SIMON MAGUS & MARCION (CHAPTER 2 SIMON MAGUS)

CHAPTER TWO

SIMON MAGUS

I.     INTRODUCTION

       Simon Magus was a mysterious figure who could be anybody. In Acts 8 he called himself ‘somebody great’(v. 9). And people in Samaria regarded him as ‘the power of God which is called Great’ (v. 10;  and also in Origen’s Contra Celsum 5.62 and in Epiphanius’ Pan 21.1.2). In Justin’s 1 Apology 26 (and in Epiphanius’ Pan 21.3.6) Simon was worshiped as ‘the first god’ (i.e., Zeus or Jupiter). Then, in Irenaeus’ Adversus Haereses 1.23.1 and also in Tertullian’s De Anima 34, this Simon appeared as ‘the Son of God’ among the Jews, as ‘the Father’ in Samaria, and as ‘the Holy Spirit’ among the other nations. Simon in Irenaeus was also ‘a docetic Christ’ who appeared a man to suffer, though he really did not suffer; and he was ‘a salvific Christ’ through whose grace (not through holy deeds) men could be saved (cf. Eph. 2:8-9).¹  He was also called ‘the most sublime (or supreme) Power’,² and ‘the good shepherd’ who sought his lost sheep, Helen(a).³  In Stromateis 2.52 of Clement of Alexandria, Simon was worshiped as ‘the one who stands firm’ like Abraham (Gen. 18:22-23) and like Moses (Deut. 5:31) by his followers. In Hippolytus’ Refutatio, Simon was claimed to be ‘He who stood, stands, and will stand’ (6.4, 6.12-13); and he himself claimed to be ‘the Power above all things’(6.14). And in the Pseudo-Clementines Simon asserted that he was ‘the Standing One,’ ‘the Christ,’ and ‘the great power of the high God’ (R 1.72, 2.7, 2.11; H 2.22, 2.24, 18.12, 18.14), or ‘a certain power which is above God the Creator’ (R 2.12).  But, then, he, like Marcion (and Menander and Saturninus), spoke of ‘the unknown God,’ claiming that “there are many gods; but that there is one incomprehensible and unknown to all, and that He is the God of all these gods” (R 2.38).

       Concerning the Simon story, G. Filoramo suggests the four different phases of development.  That is, the first stage of the story is given in Acts 8; the second stage in Justin’s 1 Apology and Irenaeus’ Adversus Haereses; the third stage in Hippolytus’ Refutatio which is said to have reproduced Simon’s allegedly lost work, Apophasis Megalê, and then the final stage is given in the apocryphal Acts of Peter and the Pseudo-Clementines.⁴  It is true that the Simon story has developed over time, but it does not seem to be linear development.  Rather, the story varies because of the complicated combinations of different traditions and different developments.  Although many different versions of the Simon story are surviving, we may reduce them into three different accounts, which came from at least three different traditions.⁵  Each of them appears in the Acts of the Apostles, in Justin Martyr’s 1 Apology and in the Pseudo-Clementines (Recognitions and Homilies), respectively. Several other early Christian writers deal with the Simon Magus story, but theirs are only derivations, additions, or combinations of the different accounts.⁶

       Unlike Simon’s and/or his followers’ claims about him, Simon in Acts and other early Christian writings was portrayed as ‘a magician’ and/or as ‘a Gnostic.’ Simon in Acts was described simply as a magician who had practiced his magic in Samaria.  He wanted to purchase the power of the Holy Spirit, thinking that the power of the Holy Spirit was greater than his own magical power, but was rejected by Peter.  In Justin’s 1 Apology, Simon was reported to be a magician, but at the same time, he was depicted as a Gnostic with his companion, his first thought (_vvoια), Helena.  And Irenaeus claims that from this Simon all heresies got their start.⁷  In the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, Simon was one of the thirty disciples of John the Baptist, and practiced his magic in Alexandria of Egypt. In the Recognitions, Simon was said to join the sect of Dositheus after John the Baptist was killed. Helena in the Pseudo-Clementines was not a prostitute but the only female disciple of John the Baptist. After Simon became the head of the sect, Helena traveled around with him.  However, she looked to be non-existent when Simon Magus encountered with Peter.  There was no voice from her at all throughout the whole Pseudo-Clementine literature, which seems to be quite strange. Simon was claimed to come down to the earth to rescue Helen, his first thought and lost sheep. But, Simon tried to fly to the sky alone without Helen.  In the Pseudo-Clementines, especially in the Homilies, Simon was also portrayed as a Paul-like figure, and as the arch-enemy of Peter and James, and the Christian church.  Peter in his confrontation with Simon in Caesarea refuted his magic, power, and dreams and visions, and even his ‘alleged claim of apostleship.’  These allegations do not seem to be against Simon Magus but directly against Paul.

       How is it possible to relate Simon with Paul the apostle?  In the second century Paul was a problematic figure still to be tested and confirmed.  He was claimed to be ‘the apostle of the heretics.’  Attacking Paul under the name of Simon Magus was probably a way that was frequently used by the Jewish Christians who did not like Paul to denounce his teachings and doctrines and his apostleship.

II.  SIMON’S BIOGRAPHY

A.  Simon’s Origin

       It is difficult to outline the biography of Simon Magus, as his life, first of all, is little known, and secondly, as there are various traditions and versions about him.  We may only be able to briefly sketch his lif mostly from the Pseudo-Clementines.  According to the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies (2.22) and Recognitions (2.7), Simon is a son of Antonius and Rachel.⁸  In the Recognitions (2.14, 3.47) Simon claims that his mother Rachel conceived him when she was still a virgin, and that he was born of her as a man,  not as a little one, to be visible to men.  He is a Samaritan who comes from a village of the Gitthae (or Gethones).  Justin also confirms that Simon comes from Gitta, a village in Samaria.⁹  The Acts of Peter(=APt) 6 calls Simon “a certain Jew.”¹⁰  But, it is not clear whether it means a genuine Jew or a kind of Jew including a half-Jew, a Samaritan.  The APt reports that the incident of Acts 8:9-24 happened not in Samaria but in Jerusalem.

B.  Simon’s Education

       For a certain period of time, Simon is said to have studied in Alexandria of Egypt probably around 40s.  In connection with Simon’s training in Egypt, it is interesting to observe that Paul was asked if he was the Egyptian “who stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand men of the Assassins out into the wilderness” in Acts 21:18.¹¹  We are not sure about what Simon studied there, but we may guess that he studied magic all the more assiduously in order that he might amaze many men including Peter,¹² who rebuked him in Acts 8:20-23.  If the testimony of the Recognitions is reliable to a certain extent, Simon is also trained in the dialectic art, in the meshes of syllogisms (R 2.5), and in the Greek literature (R 2.7).

C.  The Sect of John the Baptist

       According to the Homilies (2.23-2.24) Simon was a disciple of John the Baptist.  However, Simon in the Recognitions (2.8-2.9) was not a first-hand disciple of John the Baptist but a disciple of Dositheus. Dositheus was a disciple of John the Baptist. But, after John’s death, he broached his sect of thirty members--twenty nine men and one woman named Luna (Helena in the Homilies)--in resemblance of an average lunar month.  In details, the account in the Homilies is remarkably different from the parallel account in the Recognitions.

       In the Homilies John the Baptist had thirty chief disciples, among whom were Dositheus (or Dositheos), Simon, and a woman named Helena.  Simon was regarded as the most talented disciple by John the Baptist.  But, at the time of his death (27-28 C.E.), John the Baptist could not appoint him his successor as Simon was in Egypt.  Rumoring that Simon was dead, Dositheus was able to become a leader of the sect.  Simon returned and for a while he accepted the second position of the sect.  Soon Simon claimed that Dositheus was not providing correct teaching due to his ignorance.  Becoming convinced that Simon was “the Standing One” after an unsuccessful attack on him, Dositheus surrendered to Simon his leadership, and soon afterwards died.

D.  Simon’s Journeys and Activities

       Although Simon was known to be a Samaritan, if he was associated with the sect of John the Baptist (i.e., a disciple of John the Baptist or a disciple of Dositheus who succeeded John after his death), the area of his initial activity as a member of the sect would be at or around the wilderness of Judea (Matt. 3:1).¹³  According to the Acts of Peter 5, Simon was expelled from Judea after having exposed himself as a magician.  It means that a certain tradition tells that Simon was active as a magician in Judea in his early period.

       When Simon became the chief of the sect succeeding Dositheus, according to the Pseudo-Clementines, he traveled around with Helena (or Luna).  After Simon left Judea, he apparently went to Caesarea (via Samaria).¹⁴  The reason why Simon decided to travel around was to propagate his power and his teachings.  He wanted to claim himself as the power of God by demonstrating his magical power or miraculous deeds.  There were disputations between Simon and Peter recorded in the Pseudo-Clementines--two in the Homilies and one in the Recognitions.  The first one in the Homilies and the only one in the Recognitions occurred at Caesarea.  Then, the second disputation between them in the Homilies occurred at Laodicea of Syria.¹⁵  This second disputation is omitted in the Recognitions for some unknown reason, although Peter in the Recognitions resolved to follow Simon to stop the propaganda of his wicked teaching.¹⁶

       To avoid any further disputation with Peter, Simon left Caesarea. According to one of Simon’s disciples, Simon was going to Rome, saying that “he would please the people (in Rome) very much, that he should be reckoned as a god, and publicly gifted with divine honors.”¹⁷  And Simon is said to set out for Rome.¹⁸  This allegation is recorded only in the Recognitions.  But, the later stories never confirmed this. As a matter of fact, Simon went to Laodicea, and then, to Antioch of Syria.  When Peter and his company reached Antioch in pursuit of him, Simon was said to have gone back to Judea.¹⁹  The regions which Simon was traveling with his followers,²⁰ according to the Pseudo-Clementines, were from Judea to Caesarea, then to Laodicea, and up to Antioch of Syria. He did not go beyond Antioch. Instead, he returned to Judea.

E.  Simon in Rome

       Did Simon come to Rome during his lifetime?  The Pseudo-Clementines do not confirm Simon’s coming to Rome.  Although Simon said that he would go to Rome (R 3.63-64; cf. R 1.74), he did not proceed beyond Antioch of Syria.  Justin claims that Simon came to Rome during the reign of Claudius Caesar (41-54 C.E.), performing mighty works of magic there, astonishing the Roman Senate and people, and being thought to be a god by many people.²¹  The books of apocryphal Acts (Acts of Peter, Acts of Peter and Paul, etc.) and the Apostolic Constitutions, which may share the same legend of Simon with Justin, tell the story of Simon in Rome.  The authors of the apocryphal Acts let Simon Magus, departing from Antioch, come to Rome so that he may be encountered by Peter whom the Roman church leaders want to have their first (symbolic) bishop of Rome (together with Paul for the purpose of unity and harmony between the churches in Rome and the churches in Asia Minor and in Macedonia and Achaia, and elsewhere).²²  It seems to me that Simon’s coming to Rome is unhistorical but a pure legend just like the case of Simon Peter.  I think that Simonianism not Simon came to Rome at the beginning of the second century, as Gnosticism became known to the people in Rome.

F.  Simon’s Death

       There are two different versions of Simon’s death in circulation,²³ one death in burial and the other death by fall from the sky.  Both versions of Simon’s death are related to Christ’s event.  That is, claiming himself to be Christ, Simon tried to imitate Jesus’ resurrection three days after his burial and his ascension (by the help of his angels).  I think that these two versions are made-up stories after Simonianism became Christianized probably in the early or mid second century.  It seems to be true, however, that Simon was worshiped as a god not only in Samaria but also in Rome after his death-- probably himself as Zeus with his Helen as Athena, a goddess of wisdom, who was believed to be brought forth from Zeus’s brain--as Simonianism spread to Rome. 

       According to Hippolytus, Simon Magus, who was sitting under a plane-tree arguing with the Apostles, said that “if he were buried alive, he would rise the third day.”²⁴  His disciples dug a trench following Simon’s order.  Simon directed himself to be interred there.  Hippolytus makes fun of Simon by stating, “he(=Simon) remained in that grave until this day, for he was not the Christ.”

       In APt 32, MPt 3, and APtP, Simon’s death followed his attempt to fly into heaven.  In Rome Simon declared that he could fly up to the sky.  According to APt 32 (or MPt 3), people assembled on the Via Sacra(=Sacred Way).  Simon immediately took flight.  But Peter uttered a prayer which caused him to fall to the ground and broke his leg in three places.  Some helpers carried Simon from Rome to Aricia, where he stayed with a man named Castor, a sorcerer. Following an operation, Simon ended his life there.

       According to APtP,²⁵ Simon’s flight occurred at a lofty tower built on the place called Campus Martius before Peter and Paul, Nero and the crowd.  When Simon began to fly, Paul prayed to God, bending his knees.  Peter commanded the angels of Satan, who were carrying Simon to let him go.  Then, Simon fell into a place called Sacra Via (=Sacred Way; cf. APt 32), and was divided into four pieces. He died there.  Nero ordered the body of Simon to be carefully kept three days, thinking that he would rise on the third day, as he was risen before on the third day when a ram, in his place, was beheaded by deception. But, at this time, he was truly dead.

       The Apostolic Constitutions(=AC) also records Simon’s flight.  When people in Rome gathered into a theater, Simon began to fly in the air by the help of the wicked angels.  However, when Peter was praying, Simon fell down headlong with a great noise. Although his hip and ankle-bones were broken, according to the AC, he was not dead yet.

       In various versions of Simon’s flight, one thing that is always missing is that Simon never attempted to bring Helen back to the sky, although the main reason why Simon came down to the earth was allegedly said to rescue Helen,²⁶ his first thought and the lost sheep (Luke 15:6).  Although he died under the earth or in the air or on his death bed, his teaching and magic art did not disappear with him.  But, his name survived or reemerged in Rome in the second century.

III.   SIMON MAGUS IN EARLY WRITINGS

A.  Simon in Acts 8:4-25 (Luke’s Account)

       As E. Haenchen (cf. Bauernfeind) points out, the whole passage is a complicated mixture of tradition and Lukan composition.²⁷  Concerning Luke’s intention to begin with the story of Philip’s mission in Samaria, Haenchen suggests that Luke wants to express this event as a direct consequence of the persecution at Jerusalem after Stephen’s martyrdom.²⁸  H. Conzelmann claims that for vv. 5-25 “Hellenistic traditions lie behind the report of the mission in Samaria (1:8).”²⁹  It seems to me that Luke, using a Samaritan (or Samarian) tradition of worship of Simon or of Dositheus (cf. vv. 9-11), retells the story.  The passage can be divided into two parts.  Neither the first part (8:5-13), Philip’s mission in Samaria, nor the second part (8:14-24), Peter’s confrontation with Simon in Samaria, seems to be historical, contrary to G. Lüdemann.³⁰

1.  Philip and Simon (Acts 8:4-13)  

       Verses 5-8 summarize Philip’s mission in a Samarian city.  Philip’s mission activity is a fulfilling process of Jesus prophetic command in 1:8 and the result of a great persecution in Jerusalem and scattering in 8:1.  And this is the second part of Luke’s scheme of mission in Acts.  This part is a Lukan composition.  Conzelmann states that “Simon appears as a Samaritan, though this was hardly the case.”³¹  However, beside Acts, Justin and all other Christian writers regard him “a Samaritan” although some modern scholars raise a question whether he was “a Samarian” instead of “a Samaritan.”³²  According to Eisenman, Simon in Josephus’ Antiquities (20.7) who is described as “a Cypriot” (a person from Cyprus) is also the same person with Simon the magician both here in Acts and in other early Christian writings.  He suggests that Josephus’ calling Simon ‘a Cypriot’ is a sort of confusion based on ‘Kitta or Kittim’ in Hebrew (Cuthaeans for Samaritans).³³

       “The great power (of God)” (or power [of God] which is called Great) is obviously assigned to Simon.  Haenchen (and also Lüdemann) claims that ‘of God’ is appended here wrongly by the author.³⁴  It seems to me that Simon in his own time would be called “the great power of God” by the Samaritans in that “power” (δύvαμις), as Conzelmann states, could designate “the second rank of divinity, the revealer.”³⁵  But, then, the Simonians in the second century do not need the subjective genitive expression, “of God,” because, for the Simonians, Simon should be even greater than God the Creator (cf. Pseudo-Clementine Homilies 2.22).³⁶  Yet, Haenchen thinks that ‘the great power’ is the Simonian designation (in the second century?).³⁷  K. Rudolph suggests that “the term ‘might, power’ is a popular divine attribute of the Samaritan-Jewish tradition.”³⁸

       In verse 12, “Luke of Acts” emphasizes the baptism of many Samaritans, but the content of baptism is not yet fully explained or the baptismal rite is not quite finished.  That is, baptism would need receiving of laying-on-of-hands and receiving of the Holy Spirit (vv. 15, 17) as well as the words of baptism (v. 16). Conzelmann states that “what is implied by _βαπτίζω is clarified only subsequently in vss. 15-16.”³⁹  Concerning Simon’s baptism by Philip, Haenchen states:  “In the process, of course, Simon had to be downgraded from the rank of an incarnate god to that of mere magician.”⁴⁰  He further suggests that, relating to Simon’s encounter with and baptism by Philip, the story in the original version might be that Simon “offered to buy the miraculous powers of the great wonder-worker Philip.”⁴¹  As Conzelmann and Haenchen point out, Simon’s baptism by Philip in v. 13 is obviously not historical.  G. Lüdemann himself is quite convinced that the Hellenist Philip’s mission in Samaria is a historical fact, stating “As in all probability Simon appeared among the Samarians, the same is also for Philip.”⁴²  But, it doesn’t seem to me that Simon’s encounter with Philip is a historical fact, contrary to Lüdemann.  It does not mean that I reject the historicity of the Hellenists’ mission to Samaria.  As a matter of fact, I think that the successful mission in Samaria by the Hellenistic Christians (if not by Philip) is probably historical.  It seems to me that Philip’s encounter with Simon is a Lukan composition to subordinate Simon’s power of magic to Philip’s (and later Peter’s) power of the Holy Spirit. The character of Philip in 8:5-13 can be included in the person of Peter in 8:14-24.

2.  Peter and Simon (Acts 8:14-25)

       I think that G. Lüdemann is right, suggesting that vv. 14-24 is a Lukan composition.⁴³  He also claims that “verses 14-17 is redactional in both language and content.⁴⁴  It seems to me that this strange passage serves for Luke’s intention. Many people in Samaria were already baptized by Philip, both men and women (v. 12).  Philip performed the signs of exorcism and healing (vv. 6, 7).  What else did the people in Samaria need to see and receive?  Why should the apostles in Jerusalem send Peter and John (v. 14)?  Luke seems to tell us that the Samaritan (or Samarian) people needed the laying-on-of-apostles’ hands to receive the Holy Spirit.⁴⁵  But is it the true or only reason for Luke to need to send Peter and John to Samaria?  Then, what kind of baptism was that done by Philip?  Did Philip only proclaim “the baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus” without laying on of his hands (v. 16)?⁴⁶  Did the baptism require the two-step procedure--proclamation of baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus and then laying-on-of-apostles’ hands?⁴⁷  I don’t think that was what Luke intends to say here although he suggests that it(=laying-on-of-apostles’ hands) would be the means to invite Peter and John to Samaria.  Haenchen states that “the mission to the Samaritans was not completed by any subordinate outsider, but was carried out in due form by the legal heads of the Church in person.”⁴⁸  Conzelmann’s comment on v. 16 is probably right in that “the Samaritan church is legitimate if it has been sanctioned by Jerusalem.”⁴⁹  He suggests that the idea of baptism is not the point but the understanding of the church. But, a more important thing in Luke’s mind seems to be the subordination of Simon to Peter, the super apostle of the spiritual power.  The second century Luke wants to create an incident of the confrontation between Peter and Simon (in Samaria), which seems to be a pre-Lukan extant tradition. But, then, John’s role is obscure.⁵⁰

       Conzelmann is probably right when he suggests that vv. 18-24 “offer the detailed example of the Lukan distinction between miracle (of the apostles) and magic (of the wicked sorcerer).”⁵¹  The Pseudo-Clementine Homilies (2.33 and 2.34) distinguishes the philanthropic miracles from the useless and wicked miracles.  Whereas the useless miracles include “making statues walk, rolling oneself on burning coals, becoming a dragon, being changed into a goat, and flying in the air” to astonish and deceive people, the philanthropic miracles that Peter in Homilies mentions mainly refer to “healing and exorcism”--“being freed from all kinds of diseases, and some from demons, some having their hands restored, and some their feet, some recovering their eyesight, and some their hearing.” But, these healing and exorcism were what Philip did in Samaria (v. 7). In this sense, I think that Philip in vv. 5-13 cannot be separated from Peter in vv. 14-25. Rather, Philip in Acts 8:5-13 seems to me to be a proto-Peter in the early Christian writings that deal with the confrontations between Peter and Simon. Concerning Philip and Simon,  Lüdemann’s comment seems to be appropriate:  “(in vv. 4-13) Luke wants to depict the superiority of Philip’s power to that of Simon.  In this connection Philip’s signs and wonders are as superior to Simon’s magic as his proclamation of the word is superior to the self-glorification or self-divination of the latter.”⁵²

       If baptism accompanies the receiving of the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 10:44-48; 19:1-7), it is strange to observe that Simon who was the one of those who were baptized in the two-step procedure of baptism (v. 13 and v. 17) offered Peter and John money, asking the power of the Holy Spirit.  Is it Simon’s misunderstanding of the Holy Spirit by separating the receiving of the Holy Spirit and the power of the Holy Spirit? Or is it Luke’s intention--implying that the apostles laid their hands on the people of Samaria except on Simon; or the apostles laid their hands on Simon but he did not receive the Holy Spirit; or Simon received the Holy Spirit like other people but he did not feel the power of the Holy Spirit?  Luke seems intentionally not to mention Simon’s receiving (the power of) the Holy Spirit.  That is, Simon, in Luke’s eyes, is not worthy to receive the Holy Spirit, borrowing Peter’s rebuke, although the apostles did not exclude him when they laid their hands on them.    

       Why did Simon want to buy the power of the Holy Spirit which he apparently did not receive even after the apostles’ laying their hands on him?  O. Bauernfeind suggests that in an earlier version of the story Simon wanted to buy the gift of healing.  But, in a later version, what he wanted to buy from the apostle was not only the talent of healing but also that of imparting the Spirit.⁵³  He may be right, reading the Homilies (2.33 and 2.34).  Relating to this “buying motif,”⁵⁴  Epiphanius makes fun of Simon:  “For he(=Simon) had counted on spending a little money, and amassing a huge fortune and more in return for a small investment, by giving the Holy Spirit to others.”⁵⁵ 

       Verse 22 seems to be a later insertion for the disciplinary purpose.  It is interesting to note that Irenaeus omits this verse when he quotes Acts 8:20-23, then also omits Simon’s repentance in v. 24, and states his rivalry relationship with the apostles, thereafter.⁵⁶  Tertullian summarizes vv. 8-21, and then describes Simon’s turning aside as an enemy of the apostles, skipping vv. 22-24.⁵⁷  The AC closely follows Luke’s description in vv. 5-24 including vv. 22 and 24.⁵⁸  Yet, Simon’s prayer request to Peter was not from his inner heart, and turned out to be a chief enemy of Peter, but later he was ruthlessly defeated by Peter in Rome.⁵⁹

       Verse 24 heralds Simon’s future defeat by Peter.  Luke’s story is open-ended, but his conclusion about the battle between Peter and Simon is quite clear.  The power of the Spirit always wins over the power of magic!  (cf. Paul versus Elymas the magician in Acts 13:4-12).⁶⁰  Yet, it’s not obvious why “Luke of Acts” who would live in the middle of the second century did not mention other traditions which probably were known to him.  One possibility is that Luke who wrote the story of the early middle of the first century (around 40 C.E.) did not want to give a wrong impression that a Gnostic sect within Christianity at this early time was already about to sprout.⁶¹  R. M. Grant raises a question: “Does he(=the author of Acts) have the erroneous notion that there was no heresy until the end of the apostolic age, and therefore refrains from Simon’s Gnostic doctrine?”  It seems to me evident that there were Gnostic sects even in the first century but they were non-Christian or Jewish Gnostic sects.  The question might be in what sense one can speak of “Christians” in the first century, though.  The Gnostic movement within Christianity appears to have been a second century phenomenon, when Christianity would gain its popularity.  I think that Luke understood correctly that Simon as a father of the Simonians and other Christian Gnostics was not the first century phenomenon but the second century development or invention from necessity.  That’s why the second century “Luke of Acts” in the midst of the prevailing Gnostics intentionally tried to minimize and subdue the magical power of Simon under the power of even Philip not to mention of Peter.

B.   Simon in the Church Fathers

1.  Simon in Justin Martyr (Justin Martyr’s Account)

       Although K. Beyschlag and S. Pétrement argue that Justin draws from “Luke of Acts” most of what he says,⁶² I think that Justin’s account⁶³ is somewhat obviously different from that of Acts.  Justin himself came from Samaria, but it does not necessarily mean that his information was from Samaria.⁶⁴  He mentions neither Simon’s baptism by Philip nor his encounter with Peter, unlike the author of Acts. Justin speaks of a certain Simon who came from Gitta, a village in Samaria during the reign of Claudius Caesar (41-54 C.E.), performing mighty works of magic in Rome, astonishing the Roman Senate and people, and being thought to be a god by many people.⁶⁵  Simon performed mighty works of magic in Rome and was thought to be a god.  Although Justin claims that Simon was honored as a god with a statue, which had an inscription, reading, “SIMONI DEO SANCTO (=To Simon the holy god),” he apparently was misinformed of or misread the inscription which states “SEMONI SANCO DEO FIDIO ... .”⁶⁶  Or, as R. M. Grant suggests, it is possible that the inscription was actually attributed to Jupiter (Zeus in Greek myth), and Simonians in Rome worshiped this statue of Jupiter (the god of oaths, heaven, thunder, and lightening, ...) as their god, Simon.⁶⁷  Simon was allegedly worshiped as “the first god” (πρ_τoς θεός) not only by almost all Samaritans but also by a few even in other nations including in Rome.⁶⁸  However, as B. W. Hall properly points out,⁶⁹ among the post-New Testament writers Justin is the only one who claims that Simonianism was strong among the Samaritans and even among the Romans (1 Apol 26 and 2 Apol 56).

       Justin describes Helena, who is Simon’s companion, as “a (previous) public prostitute.”⁷⁰  Helena is regarded as the first thought (or idea: _vvoια) of Simon’s mind (vo_ς).  A similar expression is found in Acts 8:22, “the intent of your heart” (_ _πίvoια τ_ς καρδίας σoυ) although they seem to be independent of each other.  “Luke of Acts” and Justin Martyr probably took their expressions from a certain previous source material.  Justin did not explain much in detail how the first thought (_vvoια), Helena, became a prostitute in Tyre.⁷¹  G. Filoramo suggests that the fact that she is called Helena is a clear evidence of the syncretistic character of that cult.⁷²  As Simonian followers confess that Simon was “the first god,” Helena, the first thought (_vvoια) of the first god (πρ_τoς θεός), could be also called the Holy Spirit.⁷³  In 1 Apology 64, Justin presents Simon’s Helen both as Korê, a daughter of Zeus, imagery of the Holy Spirit (Gen. 1:1-2) and as Athena, another daughter of Zeus, imagery of the first thought (_vvoια).

       Furthermore, Justin (or the Simonians in Justin) took the “rescue motif (of Helen)” from Homer’s Iliad, the Hellenistic written source.⁷⁴  According to D. MacDonald, “in a Valentinian Gnostic text, Helen symbolizes the soul that fell into the world and became a prostitute.”⁷⁵ If his observation is true, then this Valentinian idea perhaps came from the Simonians’ (Simon’s second century developed claim).  Or, more probably, I think, the second century Simonians employed the Valentinian idea in their Simon-Helen story.  As Homer’s libidinous Helen had to spend for her ten years of  detention in Troy before she was rescued as a result of the Trojan War, so did Simon’s Helena, a whore at a brothel, have to waste many years captured by the angels and powers that were created by her in this world before she was rescued by Simon Magus.

       E. Conzelmann states that Simon in Justin “does not yet appear as a Gnostic.”⁷⁶ Contrary to Conzelmann, G. Lüdemann claims that “Justin presupposes a fully developed Gnostic myth among the Simonians.”⁷⁷  Justin may not quite fully expound Simon as a Gnostic, but all the Gnostic elements about him are there.  There is an apparent hint that Justin is presenting this Simon as an early Gnostic figure with Helena, through whom creation, fall, and redemption would be made.⁷⁸  Justin connects this Simon with a certain Gnostic Menander, a Samaritan, of the village of Capparetaea as his chief disciple, and Marcion of Pontus by mentioning his name right after Menander in the same chapter (26).

2.  Simon in Irenaeus

       K. Rudolph states that “Irenaeus, finally, has the most complete account and knows the system of the Simonians more precisely.”⁷⁹ But, it seems to me that Irenaeus’ account is an elaborate combination of Acts 8 and Justin Martyr with a little more information of Simonianism. As E. Yamauchi points out, Justin’s lost work, Against All Heresies, is believed to be the basis of Irenaeus’ AH 1.23.1-1.23.5 on Simon.⁸⁰  According to Irenaeus, after the story of Acts 8, Simon did not yield himself to Peter’s warning, but greedily intended to rival the apostles.  He made a deeper investigation into the entire art of magic to the amazement of the crowds of people, and he was glorified by many as god.  Simon alleged himself the one who appeared among the Jews as the Son of God, while in Samaria he descended as the Father, and among the other nations he came as the Holy Spirit.⁸¹  However, calling himself the Holy Spirit among the other nations conflicts with calling Helen the Holy Spirit in Justin and explicitly in Epiphanius.⁸²

       Irenaeus, claiming that all heresies got their start from Simon,⁸³ expands Justin Martyr’s account of Simon and Helen. There is a supreme Power (sublimissima Virtus, Simon)  and a corresponding feminine power (Helen).  This feminine power was called the first Thought (_vvoια) of his mind (cf. Acts 8:22), the Mother of all things, through whom in the beginning he conceived in his mind to make the Angels and Archangels.⁸⁴  Knowing what the Father (=Simon) wanted, she descended to the lower regions and gave birth to Angels and Powers, by whom also this world was made.⁸⁵  Helen was detained by them out of envy, since they did not wish to be considered the offspring of anyone else. She suffered all kinds of contumely at their hands, even to the extent of being imprisoned in a human body and of transmigrating for ages into other female bodies, as from one vessel to another. She was one time in the famous Helen, the wife of Menelaus, on whose account the Trojan war was fought.  Passing from one body into another, and always suffering insults from the body, ultimately she became a prostitute in a brothel at Tyre.  In Irenaeus’ version, Helen was the lost sheep, and thus Simon was the good shepherd who would seek his lost sheep (cf. Luke 15:6).

       Simon, the supreme Power and the Father, came down to the earth to rescue Helen from her bondage.  Simon took the form of different varieties of the Principalities, Powers, and Angels to avoid their notice on his way down to the earth (cf. Epiphanius, Pan 21.6.1), and finally appeared as a man in Jesus, though he was not a man (AH 1.23.3: cf. Phil. 2:8).  And he appeared to suffer in Judea, though he really did not suffer.  Here, Irenaeus makes the life of Simon parallel to that of Jesus Christ.⁸⁶  This Simon is the figure of the docetic Christ, who was called the Son of God among the Jews.⁸⁷  The docetic Christ figure of Simon is alluded to Marcion’s Christ who appeared suddenly from heaven as a full-grown man:  “In the 15^th year of Tiberius Christ Jesus deigned to descend from heaven, (as) a saving spirit.”⁸⁸  And, Marcion’s docetic Christ, as a phantom, apparently suffered on the cross, and apparently died, and apparently went down to Hades, and apparently rose again from the dead.            

       R. M. Grant claims that Simonians at Rome or elsewhere in the second century used an authentic Ennoialogical (or Helenalogical) and Simonological hymn or poem, which consists of three parts, the first dealing with the generation and fall of Sophia-Ennoia, the second with her early life on earth, and the third Simon’s rescue of her.⁸⁹  Grant also argues that Simonians attempted to relate Simon’s Helen to the Trojan war to find link between them and Hellenistic culture.⁹⁰  It seems to be quite plausible as they lived and practiced their religion under the Hellenistic cultural background.  As Justin Martyr links Simon with Zeus, the Greek chief god, and Helen with Athena as the first thought and with Korê as the Holy Spirit, the Greek goddesses,⁹¹ so does Irenaeus link Simon with Jupiter, the Roman chief god, and Helen with Minerva, the Roman goddess equivalent to Athena as the first thought as Irenaeus is under the influence of the Roman church.⁹²  Simon’s followers worship the statues of Simon and Helen, the statue of Simon patterned after Jupiter and that of Helen patterned after Minerva.

3.  Simon in Clement of Alexandria

       Clement of Alexandria in his Stromateis(=Miscellaneous) links Simon’s claim of “standing One” to the episodes of Abraham (cf. Gen. 18:22) and Moses (cf. Deut. 5:31).⁹³  For Simonians who imitate the divine standing one, Simon as “the one who stands firm”-- divine immutability--is the object of worship.⁹⁴  P. Perkins claims that the appearance of “standing (One)” in several different Gnostic contexts suggests that it represents assimilation of the tradition to a somewhat later Platonizing mysticism.⁹⁵

4.  Simon in Tertullian

       Tertullian’s account in his De Anima(=On the Soul) is an abridged edition of Irenaeus’ version. After the incident recorded in Acts 8:18-21, according to Tertullian, Simon Magus applied his energy to the destruction of the truth.  With a little bit of modification from Justin’s account of Helen, Tertullian makes his own version of story.  Simon purchased a Tyrian woman named Helen out of a brothel with the same money which he offered for the Holy Spirit.⁹⁶  Then, he simply followed Irenaeus’ story-telling of Simon as the Supreme Father and Helen as Simon’s primary conception (cf. first Thought).  Tertullian adds to Irenaeus that Helen was degraded even to the form of man by the angelic powers that she had produced.  He disparaged the alleged story of Simon’s rescue of Helen from a brothel by comparing this with Menelaus’ rescue story of Helen from Troy.⁹⁷  The supreme Father, Simon, descended to rescue the lost sheep, Helen.  To deceive the angelic powers, Simon himself assumed a visible shape.  He acted the part of the Son in Judea, and of the Father in Samaria.

5.  Simon in Hippolytus

       Hippolytus, the bishop of Portus, in his Refutatio(=Ref: Refutation of All Heresies) briefly combines the Acts story with Justin Martyr’s with a little variation and a little bit more information from the extensive literature of the Simonians.⁹⁸  His account is said to be mainly reproduction of Simon’s allegedly (but questionable) lost work, Apophasis Megalē (or Megalē  Apophasis:  Great Revelation or Announcement or Declaration or Exposition).⁹⁹  G. R. S. Mead thinks that the scheme of the Gnosis contained in the  Apophasis Megalē is “a highly developed phase of Gnostic tradition, which, though not so elaborated as the Valentinian system, nevertheless is almost as mature as the Barb_l_ scheme” (cf. Irenaeus, AH 1.29).¹⁰⁰  Thus, Hippolytus is a little bit different from Justin and Irenaeus.  He claims that Simon, a native of Gitta, a village of Samaria, attempted to deify himself even before the encounter with the Apostles in Acts 8.¹⁰¹  Before Simon, there was Apsethus the Libyan, “inflamed with a similar wish, endeavor to have himself considered a god in Libya.”¹⁰²

       Simon, according to Hippolytus, insists that “there exists that which is blessed and incorruptible in a latent condition in everyone--that is, potentially, not actually; and that this is He who stood, stands, and is to stand.  He has stood above in unbegotten (or unoriginate) power.  He stands below, when in the stream (or chaos) of waters He was begotten in a likeness.  He is to stand above (or on high), beside the in(de)finite power, if He be fashioned into an image.”¹⁰³  The unique in(de)finite power stands upright, immobile and facing only itself.¹⁰⁴  Hippolytus strongly argues that Christ, who stood, stands, and will stand, [that is, was, is to come] was not Simon.¹⁰⁵  He asserts that Simon, by evil devices, interpreted not only the writings of Moses in whatever way he wished but also even the works of the poets (i.e., Helen in Homer’s Iliad).¹⁰⁶  The first manifestation of the in(de)finite power, the second aeon, consists of the six roots of Simon born in couples: Mind (or Thought) and Intelligence, Voice and Name, Ratiocination (or Reason) and Reflection.¹⁰⁷  Hippolytus claims that Valentinus’ six Aeons are Simon’s six roots under different titles, i.e., Nous and Aletheia, Logos and Zoe, and Anthropos and Ecclesia.¹⁰⁸  But, whether Valentinus and other second century heresiarchs adopted Simon’s teachings and doctrines is questionable.  Rather, as Cerfaux and R. Wilson argue, I think that it is more probable that the later members of Simon’s sect borrowed from the sources of  Valentinus, Basilides, and others, and attributed them retrospectively to their “alleged and mythologized” master Simon.¹⁰⁹  

       Hippolytus mentions Simon’s journey and his confrontation with Peter.¹¹⁰  However, he doesn’t record any specific contest, but simply saying, “And journeying as far as Rome,¹¹¹ he(=Simon) fell in with the Apostles; and to him(=Simon), deceiving many by sorceries, Peter offered repeated opposition.”¹¹²  His writing in this chapter (6.15) seems to be truncated or garbled, and is difficult to follow and understand the situation when he states “And in truth at last, when conviction was imminent, in case he delayed longer, he stated that, if he were buried alive, he would rise the third day.”¹¹³  Then, any way, Simon ordered his disciples to dig a trench and bury him there alive.  His disciples executed the injunction given.  Hippolytus makes fun of this by saying, “Simon remained [in that grave] until this day, for he was not the Christ.”¹¹⁴   

       Simon’s disciples also celebrated magical arts, and resorted to incantations.  They had an image of Simon fashioned into Jupiter (cf. Zeus in Greek myth) and an image of Helen into Minerva (cf. Athena in Greek myth; the first thought).  They called one Lord and the other Lady.  Hippolytus claims that Valentinus derived a starting point from Simon (or from Simonians) for his own doctrine.¹¹⁵

6.  Simon in Origen    

       Origen in his Contra Celsum(=Against Celsus) probably knew the early Pseudo-Clementines.¹¹⁶  Prior to Simon, Dositheus, who was a fellow disciple of John the Baptist, wanted to persuade the Samaritans that he was the Christ prophesied by Moses, and apparently won over some people to his teaching.  Then, Simon tried to win over some people by his magic.  Origen asserts that there was nothing divine about Simon.¹¹⁷  Origen describes him as a Samaritan magician¹¹⁸ who was successful in enticing some to follow him.

       From Origen’s quotation of Celsus, we know that Simonians are also called Helenians.¹¹⁹  In this instance, this Helen is closer to the Helen in the Pseudo-Clementines than the Helen in Justin Martyr.  Celsus apparently assumed that the Simonians were Christians although their beliefs deviated from those of the majority of Christians.  However, Origen claims that these Simonians (as well as Simon) are not Christians at all as they do not admit that Jesus is the Son of God, but that they maintain that Simon is the power of God.¹²⁰

       According to Origen, there were very few Simonians left in the world in Origen’s own day or did not survive at all until his time, i.e., around the middle of the third century.¹²¹  He states that the Dositheans also did not flourish even in their early days.  But, he recognizes that the Dositheans are still existent even if they are few, stating that “their whole number is said not to thirty.”¹²²  The reason why their number was not exceeding thirty is, I think, probably not because they did not flourish but because they made it their rule that thirty was the maximum number of the disciples in this group.¹²³

7.  Simon in Eusebius

       Contrary to Origen’s testimony that the Simonians faded away by the middle of the third century, Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History(=EH) states that the Simonian sect still survives up to his day, the first half of the fourth century.¹²⁴  Following Irenaeus (AH 1.23.2), Eusebius also claims that Simon was the prime author of all heresies.

8.  Simon in Epiphanius

       Knowing the canonical Acts and Justin Martyr’s 1 Apology, Epiphanius in his Panarion follows Irenaeus closely.  Simon called himself the Father to the Samaritans, the Son to the Jews; he had suffered without actually suffering, suffering only in appearance.¹²⁵  Epiphanius explains the reason why Simon wanted to purchase the power of the Holy Spirit was that Simon “counted on spending a little money, and amassing a huge fortune and more in return for a small investment, by giving the Holy Spirit to others.”¹²⁶  Epiphanius describes that Simon’s relationship with Helen, “a female vagabond from Tyre” was not known to others, and that Simon, while privately having an unnatural relationship with Helen, “his paramour,” called himself “the supreme power of God.”¹²⁷ Helen was called several different names, i.e., Ennoia(=first thought), Prunicus or Prunikos,¹²⁸ the Holy Spirit, Barbero or Barbelo,¹²⁹ and Athena (cf. Ennoia).¹³⁰  Filoramo claims that this Simonian Helen, also called Prunicus (or Prunikos), “reflects the underlying theme of the myth of the Sethian Sophia.”¹³¹  Over ages Helen kept migrating from female bodies into various bodies of human beings, cattle and the rest,¹³² and at one time she became the Helen in Troy on whose account the Trojan War broke out.  According to Epiphanius, Simon would say that his First Thought, Ennoia, was also Athena, the goddess of war as well as of wisdom, using the words of Paul, “Put on the breastplate of faith and the helmet of salvation, the greaves, the sword and the shield” (cf. Eph. 6:14-17) in support of this identification of Ennoia with Athena.¹³³  If Paul is really used to identify Ennoia with Athena, the goddess of war, it cannot be by Simon Magus himself who traveled around in 40s during the reign of Claudius (41-54 C.E.) or in 60s at the latest during the reign of Nero (54-68 C.E.) but by the later Simonians in the second century.  The deutero-Pauline Epistle to the Ephesians could not be available to Simon between 40 and 70 C.E.

       Simon claims, according to Epiphanius, that the Law is not (good) God’s, but belongs to the power on the left (i.e., evil), and that prophets are not from a good God either, but from one power or another.¹³⁴  And, Simon decides on a power for each as he chooses--the Law belongs to one, David to another, Isaiah to another, Ezekiel to someone else, and he attributes each particular prophet to each different principality which is from the power on the left, and outside of the Pleroma; and whoever believes in the Old Testament must die.¹³⁵

C.  Simon in the Pseudo-Clementines (Pseudo-Clementine’s Account)

       Whereas the 19^th century German scholars dated the Pseudo-Clementines around the end of the 2^nd century, many modern scholars date them from the 4^th century.  The Pseudo-Clementines are believed to have source documents, such as the Preachings of Peter (=Kerygmata Petrou), the Ebionite Acts of Peter(=Praxeis Petrou), the Circuits (or Travels) of Peter(=Periodoi Petrou), and the Ascents of James(=Anabathmoi Iakobou). Beside these source documents, there was probably a basic document, Grundschrift. These documents are discussed in chapter 4.

       The Homilies and Recognitions tell the same story slight differently, which consists largely of an account of the doctrinal disputations between Peter and Simon Magus in Syria.  The Pseudo-Clementines suggest that Simon is the son of Antonius and Rachel, a Samaritan by race.¹³⁶  That is, he is not just from a Samaritan village, Gitta (or Gitthæ; or Gettones in R 2.7) but racially a Samaritan, a half-Jew.¹³⁷  Simon rejects Jerusalem and replaces it with Mount Gerizim (H  2.22).  H. Jonas claims that “the disputations of the Pseudo-Clementines emphasize the anti-Judaic aspect of Simon’s teaching.”¹³⁸  R. M. Grant points out that whereas Justin Martyr and Irenaeus attack Western Simonianism, Simonianism in its Roman form, Eastern Simonianism is found in the Pseudo-Clementines.¹³⁹  

1.  Simon in the Homilies

(1) Simon as a false prophet (or apostle) to the Gentiles (H 2.17, 11.35)

       The most characteristic description of the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies on Simon Magus is that he is the false prophet or apostle, clearly targeting Paul. Although Simon in the Homilies allegedly calls him Christ or the Standing One, the Homilist’s major attack on him is that Simon regards himself as the apostle or prophet to the Gentiles. In relation to Paul and anti-Paulinism, I will discuss further in chapter 4. Right now, I will focus on how the Homilist describes Simon here.

       The dualistic Homilist (H 2.15-17, 33, 3.23-27) states:

God ... has distinguished all principles into pairs and opposites, Himself being one and sole God from the beginning, having made heaven and earth, day and night, light and fire, sun and moon, life and death. ... (H 2.15);

For whereas from Him the greater things come first, and the inferior second, we find the opposite in men--the first worse, and the second superior.  Therefore from Adam, who was made after the image of God, there sprang first the unrighteous Cain, and then the righteous Abel. ... From Abraham also, the patriarchs of our nation, two firsts (or different) sprang--Ishmael first, then Isaac, who was blessed of God.  And from Isaac himself, in like manner, there were again two--Esau the profane, and Jacob the pious. ... (H 2.16);

It were possible, following this order, to perceive to what series Simon belongs, who came before me to the Gentiles, and to which I belong who have come after him, and have come in upon him as light upon darkness, as knowledge upon ignorance, as healing upon disease.  And thus, as the true Prophet has told us, a false prophet must first come from some deceiver; and then, in like manner, after the removal of the holy place, the true Gospel must be secretly sent abroad for the rectification of the heresies that shall be. ... (H 2.17).

      

        The Homilist apparently and probably had Paul in his mind when he said, “Simon ..., who came before me to the Gentiles.” Simon, who regarded himself as “the power of God” or “God himself,” would not claim that he was a false prophet (or apostle) who went to the Gentiles before Peter.  This claim seems to be inapposite for Simon.  Furthermore, the Homilist claims that Simon is received as a friend, though an enemy; that he is desired as a savior, though he be death; that he is esteemed as light, though fire; and that he is believed as a speaker of truth, though a deceiver.

       In H 11.35 the Ebionite Homilist states:

Our Lord and Prophet, who hath sent us, declared to us that the wicked one, having disputed with Him forty days, and having prevailed nothing against Him, promised that he would send apostles from amongst his subjects, to deceive.  Wherefore, above all, remember to shun apostle or teacher or prophet who does not first accurately compare his preaching with that of James, who was called the brother of my Lord, and to whom was entrusted to administer the church of the Hebrews in Jerusalem,--and that even though he come to you with witnesses; lest the wickedness which disputed forty days with the Lord, and prevailed nothing, should afterwards, like lightening falling from heaven upon the earth, send a preacher to your injury, as now he has sent Simon upon us, preaching, under pretense of the truth, in the name of the Lord, and sowing error.

        

       The Homilist used James, the brother of the Lord, as the criterion to judge whether one’s preaching or teaching is right or wrong.  Although Simon (that is, Paul) is preaching under pretense of the truth, in the name of Lord, according to H 11.35 (not according to the whole Homilies), he was sent by Satan to sow error.  

       The Homilist further states through the mouth of Peter in H 17.19:

If, then, our Jesus appeared to you in a vision, made Himself known to you, and spoke to you, it was as one who is enraged with an adversary; and this is the reason why it was through visions and dreams, or through revelations that were from without, that He spoke to you. But can any one be rendered fit for instruction through apparitions? And if you will say, “It is possible,” then I ask,

“Why did our teacher abide and discourse a whole year to those who were             awake? And how are we to believe your word, when you tell us that He appeared to you? And how did He appear to you, when you entertain opinions contrary to His teaching?” But if you were seen and taught by Him, and became His apostle for a single hour, proclaim His utterances, interpret His sayings, love His apostles, contend not with me who companied with Him. For in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church, you now stand. If you were not opposed to me, you would not accuse me, and revile the truth proclaimed by me, in order that I may not be believed when I state what I myself have heard with my own ears from the Lord, as if I were evidently a person that was condemned and in bad repute. But if you say that I am condemned, you bring an accusation    against God, who revealed the Christ to me, and you inveigh against Him who pronounced me blessed on account of the revelation. But if, indeed, you really wish to work in the cause of truth, learn first of all from us what we have learned from Him, and, becoming a disciple of the truth, become a fellow-worker with us.

 

       Comparing to H 11.35, Peter’s attack on Simon is much mitigated.  Whereas Peter called him the prophet or apostle sent by Satan in H 11.35, he is willing to accept Simon (that is, Paul) as a fellow-worker if he is not opposed to Peter and is willing to learn from them what they have learned from Christ.  Although Peter expressed negatively about visions and dreams, the actual reason why Peter refuted Simon is that he was contesting with him. 

       However, Simon in H 17.19 as well as H 2.17 and 11.35 is not the Simon who called himself Christ, the power of God or even Godhead and whom the church fathers witnessed and refuted. He is no other than Paul, who called himself an apostle to the Gentiles and whose preaching is different from that of James, the brother of the Lord. We can clearly see an anti-Paulinism here.

(2) Simon as Christ or the Standing One (H 2.22, 24)

       The Homilist states in H 2.22 and 2.24:

And sometimes intimating that he(=Simon) is Christ, he styles himself the Standing One. And this epithet he employs, as intimating that he shall always stand, and as not having any cause of corruption so that his body should fall. And he neither says that the God who created the world is the Supreme, nor does he believe that the dead will be raised. He rejects Jerusalem, and substitutes Mount Gerizzim for it. Instead of our Christ, he proclaims himself. The things of the law he explains by his own presumption; and he says there is to be a judgment, but he does not expect it. (H 2.22); Thereupon Dositheus, being confounded, said to him, “if you are the Standing One, I also will worship you.” Then Simon said that he was; and Dositheus, knowing that he himself was not the Standing One, fell down and worshiped; and associating himself with the twenty-nine chiefs, he raised Simon to his own place of repute; and thus, not many days after, Dositheus himself, while he (Simon) stood, fell down and died. (H 2.24)          

       For Simon Magus, the “Standing One” is the mark of Christ.  When Dositheus struck him with a staff, the staff passed through his body as if he were smoke.  Simon claimed that he was the “Standing One” by not falling down.   

(3) Simon as a disciple of John the Baptist (H 2.23)

       One surprising claim in Homilies is that Simon was a disciple of John the Baptist with Dositheus.¹⁴⁰  Simon was most esteemed by John.  But, when John was killed, Dositheus succeeded the place of John, as Simon was absent in Egypt for the practice of magic.  Later, Simon returned and took the second place next to Dositheus.  But, sooner or later he began to malign Dositheus, claiming that he was “the Standing One.”  Simon’s claim of “the Standing One (ὁ ἐστώς)”¹⁴¹ seems to me to be a significant one, considering that he was a disciple of John the Baptist.  John 1:26-27 states:  “John answered them, ‘I baptize with water; but among you (cf. John’s thirty disciples) stands one (cf. Simon) whom you do not know (cf. who “the Standing One” is), even he who comes after me (cf. Simon succeeded John and claimed “the Standing One” although there was a short period of reign of Dositheus), the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.”  A Gnostic interpretation on John 1:26-27 fits well with Simon’s claim of Christ as well as the Standing One (cf. H 2.22 and 2.24).  Dositheus, realizing that his power was inferior to Simon’s, yielded the first place to him, and took himself the second seat.  But, not many days after, Dositheus himself, while Simon stood, fell down and died.  In R 1.54 Dositheus was the founder of the Sadducees.  But R. Wilson claims that it is anachronistic.¹⁴²

       While Jesus had twelve disciples following the twelve months of the sun, John the Baptist had thirty disciples (precisely speaking, twenty nine and a half, counting a woman as a half), among which Dositheus, Simon and Helena (later Simon’s companion) were included, following the thirty days of the moon, according to H 2.23.  According to H. Jonas, the number of thirty disciples (in the Pseudo-Clementines) suggests a lunar origin, and “this feature has persisted into the Pleroma speculation of the Valentinians, where the Sophia and her consort are the last two of thirty Aeons.”¹⁴³  It is interesting to observe that as Helen was the 30^th disciple (of John the Baptist, and later of Simon) in Simonianism, so was Sophia the 30^th Aeon in Valentinian Gnosticism.

(4) Simon as a Companion of Helena and the Chiefest God (H 2.25)

       The Homilist states in H 2.25:

But Simon is going about in company with Helena, and even till now, as you see, is stirring up the people.  And he says that he has brought down this Helena from the highest heavens to the world; being queen, as the all-bearing being, and wisdom, for whose sake, says he, the Greeks and barbarians fought, having before their eyes but an image of truth; for she, who really is the truth, was then with

the chiefest god.

       Helena in H 2.23 was a female disciple of John the Baptist along with Simon and Dositheus.  Then, all of a sudden, Helena in H 2.25 is allegedly claimed to be the Helena whom Simon has brought down from the highest heavens and the queen Helena, wife of Menelaus, who was later taken by Paris to Troy and because of whom the Greeks and the Trojans fought.  The Helena story in H 2.25 seems to be inconsistent with the one in H 2.23. I think that this one was borrowed from another tradition (or legend), which the church fathers knew and described.  Although the Homilist does not describe in detail how Helena, who was once in the highest heaven with Simon, became the Helena of Troy and later the disciple of John the Baptist, he seems to know the tradition of Helena as Simon’s wisdom or the first thought, _vvoια.  But, for some reason, he switched the prostitute Helena at Tyre to the Helena, the disciple of John the Baptist, which was probably another tradition of Helena what the Homilist knew about.  Thus, Simon, the disciple of John the Baptist became the chiefest god, i.e., Zeus, with whom the real Helena has been in company. However, Simon as the chiefest god is limited only here in H 2.25.

2.  Simon in the Recognitions

       Simon in the Recognitions is not a Paul-like false apostle or prophet as in the Homilies (especially in 16.-19.).  Simon here is more likely a vicious magician who confronts Peter, a miracle worker whose power comes from God.

(1) Simon as a Magician (R 2.7, 9, 3.47; cf. 1.72)  

       The Recognitionist states:

... by profession a magician, yet exceedingly well trained in the Greek literature; ... (R 2.7); ... For I(=Simon) am able to render myself invisible to those who wish to lay hold of me, and again to be visible when I am willing to be seen. If I wish to flee, I can dig through the mountains, and pass through rocks as if they were clay. If I should throw myself headlong from a lofty mountain, I should be borne unhurt to the earth, as I were held up; when bound, I can loose myself, and bind those who had bound me; being shut up in prison, I can make new trees suddenly spring up, and produce sprouts at once. I can throw myself into the fire, and not be burnt; I can change my countenance, so that I cannot be recognised; but I can show people that I have two faces. I shall change myself into a sheep or a goat; I shall make a beard to grow upon little boys; I shall ascend by flight into the air; I shall exhibit abundance of gold, and shall make and unmake kings. I shall be worshipped as God; I shall have divine honours publicly assigned to me, so that an image of me shall be set up, and I shall be worshipped and adored as God. And what need of more words? Whatever I wish, that I shall be able to do. ... In short, says he, once when my mother Rachel ordered me to go to the field to reap, and I saw a sickle lying, I ordered it to go and reap; and it leaped ten times more than the others. Lately, I produced many new sprouts from the earth, and made them bear leaves and produce fruit in a moment; and the nearest mountain I successfully bored through. (R 2.9); I(=Simon) have flown through the air; I have been mixed with fire, and been made one body with it; I have made statue to move; I have animated lifeless things; I have made stones bread; I have flown from mountain to mountain; I have moved from place to place, upheld by angels’ and have lighted on the earth. (R 3.47)

       According to the Recognitionist, Simon was primarily a magician with which he wanted to be a great person.  He describes more details of Simon’s magical arts than the Homilist.  As he states in R 2.9, Simon seemed to be able to do whatever he wished.  By his magic, he alleged to have made a boy from air (R 2.15).  He should be worshiped as God.

       Simonians’ Simon surely knew the Gospel story of Jesus’ temptation by Satan. But, unlike Jesus, Simon performed the miraculous (or magical) works, what Jesus declined to do when he was tempted by the Devil, to prove that he is the Son of God (R 3.47).  That is, he has made stones bread (cf. Matt. 4:3), and has flown from mountain to mountain, moved from place to place, upheld by angels’ hands (cf. Matt. 4:6).  His claim of the “first power” or the “Son of God” is closely related with his magical work (cf. R 2.9, 14, 3.47).

(2) Simon as a Disciple of Dositheus (R 2.8)

       Simon in the Recognitions, unlike in the Homilies, was not a direct disciple of John the Baptist, but joined the sect of Dositheus¹⁴⁴ who, after John’s death, broached his heresy with thirty other chief disciples.  The “Catholic” Recognitionist, unlike the Homilist (cf. H 2.23), seems to intentionally alienate the Dosithean sect from the sect of John the Baptist not to dishonor John the Baptist.  Simon, later, took over the leadership from Dositheus by power of magic (R 2.8-2.11).

(3) Simon as a Companion of Luna (or Helena)  (R 2.9, 12)

       Helena in Homilies was called Luna (Seléné in Greek myth: moon-goddess) in Recognitions.  Simon and Luna were colleagues under Dositheus. Luna was there before Simon joined the Dosithean sect.  Simon fell in love with her (R 2.9).  Then, later, after the death of Dositheus, Simon took Luna to himself. He traveled around with her.  Like in H 2.25, Luna in R 2.12, who is Wisdom and the mother of all things, has been brought down from the higher heavens, for whose sake the Greeks and the Trojans fought, yet the true Luna has been with the first and only God, i.e., Simon as Zeus.

(4) Simon as the Christ or the Standing One (R 1.72, 2.7, 11)

       The Recognitionist states:

... one Simon, a Samaritan magician, was subverting many of our people, asserting that he was one Stans,--that is, in other words, the Christ, and the great power of the high God, which is superior to the Creator of the world. ... (R 1.72); ... desirous of glory, and boasting above all the human race, so that he wishes himself to be believed to be an exalted power, which is above God the Creator, and to be thought to be the Christ, and to be called the Standing One.  And he uses this name as implying that he can never be dissolved, asserting that his flesh is so compacted by the power of his divinity, that it can endure to eternity.  Hence, therefore he is called the Standing One, as though he cannot fall by any corruption. (R 2.7);

            But Dositheus, when he perceived that Simon was depreciating him, fearing lest his reputation among men might be obscured (for he himself was supposed to be the Standing One), moved with rage, when they met as usual at the school, seized a rod, and began to beat Simon; but suddenly the rod seemed to pass through his body, as it had been smoke.  On which Dositheus, being astonished, says to him, “Tell me if thou art the Standing One, that I may adore thee.”  And when Simon answered that he was, then Dositheus, perceiving that he himself was not the Standing One, fell down and worshipped him, and gave up his own place as chief to Simon, ordering all the rank of thirty men to obey him; himself taking the inferior place which Simon formerly occupied.  Not long after this he died. (R 2.11).

       Like Marcion, Simon in the Recognitions claims that there is unknown supreme good God the Father, who is above the God the Creator who made this world.¹⁴⁵  Here, Simon claims that he is “the Standing One” or the great power of the high (or supreme) God.  The Standing One, a title which Simon prefers to be called, is equivalent to the Christ.  The Christ is not sent by the Creator God but by the high (or supreme) God.  Simon sometimes claims that he is the Standing One--the Christ or the power of the high God, but some other times that he is the high (or supreme) God. 

(5) Simon as God or the Son of God (R 2.14-15, 3.47; cf. R 2.9)

       According to the Recognitions, Simon usually (but not always) asserts that there is unknown supreme God, whose Christ he is. In most disputations with Peter Simon does not claim that he is the supreme God, but in some other places Simon allegedly claims that he himself is God:

He(=Simon) thus answered:  “Do not think that I am a man of your race.  I am neither magician, nor lover of Luna, nor son of Antonius.  For before my mother Rachel and he came together, she, still a virgin, conceived me, while it was in my power to be either small or great, and to appear as a man among men.” ... I(=Aquila) beckoned to Niceta¹⁴⁶ to feign for a little along with me, and said to him:  “Be not angry with us, corruptible men, O thou incorruptible God, but rather accept our affection, and our mind willing to know who God is; ...” (R 2.14);

“I(=Simon) shall now be propitious to you (=Niceta and Aquila), for the affection which towards me as God; ... But I would not have you doubt that this is truly to be God, when one is able to become small or great as he pleases; for I am able to appear to man in whatever manner I please. Now, then, I shall begin to unfold to you what is true. Once on a time, I, by my power, turning air into water, and--water again into blood, and solidifying it into flesh, formed a new human creature --a boy--and produced a much nobler work than God the Creator. For He created a man from the earth (cf. Gen. 2), but I from air--a far more difficult matter; and again I unmade him and restored him to air, ...” (R 2.15);

“I(=Simon) am the first power, who am always, and without beginning. But having entered the womb of Rachel, I was born of her as a man, that I might be visible to men. ... Not only have I done these things; but even now I am able to do them, that by facts I may prove to all, that I am the Son of God, enduring to eternity, and that I can make those who believe on me in like manner for ever.” (R 3.47)

       Like the Homilist, the Recognitionist is very inconsistent in describing and attacking Simon as he uses various written sources and oral traditions in which Simon was alleged and expressed in so many different ways.  Simon is said to be the first and only God (R 2.12) or the supreme God who is above God the Creator (R 2.15).  The rationale of Simon’s divine supremacy is that he could create a human from air whereas the Creator God could only create a man from the earth according to Genesis chapter 2.¹⁴⁷  Simon in R 2.14, to explain his divinity, took an example of his virgin conception. Simon’s claim here that not only he but also any one who believes on him shall endure forever (R 3.47) is similar to Menander’s doctrine.¹⁴⁸

       Whereas Simon in H 18.7 states that he(=Simon) is not the Son (of God), Simon in R 3.47 claims that he is “the Son of God, enduring to eternity.”  Thus, here, along with several other evidences,¹⁴⁹ it obviously shows that the author of the Homilies and the author of the Recognitions are not the same person and they probably use different sources and traditions on Simon.

       As his imitation of Christ’s events of the resurrection and the ascension, which are not described in the Pseudo-Clementines but elsewhere, Simon’s adoption of Christ’s virgin conception in R 2.14 and 3.47 tells us that Simon in the Recognitions probably preferred to be called the Standing One--i.e., the Christ. However, this Simon is not the historical Simon but the Simon who is Christianized.  This fits well biblically.  If there was a historical Simon who did not like Judaism, yet respected Moses and his (Samaritan version of) Pentateuch, he would want to be a prophet like Moses, as was predicted in Deuteronomy 18:15 and 18:18 (cf. John 5:46).  Thus, the Simonians in Samaria who still respected Moses and his Pentateuch found the resemblance in Jesus Christ and wanted to express their master as the Standing One, i.e., the Christ.

D.  Simon in the New Testament Apocrypha

1.  The Acts of Peter

       The Acts of Peter(=APt)¹⁵⁰ reports Peter’s contest with Simon Magus in Rome, who came to disturb the Christians there when Paul left the city for a missionary journey to Spain (APt 1).  H. Remus points out that the apostles’ superior power and authentic miracles in APt demonstrate that Simon is a “magician and a deceiver”(APt 5, 17), that his wonders are “illusory”(APt 23), and that his activity is “harmful”(APt 6, 17, 25, etc.).¹⁵¹  Simon, “a certain Jew” (APt 6),¹⁵² is also described as a thief, who at one time in Judea, by means of his incantations, stole much gold and valuable pearls from the house of a certain woman called Eubola (APt 17).  And, because of this, Peter had driven him from Judea.  At another time, probably earlier than the incidence at Eubola’s house, when Simon saw the miraculous cures which took place by the hands of Peter and Paul, he asked them with money for the power of healing in Jerusalem (APt 23).  This is a retelling story of Acts 8:18-24, by relocating from a city of Samaria to Jerusalem and by switching Peter’s partner from John to Paul.  However, as was told in Acts 8, Simon’s request was declined and he was rebuked by Peter.  

       Simon in APt does not claim himself to be God or the Father but the (great) power of God (APt 4, 8, 10). In one occasion, however, Marcellus, a senator of Rome, testifies that he erected a statue to Simon, by his persuasion, with the following inscription: “To Simon, the young god” (APt 10).  Although it is true that he has a magical power, Simon in APt does not have any serious theological issues and doctrines.

       Simon at the time of Nero (54-68 C.E.) promises the prefect Agrippa and the multitude in Rome that he will fly up unto God whose Power he is.¹⁵³  Seeing that Simon is flying, Peter begins to cry unto Jesus that Simon should fall from the height and break his leg in three pieces.¹⁵⁴  After that, Simon, fallen to the ground and broken his leg, is carried from Rome to Aricia (south of Rome), and then to Terracina, where he is sorely cut (by two physicians), and strangely comes to his end.¹⁵⁵

2.  The Acts of Peter and Paul 

       In the Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul(=APtP) Simon tells Nero that Peter has attacked him in Judea, in all Palestine and Caesarea (cf. H 2, 3, 6, 16, 20).  Here, Simon says that he is the Son of God who came down from heaven, not a magician, proclaiming “deceitfully” that he was beheaded and rose again on the third day.  He also claims himself to be a god or Christ, but never claims himself to be the Supreme God or the Father, unlike the Church Fathers’ reproach of him. Like in APt, Helen, the alleged Simon’s companion, is not mentioned here at all.

3.  The Acts of Paul

       While Paul was in Philippi, two men named Simon and Cleobius came to Corinth.  According to the Apostolic Constitutions 6.8, Cleobius was a person who joined the sect of Dositheus, along with Simon the magician.  Thus, there seems to have existed a tradition on Simon and Cleobius.  Their teaching is as follows: One must not appeal to the prophets; God is not almighty; there is no resurrection of the flesh (or the body) but only of the spirit; the body of man is not created by God; the world is not work of God but of angels; Jesus Christ has neither come in the flesh, nor was he born of Mary nor of the seed of David, nor has he been crucified in the flesh but only in appearance.”  This is a typical Gnostic and docetic teaching in the second century, including that of Marcionism.  Here, God is the unknown good God.  Whereas Marcion’s unknown good God has nothing to do with the creation of human beings at all, some Gnostics’ alien God created the human souls or sent sparks of life.  In R 2.57 Simon asserts that “our souls were made by that good God, the most excellent of all, but they have been brought down as captives into this world.”  Saturninus states that the unknown Father sent a spark of life which raised the man up (who was made by certain seven angels) and set him upright and made him live.¹⁵⁶

4.  The Apostolic Constitutions   

       The Apostolic Constitutions(=AC) is a combination of the accounts of Acts 8:5-24 and the Pseudo-Clementines, allegedly described by Peter as “I.”  One interesting thing to observe is that the author, allegedly Peter, calls Philip “our fellow-apostle.”¹⁵⁷  Thus, here, an “apostle” is not meant to be one of the “twelve original apostles.”  The AC 6.7 is a Peter’s version of Acts 8:5-24.  It closely follows the story in Acts with only some additions.  After Simon was baptized by Philip, he continued in fasting and prayer.  However, the problem with Simon was that he offered money to Peter and  John when he saw that the Spirit was given to believers by the imposition of their hands.  Whereas Irenaeus omits Acts 8:22 (Peter’s advice to Simon for repentance and possibility of God’s forgiveness), the AC includes it.  The AC describes that Simon, after the incidence with Philip and then Peter in Samaria as in Acts 8:16-24 (cf. AC 6.7), joined, with a certain Cleobius, the sect of a certain Dositheus.  Later, Simon became the chief of the sect by putting Dositheus down.¹⁵⁸  Then, the AC states that “after this manner (of Simon or Simon’s teaching) the most atheistical heresy of the Simonians was first established in Rome, and the devil wrought by the rest of the false apostles also.”¹⁵⁹  The author of the AC, thus, combines altogether the stories of the canonical Acts, Pseudo-Clementines, and the apocryphal Acts.

5.  The Didascalia Apostolorum (=The Teaching of the Apostles)

       The twenty third chapter of the Didascalia Apostolorum(=DA),¹⁶⁰ probably a work of the third century, retells the story of Simon in Acts 8.  The DA (23: cf. AC 6.7) locates Peter’s encounter with Simon in Jerusalem not in a city of Samaria (cf. APt 23).  When Simon a magician sought to purchase the power of the Holy Spirit with money, he (or Satan who was dwelling in Simon) received a rebuke from Peter:  “Thy money go with thee to perdition: but thou shalt have no part in this word” (cf. Acts 8:20-21).¹⁶¹

       Then, the author of the DA states that “Satan set about and stirred up the people to send after us(=Peter and his company) false apostles for the undoing of the word (cf. AC 6.8).”  Simon and Cleobius were among them.¹⁶²  Whereas the AC witnesses that they became disciples of a certain Dositheus (cf. R 2.8), the DA does not mention the name of Dositheus.  Unlike in the Pseudo-Clementines and other apocryphal Acts, where Peter was in pursuit of Simon, here Simon and Cleobius followed hard upon Peter and came to corrupt the word.¹⁶³

       When Simon came to Rome, he disturbed the Church very much and misled many people there.  As he said to the people in Rome, one day he began to fly in the air. But, as Peter commanded, by saying, “By the power of the name of Jesus I cut off thy power,” Simon fell and broke the ankle-bone of his foot.  The DA does not report Simon’s death (cf. AC 6.9).  After that, many turned back from him. Yet, some others continued with him, and established the heresy of Simon (cf. AC 6.9).

6.  The Epistula Apostolorum (=The Epistle of the Apostles)

        The Epistula Apostolorum (=EpAp) was not known until the end of the 19^th century when its Coptic version was discovered in Cairo.¹⁶⁴  The scholarly consensus dates it the second half of the second century.  Its literary genre is not really a letter but in between a letter and an apocalypse.¹⁶⁵  The EpAp contains a dialogue between Jesus and his eleven remaining disciples (excluding Judas Iscariot) after his resurrection.  Although it deals with the “post-resurrection dialogue,” which is a much favored theme by many Gnostics, the EpAp in its teaching on resurrection and incarnation is very anti-Gnostic.  The EpAp (chapters 1-6 in Ethiopic only) starts with the following statement:

What Jesus Christ revealed to his disciples as a letter, and how Jesus Christ revealed the letter of the council of the apostles, the disputes of Jesus Christ, to the Catholics; which was written because of the false prophets Simon and Cerinthus, that no one should follow them--for in them is deceit with which they kill men--that you may be established and not waiver, not be shaken and not turn away from the word of the Gospel that you have heard.¹⁶⁶

         

       The author explains why the EpAp was written. It was written to condemn the false (docetic) teaching of Simon Magus and Cerinthus and to protect believers from turning away from the word of Gospel. The author regards Simon Magus and Cerinthus as the same kind of heretics, and calls them “false prophets.”

       The EpAp 7 states:

Cerinthus and Simon have come to go through the world. But they are enemies of our Lord Jesus Christ,

Etiopic                                                             Coptic

who in reality alienate those who                   for they pervert the words and the

believe in the true word and deed,                  object, which is Jesus Christ.

namely Jesus Christ.                                                                           

Therefore take care and beware of them,       Now keep yourselves away from

for in them is affliction and contamination    them, for death is in them and a great

death, the end of which will be destruction   stain of corruption — these to whom

and judgment.                                                Shall be judgment and the end eternal perdition.

     

  The EpAp 8 continues that, thus, they (=the apostles) have not hesitated with the true testimony of Jesus Christ. Then, the EpAp testifies Jesus’ fleshly suffering on the cross, death, and resurrection.

7.  The Legenda Aurea(=The Golden Legend). The Life of St. Peter the Apostle

       In the Life of St. Peter the Apostle Simon Magus in Jerusalem (cf. APt 23; DA 23) claims that he is first truth, and affirms that who that would believe in him he would make them perpetual.  Simon says that he should be worshiped by all men as God, and that he might do all that he would.  Simon also adds that he is the Word of God, the Holy Ghost, Almighty, and all that is of God.  By magic, he made serpents of brass to move, made images of iron and of stone to laugh, and dogs to sing.  Simon would dispute (in Jerusalem) with Peter and show, at a day assigned, that he was God.

       These are various legends about Simon.  Justin Martyr and the various apocryphal books of Acts witness that Simon came to Rome, claiming himself “(power of) God,” or “the standing one,” but neither Simon’s visit to Rome nor his confrontation with Peter in Rome is probably historical. Instead, it seems to me that the Simonians, whose name was derived from the legendary figure of Simon Magus, a Samaritan, would probably flourish in the beginning of the second century, and presented some danger to the Christian communities in Rome and elsewhere.

       In summary, Simon in the various apocryphal Acts is a magician, perhaps a revealer at best, but not a redeemer figure. There is no Helen to be rescued.  Simon here is not Paul at all but an enemy of Peter (and Paul) to be defeated.

E.  Simon in Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews (Josephus’ Account)

       In Josephus, the demythologized Simon (Magus), a friend of Felix (procurator of Judea) a Jew and by birth a Cypriot,¹⁶⁷ visited at Caesarea persuaded Drusilla, a sister of Agrippa II (cf. Acts 24:24) to forsake her present husband, Azizus (king of Emesa) and to marry Felix.¹⁶⁸  And, a certain Simon (Peter?) at Jerusalem publicly accused the king Agrippa as not living holily.  The king summoned Simon, to Caesarea, asking him, “What is there done in this place that is contrary to the law?”  When Simon begged pardon, the king dismissed him with a small gift.¹⁶⁹

       As R. Eisenman suggests (see footnote 165), Luke and other second century Christian writers would probably borrow the name Simon from Josephus’ Antiquities which was written around 95 C.E. to connect him with the existing mythical traditions. It is surprising that both Simon (Magus) and Simon (Peter?) in Antiquities are connected with the city named Caesarea.  The Peter-like Simon in Josephus, however, was a little coward. When he encountered the king Agrippa, he begged pardon instead of rebuking him for his unholy life-style, unlike John the Baptist did to the king Herod in the Gospels (Matt. 14:1-5; Mark 6:17-20; Luke 3:19-20).  At any rate, Simon Peter’s visit to Caesarea in Josephus was probably to confront either with the king Agrippa or with Simon (Magus) concerning the matter either of fornication (the king Agrippa) or of illegitimate marriage (Simon the magician’s role for Felix).

IV.   CONFRONTATION BETWEEN SIMON MAGUS AND PETER

A.  The Acts of the Apostles

       In Acts 8:18-24 Peter encountered Simon Magus in a city of Samaria.  And Simon asked Peter for the power of giving the Holy Spirit, offering the apostles money (Acts 8:18-19).  When Peter rejected Simon’s proposal, there was no more contest.  Although Simon was called “the power of God” by the Samaritans, he would realize that his power was no match for the power of the Holy Spirit.

       In Acts 13:4-12 Paul, along with Barnabas, confronted with Elymas Magus who was also named Bar-Jesus before the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, at Cyprus.  This is obviously a reminiscence of Peter’s confrontation with Simon in Acts 8.¹⁷⁰  Is it another version of Paul’s (under the name of Sergius Paulus) conversion experience?

 

B.  The Pseudo-Clementines

       James, with the members of his community, after the enemy’s (i.e., Saul’s) attack in the Temple, fled to somewhere in the Jericho area.¹⁷¹  Then, he dispatched Peter to Caesarea to confront a certain Simon, a Samaritan magician as the latter was subverting many Christians, asserting that he was “the Standing One”--that is, “the great power of God” (cf. R 1.72).  Caesarea in Acts 10 was the city where Peter came from Joppa to visit the Roman centurion Cornelius and his family.  R. Eisenman suggests that it may be probable that Peter visited Caesarea not to convert Cornelius and his family but to confront Simon Magus (or Paul) to debate the issue of fornication (unlawful marriage of Felix with Drusilla).¹⁷²  He further claims that Felix, with his close contacts in Nero’s own household in Rome, paved the way for Paul who was a Herodian with links to Felix’s wife Drusilla to appeal to Caesar. Eisenman’s puzzling out is fascinating, but it is a little bit awkward in this case.  Does he mean that Peter won over Simon (or Paul) in this confrontation of the issue of unlawful marriage at Caesarea?  If this were the case, Paul (or Simon) couldn’t be the loser.  R. Eisenman again suggests that the reason why Paul found himself relatively free (Acts 28:31) was because of Felix’s arrangement.¹⁷³  But, if Paul (or Simon) were accused and caught while he was defending Felix from Peter’s attack on the issue of his unlawful marriage with Druscilla and if Felix had close contacts in Nero’s household, why should Paul (as Simon) even put under house arrest in Rome where was Felix’s home ground?  

       Eisenman, in connection with the issue of fornication, sees the confrontation between Simon Peter and Simon Magus (or Paul) as the confrontation between the sect of John the Baptist and the sect of Herodians.  That is, Simon Magus as a “henchman of Felix” confronted Peter, “in the manner of Qumran and like John the Baptist.”¹⁷⁴  This kind of connection may derive from reading of Josephus and documents at Qumran.  However, if we keep in mind that Simon was “the first and the most esteemed disciple of John the Baptist” in H 2.23, the confrontations between Simon Magus and Peter may more appropriately be regarded as the competition between the sect of John the Baptist and the sect of Jesus that probably lasted beyond the second century.

       Whereas the Homilist records two disputations--one in Caesarea (3.30-58) and the other in Laodicea (16.-19.), the Recognitionist records only one disputation in Caesarea (2.20-3.48).  In these disputations, Simon claims firstly that there are many gods; second, that above all other gods there is one supreme God who is unknown; and third, that the god who created the world is one of the inferior gods.  Simon speaks of the supreme God as a “power,” and identifies himself with this “power,” claiming to be the “first power,” who is eternal, and in his manifestation on earth the Son of God who stands forever.¹⁷⁵  The Homilist portrays this Simon, to a great extent, as Paul.  Peter confronts this Paul-like Simon to dispute about his visions and dreams, his sudden apostleship, and his preaching and interpretation of the Lord’s Word (cf. H 17.15, 19).  In the Pseudo-Clementines, the confrontations between Peter and Simon (or Simon as Paul) in Caesarea have also to do with debates over ‘the primal Adam,’ ‘the true Prophet,’ ‘the nature of the Christ,’ etc.¹⁷⁶

1.  The Homilies (3.30-43; 16.-19.)

       The Homilies contains the two disputations (3.30-58; 16.-19.), the first at Caesarea and the second at Laodicea.  The disputation at Caesarea (3.30-58) lasted three days until Simon set off as far as Tyre of Phoenicia.  The disputation at Laodicea (16.-19.) occupied four days until Simon retired to Judea via Antioch.

(1) The First Disputation at Caesarea (3.30-58)

       The first significant issue here¹⁷⁷ is Peter’s monotheism versus Simon’s polytheism.  At the beginning of the disputation Simon does not claim that he is one of the gods, or the Son of God, or the power of God. Instead, he states that there are (many) gods (H 3.38), according to him, which is also supported by the Jewish Scriptures.

       Then, Simon raises questions about Adam’s blindness and foreknowledge.  One noteworthy point from Peter’s statements is that his opinion on the Scriptures is somewhat “unorthodox”:

Whatever sayings of the Scriptures are in harmony with the creation that was made by Him are true, but whatever are contrary to it are false (3.42); ... and believing His teaching, he will know what of the Scriptures are true and what are false (3.49); But if He cast up to them that they knew not the true things of the Scriptures, it is manifest that there are false things in them. (3.50; cf. 2.51).

       Peter apparently denies the infallibility of the Scriptures (Old Testament).  The reason why he takes this position seems to refute Simon who uses several Scriptural verses for the sake of contradictions.

       Peter claims that Jesus Christ is the True Prophet, according to the prophecy of Genesis 49:10.¹⁷⁸  Then, he explains the sayings and teaching of Christ as the True Prophet.¹⁷⁹  The disputation here is relatively short and mild.  The account recorded here is confined only to the first day, although the disputation is said to last for three days.¹⁸⁰

(2) The Second Disputation at Laodicea (16.-19.)

       First of all, the place Laodicea here is a city which is not far from Tripolis of Phoenicia (R 7.2) and the south of Antioch of Syria.  Peter came to Laodicea in pursuit of Simon leaving Caesarea via Tyre (H 4.1), Sidon (H 7.6), Beyrout (H 7.9; Berytus in R 4.1), Byblus and Tripolis (H 8.12), Orthasia (Ortosias in R 7.1) and Antaradus (H 12.1; Antharadus in R 7.1), Balanææ, Paltus (Pathos in R 7.25), and Gabala (H 13.1).¹⁸¹

       Peter’s disputation against Simon Magus at Laodicea, which is omitted in the Recognitions, is most characteristic of an anti-Paulinism in the Homilies.  I think that because of this strong anti-Paulinism (especially in 17.14-19), the Recognitionist purposely deleted this disputation, yet leaving implicit anti-Paulinistic mood intact (by intention).       

       In this discussion, both Peter and Simon are the well-prepared theologians and biblical scholars.  Their Scriptural quotations for the New Testament came most from the Gospel of Matthew.  It means that the disputation between Peter and Simon was not real but fictional using the Gospel which was written after both of them were dead.  The fact that both Peter and Simon cited the verses from Matthew makes us conjecture the Ebionitic origin of the Homilies.  This conjecture is supported by Peter’s assertion that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and of man but not God (H 16.15).

       The first issue to be discussed here is, as is in the first disputation at Caesarea, whether there is only one God or many gods. Simon claims that “God has Himself spoken of many gods in His Scriptures” (H 16.5).  He cites several verses which seemingly tell about the possible existence of many gods (Gen. 3:7, 22; Exod. 22:28; Deut. 4:34, 13:6; Jer. 10:11; Ps. 35:10, 82:1, 86:8; etc.).  Peter also quotes the Scriptural verses to refute Simon. For instance, Peter states:  “The Lord thy God, He is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath, and there is none other except Him” (Deut. 4:39).  However, Peter’s answer cannot convince Simon, as it is a matter of how you interpret the Scriptural verses.  Thus, Simon tries to demonstrate that the Scriptures contradict themselves.¹⁸²  Peter states that the Scriptures call angels gods, Moses a god to Pharaoh, etc., but that “we have only one God” (H 16.14).  This discussion of monotheism versus polytheism seems to be derived from a Greco-Roman tradition.  I don’t think that this is a very important issue from the Gnostic point of view.  That is, Simon’s assertion of polytheism neither proves or disproves that Simon in the Homilies is a Gnostic or that Simon in the Homilies is Paul.

       Another issue that is discussed on the first day is whether Christ Himself is God or only the Son of God. Peter states:  “Our Lord neither asserted that there were gods except the Creator of all, nor did He proclaim Himself to be God, but He with reason pronounced blessed him who called Him the Son of that God who has arranged the universe” (H 16.15).  Peter obviously does not believe that Jesus Christ is God.  Whereas the Johannine community confessed that Jesus Christ Himself is God,¹⁸³ the Matthean community in the first century was not ready to confess that Jesus Christ is God although they believed that he is the Son of God (cf. Matt. 16:16).  By the end of the second century, most churches confessed that Jesus Christ is God as well as the Son of God. Only some “heretics” including the Ebionites did not accept that Jesus Christ is God.  Peter in the Homilies is apparently an Ebionite in the second century or later.

       On the second day Simon brings up an issue of a just God versus a good God. He presents the avenging and rewarding Jewish God as just but not as good (H 17.5).  He states that Jesus speaks at one time of God’s goodness, saying, “Call me not good, for the good is one” (Matt. 19:17) and at another time of God’s justice, saying, “Fear not him who killeth the body, but can do nothing to the soul; but fear Him who is able to cast both body and soul into the Gehenna of fire. Yea, I say unto you, fear Him” (Matt. 10:28).¹⁸⁴ According to Simon, if the Jewish God is “Lord of heaven and earth, He is acknowledged to be the framer of the world, and if framer, then He is just.” And once one is just, then he cannot be good.  Therefore, Simon asserts that when Jesus “sometimes calls Him good and sometimes just, he is not consistent with himself in this point” (H 17.5).  Peter’s answer is that one who is just is not necessarily evil or bad.  Rather, he is good.  So, God who is just is good as well (cf. H 18.2-3).         

       Then, in a rather awkward manner, the discussion moves to the issue of apparition, vision and dreams.  Simon, who never claimed to be a disciple of Jesus nor acknowledged the Jewish God, proposes that “he who hears any one with his own ears, is not altogether fully assured of the truth of what is said; ... But apparition not merely presents an object to view, but inspires him who sees it with confidence, for it comes from God.”¹⁸⁵  Peter, strangely enough, regarding Simon’s statement as a challenge for the (true) apostleship, attacks him:  “You alleged that you knew more satisfactorily the doctrines of Jesus than I do, because you heard His words through an apparition. ... But he who trusts to apparition or vision and dream is insecure.”¹⁸⁶  Simon the magician never claimed that he heard Christ’s words through an apparition or a vision or a dream.  Peter’s opponent here is not Simon the magician but Paul who insists that he saw Christ and heard his voice through an apparition or a vision (Gal. 1:12; cf. Acts 9:3-9, 22:6-11, 26:13-18).¹⁸⁷  To prove the superiority of his bodily association with Christ, Peter makes his whole efforts, and states:  “You see how the statements of wrath are made through visions and dreams (e.g., Abimelech, Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar in H 17.17), but the statements to a friend are made face to face, in outward appearance, and not through riddles and visions and dreams, as to an enemy” (H 17.18). Then, he, thinking his enemy is decisively Paul, states:

If, then, our Jesus appeared to you in a vision, made Himself known to you, and spoke to you, it was as one who is enraged with an adversary; and there is the reason why it was through visions and dreams, or through revelations that were from without, that He spoke to you. But can anyone be rendered fit for instruction through apparitions? ... And how are we to believe your word, when you tell us that He appeared to you?  And how did He appear to you, when you entertain opinions contrary to His teaching?  But if you were seen and taught by Him, and became His apostle for a single hour, proclaim His utterances, interpret His sayings, love His apostles, contend not with me who companied with Him.  For in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church, you now stand.  If you were not opposed to me, you would not accuse me, and revile the truth proclaimed by me, in order that I may not be believed when I state what I myself have heard with my own ears from the Lord, as if I were evidently a person that was condemned and in bad repute.  But if you say that I am condemned, you bring an accusation against God, who revealed the Christ to me, and you inveigh against Him who pronounced me blessed on account of the revelation.  But if, indeed, you really wish to work in the cause of truth, learn first of all from us what we have learned from Him, and, becoming a disciple of the truth, become a fellow-worker with us. (H 17.19).

       

       Peter’s above statement is quite far from what Simon used to claim about himself.  According to the apostolic fathers and other traditions, Simon never insisted that Christ appeared him through an apparition or a vision, and that he became an apostle of Christ for a single hour. The portion of H 17.14-19 seems to be out of the context.  It was probably from the different source document--the strong anti-Pauline Ebionite document, that is, the Kerygmata Petrou.  In H 17.20, Simon denies Peter’s assertion, saying, “Far be it from me to become his or your disciple.”

       On the third day, Simon again returns to the question about God. He points out that the Creator God is not the highest God, but that “the highest God is another who alone is good, and who has remained unknown.”¹⁸⁸  This is a typical Gnostic or Marcionite claim in the second century not in the first century.  Simon repeats his earlier assertion.  That is, if the Creator God is the lawgiver, he is just, and if he is just, then he is not good.  Peter emphatically states that goodness and justice are not contradictory.  God is good, “in that He is now long-suffering with the penitent, and welcomes them; but just, when acting as judge He will give to every one according to his deserts.”¹⁸⁹  From what Jesus said in Matthew 11:27,¹⁹⁰ Simon suggests the possibility that there is “a Father who was still unrevealed.”¹⁹¹  Although Peter condemns Simon’s proposal as nonsense, from the critical modern scholars’ point of view, I don’t think that it is just nonsense.

       Unlike church fathers’ attack on him, Simon here does not claim that he is the highest supreme God. Nor he claims that he is the Son of God.¹⁹²  Yet, Simon maintains that “there is some unrevealed power, unknown to all, even to the Creator himself, as Jesus himself has also declared, though he did not know what he said,”¹⁹³ and that even Jesus “affirms that there is some Father unrevealed.”¹⁹⁴

       On the fourth day of the disputation Simon raises a question about whether the Creator God is blameless.¹⁹⁵  Simon’s logic is as follows:  if there the evil one exists, how has he come into existence?; if indeed he has come into existence, by whom and why? If indeed the evil one is originated by God, then God should be blameable.¹⁹⁶  Peter’s replay seems to be unsatisfactory:  “It is my opinion that, even if it be evident that he was made by God, the Creator who made him should not be blamed; for it might perchance be found that the service he performs was an absolute necessity.”¹⁹⁷  Simon’s calling the Jewish Creator God “the author of evil” reminds us of Marcion.  Thus, here the author of the Homilies is refuting Marcion-like Simon.  Although Faustus,¹⁹⁸ Clement’s father, who volunteered the umpire of the disputation, raised the hand of Peter, the disputation between Peter and Simon remains unsettled.  And Simon retires and does not show up on the next day.  The Homilies ends with Peter’s heading for Antioch of Syria in pursuit of Simon, the enemy.  But, Simon already went to Judea.  In both the Homilies and the Recognitions Peter did not go to Rome.

2.  The Recognitions (2.20-3.48)

       The Recognitions recorded only one disputation at Caesarea, which lasted three days.  The second disputation at Laodicea of Syria in the Homilies is not recorded or omitted here.  It seems to me that the Recognitionist intentionally deleted the second disputation which contains very strong anti-Pauline expressions.  In this sense, the Recognitionist tries to avoid the strong Jewish-Christian or Ebionite character, although there still remain implicit anti-Pauline spots here and there.  Almost all the Scriptural quotations of the Gospels in the Recognitions are from the Gospel of Matthew like in the Homilies.

       Simon, who starts his argument by attacking the inconsistency of Jesus’ teaching, points out that “there are many gods, and that there is one incomprehensible and unknown to all, and that He is the God of all these gods.”¹⁹⁹  For the proof of his polytheism, Simon tries to show evidences from the Jewish Scriptures (e.g., Gen. 1:26, 3:5, 22, 11:7; Exod. 22:28; Deut. 32:12).  Simon further insists that one of many gods “was chosen by lot, that he might be the god of the Jews.”²⁰⁰  Peter responds that although angels, holy men and princes are called gods, “neither angels, nor men, nor any creature, can be truly gods, forasmuch as they are placed under authority, being created and changeable: angels, for they were not, and are; men, for they are mortal; and every creature, for it is capable of dissolution, if only He dissolve it who made it.”²⁰¹  According to Peter, the Creator, the God of the Jews, alone is the true God.

       Again, Simon claims that Jesus himself mentions the incomprehensible and unknown God, saying (Matt. 11.27), “No one knows the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any one the Father, but the Son, and he to whom the Son has been pleased to reveal Him.”²⁰²  According to Simon, human souls were made by this incomprehensible, unknown good God, the most excellent of all, but they(=the souls) have been brought down as captives into this world.²⁰³  Whereas Marcion’s unknown good God had nothing to do with the creation of human beings, Simon’s unknown good God here allegedly made the souls of human beings.  Simon’s unknown good God “sent God the Creator to make the world; and he, when he made it, gave out that himself was God.”²⁰⁴  Peter refutes Simon that his ‘unknown’ good God is “not unknown to the Creator (and to Jesus); nor are souls ignorant of him, if indeed they were stolen away from him.”²⁰⁵ 

       On the second day of the disputation Simon raises the issue of the existence of evil, which was discussed in full details on the fourth day disputation at Laodicea in H 19.  Simon’s basic question is that since God made all things, whence evil comes.²⁰⁶  Peter, first of all, states that “the existence of evil is not universally admitted.”²⁰⁷  He even says that “the whole Hebrew nation deny its existence,”²⁰⁸ which is quite different from his position in H 19., where he admits the existence of evil without any objection.²⁰⁹  According to Peter, “the power of choice is the sense of the soul, possessing a quality by which it can be inclined towards what acts it wills.”²¹⁰  Peter philosophically states that “every motion is divided into two parts, so that a certain part is moved by necessity, and another by will; ... according as their will leads them, they effect either good or evil; and therefore He(=God) hath proposed rewards to those who do well, and penalties to those who do evil.”²¹¹  That is, God is not the author of evil but of goodness. It is up to one’s freedom or power of the will whether he does evil or good.

       On the third day, the issue of God’s righteousness versus goodness came out.²¹²  Peter states that the Creator is the righteous and good God. According to him, “without righteousness, goodness would be unrighteousness.”²¹³  As rain given by the good God equally nourishes the corn and the tares (cf. Matt. 5:45), but at the time of harvest the crops are gathered into the granary and the chaff or the tares are burnt with unquenchable fire (cf. Matt. 3:12) by the same good God who is now just. Simon claims that  one cannot be both good and righteous at the same time.²¹⁴ His objection is that of Marcion’s and Syrian Gnostics’ in the second century.

       A peculiar parodied version of Acts 8:24 is shown in R 3.45:  “I(=Simon) beseech thee, Peter, by that good God who is in thee, to overcome the wickedness that is in me. Receive me to repentance, and you shall have me as an assistant in your preaching.  For now I have learned in very deed that you are a prophet of the true God and therefore you alone know the secret and hidden things of men.”  From this and some other hints we conclude that the authors of the Recognitions and the Homilies evidently knew the canonical Acts of Apostles.

       Then, Simon claims that he is “the first power, who is always, and without beginning.”²¹⁵  His claim of the first power or the Son of God is usually related to his verbal demonstration of his magic art or miraculous deeds:

... having entered the womb of Rachel, I was born of her as a man, that I might be visible to men. I have flown through the air; I have been mixed with fire, and been made one body with it; ... I have made stones bread; I have flown from mountain to mountain; I have moved from place to place, upheld by angels’, and have lighted on the earth. ...  (R 3.47).

       Simon here, is a Christianized Simon, who is mimicking Christ’s virgin birth (R 2.14; cf. Matt. 1:23; Isa. 7:14), his temptations by Satan (cf. Matt. 4:3-10), and his purpose of coming to cast light (fire) on the earth (cf. Luke 12:49).

       Although Simon in the Pseudo-Clementines claims that he is the first power (or the power of God), the Son of God or even God, in a sense that he can perform miraculous deeds like the Jewish God, he does not seem to regard himself as the incomprehensible, unknown, supreme good God.  Simon is allegedly said to proclaim that “he has brought down this Helena from the highest heavens to the world” in H 2.25, but he never claimed that he is the supreme incomprehensible God in all three disputations recorded in the Pseudo-Clementines.  Furthermore, Helen was never mentioned in the disputations as if she was not there beside Simon.  It means that the disputation traditions (or sources) are probably independent of the tradition (or source) of Simon’s association with Helena or Luna.  That is, Simon’s association with Helena and his claim of the supreme God is one tradition and Simon’s disputation with Peter is another.  Even within one big tradition, two or more sub-traditions or strata are disorderly interwoven.  And this makes it extremely difficult to understand and clarify Simon’s claims or opinions.

                                  

C.  The New Testament Apocrypha

1.  The Acts of Peter

       When Paul, who was staying in Rome for a while, left for Spain to spread the Gospel there, Simon the magician came to Rome from Aricia, south of Rome, claiming to be the great power of God.²¹⁶  The APt informs that Simon left Judea on account of Peter (9, 17) and came to Rome.  It contains three contests between Simon and Peter (9-15; 23-29; 32). The first contest (9-15) occurred, without seeing each other face to face, at the house of Marcellus, a senator of Rome. Peter, who was at the door of Marcellus’ house, sent a big dog, who was tied by a chain, inside to Simon.  On behalf of Peter, the dog disputes against Simon with a human voice (9, 12).  Returning to Peter, the dog fell at the feet of Peter and expired (12).  Peter, in front of the multitude, threw a smoked tunny fish into the pond, and the fish became alive and began to swim (13).  Seeing the signs which Peter demonstrated, Marcellus, who once called Simon “the power of God,” and erected a statue to him with the inscription of “To Simon, the young god,” attacked Simon who sat in the dining room of his house, and made him leave his house (14).  Then, Simon came to the house of the presbyter Narcissus, where Peter was staying, to command Peter to come down.  Peter sent a woman with her 7 month-old suckling baby.  And the baby disputes against Simon with a manly voice (15).

       The second contest (23-29) was held in the forum of Julius on a day of Sabbath.  Senators and prefects and officers assembled along with many people in Rome.  Simon raised an objection against Jesus the Nazarene: “Men of Rome, is a God borne?  Is he crucified? Whoever has a master is no God” (23).  Peter replied with some quotations (Isa. 7:13-14, 28:16, 53:2, 8; Dan. 2:34, 28:16; Ps. 118:22; Ascension of Isaiah 11:13; etc.).  Some other quotations are from unknown sources.²¹⁷

       Then, the prefect (Agrippa) let them perform a power contest. He summoned one of his slaves and spoke to Simon to kill him, and to Peter to revive him when he is killed.  Simon whispered something into the ear of the slave, and then he died.  Before Peter revives the slave, a widow, whose son is dead, approaches Peter, and begs him to raise his son up.  Thirty young men went to the widow’s house to fetch the widow’s dead son.  In the mean time, Peter said to the prefect to come to the dead slave and take hold of him by the right hand to restore him to life.  When Agrippa did as he was told, the lad was restored to life.  When the widow’s dead son was brought in on a bier, after praying God, Peter commanded the dead to arise. And the dead man rose immediately.

       When the news spread through the entire city, the mother of a senator came to Peter and ask him to revive her son Nicostratus, too (28).  Her slaves carried her son and placed him before Peter.  Peter made a suggestion:  “Let Simon revive the body which is before us. If he is not able I will call upon my God.  I will restore the son alive to his mother and then you shall believe that he is a sorcerer and deceiver, this man who enjoys your hospitality.”  Simon came to the head of the dead man, but he could not revive the dead man.  Then, Peter touched the side of the young man, and said, “Arise.”  The lad arose, and took up his garment and untied his chin, and came down from the bier.

       The third and final contest was held on the Via Sacra(=Sacred Way) in Rome.  Simon began to fly in the air in front of the large multitude.  Peter cried to the Lord Jesus Christ to let Simon fall down and become crippled but not die.  Simon fell down and broke his leg in three places.  He was carried to Aricia by some helpers and operated.  But, his life was ended there.

2.  The Acts of Peter and Paul

       The Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul(=APtP) reports a confrontation between Simon on one side and Peter and Paul on the other side in Rome before Nero, instead of before Agrippa the prefect in APt.  Peter asks Nero to bring Simon a barley loaf and to give it to him secretly.  Then he says to Simon to tell “what has been thought about, or what said, or what done.”  As Simon does not know the answer, he said:  “Let Peter say what I am thinking of, or what I am doing.”  Simon says to Nero: “no one knows the thoughts of men, but God alone.”  Simon admits that he is not God although he claims the Son of God.  By the “Son of God” he means that he can perform some wonderful deeds.  Simon commands:  “Let great dogs come forth, eat him(=Peter) up before Caesar.”  Knowing what Simon is thinking of, Peter, “stretching forth his hands to pray, showed to the dogs the loaf which he had blessed.”  Then, the dogs disappeared. Simon tells Nero about their previous encounters in Judea, and in all Palestine and Caesarea.

       The following day, Simon and Peter and Paul met again at the bottom of a lofty tower of wood, which was built at the request of Simon, in the Campus Martius.  Simon states that he will call his angels, and order them to take him to his father in heaven.  Unlike in Irenaeus, Simon in the various apocryphal Acts and the Pseudo-Clementines does not claim that he is God the Father.²¹⁸  He went up upon the tower in front of Nero, Peter and Paul, and the crowd, and crowned with laurels, he stretched forth his hands, and began to fly into the air by the help of the angels of Satan, claiming that he would go to his Father in heaven.  Paul, bending his knees, prayed to God. Peter, looking at Simon flying, commanded his angels to let him go.  Simon fell into a place named Sacra Via,²¹⁹ and was divided into four parts, having perished by an evil fate.²²⁰  Nero, who watched this incidence, ordered Peter and Paul to be put in irons, and let the body of Simon be kept three days, thinking that he would rise again on the third day.  But, Simon was dead in deed.  This seems to be a combination of the two different traditions on Simon’s death--death by fall from the sky and death in burial (expecting his resurrection on the third day).

       Then, summoning Agrippa the propraetor, Nero ordered him to kill Peter and Paul. Following Agrippa’s suggestion, with which Nero was well pleased, Paul was beheaded on the Ostesian road, and Peter was crucified with his head downwards, as he requested, just like the case in APt (chapter 38).  Soon after these things the people of Rome revolted against Nero.  When Nero knew of it, he fled into desert places, and through hunger and cold, he died and his body became food for the wild beasts (68 C.E.).

3.  The Apostolic Constitutions

       The Apostolic Constitutions(=AC) records the two contests between Simon and Peter, one in Caesarea, like in the Pseudo-Clementines, and the other in Rome, like in some apocryphal Acts (APt, APtP).

       Simon’s first contest with Peter occurred at Caesarea Stratonis (cf. H 3.30-58; R 2.19-3.48).²²¹  Simon endeavored to pervert the word of God. Zacchaeus, Barnabas, and Nicetas and Aquila, brothers of Clement were there with Peter.  The AC describe Clement as the disciple of Paul, differently from the Pseudo-Clementines, where he was the disciple of Peter, instead.  Among those who were with Peter, all other names but Barnabas’ were mentioned at the same Caesarean contest in both the Homilies and the Recognitions.  Peter calls Paul “our fellow-apostle and fellow-helper in the Gospel.”²²²  Peter discoursed with Simon three times concerning the True Prophet and the monarchy of God.  Then, Simon fled to Italy.  This is different from the Pseudo-Clementines, where Simon did not go to Italy, but went to Antioch and then returned to Judea.

       As Simon went to Italy, the second contest between Simon and Peter in the AC occurred in Rome, rather than in Laodicea of Syria (cf. H 16.-19.).  Simon flew on high in the air, being carried up by demons, as he promised, before the people of Rome and Peter.  Peter besought God through the Lord Jesus to halt Simon’s flight.  Simon, being deprived of his power, “fell down headlong with a great noise, and was violently dashed against the ground, and had his hip and ankle-bones broken.”²²³  Unlike in the Pseudo-Clementines, where the contest between Simon and Peter was theological or biblical (in the Homilies) or philosophical (in the Recognitions), the contest in the AC is a power demonstration, i.e., the magical power versus the miraculous power of the Lord Jesus.  For this incidence of Simon’s flight in Rome, the AC seems to share the same tradition with the various apocryphal Acts. Here, Simon’s accidental death is not recorded (cf. DA). Although Simon was defeated badly by Peter, some people continued follow him and his doctrine. In this manner, according to the AC, the heresy of the Simonians was first established in Rome.²²⁴

4.  The Teaching of Simon Cephas in the City of Rome

       The Teaching of Simon Cephas in the City of Rome (an Ancient Syriac document) relates another (imaginary) confrontation between Simon Magus and Simon Cephas.  The judge here was neither Agrippa in APt nor Nero in APtP, but Claudius (41-54 C.E.).²²⁵ The author testifies that this occurred in the third year of Claudius (43 C.E.).  People of Rome assembled together to see whose power was real and stronger.  It was a contest, between them, who could raise a dead person (cf. APt 28).  At first, Simon Magus tried. He drew near reluctantly to the dead person.  He looked to the right hand to the left, and gazed up into heaven, saying many words, some of them he uttered aloud, and some of them secretly and not aloud for a long time.  But nothing happened to the dead person.  Then, Simon Cephas drew near boldly to the dead man, and cried out aloud before all the assembly:  “In the name of Jesus Christ, whom the Jews crucified at Jerusalem, and whom we preach, rise up thence.”  As soon as Simon Cephas spoke out, the dead man came to life and rose up from the bier.  Simon Magus escaped from people from one street to another, from house to house.  After this  Simon Cephas served in Rome in the rank of the Superintendence of Rulers for twenty five years.²²⁶  At the last year (68 C.E.) of his reign, Nero seized Peter and Paul.  He commanded that Peter should be crucified and Paul should be beheaded. Right after this, Nero abandoned his empire and fled.

V.   FROM SIMON TO SIMONIAN GNOSTICISM      

A.  The Theological Aspects of Simonian Gnosticism

1.  The Origin of Simonian Gnosticism

       R. M. Grant claims that Simonian Gnosis arose out of Judaeo-Samaritan sectarianism, and developed passing several stages:  the first stage was the period when it was still close to Dositheus and the notion of “the Standing One” (cf. Deut. 5:31); the second stage was the period when apocalyptic turned into Gnosis, when Simon was called “the power not of but above the Creator” by himself and/or by his followers, and when his companion Helen was called “Wisdom, the Mother of all.  At this point, according to Grant, “would come the coordination of Simonianism with the story of Helen of Troy, and of Simonological doctrine with Christology.”²²⁷  He further argues that only the later stage of Simonian doctrine was known to the heresiologists, and this is why they treated “Simonianism as the beginning of Gnosticism, ascribing its origins to interest in magic or simply to the paranoiac madness of Simon.”²²⁸

       Did Simon’s (and Simonian) Gnostic system start from the middle of the first century?  Apart from the question when it started, I think that Simon’s (or Simonian’s) Samaritan origin Gnostic system started from non-Christian (or pre-Christian) foundation, if it occurred in the first century.  If this Gnostic system occurred in the first century, it would be quite natural to consider Simon as a pre-Christian cult figure, and as the father of all Gnostics.  Then, the second century Christianizing Simonianism may perhaps have been done by the heresiologists to discredit its creativity and authority.  However, those who oppose the hypothesis of the first century Gnostic origins have used the apparent assimilation of the Simon legends to the life of Christ as an evidence that Gnostic sects are secondary deformations of the Christian tradition.²²⁹  It seems to me that there would exist unknown pre-Christian or non-Christian Gnostic system(s) even before Christianity began, but that Simon was not the origin of those Gnostic systems.  The Simonian Gnostic system would be an early second century non-Christian phenomenon.  I think that the church fathers brought Simonianism (which started outside Christianity) into the subdivision of Christianity, to disparage their system and to be considered as a Christian heresy.  And, either the Simonians or the heresiologists attributed their Gnostic system to Simon Magus who lived the middle of the first century to claim the Gnostic origin.  That is, ‘the attribution of father of all Gnostics (or heresies) to Simon Magus’ should be the second century product.     

2.  The Evolution of the Simon Legend

       Were there two or three different Simons in Samaria--Simon a magus in Acts 8 and Simon a Gnostic in Justin’s 1 Apology and in the Pseudo-Clementines?  It seems to me that they are the same person but different expressions.  G. Lüdemann also thinks that the same figure of Simon is involved in each different case of Acts 8 and the second-century reports.²³⁰  However, it does not necessarily mean that this Simon historically existed.  There was a certain famous Simon, whom even Josephus knew.  His origin was not quite known, but was said to be from a Samaritan village, named Gitta (“Kitta” or “Kittim”), or from Cyprus (“Cypriot”).  Yet, there is another tradition which claims that Simon is a Jew (not a half-Jew) (cf. APt 6).  He probably performed some magic.  And later, as is in Josephus’ Antiquities, he perhaps moved to Caesarea and became a friend of Felix.

       Simon in Samaritan religion did not like Judaism, yet respected Moses and his (Samaritan version of) Pentateuch.  He probably wanted to be a prophet like Moses, as was predicted in Deuteronomy 18:15 and 18:18 (cf. John 5:46).  Thus, the later Simonians in Samaria at the end of the first century or at the beginning of the second century who still respected Moses and his Pentateuch found the resemblance in Jesus Christ and wanted to express their master as the Standing One, i.e. the Christ.

       G. R. S. Mead thinks that the title Magus (of Simon) has a certain Gnostic link with Persia and the Magi and that “the fire-symbolism used in the manuscript quoted from by Hippolytus amply confirms this hypothesis.”²³¹  According to Hippolytus, Simon affirms that “fire is the originating principle of the universe” (Ref 6.4; cf. Deut. 4.24).  However, it does not seem to me that the Simon legend has been so significantly affected to be recognizable.  Rather, the Samaritan Simon legend has been well mixed with the Greek or Roman myth.       

       There is no certainty that this Simon came to Rome.  I think that Simon almost certainly did not come to Rome.  The claim that Simon came to Rome is partly because of a tradition that Paul went to Rome as a result of his arrest in Jerusalem, and also partly because of a tradition that some second century Gnostics who had their foundation in Rome regarded him as the founder of their sect.  If the Western Simonians were not the ones who related themselves with the mythologizing and gnosticizing Simon of the middle of the first century, probably the second century heresiologists such as Justin, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus were the ones who attempted to link this Simon who knew a little bit of magic with the second century Gnostic movement, to discredit the Gnostic “heretics” and the Marcionites.  On the other hand, “Luke of Acts” who would also live in the beginning or mid of the second century, knowing that the Simonian Gnostics made Simon, a certain magician in Samaria, great like Godhead, or the power of God, or Christ, wanted again to ‘degnosticize’ Simon (as he was) and to subordinate him to the apostles and even to Philip in the history of evangelism in Samaria ‘although it was not historical.’  At the same time, he pretended not to know of the Simonian worship of Simon as Zeus (or Jupiter) or as power of God.  In this way, “Luke of Acts” refuted or disproved Simonian Gnosticism.

       Although Simon’s confrontation with Peter in Rome is not historical, the followers of (the Gnostic) Simon perhaps reached Rome at the beginning of the second century.  Or, a Simonian sect--that is, Western Simonianism--was organized in Rome, independently of the one in Samaria, at the beginning or toward the middle of the second century, just naming after a famous magician Simon. Considering the doctrinal varieties and inconsistency in Simonianism, I think that it is very probable that there were more than one Simonian sect around 200 C.E.

       Whether the followers of Simon reached Rome or Western Simonianism was organized in Rome independently of Eastern Simonianism, the Simonian believers in Rome wanted to claim that their master Simon is the supreme God like Zeus.  Then, as Gnosticism progressed and Christianity was widespread, Simon was alleged to be the supreme, unknown God, the Father of Jesus, like in Marcionism and in some other sects of Gnosticism.  The Simonians in Rome evidently adopted the later developed theological systems of Valentinianism, Marcionism, and etc.  That’s why the Simonian system of syzygies resembles the Valentinian system of four syzigies²³² and the Simonian doctrine of salvation by grace of Simon has its basis in Ephesians 2:8, and the Simonian unknown supreme God has its ground in the Father of Jesus in Marcionism and Gnosticism.  That Simonianism had influenced Valentinianism, skipping over Saturninus, and Basilides, and Carpocrates whose doctrines are remote from the Simonian doctrines, is implausible.  Rather, that the advanced famous Valentinian system had influenced the Simonian system in the middle of the second century is more probable.  And, in the same way, the famous Paulinistic Marcionite theological system was also employed by the eclectic Simonians.

3.  The Simonian Use of Myths

(1) The Syro-Phoenician Myth: Sun(=Shamash[שמש]) and Moon(=Selene, Luna)

       In Rome Helen, Simon’s companion, was sometimes said to be worshiped as Minerva (Gk: Athena)²³³ and some other times as Luna (Gk: Selene).  The worship of Helen as Minerva (Athene) or as Luna (Selene) seems to have different backgrounds. Whereas the worship of Helen as Minerva and of Simon as Jupiter has a link with the Roman (Greek) myth, the worship of Helen as the moon goddess and of Simon as the sun god probably started from the Syro-Phoenician myth.  Then, when Simonianism arrived in Rome, Helen was worshiped as Luna, the Roman goddess of the moon although her partner Simon was worshiped as Jupiter (instead of as Apollo).

(2) The Roman-Greek Myth: Jupiter(=Zeus) and Minerva(=Athena)

       According to the Roman-Greek myth, Minerva (Athena), the goddess of wisdom, was the daughter of Jupiter (Zeus), and was said to have leaped forth from Jupiter’s (Zeus’s) brain, mature and in complete armor.  According to Irenaeus,²³⁴ like Minerva from Jupiter’s brain, this first Thought leaped forth from father, Simon Magus, and produced the angels, who, in their turn, created the world.  I think that the Jupiter-Minerva (Zeus-Athena) myth influenced the Simonian creation of the story of Helen’s proceeding from Simon.  Justin Martyr states that in his time many Romans as well as almost all Samaritans honor Simon as Jupiter (Zeus in the Greek myth), the supreme God, high over all the other powers and Helen, Simon’s first Thought (_Εvvoια) as Minerva (Athena in the Greek myth).

(3) Homer

       The Helen in Simonianism is also closely connected with the Helen in Homer.²³⁵  In Homer’s Iliad, Helen, the wife of Menelaus, King of Sparta, was quite a separate person from Athena (Minerva), the goddess of wisdom, although both ladies somehow got involved in the outbreak of the Trojan War.²³⁶  However, Athena, daughter of Zeus, is identified with the first Thought of Simon and became the same person with the Helen in Troy by the Simonians or by the church fathers (Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Epiphanius).  In the Recognitions, Luna,²³⁷ whose name is meant to be the goddess of moon in the Roman myth, was a female disciple of Dositheus (2.8) and is now Simon’s lover and travel companion (2.9).  And she is allegedly claimed to be Wisdom, the mother of all things, who has been brought down from the highest heaven by Simon (2.12), and is connected somehow but awkwardly with the Helen of Troy.  The detention of Helen, the first Thought of Simon, by the angels who were created by her and the transmigration of her soul from one female body to another female body, at one time in the body of the Helen of Troy, in Irenaeus (AH 1.23.2; cf. Hippolytus, Ref 6.14; Epiphanius Pan 21.3.1-5) may make sense.  But, the presence of Luna only in image in the body of Helen of Troy does not make sense as there is no detention motif, unlike in the church fathers, in the Pseudo-Clementines (in both the Recognitions and the Homilies).  Although the Pseudo-Clementines state that the Greeks and the Trojans fought only for the image of Luna or Helena as her real truth was with the highest god, i.e., Simon (R 2.12; H 2.25), the rationale for even the image of Luna or Helena, who was brought down from the highest heavens by Simon himself, to be present in the body of the Helen of Troy is weak.        

4.  Simon’s Apophasis Megalê(=Great Revelation)

       Whether the Apophasis Megalê(=Great Revelation or Great Announcement) is a genuine work of Simon himself or a later and secondary work of Simon’s disciples, there is a debate among scholars.  Some scholars such as G. Salmon, A. Harnack, M. Nilsson, L. Cerfaux, H.-M. Schenke, K. Beyschlag, think that this is a later work because of its “strongly philosophic character.”²³⁸  On the other hand, some other scholars such as E. Haenchen, P. Pokorný, W. Schmithals, Salles-Dabadie, think that it is a genuine work of Simon himself for various reasons.  Some regard the Apophasis Megalê as an evidence for a developed pre-Christian Gnosticism or a non-Christian Gnosticism (E. Haenchen, P. Pokorný).²³⁹  W. Schmithals claims that the system of the Apophasis Megalê which is lacking “a genuine dualism,” “any redeemer figure,” and “Nous and Epinoia as Simon and Helen” indicates no Christian influences, and that “Simon himself serves only as the author of the revelation writing.”²⁴⁰

       Hippolytus in his Refutatio describes the content of the Apophasis Megalê.  The Simon in Hippolytus claims that the world was produced from the unbegotten indefinite fire, which is the originating principle of the universe.  This statement is not Gnostic at all but rather philosophical, as Hippolytus tries to connect Simon’s teaching with Greek philosophers such as Pythagoras (580? - 500? B.C.E.), Heraclitus (500? - ? B.C.E.), Empedocles (494 - 434 B.C.E.), Plato (427? - 347 B.C.E.), and Aristotle (384 - 322 B.C.E.).  There was a begotten indefinite power from the unbegotten fire.  This begotten power took six roots which were made from the indefinite fire in pairs, and they are Mind and Thought (or Intelligence), Voice and Name, and Reasoning (or Ratiocination) and Reflection.  The indefinite power resides simultaneously in these six roots potentially (δυvάμει), but not actually (εvεργεία).  This indefinite begotten power is he who stood, stands, and will stand.²⁴¹  It is also called the Seventh Power. A. Welburn correctly states that “the man who knows how to awaken the Seventh Power within himself (dormantly), knows himself as a microcosm, a ‘lesser’ world in which all the cosmic powers are united.”²⁴²  Simon in Hippolytus explains God’s forming man microcosmically. He says that the Paradise in Genesis 2 is the womb.²⁴³

       Of the six roots or powers, Simon calls the first pair (Mind and Thought) Heaven and Earth, the second pair (Voice and Name) Sun and Moon, and the third pair (Reasoning and Reflection) Air and Water.²⁴⁴  Simon states that the Seventh Power and the first pair, Mind and Thought, are produced antecedent to all the rest.²⁴⁵  The Spirit in Genesis 1:2 contains all things in itself and is an image of the Seventh Power--“an image from an incorruptible form, that alone reduces all things into order.”²⁴⁶  However, the God in the Scripture is not Simon’s fire from which the universe and man were formed, although Simon’s reasoning is that God is the fire. Hippolytus argues that God (in the Old Testament) is not a fire, but a burning and consuming fire.²⁴⁷  More correctly, (the angel of) God appeared to Moses in a flame of fire (Exod. 3:2).  

       Hippolytus describes the same Simon’s (or Simonian) teaching again in Ref 6.13 (or 6.18 according to a different recension) with adding a Gnostic flavor.  There are two offshoots from all the Aeons, having neither beginning nor end, from one root, a power called Sigē (Σιγή: Silence).  It is invisible and incomprehensible. Hippolytus is not clear whether this power, Sigē, corresponds to the indefinite pre-existent unbegotten power, fire, or to the indefinite pre-existent but begotten power, the Seventh Power.  However, I think that Sig_ is meant to be fire (the Great Indefinite Power), the originating principle of the universe.²⁴⁸  One of the offshoots which appear from above in a male form is Mind of the universe, and the other from below in a female form is Thought (or Intelligence). Whereas Mind manages all things, Thought produces all things.²⁴⁹  Mind and Thought in pairs undergo conjugal union, and manifest an intermediate interval, an incomprehensible Air, without beginning or end.  In this Air is a Father who sustains all things and nourishes things that have beginning and end.  This (Father) is “he who stood, stands, and will stand, being an hermaphrodite power according to the pre-existent indefinite power, which has neither beginning nor end.”²⁵⁰  This Father, who stood, stands, and will stand, thus corresponds to the Seventh Power (cf. Ref 6.7 and 6.8).  Or, this Father may be Mind that appears from above in a male form.  E. F. Edinger regards Mind as the Father,²⁵¹ although Hippolytus never explicitly describes Mind as the One “who stood, stands, and will stand.”  That is, Mind (Nous) is the Father and Thought (Ennoia) is the Mother.  His view seems to me to be plausible as Mind appears in a male form and the Seventh Power resides simultaneously in all.  Thus, according to the Simonian Gnosticism, Simon, the Father as the Seventh Power or as Mind above is the manifestation of this Father on earth below.

5.  The Theology of Simonianism

(I) The (Great) Power (of God)

       “The (Great) Power (of God)” is the most commonly and widely assigned title to Simon except “a magician.”  The Samaritans in the first century would call Simon the great power of God as Acts 8:10 (retroactively) witnesses.  The Great Power in Simon’s time would designate “the second rank of divinity, the revealer” or “a person who is great like God.” The title “the Great Power” also applies to Godhead. Hegesippus states:  “(James the brother of Jesus said) ‘He(=Jesus) is sitting in heaven at the right hand of the Greta Power, ... .’”²⁵²  In the second century, when Simon was called “the Great Power,” he was meant to be greater than the Creator God.

(2) Ennoia (or Helen)

       The Helen, Simon’s Ennoia, in Irenaeus in AH 1.23.2 leaped forth from her Father, Simon, and descended to the lower regions, and was detained out of envy by the Angels and Powers whom she had given birth to, being imprisoned in a human body and transmigrated for ages from one female body to another, being at one time Helen of Troy, and finally becoming a prostitute.  Epiphanius ridiculed the transmigration of Helen by stating that “she kept migrating from female bodies into various bodies of human beings, cattle and the rest.”²⁵³  Epiphanius identifies Helen with Prunicus or Barbelo (or Barbero) or Holy Spirit.²⁵⁴  According to Irenaeus, Simon came down to rescue Helen, who was then a prostitute in Tyre (cf. Hippolytus, Ref 6.14), whereas Justin in his 1 Apology refers to Helen’s having been a prostitute, but makes no reference to the city of Tyre or to Simon’s having redeemed her.²⁵⁵

       The Helena story in the Pseudo-Clementines is significantly different from that of the church fathers.  It seems to me that here two (or more than two) different traditions about Helena were crashed or interwoven each other.  First of all, she was not a prostitute at Tyre here but a disciple of John the Baptist (H 2.23) or of Dositheus(R 2.8).  Unlike the Helen in the church fathers, the Helen in the Pseudo-Clementines was never imprisoned but was brought down from the highest heavens to the world by Simon himself.  Thus, the Helen in the Pseudo-Clementines was not a lost sheep, because of whom Simon, the supreme Father, descended.²⁵⁶  Both in the church fathers and in the Pseudo-Clementines (Helena in H 2.25 and Luna in R 2.12), Helen once seemingly appeared in Homer’s Trojan war, for whose sake, the Greeks and barbarians fought. But the Helen in the Pseudo-Clementines, who was taken to Troy by Paris, was not the truth but merely an image of the real Helen. The truth, the real Helen has been always with the highest god, Simon (H 2.25).²⁵⁷  Helen, like in the church fathers, is called “the mother of all things” in R 2.12 (cf. “the all-bearing being” in H 2.25).²⁵⁸  Helen is also called Wisdom (H 2.25; R 2.12).  Helen, as Wisdom, can be found a parallel in Jewish Wisdom literature. R. M. Grant states that the personified Wisdom of God was “God’s helper in the work of creation (Prov. 8:22-31).”  However, Helen’s role in the Pseudo-Clementines, unlike in Irenaeus, is not significant.  She is not described as Simon’s first thought.  She did not give birth to Angels and Powers, by whom this world was made.  After Simon became the first chief of the sect, he travels around with Helen.  But, throughout his travel, Helen is never mentioned as if she is not there with Simon at all.

       According to Irenaeus (AH 1.29.1), the Barbeliotes propose that there is a certain Aeon in a virginal spirit who never grows old.  This Aeon, called Barbelo, is the Thought of a certain unnameable Father, the Majesty, who thought of revealing himself to this Barbelo.²⁵⁹  This Thought [Barbelo], however, came forward and stood before him and asked him for Foreknowledge. Barbelo gave birth to a Light similar to the Majesty.  And, this Light is called Christ.  When he asked that Mind be given as helpmate, Mind came forth. Furthermore, Father produced Will and Word.

       In the Simonian system, Barbelo is equivalent to Helen, Thought (or Foreknowledge) to _vvoια, and the unnameable Father to Simon.  When Foreknowledge had come forth, they again made a request, and Incorruption came forth; and after that, Eternal Life.  While Barbelo glorified in them and looked upon the Majesty and took delight in a conception, she gave birth to a Light similar to the Majesty.  K. Rudolph suggests that the Simonian system is an early form of the Barbelo Gnostic system.²⁶⁰  But, I think that there is a good probability for the second century Simonians to have employed Barbelo-like Helen from Barbelo Gnosticism.

(3) Cosmogony

       According to Irenaeus,²⁶¹ Simon’s Ennoia, Helen, gave birth to Angels and Powers, and they made the world and man. Epiphanius, slightly differently from Irenaeus, states that Simon created the Angels through Helen, his Ennoia, and the angels created the world and men.²⁶² But, the Simon in Hippolytus claims that the world was produced from the unbegotten fire, “the originating principle of the universe,” not by the Angels and the Powers.²⁶³  On the other hand, the creation story in the Pseudo-Clementines follows that of the Gnostics in general.  According to the Recognitionist, the supreme unknown good God sent an angel (or a god) to make the world.²⁶⁴  And when he had made the world, he insists that he was God (and there was no other God above him).  That is, the creator of the world is not an angel who was given birth to by Helen in the church fathers but an angel (or a god) who was sent by the highest God.  Simon is ambiguous here whether or not he(=Simon) is that highest God.  The Homilist seems to follow the Gnostic cosmogony by distinguishing the highest God from the Creator (God) of the world.²⁶⁵  Whereas the highest God is good, the Creator God is just.  Thus, according to the church fathers, there are three different creation stories claimed by Simon or Simonians:  one, the creation by the Angels (and the Powers) produced by Helen, Simon’s Ennoia; another, the creation by the indefinite fire; and yet the other one, the creation by the angel (or the god) sent by the supreme unknown God.  I think that these three different creation stories are probably influenced by the myth, by the Greek philosophy, and by the second century Gnosticism, respectively.  And, none of these creation stories seems to me to be of Simon himself.

(4) Docetism

       According to Irenaeus, Simon taught that “he himself was the one who appeared among the Jews as the Son of God, while in Samaria he descended as the Father, and among the other nations he came as the Holy Spirit.”²⁶⁶  Simon further states that he appeared as a man, though he was not a man, and that he appeared to suffer in Judea, though he really did not suffer.²⁶⁷  Thus, Simon claims that he is the Christ. Hippolytus quotes the same statement, but replaces ‘Simon’ with ‘Jesus (Christ).’²⁶⁸  J. G. Davies suggests that Simon’s claim is probably related to “the Judaistic idea of God or angels assuming different human forms, in appearance only, in order to communicate with men.”²⁶⁹  If it is Simon himself who claims the above, I think that Davies may be right. But, I doubt the above Christianized version of Simon’s claim is said by Simon himself.  Then, it is probably claimed by the second century (Samaritan) Simonians who respected Simon as Christ-like Messiah, influenced by Marcion and/or Saturninus.

(5) Dualism

       The Simonian dualism is shown in Hippolytus’ Refutatio.  According to Hippolytus, Simon affirms that fire, which is the originating principle of the universe, has a certain twofold nature, one part a something secret and the other a something manifest, and that “the secret (portions of fire) are hidden (or invisible) in the manifest (or visible) portions of fire.”²⁷⁰  The manifest portions of the fire derive their being from its secret portions.²⁷¹

       Six roots were made from the (unbegotten indefinite) fire in pairs, and their names are Mind and Thought (or Intelligence), Voice and Name, Reasoning (or Ratiocination) and Reflection. In these six roots resides simultaneously the entire indefinite power potentially, (however) not actually.  This indefinite power is “he who stood, stands, and will stand.”²⁷² This indefinite power is the Seventh Power.  According to Hippolytus, Simon calls the first pair, Mind and Thought (or Intelligence), Heaven and Earth; the second pair, Voice and Name, Sun and Moon; and the third pair, Reasoning and Reflection, Air and Water.²⁷³

       Some other dualistic expression of the Simonian system is found in the Pseudo-Clementines.  The Simon in H 17.3-5 and 18.1-4 distinguishes the just God and the good God.  The just God is the lawgiver of Israel and the good God is the highest unknown God.  But, as a matter of fact, this is not the distinction by Simon who lived in the first century but by the second century Gnostics and by the Marcionites.  The Simon in the Recognitions, on the other hand, is a polytheist, saying, “there are many gods; but there is there is one incomprehensible and unknown to all, and He is the God of the all these gods.”²⁷⁴  So, Simon’s point of view on god in the Recognitions is not dualistic.

       Hippolytus states that “Valentinus derived a starting point” from the Simonian dualism.²⁷⁵  But, I think that the opposite case is true. That is, the dualism in the Simonian system seems to be the second century development influenced by the Valentinian Gnosticism.  It does not mean that the Simonian dualism is more advanced than the Valentinian dualism but that it seems to be imitative.

B.  Is Simon a Gnostic?     

       Simon is frequently called the father of all (Gnostic) heresies.  But, “Luke of Acts” portrays Simon not as a Gnostic but simply as a magician (Acts 8:9, 11) who was converted to Christianity through baptism by Philip.  He is a person who performs mighty works of magic and yet wants to possess a greater power to amaze people and to be respected and to be followed by many people.  He never insists that he is God who is above other gods and angels and powers.  Before his conversion, he called himself “somebody great” (τιvα μέγαv, Acts 8:9) and Samaritan people also called him “power of God which is called Great” (ἡ δύvαμις τoῦ θεoῦ ἡ καλoυμέvη μεγάλη in Acts 8:10), and gave heed to him (vv. 10, 11). Simon’s greatness or power in Acts 8:9-10 apparently did not come from God but from his magic art.  He only wants to add the power of the Holy Spirit to his power of magic (Acts 8:18-19).  He is a person who is afraid of God’s power and judgment (Acts 8:24).  In Acts 8, the magical power of Simon is apparently inferior to the spiritual power of both Philip and Peter.  This is what “Luke of Acts” intends to tell the readers.

       I think that “Luke of Acts” had a source material available.  According to his Samaritan source, there was a certain Simon in Samaria, practicing magic.  His magic was powerful enough to attract many people to him.  He wanted to increase his magical power more to become the greatest of all. Simon encountered certain followers of Jesus.  They saw other party’s different source of the power.  They separated from each other without any contest.  Simon continued to perform his magic to be revered by many people.  And some considered him “a god” not in a sense of replacement of “the Israelite God” but in a sense of “a powerful person.”  Simon himself was not a Gnostic yet.²⁷⁶  G. Lüdemann (like E. Haenchen) claims:  “On the presupposition that the remarks about the character of epinoia (ἡ ἐπίvoια) as tradition (v. 22) are right, the Simonian religion was already Gnostic when Philip came into contact with it (He dates it 30s C.E.).”  But, I think that Luke’s use of epinoia (ἡ ἐπίvoια) is not the attribution to Simon whom Philip encountered in 30s (as Lüdemann estimates) but his observation of the second century Simonians’ Simon.  That is, the only Gnostic language in this passage, “the intent of your heart”(ἡ ἐπίvoια τῆς καρδίας σoυ) in v. 22b, which alludes to “the first Thought of his mind” (ἡ ἔvvoια τoῦ voός αὐτoῦ), referring to Helena, is the later Gnostic development by the second century Simonians.²⁷⁷  The second century Luke probably knew of the Gnostic tradition of Simon, but he pretended not to demonstrate his knowledge of this Gnostic Simon, unlike Justin and Irenaeus, treating him only as a meager magician whose magical power was far inferior to the power of the Spirit. 

       H. Conzelmann states:  “Whether Luke knew about his(=Simon’s) companion Helena (the “Ennoia”) or is intentionally silent cannot be determined.”²⁷⁸  I think that the latter case is more probable, seeing that Luke seems to use ἡ ἐπίvoια on purpose instead of ἡ ἔvvoια. Simon’s asking Peter ‘to pray for him to the Lord’ is not historical.  The second century Luke’s intention is to degrade the Simonians by retroactively subordinating their master Simon the magician to Peter.²⁷⁹  However, I am not rejecting the possibility of Simon’s confrontation with Peter itself.  They might have confronted in somewhat quite different situations.  Or, their confrontation may portray a different kind of a confrontation, e.g., Peter’s confrontation with Paul in Antioch (cf. Gal. 2:11-14) or in Caesarea (cf. H 17.15, 17.19;  EpPt 2).  Luke’s witness of Simon’s baptism by Philip is not historical but is intended to serve for the same purpose.

       E. Haenchen argues that Simon was a full-fledged Gnostic even before he came into contact with Christianity.²⁸⁰  Simon is a representing example of the pre-Christian Gnostic redeemer.  G. Lüdemann also claims that “the Gnostic system of the Simonians that must be assumed for the middle of the second century seems to have been presupposed already in Acts 8.”  Lüdemann seems to be partly correct that “Luke of Acts” would probably know of the “Gnostic Simon” tradition.  But, I think that G. Filoramo is right when he argues that Acts itself does not tell anything of possible Gnostic aspects of Simon’s teaching.²⁸¹  If Acts was not written in the middle (or early second half ) of the first century but in the middle of the second-century, the author’s knowledge of the “Gnostic Simon” tradition would not be a surprising fact.  “Luke of Acts” who implicitly claimed to be the writer (of the stories) in the first century pretended not to know of the “Gnostic Simon,” and treated him just as a “magician.”  That is, Simon in Acts 8 is not portrayed as a Gnostic but as a magician who was superficially converted to Christianity (by baptism by Philip in 8:13) by Luke’s own intent.  The second century Luke’s treatment of him as a magician here has a negative connotation, and seems to be part of his polemic against competing cults (cf. Acts 8, 13, 19; the Pseudo-Clementines; APt; etc.).  H. Remus suggests that the second century Christians adopted the label “magic” to deny “miracle” claims by pagans and by other Christians.²⁸²  K. Beyschlag claims that Simonian Gnosticism only appeared much later, in the second century, and ought to be understood as a branch of Christian Gnosticism, not as a primary stage earlier than Christian Gnosticism, which had prepared for it.²⁸³  Beyschlag clearly explains that the historical Simon, who was not a Gnostic, may have been “gnosticized” later on.  The fact that the title ‘the great Power’ has mythological connotations in Justin, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus must mean, according to Haenchen, that the title in Acts and in Luke’s source must also have had such a connotation.²⁸⁴   Lucien Cerfaux believes that Simon came from the pagan milieu of Samaria, but Quispel claims that Simon was a member of the “heretical” Jewish sect of the Samaritans.²⁸⁵  However, no unambiguous traces of Gnosticism can be demonstrated in the later Samaritan documents such as the Memar Marqah (in the fourth century) despite the efforts to discover them.

C.  Successors of Simon Magus

       It is not quite clear how Simonianism was succeeded from the first century Simon Magus to the second century Simonians. Furthermore, there was nobody who explicitly declared himself as a disciple of Simon Magus.  According to Irenaeus, the reason why the “heretics” after Simon did not acknowledge their teacher, i.e. Simon, is that they intended to mislead others.²⁸⁶  He claims that they taught the doctrine of Simon Magus.  However, it seems to me that Menander, Saturninus, Basilides, Carpocrates, Cerinthus, and others, of whom Irenaeus claims as the Simonians,²⁸⁷ had their own doctrines that were far from the teaching of Simon Magus.

       After Simon’s death, his disciples were said to carry on his teaching.  Menander, Saturninus, and Basilides were allegedly said to be the well-known Simon’s disciples, chiefly thanks to Irenaeus.  They deemed to be considered Simonian Gnostics after Simon Magus although they never expressed themselves as his successors.  As a Samaritan, Menander was active in Samaria and later in Antioch of Syria, Saturninus in Antioch of Syria, and Basilides in Alexandria of Egypt.  J. Lacarriere claims that ‘disciples’ is “too strong a term” for them, as they took “inspiration from the guide-lines laid down by Simon but pushed them further towards completion or even deviating from them.”²⁸⁸

1.  Menander 

       At the end of chapter 26 of  his 1 Apology to the Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161 C.E.), Justin is concerned with the three heretics Simon, Menander and Marcion. Menander came from a village named Capparetaea (or Kapparetaia) in Samaria, but worked in Antioch of Syria around 80 C.E.²⁸⁹  Justin claims that Menander was a disciple of Simon’s, but it seems to me to be a way how the church fathers connect the heretics each other.  Like Simon, Menander used his magical skill to claim that he was the Messiah.  He affirmed that he and his followers would not die through the baptism that he gave.

       According to Irenaeus, Menander states that “the first Power is unknown to all, but that he is the one who was sent as Savior (or Messiah) by the invisible [regions] for the salvation of men.”²⁹⁰  Like Simon, Menander also claims that the world was made by the Angels who were emitted by Thought (=Ennoia).  Unlike Simon, hr does not claim to be the first Power but to be the Savior sent by the unknown Power, i.e., the supreme God.  However, Simon is also alleged to be the Christ (or Savior) sent by the supreme God in the Pseudo-Clementines and elsewhere.  By the magic which Menander teaches he gives his disciples the knowledge (=Gnosis) to overcome the Angels who made the world.  As in Justin, Menander’s disciples in Irenaeus received the resurrection by being baptized into Menander and can no longer die, but will continue to live without growing old.  They are immortal in this life by means of baptism into their master.  G. Filoramo suggests that it would be the indication, in the earliest Gnosticism, of “the existence and the importance of certain ritual practice.”²⁹¹

       If both Justin and Irenaeus were correct in their testimonies on Menander, he would be the one of few who were somewhat affected by Simon directly or indirectly.  Or, the Simonians in the second century later would pick up some ideas from Menander.  G. R. S. Mead suggests that Menander “should be placed far earlier than ‘Simon.’”²⁹²  And, Filoramo would agree with Mead, when he states that Simonianism known to Irenaeus “has to be placed in the middle of the second century, not of the first.”²⁹³  Thus, it will lead us to say that the magic art would connect Menander, who was from Samaria, with Simon Magus, but that, as far as the Gnostic ideas are concerned including Angels who created the world, Menander probably would not follow Simon.  Rather Menander would precede “Simon.”  The second century Simonians, who picked up many ideas from other sects such as the Valentinians, Marcionites, would also adopt Menandrists’ doctrines.  The inconsistency and illogicality in the doctrines of the second century Simonians would probably be the result of this kind of collections and weave of doctrines of other sects.

2.  Saturninus

      Menander is said to have been succeeded by Saturninus (or Satornilus or Saturnilos) and Basilides, in Syria and Alexandria respectively.  Saturninus was from Antioch by Daphne, living around the end of the first century and the beginning of the second century about the time of Trajan (98-117 C.E.).  According to Irenaeus,²⁹⁴ he taught that there is one unknown Father who made the Angels, Archangels, Virtues, and Powers.  Then, certain seven Angels created the world and all that is in it.²⁹⁵  The seven Angels formed man.  When a shining image appeared from above from the sovereign Power, the seven Angels, who could not hold fast to it as it immediately ascended again, exhorted each other:  “Let us make man after an image and likeness” (cf. Gen. 1:26).  If Irenaeus’ witness on Saturninus is reliable, Saturninus’ cosmogony is based on the Genesis story. He only omitted “our” to attribute the creation of man to the seven Angels who created man not according to their image and likeness but according to somebody else’s.²⁹⁶  The man who was created by the Angels could not stand upright because of powerlessness of the Angels, but crept on the ground like a worm (cf. Ps. 22:6).  The Power above had pity on him because he was made after his image and likeness, and sent a spark of life which raised the man up and made him live.  The spark of life hastens back to its own kind after the man’s death.

       According to Irenaeus,²⁹⁷ Saturninus states that the Savior was unbegotten, incorporeal, formless, but appeared as man.  The God of the Jews is one of the seven Angels.  Christ came to destroy the God of the Jews and to bring salvation to those who believe in him.  Saturninus, like Marcion, claims salvation through faith in Christ not through Gnosis.  The believers are those who have the spark of life in themselves.  However, the description of Irenaeus (or of Saturninus in Irenaeus) here is a little bit inconsistent and confusing.  At first, he seems to say that all men had a spark of life, a divine element,²⁹⁸ but afterwards this is seen to be limited to a certain privileged class.²⁹⁹  There were two kinds of men, the wicked ones and the good ones, formed by the Angels.  Since the demons helped the wicked, the Savior came for the destruction of the wicked people and the demons, but for the salvation of good. However, it is not quite clear what is the criterion for good and wicked (evil).  Good for the Angels or good for the unknown Father (or the Power)? Unlike Saturninus, according to Irenaeus,³⁰⁰ Marcion claims that the apparent good (or righteous) ones such as Abel, Enoch, Noah, and the patriarchs who came from Abraham, and others, who pleased the God of the Jews, did not share in salvation, but that the apparent wicked (or unrighteous) ones such as Cain, the Sodomites and the Egyptians, and others, who walked in every mess of wickedness, were saved by Christ.

       Saturninus prohibits marriage and procreation, he claims, as they are of Satan.  His followers abstain from animal food and sexual intercourse to speed up their salvation. Marcion and his followers also prohibit marriage, procreation, and animal food, not because they are of Satan but because they are of the Creator, the God of the Jews. As for the prophecies, some were delivered by the Angels who created the world, and some others by Satan, whom Saturninus assumed to be the Angel who acted against the seven Angels who made the world, and especially the God of the Jews.

       Hippolytus repeats Irenaeus without any addition.³⁰¹  Epiphanius also generally follows Irenaeus with a little bit of additions.  Epiphanius calls Saturninus the magician (or trickster) to connect him with Simon Magus and Menander.³⁰²  Whereas Saturninus in Irenaeus claims that Christ (the Savior) was unbegotten, that is, he was not born of a woman, Saturninus in Epiphanius states that Christ was born although it was done only in appearance.³⁰³  Epiphanius claims that although the seven Angels are not the cause of the fashioning of the man but the Power on high although they had made the man, as they owe the reason for their being to the Power.³⁰⁴

       Saturninus, differently from Simon and Menander, did not emphasize the magical art.  Unlike in Simon, there emerges no female divine figure (e.g., Helen or Ennoia) in Saturninus.  Unlike Simon and Menander, he never claims that he is the Father, nor the Son of God, nor Christ (or Savior).  It seems to me that there is little or no connection between Simon and Saturninus.  If there is any connection between them, I think, it is probably because the second century Simonians, who were also affected by the myth of Zeus and Athene, his wisdom and thought, adopted Saturninus’ teaching of the creation of the world by the angels and of the unknown Father.  Although his Christ saved people through faith in the Father, we can see the full-blown Gnosticism in him, such as the descent and ascent of the spark of life, coming and returning of docetic Christ, etc.  K. Rudolph states that “here is a report (concerning Saturninus’ teaching) in the Gnostic manner of the creation and animation of the first man and the first description of Christ as Gnostic redeemer.”³⁰⁵

       We can find quite a few similar teachings between Saturninus and Marcion.  Irenaeus puts their names together in explaining the Encratites:  “To cite an example, the so-called Encratites, who sprang from Saturninus and Marcion, preached abstinence from marriage and so made void God’s pristine creation, and indirectly reprove him who made male and female for generating the human race. ... Like Marcion and Saturninus, he declared that marriage was corruption and fornication.”³⁰⁶  Although their starting points are probably different, their doctrines are closer to each other, leading us to suspect if there was any contact between them at Antioch, the base city of Paul’s mission, in the beginning of the second century. It is not implausible if we accept the early dating for Marcion who probably traveled a lot following the traces of Paul’s mission journeys.  If there was any contact between them, this will overrule the claim of the church fathers that Marcion is the successor of Cerdo, a Syrian Gnostic.  Rather, I think that Cerdo, if he was a historical figure, who was from Syria might have been indirectly influenced by Marcion who perhaps had communicated his Syrian Gnostic predecessor(s).

3.  Basilides

       Basilides, a (junior) contemporary of Saturninus, was from Syria and taught in Alexandria of Egypt around 120-140 under the emperors Hadrian (117-138 C.E.) and Antoninus Pius (138-161 C.E.).  The fathers of the Church claim that Basilides was a disciple of Menander of Antioch, which is not very probable. According to Irenaeus, Basilides states that Nous (Mind) was born first of the unbegotten (or ingenerate) Father; from Nous, Logos (Word); from Logos, Phronesis (Prudence); from Phronesis, Sophia (Wisdom) and Dunamis (Power); who, in their turn, bring forth Powers, Rulers (or Principalities), and Angels, who are also called the first.³⁰⁷  And the first heaven was made by them. From their emanation other Angels were made.  These in turn made another heaven similar to the first.  In like manner, many other Rulers (or Principalities) and Angels were made, and 365 heavens.³⁰⁸  For this reason there are as many days in the year as there are heavens.  Whereas the Simonian system is based on the lunar calendar, the Basilidian system on the solar calendar.

       The Angels who rule the lowest heaven, which can also be seen by us, made all things in the world, and divided among themselves the earth and nations on it.³⁰⁹  Basilides is similar to Saturninus although he does not specify the number of the Angels.  Their chief is known as the God of the Jews.  When he wished to subject the other nations to his people, all the other Principalities resisted and opposed him.  So did the other nations rebelled against his nation.  Seeing the perversity of the Principalities, the ingenerate and ineffable Father sent his firstborn Mind (Nous), who is called Christ, to liberate those who believe in him from the power of the Angels who made the world. Basilides’ account on the firstborn Mind is very much Christianized.  Christ appeared as a man on earth to the nations and performed miracles.  Christ did not suffer, but a certain Simon of Cyrene was compelled to carry the cross for him (cf. Matt. 27:32; Luke 23:26).  Simon of Cyrene, who was transformed by Christ, the unbegotten Father’s Mind, to be believed to be Jesus, was crucified.  Jesus himself took the form of Simon, and stood by laughing at them (cf. Ps. 2:4).  This reminds us of the story of Simon Magus’s transformation of Faustus, Clement’s father, to himself in H 20.12, or of Faustinianus³¹⁰ to himself in R 10.53.  Which one is original?  I think that the transformation of Simon of Cyrene to Jesus by (Jesus) Christ, the Mind of the unknown Father, told by Basilides is original, and the transformation of Faustus to Simon by Simon Magus, the Mind of the unknown Father, is the imitation of Basilides’ account by the second century Simonians. 

       Like other Gnostics, Basilides in Irenaeus claims that salvation is only for the soul, for the body is corruptible by nature.  Prophecies came from the rulers who made the world, but the Law is from their chief, the God of the Jews, who led the people out of the land of Egypt (cf. Exod. 20:2).  Irenaeus states that the Basilidians make use of magic and images and incantations and invocations and all the other occult practices, I think, to connect them with Simon Magus.³¹¹  They attempt to explain the names Rulers, Angels, and Powers of the three hundred and sixty five heavens. And the chief of these heavens is Abrasax (or Abraxas), whose Greek name has the numerical value of three hundred and sixty five.³¹²

       According to Hippolytus, Basilides, along with his son Isidore (or Isidorus), derived his teaching from secret discourses with Matthias (or Matthew).³¹³  Basilides in Hippolytus, significantly different from that in Irenaeus, states that there was a time when there was nothing; not even the nothing was there, nothing at all.³¹⁴  Then, nonsensically, the non-existent God “inconceivably, insensibly, indeterminately, involuntarily, impassively, unactuated by desire, willed to create a world.”³¹⁵  By “world” here, Basilides in Hippolytus does not mean the flat, divisible world, but a world-seed (or a seed of a world). The world-seed had everything in it as the mustard seed contains everything in it. In this way, the non-existent God created the non-existent world out of the nonentities.

       Basilides, according to Hippolytus, states that the light (i.e. Christ), which came down from the Ogdoad above to the Son of the Hebdomad, descended from the Hebdomad upon Jesus the Son of Mary, and he had radiance imparted to him by being illuminated with the light that shone upon him.³¹⁶  It was only his bodily part which suffered, and this fell back again into “formlessness”; what rose again was the “psychic part” originating from the hebdomad, the sphere of the planets, which returned to its origin; whatever else belonged to the higher spheres was carried back by Jesus to its own place, above all the seed of light (“a third sonship”) was purified through him and restored to the Pleroma.  Jesus is thus the one who brings everything to its place, “his suffering came about for no other purpose than to separate what had been mingled.”³¹⁷  As we already reviewed, Irenaeus’ report does not fit very well into this picture as Hippolytus presents it, since according to that Basilides taught that it was not Christ who suffered but Simon of Cyrene (Mark 15:21; Matt. 27:32; Luke 23:26).  G. Filoramo points out that Basilides, “a truly profound and original Gnostic thinker,” is unlike to be a disciple of Menander (and also of Simon Magus).³¹⁸  As K. Rudolph also points out,³¹⁹ we can find in Basilides the beginning of the Christian Gnosticism.

       As we reviewed above, concerning the system and doctrine, Irenaeus and Hippolytus describe quite differently and thus give readers a big confusion. According to R. M. Grant, modern scholars generally agree that whereas Hippolytus describes the authentic system of Basilides, Irenaeus perhaps explains a later Basilidian development.³²⁰

4.  Carpocrates

       Carpocrates was an Alexandrian like Basilides and Valentinus.  His wife, Alexandria, was a native of the island of Cephalonia.³²¹  Their son Epiphanes, an infant prodigy, died at the age of seventeen, having already written a book On Justice.  Epiphanes was worshiped as a god at Cephalonia, like Simon in Samaria.  In the town of Samé the Cephalonians erected a temple and a museum, where with sacrifices and literary festivals they celebrated his apotheosis.  Carpocrates was a Platonic philosopher, more or less touched with Gnostic Christianity.  According to Clement of Alexandria, the Carpocratians claim that wives should be common property.³²²  And because of this claim, the name of Christ is greatly ill-reputed.

       According to Irenaeus and Hippolytus,³²³ Carpocrates, like other Gnostics, states that the world and the things in it was made by Angels, and, unlike other Gnostics but like Cerinthus (cf. AH 1.26.1), asserts that Jesus was begotten by Joseph, naturally born like other men.³²⁴  A power was sent by God the Father down upon Jesus whose soul was vigorous and innocent.  Thus, he could escape from the makers of this world.  The power (or soul) passed through them all and was set free in all, and ascended to Father.  Other souls which embrace the things similar to the soul of Jesus will in like manner ascend to Father.  The soul of Jesus, though lawfully nurtured in the practices of the Jews, yet despised them, and thereby received the power by which he destroyed the passions which were in men as a punishment.  The soul (of a man) which like the soul of Jesus is able to despise the makers and rulers of the world, receiving a power to perform the same things that Jesus performed.³²⁵  The followers of Carpocrates assert that they are superior to Jesus’ disciples, such as Peter and Paul and the other apostles.  Even further, they claim that they are not inferior to Jesus, and that their souls descend from the same sphere and return again to the same place.

       Irenaeus again connects Carpocrates and his followers with Simon Magus via magic.  He states that the followers of Carpocrates practice magic and make use of incantations, love potions and love feasts, familiar spirits, dream-senders, and other evil things.³²⁶  Irenaeus witnesses that they live licentious lives and hold godless doctrine. They claim that human deeds are good or bad only because of human opinion.³²⁷ The souls must have experience in every kind of life and in every act by means of transmigration from one body to another. The souls, having had every experience of life, are not deficient in anything at their departure (from the body).  Furthermore, the souls must labor lest they be sent forth into a body because something was deficient to their liberation.  In Jesus’ saying in Matthew 5:25-26 (and Luke 12:58-59), the adversary, according to the Carpocratians, is one of the Angels who are in the world.  They claim that this Angel, namely Devil, was appointed to bring the souls which have perished from the world to the Prince (or Ruler). He is the first of the world creators, and hands over such souls to another Angel who serves him, that he may imprison them in other bodies.  This transmigration (or metempsychosis) of the soul reminds us of Helen’s transmigration from one (female) body to another (female) body in the Simonian legend.  Which one is original?  I believe that the transmigration in Carpocrates is the original one, and then later Simonians picked up the doctrine of transmigration as they did some other doctrines from Saturninus, Basilides, Valentinus, and Marcion.

       Carpocrates, or at least his heresy, also appeared on the scene in Rome.  A woman named Marcellina in the sect of Carpocrates came to Rome under Anicetus (158-169 C.E.), and gained many adherents.³²⁸  The Carpocratians worshiped the image of Christ along with the images of the philosophers such as Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and the rest.

5.  Valentinus

       Valentinus, like Basilides and Carpocrates, was from Alexandria of Egypt.  According to the church fathers’ witnesses, he came to Rome and stayed there from about 135 to 165 C.E. under bishops Hyginus (139-143), Pius (143-158), and Anicetus (158-169).  Irenaeus, whom Hippolytus closely follows,³²⁹ testifies that the Valentinians claim that, at the head of all things, there is a certain perfect Aeon, invisible and ineffable, also called the First-Being, First-Father, the un-begotten Abyss or Profundity (Βυθός: Bythos)³³⁰ with his consort Thought, also called Silence (Σιγή: Sigé).  At one time this Abyss decided to emit from himself the Beginning of all things.  The emission would be as a “seed” which he decided to emit and deposit as it were in the womb of Silence.  Thus, Abyss (and Silence) produced Mind (Νo_ς: Nous), also called Only-begotten, and his consort Truth (_Αλήθεια: Aletheia).  Abyss and Silence, Mind and Truth form the first four Aeons, the first Tetrad. From Mind and Truth were born Word (Λόγoς: Logos) and Life (Ζωή: Zoe), and from these again Man (_Αvθρωπoς: Anthropos) and Church (_Εκκλησία: Ecclesia). Thus, was completed the Ogdoad, the company of eight higher Aeons. Then, Word and Life emitted five pairs,³³¹ Man and Church six other pairs,³³² which make in all thirty Aeons, fifteen males and fifteen females, divided into three groups, an Ogdoad, a Decad, a Dodecad. These three groups constitute the Pleroma (Πλήρωμα).³³³

       Wisdom (Sophia: Σoφία), the last and youngest Aeon among the thirty Aeons in the Pleroma, suffered passion apart from the embrace of her consort, Desired (or Will or Volition: Θελητ_ς).³³⁴  This passion consisted in seeking after Father, for she wished to comprehend his greatness.  But she could not attain her end, and thus she fell into an extreme agony of mine because of the immense height and unsearchable nature of Father.  Wisdom, in danger of dissolution, is on the point of being absorbed into infinity, when she encounters the Power, which is called Horos (_ρoς) or Limit, a sort of boundary placed by the Father around the Pleroma.³³⁵  Wisdom was purified by this Power or Limit and strengthened and restored to her own consort, Desired or Will.³³⁶

       Some of the Valentinians, according to Irenaeus, describe that having engaged in the impossible and unattainable attempt, Wisdom (or Sophia) brought forth a formless and imperfect substance.³³⁷ This being, called in Valentinian language, Achamoth (or Hachamoth), or the Desire (or Intention) of Wisdom, had been placed outside of the Pleroma of the Aeons.³³⁸  Mind and Truth emitted the sixteenth conjugal pair, (the first) Christ³³⁹ and the Holy Spirit, for the stabilization and support of the Pleroma, lest any Aeon have a similar misfortune as Wisdom.³⁴⁰  Christ taught the others to respect the limitations of their nature, and not to attempt to comprehend the incomprehensible.  Abyss, First-Father, is only known to Mind, Only-begotten, and to all the rest he is invisible and incomprehensible.³⁴¹  The Aeons being deeply impressed, the unity of the Pleroma is thus strengthened and its harmony perfected.  Then the thirty-third Aeon, Jesus the Savior, the second Christ was formed out of the combined contributions of the Aeons.³⁴²  The Savior, who was made from all things, is the All.³⁴³  According to Hippolytus, the Valentinians called him “Joint Fruit of the Pleroma.”³⁴⁴  

       Christ on high had pity on Achamoth, the Desire of Wisdom (or the second Sophia), who was excluded from light and the Pleroma, and was without form or figure because she had received nothing from a male parent.³⁴⁵  Christ stretched himself beyond Stake (or Stauros or Limit),³⁴⁶ and imparted a figure to her only according to substance not according to knowledge.³⁴⁷  Having accomplished this, he returned and forsook her in order that she might desire the better things, since she retained some fragrance of immortality left in her by Christ and the Holy Spirit.  She set out in search of the Light that had forsaken her, but was not able to attain her purpose as she was prevented by Horos (or Limit). While Horos was restraining her, he shouted “Jao (or Iao).”  From this, the name Jao (or Iao) derived its origin.³⁴⁸ Another kind of emotion (or passion) came upon Achamoth, namely, that of returning to him who gave her life. This collection of emotion (or passion) was the substance of matter from which this world was formed. From her desire of returning to him who gave her life every soul of the world and of Demiurge took its origin.  All other things had their beginning from her fear and grief.³⁴⁹

       According to the Valentinians, there existed three different substances:  the one from  passion, the material (inanimate) substance (_λική); the other from the conversion (or amendment), the ensouled psychic animate substance (ψυχική); and the third, she herself brought forth, the pneumatic or spiritual substance (πvευματική).³⁵⁰  But, she was not able to form the spiritual substance, as it was of the same substance as she.  So, she could not exercise control over it.  Achamoth gave form to Demiurge out of her animate substance.  The Demiurge became Father and God of all things outside the Pleroma, being the Maker of all the animate and material beings.³⁵¹  The Demiurge created seven heavens, above which he exists.  Thus the Valentinians call him the Hebdomad.  His mother Achamoth is the Ogdoad, as she preserves the number of the original and primary Ogdoad of the Pleroma.³⁵²       

       The Demiurge imagined that he created all things by himself, whereas in reality he made them as much as his mother Achamoth emitted them. He was ignorant of the images of the things he created. The Demiurge thought that he alone was God, and declared through the prophets by saying, “I am God, and besides me there is no other” (Isa. 45:5, 6, 46:9).³⁵³  The devil, who is also called World-Ruler (Cosmocrator), demons, and wicked spiritual substances came from grief.³⁵⁴  The World-Ruler is a creature of the Demiurge.  Without the knowledge of the Demiurge, Achamoth deposited her offspring in him that through him it might be planted as a “seed” in the soul which came from him.³⁵⁵  The Demiurge was ignorant of the fact that the spiritual man was planted in him by Achamoth.  There are three elements in persons:  first, there is the material element, which is also called the left-handed, and which must necessarily perish; second, there is the ensouled element, which is also called the right-handed, and which is between the material and the spiritual; and third, there is the spiritual element which has been sent forth from Achamoth.³⁵⁶  When the creative power of the Demiurge is exhausted, human beings will come to an end.  Achamoth will finally be transformed into a celestial Aeon and take her place in the Pleroma, becoming the spouse of Jesus the Savior. Then, the Demiurge will advance to his Mother’s region, Ogdoad.³⁵⁷ 

       The Valentinians claim that the souls which possess the “seed” of Achamoth are superior to others.³⁵⁸  There are three classes of people--the spirituals, the ensouled, and the earthly (or material).  According to the Valentinians, these are equivalent to the Valentinians, ordinary Christians, and non-Christians, respectively.³⁵⁹  The earthly goes into corruption without choice.  The ensouled, if it chooses the better things, it will go to the intermediary place.  But, if it chooses the worse things, it, like the earthly, will go into destruction.  The spiritual people, who are implanted the seeds of Achamoth (cf. the spark of life in Saturninus), being disciplined and nourished until their attainment of perfection, will be given as brides to the Angels of the Savior, whereas their (ensouled) souls will rest forever with the Demiurge in the intermediary region, i.e., Ogdoad.³⁶⁰  There are good souls and bad souls.  The good souls are those who are capable of receiving the “seed” from Achamoth, and the bad are those who are never capable of receiving that seed.

       As M. L. Duchesne points out,³⁶¹ Valentinianism is a conjugal or nuptial Gnosticism:  there are perpetual syzygies, marriages, and generations.  Thus, it is more closely related to the Gnostic system of Simon Magus than that of Saturninus.  But, the question is whether Valentinus and his followers adopted the Simonian system.   My answer is negative.  Rather, the later Simonians eclectically adopted the Valentinian system of the Aeons as well as the systems of Saturninus, Basilides and Marcion, which led their system to be a confusing and inconsistent one.  R. McL. Wilson points out that “there was a tendency for the Gnostics to refer their doctrines back to the oldest possible source, while there was also tendency for the church fathers to assign all the later doctrines to the founder of the sect.”³⁶²  Cerfaux notes that the primary concern for Irenaeus is to combat the theories of the Valentinians, and that one line of attack was to demonstrate that these theories were simply the invention of the magician of Samaria.  It may be, therefore, that some elements of later systems have been wrongly ascribed to ‘the Father of all heresies.’  6.  Cerdo

       Irenaeus, intending to make Marcion a disciple of Simon Magus via Cerdo, states that Cerdo, a Syrian Gnostic, “got his start from the disciples of Simon.”³⁶³  He is said to have come to Rome under Hyginus (139-143 C.E.).  Cerdo taught that the God of the law and the prophets was not the Father of Jesus Christ, who was unknown.  Whereas the God of the law and the prophets was just, the Father of Jesus was good (or benevolent).  Irenaeus asserts that Cerdo was denounced for his corrupt teaching and was excommunicated from the Roman church, and then Marcion succeeded him and flourished under Anicetus (158-169 C.E.).³⁶⁴

       Hippolytus is not consistent in his description of Cerdo.  He in his Ref 7.25, like Irenaeus, states that Cerdo affirms that the God of the Old Testament was known and the Father of Christ was unknown, and that the former was just and the latter was good.  However, in Ref 10.15 he states that Cerdo, along with his successor Marcion, claims that there are three principles of the universe--good, just, and matter.³⁶⁵  Some may say that the assertion of the three principles is not contradictory to the assertion of the two principles as “matter” originated from “just.”   

       Pseudo-Tertullian describes Marcion-like Cerdo in his Adversus omnes Haereses (=Haer: Against all Hereses).  His explanation on Cerdo is indeed that on Marcion.  According to Pseudo-Tertullian, Cerdo introduces two first causes, namely two Gods: one is good, and the other cruel (Lat. saevum).³⁶⁶  The superior good God is the Father of Christ.  The cruel God is the Creator of the world.  Pseudo-Tertullian states that Christ had been in a phantasmal shape, and that he had not really suffered but undergone a quasi-passion.  He was not born of a virgin, and as a matter of fact, he was not born at all.  Only the soul (not the body) will be resurrected.  According to Pseudo-Tertullian, Cerdo receives only the Gospel of Luke and part of Paul’s epistles (i.e., he [=Marcion-like Cerdo] does not include the Pastoral Epistles).  He calls Marcion “a disciple of Cerdo.”³⁶⁷

VI.    CONCLUSION

       Although Simon Magus still remains a mysterious figure, one thing for sure, to me, is that he himself would never assert that he was “the (great) power of God,” or “the standing one,” or “Christ,” or “Father,” or “the Holy Spirit,” or “the first Thought (incarnate),” etc.  Various early Christian writers described Simon in various different ways with traditions or combinations of traditions what they collected.  It seems to me that “Luke of Acts” knew more than one tradition although he described Simon simply as a magician who desired for the great power and followed Philip and later Peter and John for that purpose.  He probably knew not only the tradition(s) of the “Gnostic Simon” but also the tradition of Helen, whether it was in the same line with Justin or with the Pseudo-Clementines or both (cf. Acts 8:22, _ _πίvoια τ_ς καρδίας σo_).  He also would know the Jewish-Christians’ attack on Simon in connection with Paul.  He had to decide whether he demonstrated all his awareness explicitly and openly.  And, finally he made up his mind not to polemicize the disagreements between Jewish Christianity and Pauline Christianity, but to harmonize them by subordinating Paul (but, giving him the apostolic authority) to the Jerusalem authorities.  To serve this purpose, “Luke” decided not to express any explicit connection between Paul and Simon.  Yet, a careful reader can perceive some hints about Luke’s awareness of attacks on Paul using the existing traditions here and there.

       Justin, too, probably knew the link between Simon and Paul.  However, he would decide not to mention Paul’s name in his books.  Or, with a slight probability, he would never have heard the name of Paul.  At any rate, he never mentioned Paul’s name in his books.  Justin, who wrote his (1 and 2) Apology in Rome, would collect the existing tradition(s) in Rome in the middle of the second century.  His attack on Simon was, thus, the attack on Simonians in the middle of the second century.  Although his comment on the statue of Simon that was discovered on the island of Tiber proved to be incorrect, the Simonian practice of worship of Simon in Rome should be a fact.  As Justin mentioned, the Simonians in Rome would probably worship Simon and Helen as Zeus (the first god) and Athena (the first thought) or Korê (the Holy Spirit).  Of course, it was not Simon (and Helen) who claimed that he was the first god, Zeus.  But, the Simonians wanted to attribute or to connect the Greek god and goddess(es) to Simon and Helen with the influence of the Greco-Roman syncretism.  Simonianism, which Justin described, still seemed to be outside Christianity.  Later, Irenaeus brought this non-Christian Simonianism into Christianity to degrade it as a secondary religion within Christianity. Irenaeus pictured Simonian’s Simon as a (false) docetic Christ who appeared in human form and suffered apparently.³⁶⁸  He connected this Simon with the concepts of Christian trinity--Simon appeared among the Jews as the Son of God, in Samaria as the Father, and among the other nations as the Holy Spirit.

       Although Irenaeus claims that Menander, Saturninus, Basilides, Carpocrates, Cerdo, Valentinus, and Marcion, and other Gnostic “heretics” were disciples of Simon, most of them except Menander were probably irrelevant to Simon and were not influenced by Simonianism in their theological systems.  Yet, some similarities between Simonianism and Marcionism, and between Simonianism and Valentinianism were reported by the heresiologists in the late second century or in the beginning of the third century.  It seems to me that the second century Simonians collected eclectically some significant theological doctrines from Valentinianism and Marcionism, and then included them in their doctrinal system.    

       The Pseudo-Clementines also portrayed this Simon as “an enemy” (of Peter and James) who would resemble Paul.  To this group of Christians, Paul had never been their Christian friend. Before his conversion, Paul as “Saul” almost killed James the brother of Jesus on the top of the Temple.  After his conversion, Paul as “Simon” exposed his arrogance.  He attempted to challenge the Jerusalem authority with his magical power, his dreams and visions, and his apostleship.  To the Jewish-Christians who belonged to the Pseudo-Clementine circle, Paul’s claim of apostleship was “simony.”  As Simon wanted to buy the power of imparting the Holy Spirit (as well as of the healing) with his money, so did Paul the authority of apostleship (which he could not buy) with the collection money.  As Peter rebuked Simon Magus in Acts 8:20-21, so did he Paul-like Simon in the Pseudo-Clementines.  Yet, as Simon, without repenting to God, greedily intended to rival the apostles so that he might appear famous (cf. Irenaeus, AH 1.23.1), so did Paul boldly rival the apostles (cf. Gal. 2:6-8) so that he might become “the apostle of the Gentiles and heresies” including Marcion. 

       The Simon in various apocryphal Acts is no more than a magician or a deceiver.  Simon here does not claim himself to be God or the Father, but the power of God, a son of God, or Christ.  His confrontation with Peter is not located in Syria as in the Pseudo-Clementines but in Rome.  Unlike in the church fathers and in the Pseudo-Clementines, no rescue motif for Helen is found here.

---

¹Irenaeus, AH 1.23.3.

²Ibid., 1.23.1.

³Ibid., 1.23.2.

⁴G. Filoramo, A History of Gnosticism, 1992(1990),  pp. 148-151.

⁵See R. M. Grant, Gnosticism and Early Christianity, 1959, pp. 70-96.

⁶Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses(=Against the Heresies) Book 1; Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis(=Miscellaneous); Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haereticorum(=On Prescription against Heretics) and De Anima (=On the Soul); Hippolytus, Refutatio(=Refutations of all Heresies); Origen, Contra Celsum(=Against Celsus); Pseudo-Clement, Recognitions and Homiles, and The Apostolic Constitutions; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History; Epiphanius, Panarion, etc.

⁷Irenaeus, AH 1.23.2.

⁸B. W. Hall, Samaritan Religion from John Hycarnus to Baba Rabba, 1987, p. 89.

⁹Justin, 1 Apol 26.

¹⁰The Acts of Peter 6 states: “Since Paul has gone to Spain there was not one of the brethren who could strengthen me(=Ariston). Besides, a certain Jew named Simon has invaded the city(=Rome).”

¹¹See also R. Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus, p. 535.

¹²Irenaeus, AH 1.23.1.

¹³John the Baptist is allegedly said to baptize Jesus who came to him from Nazareth of Galilee at a place named Bethabara in the Jordan and was executed at Machrus.

¹⁴Simon’s encounter with Philip, and Peter and John in Acts 8:16-24 would be either before he joined the sect of John the Baptist or after he left Judea for the purpose of (missionary) travel as the chief of the sect. The Apostolic Constitutions witnesses that Simon’s encounter with Philip and Peter (6.7) is prior to his joining to the sect of Dositheus (6.8).

¹⁵This is not Laodicea in Asia Minor but Laodicea in Syria.

¹⁶Peter states: “Since, therefore, as you have heard, 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 disputations he raises may be corrected by us.” (R 3.65). 

¹⁷R 3.63.

¹⁸Ibid., 3.63-64.

¹⁹H 20.15, 17, 22. The Homilist in H 20.15 states: “When my father(=Faustus) said this, after no long time Annubion came to us to announce to us the flight of Simon to Judaea.”;H 20.17 states: “Simon then rose up in the middle of the night and fled to Judaea, convoyed by Appion and Athenodorus.”;and  H 20.22 states: “and, as we learn next day, they(=Appion and Athenodorus) went to Judaea in the track of Simon.”  

²⁰The Homilist states in H 17.1: “The next day, therefore, as Peter was to hold a discussion with Simon, he rose earlier than prayed. On ceasing to pray, Zacchaeus came in, and said: ‘Simon is seated without, discoursing with about thirty of his own special followers.’”   

²¹Justin, 1 Apol 26.

²²G. R. S. Mead correctly points out that the latest recension of the Pseudo-Clementine cycle of romans “gave the whole a Roman setting, and so we find Simon finally routed by Peter at Rome (to suit the legend of the Roman Church that Peter had come to Rome” (Fragments of a Faith Forgotten, p. 166).   

²³See K. Rudolph, Gnosis, p. 296 and  J. Lacarriere, The Gnostics, p. 53.

²⁴Hippolytus, Ref 6.15 (6.20 according to a different recension).

²⁵The Acts of Peter and Paul does not have chapter divisions.

²⁶The rescue motif was missing in the books of apocryphal Acts.

²⁷E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 306. See also O. Bauernfeind, Kommentar und Studien zur Apostel-geschichte, 1980, p. 124.

²⁸Ibid., p. 306. Haenchen states: “The Jews’ rejection of the gospel drives Philip to the Samaritans and brings about the fulfilment of the promise of 1:8.”

²⁹H. Conzelmann, Acts, p. 62.

³⁰G. Lüdemann, Early Christianity, p. 100. But, I think that the general Hellenists mission to Samaria is probably a historical fact.

³¹H. Conzemann, Acts, p.62.

³²“A Samarian” is a foreigner who lives in Samaria; “A Samaritan” is a person from Samaria by birth and by race.

³³R. Eisenmann, James the Brother of Jesus, p. 533.

³⁴E. Haenchen, Acts, p. 307.

³⁵H. Conzelmann, Acts, p. 63. But, the power (δύvαμις) in Matt. 26:64 refers to God the Father. And,  Hegesippus, in Eusebius’ Ecclesiatical History 2.23 (Memoirs Book V), states: “(James the brother of Jesus said) ‘He(=Jesus) is sitting in heaven at the right hand of the Great Power, and He will come on the clouds of heaven.’”

³⁶H. Conzelmann suggests that “θεo_ ‘of God’ would have to be an addition (from Luke?).”  (Acts, p. 63) However, he also points out the case that the genitive θεo_ would be in the original text. I think that Simon should have needed the expression of θεo_ at the pre-Gnostic stage, but in the later Gnostic development, the Simonians’ Simon should not need θεo_, because he himself would be above God the Creator.  Justin in 150-155 saw the Simonians’ Simon was worshiped as “the first god” (1 Apol 26); Irenaeus states: “He himself was the one who appeared among the Jews as the Son of God, while in Samaria he descended as the Father, and among the other nations he came as the Holy Spirit,”  “He(=Simon) also taught that he was ‘the most sublime Power’” (AH 1.23.1); The Homilist states: “He(=Simon) ... wishes to be accounted ‘a certain supreme power, greater even than the God who created the world God” (H 2.22; cf. R 2.7).    

³⁷E. Haenchen, Acts, p. 307.

³⁸K. Rudolph, Gnosis, p. 297.

³⁹H. Conzelmann, Acts, p. 64.

⁴⁰E. Haenchen, Acts, p. 307.

⁴¹Ibid., p. 308.

⁴²G. Lüdemann, Early Christianity, p. 100.  He also claims suggests that vv. 9-13 is “part of a written or oral tradition from Hellenist circles which reported the clash between the supporters of Simonian and Christian religion.” (p. 99).

⁴³Ibid., p. 99.

⁴⁴Ibid., p. 96.

⁴⁵H. Conzelmann suggests that “their authority in the concrete does not appear as jurisdiction, but as the authority to ordain.” (Acts, p. 65).

⁴⁶Epiphanius explains his reasoning: “Philip, a deacon, was not authorized to give the imposition of hands for the conferral of the Holy Spirit.”(Pan 21.1.4).

⁴⁷G. Lüdemann points out: “The separation of baptism and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit is best explained by Luke’s purpose. It is ‘an ad hoc construction (as in 10:44-48 or 19:1-7)' (This is the exactly same wording what Conzelmann already used in his Acts p. 65).”  Conzelmann states that “the laying on of hands must have been customary at baptism.” (Acts, p. 65).

⁴⁸E. Haenchen, Acts, p. 306.

⁴⁹H. Conzelmann, Acts, p. 65. Lüdemann makes a similar comment: “vv. 14-17 provide the endorsement of the Samaria mission by the Jerusalem apostles.” (Early Christianity, p. 96).

⁵⁰Conzelmann  points out that “there must necessarily be two, but once again John’s role is peripheral.” (Acts, p. 65). Peter needed another apostle--John for the mission trip purpose but not for confrontation with Simon, a weaker adversary.

⁵¹H. Conzelmann, Acts, p. 66.

⁵²G. Lüdemann, Early Christianity according to the Traditions in Acts, p. 96. He introduces Beyschlag’s comparison between the portrait of Philip and that of Simon that shows a striking parallelism. (pp. 95-96. K.  Beyschlag, Simon Magus und die Christliche Gnosis, 1974).

⁵³O. Bauernfeind, Kommentar und Studien zur Apostelgeschichte, p. 125. He states: “Dann war aber auch das, was Simon den Aposteln abkaufen wollte, nicht nur — wie es vielleicht ein früherer Bericht aufgefaßt haben mag — die Fähigkeit, wunderbare Heilungen zu vollbringen, sondern die Fähigkeit zur Geistesübermittelung.” See also E. Haenchen, Acts, p. 306.

⁵⁴From the name of Simon comes the word, “simony.” (R. M. Grant, Gnosticism and Early Christianity, p. 70).

⁵⁵Epiphanius, Pan 21.1.4.

⁵⁶Irenaeus, AH  1.23.1.

⁵⁷Tertullian, De Anima, 34.

⁵⁸AC 6.7.

⁵⁹Ibid., 6.9.

⁶⁰G. Lüdemann raises some interesting suggestive questions: “One might also ask why Luke has left the end of the story so relatively open that it is not clear whether Simon is saved or damned. Why does Luke not report an inglorious end for Simon, as he did in the case of Judas, or Ananias and Sapphira? Did he have to reckon with the fact that his readers knew different stories about Simon’s effectiveness in his time, and/or did the end of the story hint at the possibility that (Simonian) heretics could be converted or at least not excluded?” (Early Christianity according to the Traditions in Acts, p.97).

⁶¹R. M. Grant, Gnosticism and Early Christianity, p. 72.

⁶²K. Beyschlag, Simon Magus und die Christliche Gnosis, p. 10; S. Pétrement, A Separate God,  p. 245. 

⁶³G. R. S. Mead states that “the Justin account is the nucleus of the huge Simonian legend which was mainly developed by the cycle of Pseudo-Clementine literature of the third century, based on the second century Circuits of Peter.” (Fragments of a Faith Forgotten, p. 164).

⁶⁴R.M. Grant, Gnosticism and Early Christianity, p. 73. Grant claims that some of Justin’s information came from Rome, as he wrote his 1 Apology in Rome. He is even suspicious whether all information came from Roman Simonians (p. 74). For Justin’s observation and claim about Simon and Simonianism within the context of Samaritan Religion, see B. W. Hall’s summary in his Samaritan Religion, pp. 108-110.

⁶⁵Justin Martyr, 1 Apology  26 and 56.

⁶⁶The actual reading of the inscription found in 1574 on the island of Tiber is: SEMONI  SANCO  DEO FIDIO  SACRUM  SEX(TUS)  POMPEIUS  SP(URII)  F(ILIUS)  COL(LINA TRIBU)  MUSSIANUS  QUINQUENNALIS DECUR(IAE)  BIDENTALIS  DONUM  DEBIT (=To a god of oaths, heaven, thunder, and lightening ...).  See L.W. Barnard (trans.), St. Justin Martyr: The First and Second Apologies, 1997 and R.M. Grant, Gnosticism and Early Christianity, pp. 73-74.

⁶⁷See R. M. Grant, Gnosticism and Earlt Christianity, p. 74.

⁶⁸Justin Martyr, 1 Apol  26.

⁶⁹B. W. Hall, Samaritan Religion, p. 110.

⁷⁰Justin Martyr, 1 Apol 26. Seeing that there is no trace of the notion that Helen had been a prostitute in the Pseudo-Clementines, R.M. Grant suggests that this may have been invented by Christian or Jewish opponents of Simon. (Gnosticism and Early Christianity, p. 92).

⁷¹Later, Irenaeus more fully elaborates how this “first thought” became the prostitute and why Simon, “the first god” in Justin, came down to the earth. Yet, the Pseudo-Clementines, using the same name, Helena (or Luna), presents a different version. Helena, here, was not a prostitute but a (female) disciple, along with Simon and Dositheus, of John the Baptist. 

⁷²G. Filoramo, A History of Gnosticism, 1992(1990), p. 148. He states: “Like Selene, the Moon, companion of the Sun, Simon’s companion bears witness to the androgynous nature of the First Principle. But Helen is also the female dimension of the divinity fallen into the world of the matter, the soul cast down to prostitute itself before repenting and being saved by Nous, her intended bridegroom and consort (according to certain Nag Hammadi texts that would seem to show echoes of Simonian Gnosis).”

⁷³Justin, 1 Apology 26.  S. Pétrement points out that the name “Ennoia” was preferred to “Pneuma “ in certain early Christian groups, “because it is feminine like the Hebrew it translates.” (A Separate God, p. 75).

⁷⁴See D.R. MacDonald, Christianizing Homer, pp. 141-143 and pp. 188-190. MacDonald in pp. 141-143 compares Justin’s Syntagmata in Irenaeus and Hippoytus with the Acts of Andrew (Papyrus Coptic Utrecht 1):

  Justin’s Syntagmata (in Irenaeus)                                                                  PCU 1 (=Acts of Andrew)

  1. Simon Magus                                                                                                                 1. Young magician

  2. Whore on a roof (to prey)                                                                            2. Virgin on a roof (to pray)

  3. Magus “redeems” Helen as his first miracle.           3. Magician tries to seduce virgin as the beginning

    of his craft.

  4. Simonians use demonic seducers.                                              4. Magus sends demonic seducer

  5. Whore comes down from roof,                                                                  5. Virgin comes down from roof, rebuffs demons.

       sleeps with Simon.

  6. Simon rescues (_ύσηται) her.                                                                      6. Eirousia (from _ύσια, rescue?) rescues the virgin.

MacDonald in pp.188-190 introduces the story of Nicolaus of Sparta and the whore at a brothel in Acts of Andrew (Gregory of Tours) 28. Here, Nicolaus is the ersatz-Menelaus, the womanizing husband of Helen, and the whore is the ersatz-Helen, “one of antiquity’s most notorious sluts.” MacDonald points out that “Helen’s harlotry became a theological opportunity for Simon Magus. (p. 189). In Hippolytus’ Ref 6.14 (or 6.19), Helen stood on the roof of a house in Tyre, a city of Phoenicia. 

⁷⁵D. R. MacDonald, Christianizing Homer, p. 189.

⁷⁶H. Conzelmann, Acts, p. 63.

⁷⁷G. Lüdemann, Early Christianity, p. 101.  See also his article, “Acts of the Apostles and Simonian Gnosis,” p. 421.

⁷⁸See R. M. Grant, Gnosticism and Early Christianity, p. 74.

⁷⁹K. Rudolph, Gnosis, p.294. He refers to Irenaeus’ AH 1.23.1-4. See also B. W. Hall, Samaritan Religion, pp. 107-108.

⁸⁰E. Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism, p. 58.

⁸¹Irenaeus, AH 1.23.1.

⁸²Epiphanius, Pan 21.2.3-21.2.4: “(3) And he(=Simon) had the nerve to call the whore who was his partner the Holy Ghost, and said that he had come down on her account. (4) He said, ‘I was transformed in each heaven to correspond with the appearance of the inhabitants of each, so as to pass my angelic powers by unnoticed and descend to Ennoia (_vvoια) -- to this woman, likewise called Prunicus and the Holy Spirit, through whom I created angels. But the angels created theworld and men.”  Cf. Irenaeus, AH 1.29.4.

⁸³But, as F. Wisse argues, Irenaeus does not show a believable transition in teaching between Simon Magus and his alleged disciple Menander, and other heresiarchs and sects. (“The Nag Hammadi Library and the Heresiologists,” p. 209).

⁸⁴Irenaeus, AH 1.23.2.

⁸⁵Ibid., AH 1.23.2.  S. Pétrement suggests that these angels may have been “governing” angels, “like those mentioned in Judaism and early Christianity.” (A Separate God, p. 234).

⁸⁶See P. Perkins, Gnosticism and the New Testament, pp. 9-10.  R. McL. Wilson argues that Irenaeus’ AH 1.23.3 derived not from Simon but from Basilides. (“Simon, Dositheus and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” p. 22)

⁸⁷AH 1.21.1.

⁸⁸Tertullian, AM 1.19. Marcion’s Gospel begins with Luke 3:1 and 4:31: “In the 15^th year of Tiberius Caesar (3:1), Jesus Christ went down (or descended) to Capernaum, a city of Galilee (4:31).”

⁸⁹R. M. Grant, Gnosticism and Early Christianity, pp. 77-78.

⁹⁰Ibid., p. 78.

⁹¹Justin Martyr, 1 Apol  64.

⁹²Irenaeus, AH 1.23.4.

⁹³Clement of Alexandria, Strom 2.52.1: “In the same way, ‘Abraham stood before the Lord, drew near, and spoke,’ and the Lord said to Moses, ‘You – stand here next to me.’”

⁹⁴Ibid., 2.52.2.  According to P. Perkins, “the standing one” is a term Philo used to designate “divine immutability.” (Gnosticism and the New Testament, p. 21)

⁹⁵P. Perkins, Gnosticism and the New Testament, p. 21. See also K. Beyschlag, Simon Magus und die christliche Gnosis, 1975, pp. 77-79.

⁹⁶Tertullian, De Anima 34.

⁹⁷Ibid.: “Only her rescue Troy is a more glorious affair than her extrication from the brothel. There were a thousand ships to remove her from Troy; a thousand pence were probably more than enough to withdraw her from the stews! Fie on you, Simon, to be so tardy in seeking her out, and so inconstant in ransoming her! How different from Menelaus! As soon as she has lost her, he goes in pursuit of her; she is no sooner ravished than he begins his search; after a ten years’ conflict he boldly rescues her: there is no lurking, no deceiving, no caviling. I am really afraid that he was a much better “Father,” who labored so much vigilantly, bravely, and perseveringly, about the recovery of his Helen!”

⁹⁸See G. R. S. Mead, Fragments, p. 164.

⁹⁹As S. Pétrement (A Separate God, pp. 234, 238) and M.A. Williams (Rethinking “Gnosticism,” p. 130) and some others argue, I also think that this is probably a product of a later Simonian.  S. Pétrement thinks that this may have been written in a Simonian school in the second century or at the beginning of the third century.  Other references are J. Frickel (Die “Apophasis Megale” in Hippolytus Refutatio, Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 1968, p. 182) , J.M.A. Salles-Dabadie (Recherches sur Simon le Mage I, L’ “Apophasis Megale,” 1969), and B. Aland (Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Gnosticism, 1973)

¹⁰⁰G. R. S. Mead, Fragments of a Faith Forgotten, p. 165.

¹⁰¹Hippolytus, Ref 6.2 (or 6.7 according to a different recension).

¹⁰²Ibid., 6.2 (or 6.7) and 6.4 (or 6.9).

¹⁰³Ibid., 6.12.

¹⁰⁴See also G. Filoramo, A History of Gnosticism, p. 85.

¹⁰⁵Hippolytus, Ref, 6.4 and also 6.12 and 6.13.

¹⁰⁶Ibid., 6.14.

¹⁰⁷Ibid., 6.15. See G. Filoramo, A History of Gnosticism, p. 85.

¹⁰⁸Ibid., 6.15.

¹⁰⁹R. McL. Wilson, “Simon, Dositheus and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” p. 22; See also Cerfaux, “La Gnose Simonienne,” Rech. Sc. Rel., pp. 15-16.

¹¹⁰Hippolytus, Ref 6.15.

¹¹¹The Recognitionist states in R 3.63: “... he(=Simon) was going to Rome, and that there he would please the people so much. ...”

¹¹²Hippolytus, Ref 6.15.

¹¹³Ibid., 6.15.

¹¹⁴Ibid., 6.15. Pheme Perkins also mentions this: “Hippolytus mocks the claims of a parallel to Christ. He alleges that when he was faced with refutation by Peter, Simon had instructed his disciples to bury him alive under a mound of earth. His promise to be resurrected on the third day was not fulfilled.” (Gnosticism and the New Testament, p. 10)

¹¹⁵Ibid., 6.15.

¹¹⁶The final form of the Pseudo-Clementines would be dated between the end of the third century and the middle of the fourth century, but some part (or their source documents) as early as the middle of the second century.

¹¹⁷Origen, Contra Celsum 1.57.

¹¹⁸Ibid., 1.57, 6.11.

¹¹⁹Ibid., 5.62. Celsus says that he “knows of some who are Simonians, who reverence as teacher Helena or Helenus and are called Helenians.” S. Pétrement argues that Celsus apparently does not know that Simon had had a companion with him called Helen.” (A Separate God, p. 81). 

¹²⁰Ibid., 5.62. Cf. Acts 8:10.

¹²¹Ibid. 1.57. In his own day, according to Origen, there were very few Simonians left in the world -- possibly not even thirty. Origen says referring to the Simonians, “There are very few in Palestine, while in the rest of the world he(=Simon) is nowhere mentioned, though his ambition was to spread his fame throughout it.”  Ibid., 6.11: “(In Origen’s own day) the Simonians are no longer found anywhere in the world, despite the fact that Simon made it easy for his followers to escape death for their beliefs by teaching them that there was no reason for them to avoid idolatry.”

¹²²Ibid., 6.11.

¹²³See R 2.8 and H 2.23-2.24.

¹²⁴Eusebius, EH 2.1: “... he(=Simon) actually received baptism, in his hypocritical pretence of belief in Christ. It is an astonishing fact that this is still the practice of those who to the present day belong to his disgusting sect. Following in their progenitor’s footsteps they slip into the Church like a pestilential and scabby disease, and do the utmost damage to all whom they succeed in smearing with the horrible, deadly poison concealed on hem. By now, however, most of these have been expelled--just as Simon himself, when his real character had been exposed by Peter, paid the appropriate penalty.”

¹²⁵Epiphanius, Pan 21.1.3.

¹²⁶Ibid., 21.1.5.

¹²⁷Ibid., 21.2.2-21.2.3.

¹²⁸Ibid., 21.2.4-21.2.5.  Irenaeus in his AH 1.29.4 mentions this name: “Next, Holy Spirit, whom they also style Wisdom and Prounikos, was emitted from the first Angel who remains near to Only-begotten.”

¹²⁹Ibid., 21.2.5.  Irenaeus, AH 1.29.1. Barbelo, a virginal spirit, can be compared to virgin Mary, Majesty to the Father, and Light to Christ in Christian language.

¹³⁰Ibid., 21.3.4-21.3.5.  Epiphanius in Pan 21.3.5 states: “Thus again, as I said, to indicate the female companion he had taken from Tyre, the ancient Helen’s namesake, he would call her by all these names — Ennoia, Athena, Helen and the rest — and say, ‘For her sake I am come down. For this is that which is written in the Gospel, the sheep that was lost(cf. Luke 15:6).’” 

¹³¹G. Filoramo, A History of Gnosticism, p. 70.

¹³²Epiphanius, Pan 21.2.6. Cf. Irenaeus, AH 1.23.2; Tertullian De Anima 34. Epiphanius seems to add “cattle and the rest.”  Irenaeus’ explanation of Helen’s migration is from one female body to another female body, and then Tertullian includes “man’s body”, and then, to make the detention worse, Epiphanius disparagingly includes “animal body.”

¹³³Epiphanius, Pan 21.3.4. See also B. W. Hall, Samaritan Religion, p. 258. Epiphanius’ citation of Paul is not quite correct.  Ephesians 6:14-17 states: “Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the equipment of the gospel of peace; besides all these, taking the shield of faith, with which you can quench all the flaming darts of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”

¹³⁴Epiphanius, Pan 21.4.5.

¹³⁵Ibid., 21.4.5.

¹³⁶R 2.7; H 2.22.

¹³⁷R 2.7; H 1.15, 2.22.  L. Cerfaux claims that Simon came from the pagan milieu of Samaria, whereas G. Quispel thinks that he was a member of the heretical Jewish sect of the Samaritans. (E. Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism, p. 58). 

¹³⁸H. Jonas, The Gnostic Religion, p. 109.

¹³⁹R. M. Grant, Gnosticism and Early Christianity, p. 90.

¹⁴⁰H 2.23.

¹⁴¹R 2.7, 2.11; H 2.22, 2.24, 18.12, 18.14; Hippolytus, Ref 6.12, 6.13.

¹⁴²R. McL Wilson, “Simon, Dositheus and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” p. 25.

¹⁴³H. Jonas, The Gnostic Religion, p. 109.  H. Jonas further states: “Some Greek mythological speculation seems to have associated the Homeric Helen with the moon, whether prompted by the similarity of Hel_n_ and Sel_n_, or by her fate (abduction and recovery [as in Irenaeus]) interpreted as a nature myth, or by Homer’s once comparing her appearance to that of Artemis.”

¹⁴⁴In AC 6.8 Simon, along with Cleobius, joined the sect of Dositheus.

¹⁴⁵R 2.38-2.60. In R 2.38 Simon states: “I say that there are many gods; but there is one incomprehensible and unknown to all, and that He is the God of all these gods.”

¹⁴⁶Clement’s twin brothers’ names are Niceta (=Faustinus) and Aquila(Faustus in R or Faustinianus in H), his father’s name is Faustinianus in R or Faustus in H, and  mother’s name is Mattidia. Aquila and Niceta had been disciples of Simon from boyhood before they met Perter and their brother, Clement.

¹⁴⁷According to the Recognitions Simon does not use Genesis chapter 1, where God created a human being as well as other creatures with word. Between word and air, Simon probably cannot easily tell which one is more difficult.

¹⁴⁸Menander claims, according to Irenaeus (AH 1.23.5) that his disciples, who received resurrection through baptism into him, can no longer die but remain without growing old, and that they are immortal.  

¹⁴⁹Whereas the Homilist states that Simon is a disciple of John the Baptist, the Recognitionist states that he is a disciple of Dositheus; whereas Simon in the Homilies has ditheism, Simon in the Recognitions polytheism, etc.

¹⁵⁰From Codex Vercellensis 158. J. K. Elliot, The Apocryphal New Testament, 1993.

¹⁵¹H. Remus, “Magic or Miracle?,” The Second Century, 1982, pp. 132-133.

¹⁵²The author of APt does not seem to mean “a half-Jew” — i.e., a Samaritan, but “a Jew.” He recalls that the past defeat of Simon by Peter occurred in Judea (not in Samaria) (APt 5), and that the incidence in Acts 8:18-24 happened in Jerusalem (not in a Samaritan city) (APt 23).

¹⁵³APt  31.

¹⁵⁴Ibid., 32.

¹⁵⁵Ibid., 32.

¹⁵⁶Irenaeus, AH 1.24.1.

¹⁵⁷AC  6.7.

¹⁵⁸Ibid., 6.8.

¹⁵⁹Ibid., 6.9.

¹⁶⁰R. H. Connoly (ed.), Didascalia Apostolorum (The Syriac version translated and accompanied by the Verona Latin Fragments). According to Connonoly, “considerable portions of the Greek lie imbedded in the first six books of the fourth century Apostolic Constitutions” (in his preface). 

¹⁶¹Latin version, 43: “Pecunia tua tecum erit in interitum: non enim erit participatio neque sors in hoc uerbo.”

¹⁶²AP (8. Philippi); AC 6.8.

¹⁶³Latin version, 43:  “Simon ergo, et qui cum eo erant, post uestigia mea Petri sequebantur seducentus populum.”

¹⁶⁴See B. Ehrman, After the New Testament, p. 259.

¹⁶⁵J. K. Elliott (ed.), The Apocryphal New Testament, p. 555.

¹⁶⁶EpAp 1 in The Apocryphal New Testament edited by J. K. Elliott, p. 558.

¹⁶⁷W. Whiston does not think that this Simon could be Simon Magus in Acts 8:9ff.: “This Simon, a friend of Felix, a Jew, born in Cyprus though he pretended to be a magician, and seems to have been wicked enough, could hardly be that famous Simon the magician in the Acts of the Apostles (8:9, etc.), as some are ready to suppose. The Simon mentioned in the Acts was not properly a Jew, but a Samaritan, of the town of Gittae, in the country of Samaria, as the Apostolic Constitutions 6.7, the Recognitions of Pseudo-Clementine 2.6, and Justin Martyr, himself born in the country of Samaria, Apology 1.34, informs us. So I suppose him a different person from the other. I mean this only upon the hypothesis that Josephus was not misinformed as to his being a Cypriot Jew; for otherwise the time, the name, the profession, and the wickedness of them both, would strongly incline one to believe them the very same. As to that Drusilla, the sister of Agrippa junior, as Josephus informed us here, and a Jewess, as St. Luke informs us, Acts 24:24, whom this Simon mentioned by Josephus persuaded to leave her former husband, Azizus, king of Emesa, a proselyte of justice, and to marry Felix, the heathen procurator of Judea, Tacitus (Hist. 5.9) supposes her to be a heathen, and the granddaughter of Antonius and Cleopatra, contrary both to St. Luke and Josephus. ...” (The Works of Josephus, p. 531.a).

However, R. Eisenman in his book, Jams the Brother of Jesus, is almost certain that the Simon in Josephus’ Antiquities 20.7.2 is the same person with Simon Magus in Acts and in other early Christian wirtings. According to him, Josephus’ calling Simon ‘a Cypriot’ is a kind of confusion based on ‘Kitta or Kittim’ (Gitta) in Hebrew, “even as late as the twelfth century, Jews like the Spanish traveler, Benjamin of Tudela, were still calling ‘Samaritans,’ ‘Cuthaeans.’ Eisenmann suggests: “The Pseudo-Clementines and other early Church works, including Eusebius who had access to Syriac sources, correctly identify Simon’s place of origin, as we have seen, as ‘Gitta’ in Samaria.” (R. Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus, p. 533).       

¹⁶⁸Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20.7.2.

¹⁶⁹Ibid., 19.7.4.

¹⁷⁰See R. Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus, pp. 533-534.  See also G. Lüdemann, “Acts of the Apostles and Simonian Gnosis,” p. 424. G. Lüdemann presents similarities between these two stories: “1. Both Simon and the prophet Bar-Jesus Elymas are defamed as magicians; 2. the condemnation of Bar-Jesus Elymas has a noticeable parallel in the condemnation of Simon (cf. o_κ _στιv ε_θε_α [8:21] with τ_ς _δo_ς τo_ κυρίoυ τ_ς ε_θείας [13:10]); 3. the end of the story is left relatively open (cf. Simon’s request to the apostles for forgiveness with the temporal limitation of the blindness of Bar-Jesus Elymas).”

¹⁷¹R 1.72;  R. Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus, p. 124, pp. 543-544. Eisenman suggests that this place is also near from Qumran.

¹⁷²R. Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus, pp. 534, 543.

¹⁷³Ibid., p. 543.

¹⁷⁴Ibid., p. 536.

¹⁷⁵R 3.48.

¹⁷⁶See also R. Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus, p. 536.

¹⁷⁷The disputation lasted for three days, but only the first day discussion is recorded (Cf. R 2.20-3.48).

¹⁷⁸H 3.49.

¹⁷⁹H 3.50-57.

¹⁸⁰H 3.58.

¹⁸¹The Recognitionist shows the almost same (but slight different names for some cities) itinerary. That is, Peter departed from Caesarea and arrived at Laodicea via Dora, Ptolemais, Tyre, Sidon, Berytus (cf. Beyrout in H 7.5, 9), Tripolos (R 4.1), Ortosias (Orthasia in H 12.1)  and Antharadus (R 7.1), Balaneæ, Pathos (Paltus in H 13.1), and Gabala (R 7.25).  In H only Dora and Ptolemais are omitted after Peter and his company departed from Caesarea.

¹⁸²Simon states: “Since, then, these very Scriptures say at one time that there are many gods, and at another that there is only one; and sometimes that they ought not to be reviled, and at other times that they ought; what conclusion ought we to come to in consequence of this, but that the Scriptures themselves lead us astray?” (H 16.9). 

¹⁸³In John 20:28 Thomas answered him(=Jesus), “My Lord and my God!” Also, in Revelation 1:8: “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

¹⁸⁴H 17.4-5. 

¹⁸⁵Ibid., 17.13.

¹⁸⁶Ibid., 17.14.

¹⁸⁷Ibid., 17.13-19.

¹⁸⁸Ibid., 18.1.

¹⁸⁹Ibid., 18.3.

¹⁹⁰Matthew 11:27 states: “All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him (RSV).”

¹⁹¹H 18.4.

¹⁹²Simon said: “Be not deceived. I know those who are worthy, and I am not the Son. ...”  Peter said: “You evidently, Simon, do not understand it, and yet you do not wish to confess, that you may not be detected in your ignorance, and thus be proved not to be the standing Son.” (R 18.7).

¹⁹³H 18.11.

¹⁹⁴Ibid., 18.12.

¹⁹⁵Ibid., 19.1

¹⁹⁶Ibid., 19.3, 5.

¹⁹⁷Ibid., 19.5; cf. 19.8-10. Peter’s argument seems to be poor: “If the wicked one has been begotten of God, being of the same substance as He, then God is wicked. But when I showed you, from the example which you yourself adduced, that wicked beings come from good, and good from wicked, you did not admit the argument, for you said that the example was a human one. Wherefore I now do not admit that the term ‘being begotten’ can be used with reference to God; for it is characteristic of man, and not of God, to beget. Not only so; but God cannot be good or evil, just or unjust.” (H 19.10).   

¹⁹⁸Faustinianus in the Recognitions (R 8.8; cf. H 12.8, 14.8, 9).

¹⁹⁹R 2.38

²⁰⁰Ibid., 2.39.

²⁰¹Ibid., 2.42.

²⁰²R 2.47; cf. H 17.4, 18.4.

²⁰³Ibid., 2.57.

²⁰⁴Ibid., 2.57.

²⁰⁵Ibid., 2.57.

²⁰⁶Ibid., 3.15.

²⁰⁷Ibid., 3.17.

²⁰⁸Ibid., 3.16.

²⁰⁹In H 19.2 Peter states: “It is impossible for me to deny the assertion of my Teacher. Wherefore I allow that the evil one exists, because my Teacher, who spoke the truth in all things, has frequently asserted that he(=the evil one) exists.”

²¹⁰R 3.23.

²¹¹R 3.24.

²¹²Ibid., 3.37-38; cf. H 17.3-5, 18.1-3.

²¹³Ibid., 3.38.

²¹⁴Ibid., 3.38.

²¹⁵Ibid., 3.47; cf. R 2.9, 14; Acts 8:10.

²¹⁶APt 4.

²¹⁷Those are as follows: “In the last days a child shall be born of the Holy Spirit; his mother knows not a man and no one claims that he is his father”; “She has given birth and has not given birth”; “He came not out of the womb of a woman but descended from a heavenly place.”

²¹⁸Irenaeus, AH 1.23.1. Irenaeus states: “But he believed still less in God and greedily intended to rival the apostles so that he too might appear famous. This happened during the reign of Emperor Claudius, who, so they say, also honored him with a statue because of his magic.”  

²¹⁹Sacra Via is the same name of place where Simon flew in APt 32.

²²⁰In the Acts of Peter, Simon broke his legs in three places and was carried to Aricia, south of Rome, and was operated, but died there.

²²¹AC 6.8. The AC mentions Cornelius’ conversion by Peter there at Caesarea (cf. Acts 10): “where the faithful Cornelius, a Gentile, believed on the Lord Jesus by me.”

²²²Ibid., 6.8. The AC uses the title “apostle” not entitled to the original twelve disciples of Jesus but rather as a literal meaning of “sent out”, i.e., a missionary. So, Peter also calls Philip “our fellow-apostle” (6.7).

²²³AC 6.9.

²²⁴Ibid., 6.9.

²²⁵Both Justin (1 Apol 26) and Irenaeus (AH 1.23.1) also witness Simon’s activity in Rome occurred during the reign of Claudius. Irenaeus states in AH 1.23.1: “But he(=Simon) believed still less in God and greedily intended to rival the apostles so that he too might appear famous. So he made yet a deeper investigation into the entire art of magic to the amazement of the crowds of people. This happened during the reign of Emperor Claudius, who, so they say, also honored him with a statue because of his magic.”

²²⁶This is the time period often allotted to Peter’s episcopate at Rome. Twenty five years after the contest between Simon Cephas and Simon Magus that occurred at the third year of Claudius’ reign, i.e., in the year of 43 C.E. will be 68 C.E., the legendary year of Peter’s death, and soon after, of Nero’s death.

²²⁷R. M. Grant, Gnosticism and Early Christianity, pp. 92-93.

²²⁸Ibid., p. 93.

²²⁹P. Perkins, Gnosticism and the New Testament, p.10.

²³⁰G. Lüdemann, “The Acts of the Apostles and the Beginnings of Simonian Gnosis,” New Testament Studies, 1987, p. 420.

²³¹G. R. S. Mead, Fragments, p. 167.

²³²The Simonian syzigies are Mind--Intelligence, Voice--Name, and Ratiocination--Reflection.  The Valentinian system of Ogdoad (=four syzigies) is as follows: Abyss--Silence, Mind--Truth, Word (Logos)--Life, and Man--Church.

²³³Irenaeus, AH 1.23.4

²³⁴Irenaeus, AH 1.23.2.

²³⁵Ibid., 1.23.2; Hippolytus, Ref, 6.14.1; Epiphanius, Pan 21.3.1-2.

²³⁶At the nuptials of Peleus and Thetis all the gods were invited with the exception of Eris, the goddess of Discord. Enraged at her exclusion, Eris threw a golden apple (of Discord) among the guests, with the inscription, “For the fairest.”  Juno (Hera), Venus (Aphrodite), and Minerva (Athene) each claimed the golden apple. Jupiter (Zeus) let Paris, a shepherd of Mount Ida and son of King Priam of Troy decide it. Juno promised him power and riches, Minerva glory and renown in war, and Venus the fairest of women for his wife. Paris decided in favor of Venus and gave the apple to her. Paris, by the help of Venus, could persuade Helen and carried her from Greece to Troy, and thus the famous Trojan War broke out. (See T. Bulfinch, Myths of Greece and Rome, pp. 244ff.)

²³⁷Luna is equivalent to Helena, which is probably from Selene, goddess of moon in the Greek myth, in the Homilies (2.23, 25).

²³⁸See E. Yamauchi for general discussion, Pre-Christian Gnosticism, pp. 62-65.

²³⁹E. Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism, p. 63; See also E. Haenchen, “Gab es eine vorchristliche Gnosis?,” ZThK (1952). pp. 316-349.  Haenchen states conclusively: “Aber man darf darüber nicht vergessen: das gnostische Grundverständnis von Mensch und Welt ist, wenn auch abgeschwächt, in der Gr. V.(=Große Verkündigung) immer noch vorhanden.  Mit dieser Einschränkung können wir nun die eingangs gestellen Fragen, soweit sie die simonianische Gnosis.  Sie war mythologisch.” (p. 349.)   

²⁴⁰W. Schmithals, The Office of Apostle, p. 160.

²⁴¹Hippolytus, Ref 6.7 (or 6.12).

²⁴²A. Welburn, The Beginning of Christianity, p. 66.

²⁴³Hippolytus, Ref 6.9 (or 6.14). His Scriptural finding is: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.” (Jer. 1:5).

²⁴⁴Ibid., 6.8 (or 6.13).

²⁴⁵Ibid., 6.9 (or 6.14).

²⁴⁶Ibid., 6.9 (or 6.14).

²⁴⁷Ibid., 6.4 (or 6.9).

²⁴⁸Ibid., 6.4 (or 6.9).

²⁴⁹Ibid., 6.13 (or 6.18).

²⁵⁰Ibid., 6.13 (or 6.18).

²⁵¹E. F. Edinger, The Psyche in Antiquity, Book Two: Gnosticism and Early Christianity, 1999,

p. 39.

²⁵²Eusebius, EH 2.23.

²⁵³Epiphanius, Panarion 21.2.6.

²⁵⁴Ibid., 21.2.4-5.

²⁵⁵Justin’s 1 Apol sees Helen as a prostitute without referring to the city of Tyre or to Simon’s having redeemed her. Irenaeus derived some of his information from the writings of Justin, but they give no indication of the nature and extent of this borrowing (B. W. Hall, Samaritan Religion, p. 107).

²⁵⁶See Tertullian, De Anima 34.4.

²⁵⁷R. M. Grant draws some inferences from the story of Helen at Troy: “First, the Simonians were enthusiastic about Homer and regarded him as inspired, presumably by Simon’s Thought. Second, they knew something about Homeric exegesis; they were acquainted with the ideas of Stesichorus and other allegorizers. But, third, their reach exceeded their grasp. It is not Homer who says that Helen showed the way to the Greeks, but later retellers of the story, such as Virgil (Arneid 6.5.18) and Tryphidorus (Halosis 512f.). And the theory of Stesichorus does not really fit Simonian doctrine. In his view the real Helen was not at Troy but with Menelaus in Egypt.” (Gnosticism and Early Christianity, p. 79) 

²⁵⁸Between Irenaeus and the Pseudo-Clementines (earlier portion), it is difficult to judge which was earlier. 

²⁵⁹Irenaeus, AH 1.29.1.

²⁶⁰K. Rudolph, Gnosis, p. 297.

²⁶¹Irenaeus, AH 1.23.2.

²⁶²Epiphanius, Pan 21.2.4.

²⁶³Hippolytus, Ref 6.7 (or 6.12).

²⁶⁴R 2.57.

²⁶⁵H 18.1.

²⁶⁶AH 1.23.1.

²⁶⁷Ibid., 1.23.3.

²⁶⁸Hippolytus states in Ref 6.14.6 (or 6.19.6): “And so (it was that Jesus) appeared as man, when in reality he was not a man. And (so it was) that likewise he suffered — though not actually undergoing suffering, but appearing to the Jews to do so — in Judea as ‘Son,’ and in Samaria as ‘Father,’ and among the rest of the Gentiles as ‘Holy Spirit.’” 

²⁶⁹J. G. Davies, The Origins of Docetism, p. 19.

²⁷⁰Hippolytus, Ref 6.4 (or 6.9).

²⁷¹Hippolytus claims that Simon’s (or Simonian’s) expressions of  “secret” and “manifest” are imitations of Aristotle’s expressions of “potentiality” and “energy” or Plato’s expressions of “intelligible” and “sensible.” (Ref 6.4).

²⁷²Hippolytus, Ref 6.7 (or 6.12).

²⁷³Ibid., 6.8 (or 6.13).

²⁷⁴R 2.38.

²⁷⁵Hippolytus, Ref  6.15 (or 6.20).

²⁷⁶See E. Haenchen, Acts, p. 307.

²⁷⁷Justin Martyr, 1 Apol 26; Irenaeus, AH 1.23.2; Epiphanius, Pan 21.2.2; etc.

²⁷⁸H. Conzelmann, Acts, p.63.

²⁷⁹Lüdemann reaches a similar conclusion to mine: “Luke’s account would partly have degraded Simon by depicting him one-sidedly  as a magician, though magic and Gnosticism could come close together.” But, Lüdemann’s conclusion of  degradation is the result of Luke’s intentional ignorance of Simon’s Gnostic teaching. But, I don’t think that Simon himself had any Gnostic teaching.

²⁸⁰E. Haenchen, “Gab es eine vorchristliche Gnosis?,” ZthK 49 (1952), pp. 316-349.

²⁸¹G. Filoramo, A History of Gnosticism, 1992 (1990), p. 148.

²⁸²H. Remus, “‘Magic or Miracle’? Some Second Century Instances,” p. 127. It does not mean that “magic” has always a negative connotation. For instance, “magic” or “magician” in Matthew is not used negatively.

²⁸³K. Beyschlag states: “Es bleibt einfach zu bedenken, daß der älteste Hinweis auf die Existenz einer Simon-Magus-Gnosis (Justin) ein volles Jahrhundert jünger ist als die vermutliche Existenz des „historischen“ Simon in Samarien. So wenig wir heute geneigt sind, gnostische Evangelium dieses Zeitalters einfach als historische Kunde über Jesus zu behandeln, ebenso vorsichtig wird man erst recht im Falle einer analogen häretischen Erscheinung verfahren müssen, deren Quellenbasis noch weit unsicherer ist als im Falle Jesu.” (Simon Magus und die Christliche Gnosis, p. 70) 

²⁸⁴E. Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism, p. 60.

²⁸⁵Ibid., p. 58.

²⁸⁶Irenaeus, AH 1.27.4.

²⁸⁷Ibid., 1.29.1.

²⁸⁸J. Lacarriere, The Gnostics, p. 57.

²⁸⁹The date of Menander’s activity is ambiguous. But, scholars such as Filoramo (A History of Gnosticism, p. 158) and Rudolph (Gnosis, p. 298) think that Menander had lived around or until 80 C.E.

²⁹⁰Irenaeus, AH 1.23.5.

²⁹¹G. Filoramo, A History of Gnosticism, p. 157.

²⁹²G. R. S. Mead, Fragments, p. 177. I think that by ‘Simon’ Mead means ‘Simon in Simonian Gnosticism.’

²⁹³G. Filoramo, A History of Gnosticism, p. 158.

²⁹⁴Irenaeus, AH 1.24.1.

²⁹⁵According to Epiphanius, the Angels rebelled against the Power on high (the unknown Father); and a certain seven of them made the world and everything in it; and  the world has been parceled out by lot to each of the seven Angels (Pan 23.1.3).

²⁹⁶Epiphanius states about this: “To give his imposture plausibility he falsified the word ‘our,’ spoken in Genesis by the holy God, <but> retained ‘in an image’--as though other persons were making an image, if you please, and <were showing> that it was someone else’s image <by> saying, ‘Let us make a man in an image and after likeness.” (Pan 23.1.7). 

²⁹⁷Irenaeus, AH 1.24.2.

²⁹⁸Irenaeus states: “When this first-formed-man was made and was not able to stand erect because of the weakness of the Angels, but wriggled on the ground as a worm, ..., and he sent a spark of life which raised him up and set him upright and made him live.” (AH 1.24.1). Thus, man in general is described to receive the spark of life to stand erect and to live.  

²⁹⁹Irenaeus states: “Christ came to destroy thr God of the Jews and to bring salvation to those who believe in him. They are the ones who have in themselves the spark of life.” (AH 1.24.2).

³⁰⁰Irenaeus, AH 1.27.3.

³⁰¹Hippolytus, Ref 7.16.

³⁰²Epiphanius, Pan 23.1.10.

³⁰³Ibid., 23.1.10.

³⁰⁴Ibid., 23.3.1-4.

³⁰⁵K. Rudolph, Gnosis, p. 298.

³⁰⁶Irenaeus, AH 1.28.1.

³⁰⁷Irenaeus, AH 1.24.3.

³⁰⁸Ibid., 1.24.3.

³⁰⁹Ibid., 1.24.4.

³¹⁰Clement’s father’s name in the Recognitions is Faustinianus, which is the name of Aquila after conversion, one of Clement’s twin brothers in the Homilies (14.1, 14.8, 14.9).

³¹¹AH 1.24.5.

³¹²AH 1.24.7.

³¹³Hippolytus, Ref 7.8 (or 7.20.1 according to a different recension).

³¹⁴Ibid., 7.8 (7.20).

³¹⁵Ibid., 7.9 (or 7.21).

³¹⁶Ibid., 7.14 (or 7.26.8 ).

³¹⁷Ibid., 7.15 (or 7.27.8-12).

³¹⁸G. Filoramo, A History of Gnosticism, p. 159.

³¹⁹K. Rudolph states that “Basilides is the first important representative of a Christian Gnosis who consciously saw himself as such, and who wanted to be a Christian theologian.” (Gnosis, p. 309).

³²⁰R. M. Grant, Gnosticism and Early Christianity, p. 142.

³²¹Clement of Alexandria, Strom 3.2.5(2).

³²²Ibid., 3.2.5(1).

³²³Irenaeus, AH 1.25.1. Hippolytus follows Irenaeus almost exactly (Ref 7.20).

³²⁴Ibid., 1.25.1.

³²⁵Ibid., 1.25.2.

³²⁶Ibid., 1.25.3.

³²⁷Ibid., 1.25.4.

³²⁸Ibid., 1.25.6.

³²⁹Hippolytus, Ref 6.24-31, 10.9.

³³⁰Irenaeus AH 1.1.1.  He states that concerning this Bythos (or Abyss or Profundity) “there are many and different opinions among them(=the Valentinians). Some say that he is without conjugal consort, being neither male nor female, nor anything at all (cf. Basilides). Others claim that he is both masculine and feminine, and ascribe to him the nature of a hermaphrodite. Still others assign to him Silence(=Sigé) as a consort that there might be a first conjugal couple.” (AH 1.11.5; cf. Hippolytus, Ref 6.24). 

³³¹According to Hippolytus, Mind and Truth are the ones who produced the five pairs (Ref 6.24).

³³²Hippolytus states that Word and Life are the ones who produced the six pairs (Ref 6.25).

³³³Irenaeus, AH 1.1.3.

³³⁴Ibid., 1.2.2. “Passion” implies to be “an irregular desire”.She wished to emulate the Father, and to produce offspring without a marital partner, that she might achieve a kind of work (self-generation) of the Father, Abyss.

³³⁵According to Irenaeus, Valentinus supposed that there were two Beings under the name of Horos (or Limit): the one between Abyss (or Profundity) and the rest of the Pleroma, separating the generated Aeons from the ingenerate Father; the other separating Wisdom (Sophia) from the Pleroma (AH 1.11.1).

³³⁶Ibid., 1.2.4.

³³⁷Ibid., 1.2.3. This formless substance, who is called Achamoth, was born of Wisdom (Sophia) herself, and generated without conjugal intercourse (Hippolytus, Ref 6.26).

³³⁸Ibid., 1.2.5.

³³⁹This is the first Christ, distinguished from Jesus the Savior, the second Christ.

³⁴⁰Irenaeus, AH 1.2.5; Hippolytus, Ref 6.26. Concerning the generations of (the first) Christ (and Holy Spirit), there are some other assertions. Some claim that Christ was not emitted by the Aeons within the Pleroma, but that he was brought forth by the Mother (Wisdom or Sophia), the 30^th Aeon, after she had gone out of the Pleroma. And the Holy Spirit was emitted by Truth (without Mind?) for the purpose of testing the Aeons and making them productive. (AH 1.11.1).

³⁴¹AH 1.2.1 and 1.2.5.

³⁴²Ibid., 1.3.1; Hippolytus, Ref 6.27. But, according to Irenaeus, there are some other opinions concerning the generation of the Savior (that is, Jesus or the second Christ): 1. Some say that he was generated from all the Aeons; 2. Some others claim that he was emitted only by the ten Aeons who came from Word and Life. Thus, he is called Word and Life; 3. Some others claim that he was emitted by the twelve Aeons who sprang from Man and Church. So, he professes himself to be the Son of Man; 4. Some others insist that he was made by (the first) Christ and Holy Spirit, who were emitted for the support of the Fullness. That’s why he is called Christ, keeping the name of the Father; 5. Still others claim that Man is called the First-Father of all the Aeons and First-Beginning. The Savior calls himself the Son of Man, as the Power which is above all others and contains all others is called Man. (AH 1.12.4).

³⁴³Ibid., 1.3.4. The Valentinians, according to Irenaeus, claim that at’s why Paul says explicitly: “but Christ is all, and in all”(Col. 3:11); “For from him and through him and to him are all things” (Rom. 11:36); “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Col. 2:9); “All things are united in him(=Christ) (through God)” (Eph. 1:10). 

³⁴⁴Hippolytus, Ref 6.27.

³⁴⁵AH 1.4.1.

³⁴⁶Stake or Stauros is the boundary fence of the Pleroma. According to Hippolytus, Stauros or Horos was an additional Aeon who was projected by the (First-) Father, in order that Achamoth might not manifest herself to the perfect Aeons. 

³⁴⁷Irenaeus, AH 1.4.1; Hippolytus, Ref 6.27.

³⁴⁸Irenaeus, AH 1.4.1.

³⁴⁹Ibid., 1.4.2.

³⁵⁰Ibid., 1.5.1.

³⁵¹Ibid., 1.5.2.

³⁵²There are three heavenly places: the Pleroma, where Abyss and the Aeons reside; the Ogdoad, where Achamoth (or Hachamoth) stays; the Hebdomad, where the Demiurge dwells.

³⁵³Irenaeus, AH 1.5.4.

³⁵⁴Ibid., 1.5.4. According to Irenaeus, the Valentinians claim that the material substance consists of three passions: fear, grief, and perplexity.

³⁵⁵Ibid., 1.5.6.

³⁵⁶Ibid., 1.6.1.

³⁵⁷Ibid., 1.7.4.

³⁵⁸Ibid., 1.7.3.

³⁵⁹The Valentinians(=the spiritual) are irrevocably predestined to eternal life, and the non-Christians(=the earthly)  to annihilation. A Valentinian has nothing to do but let himself live; his behaviors cannot touch the spiritual nature of his being: his spirit is quite independent of his flesh, and is not responsible for it (See Duchesne, Early History of the Christian Church, p. 123).

³⁶⁰Irenaeus, AH 1.7.5. The Demiurge advanced from his original region, Hebdomad to Ogdoad, the old region of Achamoth.

³⁶¹M. L. Duchesne, Early History of the Christian Church, p. 124.

³⁶²R. McL. Wilson, The Gnostic Problem, p. 99.

³⁶³Irenaeus, AH 1.27.1.

³⁶⁴Irenaeus, AH 3.4.3.

³⁶⁵Hippolytus, Ref 10.15.

³⁶⁶Pseudo-Tertullian, Haer 6.1.

³⁶⁷Ibid., 6.2.

³⁶⁸Irenaeus, AH 1.23.3.