it seems to have some support in Paul's preaching before Felix and Drusilla of righteousness and temperance and the judgment to come (Acts 24:25 ; see BARJESUS, 4d). Cp above, 5e.

(c) Kreyenbuhl (205-214 ; see below, 15) goes still further.

The accusation against Paul of having brought Drusilla to Felix, he attributes not to the Jewish Christians, but to the Jews who accused him before Felix. According to Kreyenbuhl, a Cyprian Simon never existed ; what Josephus relates regarding him is simply this slander which was current against Paul, having been brought against him under the name of Simon which was given to him. liut the question arises : How came non-Christian Jews to give to Paul the name of Simon? Kreyenbuhl's explanation of how it was that at the same time they designated him as a Cyprian by birlh, is that Barjesus or Elymas (Acts 18:6-12) was originally the apostle Paul (see BARJESUS, 46). Both names are, according to Kreyenbuhl, nicknames which were given him by Jews (not Christian Jews), because he was received in a friendly way in Cyprus by Sergius Paulus, and there fully declared his apostasy from Judaism by changing his name. Elymas means 'magician', literally 'man of Elam' (BARJESUS, 1e), the classical land of magic; 'Barjesus' means follower of Jesus. Such hypotheses are exceedingly precarious. The historicity of the Cyprian Simon, attested as it is by Josephus, must not be questioned ; but it is not to the Paul of the Simon-romance, as Krenkel thinks (above, b), but only to the Paul who is presented under the name of Barjesus that features have been transferred from him (BARJESUS, 4b, 4c). Should it so happen that his name was not Simon, but Atomus ("ATO^OS ['atomos]), as Niese reads with the Milan codex and the epitome of Josephus, then one would be tempted to bring this into combination with the Erot/xas [etoimas], which is D's reading for Elymas in Acts 13:8 (so Harris, Exp. 1902 a, pp. 189-195 ; cp BARJESUS, 1ba).

(d) Lipsius, in his latest treatment of the subject (Apokr, Ap.-Gesch. 2:1:49-56), has recognised a Samaritan 76775 [goes] named Simon as historical. By doing so, he holds, we make it easier to understand the bestowal of the name of Simon upon Paul, and Justin's statement that Gitta was the birthplace of Simon, as well as the fact that Simon passes not only for the father of all heresies, but also as the revelation of the supreme God, and thus as a kind of Messiah (above, 2d). If Paul was the only basis for the figure of Simon, then only the first of these two predicates, not the second also, would have been attached to it. Lipsius adds, as a possibility, that this Samaritan Simon may be identical with the Cyprian Simon of Josephus.

(e) Harnack, in his turn, also maintains the historicity of the Samaritan Simon; not, however, as explaining the caricature of Paul (above, 4f. ), but because the Gnostic sect of the Simonians must have had a founder. Lipsius (51-52) adduces this reason for believing in the historicity of Simon only with the reservation that it is not necessary to bring the Simonians into direct historical connection with Simon ; they seem to have marked him out as the representative of their ideas only by an after thought. Kreyenbiihl (199-201), in like manner, postu lates a founder for the Simonian sect, but places him at the beginning of the second century, since the Gnostic contents of his A7r60acrts M^dXfj [apophasis megale], which he accepts as genuine (above, 2c), do not fit in with the first century, and Justin himself says that Simon was a pupil of Menander, and pupils of Menander are 'alive even now' (vvv [nyn]; Apol. 1:26:4), that is to say, about 152 A.D. Justin, it is true, says in the same chapter, and often, that Simon came to Rome under the emperor Claudius or, it may be (as Kreyenbuhl thinks), under (Claudius) Nero (see SIMON PETER, 37d); but Kreyenbuhl supposes him to draw this from another source without regard to chronology. In truth, the Simon of Acts shows very little if any of the attributes of a Gnostic leader of a sect, and we must be on our guard against holding him for such, on the ground, merely, that tradition names no other. If we assume a Gnostic Simon of Gitta at the beginning of the second century, then we do not need, as Kreyenbuhl at the same time does, to deny the historicity of the Samaritan magician named Simon in the first century - a historicity which the reasons adduced by Lipsius make very probable. If, further, we hesitate about identifying the Samaritan with the Cyprian Simon - an identification which has nothing in its favour except that the name and the quality of magician is the same in both cases - we find ourselves in the end accepting three persons named Simon. The point, however, is difficult to decide.

(f) It is certain, however, from all our premises, that not only Peter, but also the Samaritan Simon of the apostolic age, never appeared in Rome. It is told of 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 Simon is not entitled to credence, especially as his statement also, and not merely that of a simultaneous appearance of Simon always with Peter, is quite easily intelligible if it be taken as resting on the romance of Simon = Paul (11e, 11f). Whether a Gnostic of the second century named Simon appeared in Rome remains an open question ; but it is not of decisive importance for our present investigation.

Acts 8:9-24.[edit]

13. Simon = Paul.[edit]

The acceptance of a Samaritan Simon in the first century does not, however, by any means, ipso facto, carry with it the acknowledgement of the credibility of Acts 8:9-24. The features enumerated in a preceding section (1c, 1d}, which are by no means appropriate to a magician, find a satisfactory explanation only when it is recognised that the apostle Paul underlies this figure also.

(a) Only Paul, not a magician, could have had the wish to be able to impart the gift of the Holy Spirit, and thereby attain equality of rank with the original apostles ; and Simon s so rapid conversion to Christianity can apply only to Paul, the narrative already pre supposing him to be a Christian and interesting itself solely in his desire to be able to impart the gift of the Spirit. In the same direction point also the words of Peter (8:21) : 'thou hast neither part nor lot (sX-^pos [kleros]) in the matter'; for K\rjpo^ [kleros] (RV 'portion', RVmg 'lot') is in 1:17 (cp 1:25) used of the apostolate, the attainment of which by a magician is barred from the outset.

(b) Equality of rank with the original apostles was refused to Paul also by their party (1 Cor. 9:2 : 'if to others I am not an apostle', etc. ), for which reason the apostle himself claims it with the emphasis which we see (9:1, 1:1, 2 Cor. 1:1, Gal. 1:1, Rom. 1:1-6). Now, it is not difficult to discern in Peter's other expressions also in Acts 8:21-23, traces of the polemic which was being carried on against Paul.

'Thy heart is not right before God' (v. 21) has a close similarity to the expression used in 13:10 in addressing Barjesus (i.e., Paul) : 'wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord' ? At the same time, however, the phraseology recalls also Gal. 2:14 : 'they walked not uprightly' (OVK 6p0o- TroSova-iv [ouk orthopodousin]) according to the truth of the gospel. So Paul expresses himself in Antioch against Peter and his fellows. Thus we perceive that Acts 8:9-24 is the counterpart to the setting down of Peter by Paul at Antioch, and we are able to understand 8:23. For this verse does not mean, as in AV, RV, 'thou art in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity'. 'In the bond' might be intelligible, but 'in the gall' not. Thus ei XoArji/ . . . opoj <re OVTO. [eis cholen....oroo se onta] is the same familiar Hebraism as we find in Mt. 19:5: 'I see that thou art bitter gall and an iniquitous bond'. Paul must have seemed like 'bitter gall' on account of his opposition to Peter in Antioch, and an iniquitous restraint in so far as he endeavoured to prevent Peter from again withdrawing from table-fellowship with the Gentile Christians. Lastly, Simon's repentance (8:24) has its parallels (i.e., according to section 9, its foundation) in the Homilies and Recognitions (above, 4b).

(c) But, did Paul really offer the original apostles money in order to obtain from them a recognition of his equality with them? Certainly not. But it was merely the finishing touch to the discovery of the Simon romance when Volkmar ( Tub. Theol. Jahrbb. 1856, pp. 279-286) perceived that Paul, according to Jewish-Christian scandal, was held to have done so when he carried the great collection to Jerusalem on the occasion of his last journey thither (1 Cor. 16:1-4, 2 Cor. 8-9, Rom. 15:25-28).

14. Tendency[edit]

On this presupposition, let us now ask what judgment we ought to form as to the literary activity of the author of Acts.

(a) If the Samaritan Simon was not a historical person, the author of Acts invented him in order to say that not Paul but a Samaritan magician was the Simon with regard to whom Jewish-Christian stories told that he had wished to purchase equality 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 author 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 before Paul's conversion, must be regarded as- specially effective.

(b) In order not to be compelled to attribute this to the author of Acts, Lipsius in his latest treatment (Apokr. Ap.-Gesch. 2:1:51-52) assumed not only that the Samaritan Simon had actually existed, but also that he had an encounter with Peter.

At the same time, inasmuch as what is said in Acts 8:14-17 as to the prerogative of Peter and John in regard to the imparting of the Holy Spirit is quite unhistorical (MINISTRY, 34c), Lipsius can uphold his view only on the assumption that the encounter between Peter and Simon had another occasion. When this hypothesis is entertained, however, not only has a region of pure conjecture to be entered upon, but the tendency of the author of Acts remains just as it was before a tendency to say something unhistorical about Simon in order to blunt the point of the Judaistic allegation that it applied to Paul.

(c) Lipsius further propounds it as a possibility that this substitution 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 relates the story as referring to the Samaritan Simon in all good faith in its trustworthiness.

(d) By way of support 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,

In this connection, however, 8:9 cannot be urged : 'giving out that himself was some great one' ; for by this expression he is more nearly brought on a level with Theudas (5:36). Even the fact of his being called 'the power of God that is called Great' (8:10) admits of being carried back to Paul. Paul, indeed, not only calls his gospel a power of God (Rom. 1:16, 1 Cor. 1:18, 1:24), but also claims himself to possess the power of God (2 Cor. 4:7, 6:7, 12:9, 13:4, 1 Cor. 5;4). Yet it remains possible that the expression in Acts 8:10 is a Gnostic one, especially in view of the word KaAoiijixe n) [kaloumene]. We have no more reason for omitting this with HLP sah than we have for deleting TOU 0eou [tou theou], after Blass (St. Kr. 1896, p. 462), on the sole ground of the Latin translation of Perpignan (ACTS, n. 2). On the other hand, neither also is there any occasion for taking jueyaATj [megale] as the Aramaic participle Pael (xSja or ^D = 'the revealer' ; so Klostermann, Probleme im Aposteltext, 1883, pp. 15-21). In the pseudo-Clementine Homilies (2:22) we read in the description of the Gnostic predicates of Simon : 'he wishes to be accounted a certain supreme power, higher even than the god who created the world' (tfe Aei vo\Li(f<iOa.\. ai/ajTarr) TI? flrai 8ura/u.t? ical ail-row TOU rov Ko&fiov KTiVai-ros OeoG [avwrcpa [anootera] is perhaps to be supplied] ; Recog. 2:7: excelsam virtutem quae supra creatorem deum sit ; cp section 3a, and SIMON PETER, 33a.

(e) Yet, even if the author of Acts has already taken up a Gnostic feature into his presentation of Simon, the fact remains that he was aware of, and wished to obviate, the reproach that Paul had wished to purchase for himself equality with the original apostles by means of his great collection. Otherwise, he would not have passed the collection over in such complete silence in chap. 21, where we should have expected its delivery to be recorded, whilst yet he has preserved in 20:4 from the 'we-source' (according to a highly probable conjecture) the list of those who brought it (GALATIA, section 22). Not till 24:17 has been reached does the author allude to it at all, but here in such a manner that it becomes something quite different - viz. , 'alms for my nation', not for the Christians in Palestine only. For the main purpose of the book -the representation of the harmony subsisting between Paul and the original apostles (ACTS, 3, end) - the mention of the collection would have been serviceable in the highest degree. This may be the reason why a collection brought by Paul to the Christians in Jerusalem is actually mentioned, though at a time at which it is historically impossible (11:29-30, 12:25; cp COUNCIL, 1a). All these circum stances speak for tendency too clearly to allow us to shut our eyes to the presence of the same thing in 8:9-24.

(f) The decision which must be pronounced, that tendency is at work here, is not weakened, but strengthened, by separating out a source which was not (as with Lipsius ; above, c) already a tendency-document, but rather as absolutely historical as possible (above, 1b-1d) ; for the user of this source has all the more assuredly, in that case, purposely introduced by his interpolations the tendency which the present narrative as a whole exhibits.

(g) What we are able to absolve him from, then, is certainly in no case (whether he used sources or not) the deliberate intention of representing the great collection in another light than that which agreed with actual facts, in order to take away all foundation from evil rumours about Paul which were based on the facts ; the most that one can do is to absolve him from the charge of having deliberately invented statements of fact, if we assume that he actually knew of the existence of the Samaritan Simon which we must recognise as a fact, and in good faith believed that it must have been this Simon who made the attempt to bribe, and that Peter must have withstood him. This view admits of being understood as a result of his general assumption that the party of the original apostles cannot possibly have stood in a relation of such hostility to Paul (cp the similar judgment expressed under BARJESUS, 4c). It still, however, remains impossible to deny that the author has been led by tendency to be silent as to the real history of the collection, just as he has been led to be silent about the dispute between Peter and Paul at Antioch, and about Titus (see COUNCIL, 3 end, 7 end), or that he relates matters for which he had no historical warrant.

15. Literature.[edit]

Haur, Tub. Ztschr. f. Theol., 1831, ri, 114-136; Simson, Z.f. hist. Theol. 1841, c, 15-79 . Hilgenfelcl, ZWT, 1868, 357-396; Ketzergesch., 1884, 163-186, 453-461 ; Lipsius, Quellen d. rom. Petrussage, 1872, 13-46 ; Simon Magus in BL, 5;, 1875, 301-321; gesch. (2), 204-209, 264-270; Dieterlen, L'apotre Paul et Simon le magicien, Nancy, 1878; Krenkel, Josephus u. Lucas, 1894, 178-190; Kreyenhiihl, Kvang. d. H ahrheit, 1, 1900, 174-284.

On the pseudo-Clementine writings see Schliemann, Die Clementinen, 1844 ; Hilgenfeld, Die clement. Recogn. u. Homillen, 1848 ; Uhlhorn, Die Homil, u. Recogn. des Clemens Rom., 1854; Langen, Die Clemensromane, 1890; Hort, Notes Introductory to the Study of the Clt in. Recog., 1902 ; Bigs;, in Stud. Bib. "1, 1890, 157-193 ; Headlam, JThSt, 1901 f., 41-58 ; Chapman, ibid. 436-441 ; and (in agreement with him) Harnack, TLZ, 1902, 570.

P. W. S.