SILENCE SILOAM, SHILOAH
shall have to suppose that the mention of Silvanus, as
also that of Mark (513), who also can hardly have
been still alive at so late a date as 1 1 2 A . D ., subserves
a definite purpose. Both had been members of the
primitive church (for Mark, c p Acts 1212) and a t b e
same time companions of Paul ; thus, on the one hand,
they become fitted to figure as comrades of Peter, and,
on the other, the naming of them creates the impression
that Peter had a thoroughly good understanding with
Paul the founder of many of the churches included in
the address of the epistlc (Pontus, Galatia. Cappadocia.
Asia, and Uithynia). T h e remaining contents of the
epistle show little of that tendency to bring about a
reconciliation between Paulinism and Jewish Christianity
which the Tiibingen school attributed to i t ; but the
closing verses which have been under our consideration
must doubtless be taken in this sense (cp P ETER ,
EPISTLES O F , 6, end).
In doing so it is a matter of indifference whether we are to
understand by ‘through’ (8~6)that Silvanus is indicated as the
individual who like Tertius in Rom. 16 22, wrote the epistle a t
the apostle’s dictation (so the subscription to Rom. in cod. 133 :
‘it was written through Tertius, iyp&+q 8rd T E ~ T ~or) ,
whether, as the analogy of the other spurious subscriptions of
Pauline letters would warrant, we are intended to look upon him
as the bearer of the letter ; all that is excluded is the attribution
to him of any sort of independent share in the composition of
the epistle.
In the lists of the ‘seventy’ (Lk.101) Silas and Silvanus
figure as distinct individuals the former as bishop of Corinth,
the latter i s bishop of Thessalonica. Accord-
9. Later views. ing to the T I c p L d o r Bapv6pa John Mark was
baptized by Barnabas, Paul, and Silas in
Iconium(Lipsius, A j o k r . A#. -gesch. i. 203, ii.1 gf: 2’ 277 z& 285).
Many interpreters maintain Silas to be the ‘brother’ referred to
in 2 Cor. 8 1sf: This brother, however, must rather have been a
Xlacedonian, as he was chosen by the hfacedonians to represent
them in conveying the collection to Jerusalem. Against the
theory that Silas was the author of the ‘we’-source of Acts see
ACTS, 5 9. Against the view put forward in 1825 by B6hme and
BIynster that Silas was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
the same considerations hold good as have been urged against
the authorship of Barnaba in so far as they both belonged to
Jerusalem (see BARNABAS, 8 52..
Van Vloten, ’Lucas u. Silas in ZWT,1867, pp. 223f:; 1871~
pp. 437-434; against him, Cro p, i6id. 1868, pp. 353-355;
Marcker, Steiung der Pnrforalbriefi irn
10. Literature. Leden des Paulws, Gymnasialpro ramm
Meininqen 1861,pp. 10-12. TitusSi%anas.
i6id. 1864 ; Graf in HeideAheim’s Vierte&hrsschm~ fd;
mngli‘ch-theologixhe Forschung, 2, 1865, pp. 373-394 ; Seufert,
ZWT,1885, p 359-371 ; Zimmer, Ztschr.f: kirchl. Wissensch.
u. Kirchl. Le& 1881, pp. 169174; J P T , 1881,pp. 721-723;
against him Jiilicher 3P7‘, 1882, pp. 538.552 ; Adolf Johannes
(catholic), Comm. eu. I Thess., 1898, pp. 147-153.
P. w .s.
SILENCE (npVt; AAHC; i n f i m u m ) , a title of
S H E O L (q.”.), PS. 9417 11517.
The existence of such a word is, however, most im robable,
and there is no Ass. parallel. e ’ s $$s may = n&. See
S HADOW OF DSATH.
SILK occurs in AV as the rendering of three different
words.
I. ~ . @G,, is rendered ‘silk’ in AV text of Pr. 31 22, and mg.
of Gen. 41 42 Exod. 25 4. On this see L INEN (7).
2. Vvn, me?& (rpiXaTros),l Ezek. 1610 13t. Amidst
.*
the variety of ancient renderings there is a general
agreement that some cloth of fine texture is intended ;
Jewish tradition favours ‘ silk ’ (Ges. Thes. ), a meaning
with which the rendering in 6 is not inconsistent ; and
Movers (Phiin. ii. 3264) contends that silk was, at least
as far back as Ezekiel’s time, conveyed from China into
W. Asia by the land route through Mesopotamia,
thongh it was probably almost unknown in Europe till
after Alexander’s conquests, and did not come into
general use before the period of the Roman Empire.2
Cp T RADE , 62. In any case the reference in Ezek.
1610 is to a long outer vail of fine material which
covered the entire person (Smend, ad Zoc.).
1 I.e., ‘woven ofhair‘; Aq. has $qA T ~ and
C dvBipos, Sym.
irh8vpa and rnoA6~rms. Th. mer$ transliterates. Vg.
subtilia and g o i p i t u s , besh. &elhi (‘ vail ‘), and tekZZfhi
(‘blue ’).
2 Cp EBW 22 56.
452’
3. UlpLK&, i.e., U7JpLK6Y, the familiar Greek name for
silk (from ZTp : see Strabo, 516, 701),occurs in Rev.
1 8 1 z t , in the enumeration of wares which formed the
merchandise of the apocalyptic Babylon.
The references in classical writers show that, under the early
empire, silk was of great costliness, and its use a sign of extreme
luxury.
The larva ofthe silk-worm moth B o A y x mom’, so called from
its feeding on mulberry leaves, prAduces far the greatest bulk of
the silk in use. Inferior silks are, however, produced by several
species of the same genus, and Tussar silks are spun from the
cocuons of Antkerc~ajernyi, which feeds on oaks, in China ;
a i d of A. myZitta in India, and from other species mostly be-
longing to the,family Saturniid=. The silk is the hardened
extract of certain silk glands which open just below the mputh
of the caterpillar, and is excreted to make the cocoon within
which the insect passes its pupal stage.
Cp Hitzig, ZDMG 8 Z I Z ~ N. M.- A. E. S.
S I U B (N\D; CEAA [Eus. US 296, 991 ; SELA [Jcr.,
Vg.]), a place-name in the account of the murder of
Joash ( 2 K. 1220[21]). ‘ A t the house of Millo [or, a t
Beth-millo] which goeth down t o Silla,’ as A\’ gives, is
clearly wrong (Pv o k y paaXw rbv yaaXXa [B, 2v y. Bab],
... paXhwv r@Iv T< Kara/%irreL ahXwv [L], . ..paaXw
rbv KaTaphvovra yaaXa6 [A, sic ut vid.]), Knd ne&-fh
luasCZna‘[Pesh.]).
The key to the problem is supplied by the theory that the
people with whom the Israelites had most constant relations
were the Jerabmeelites, and that Solomon most probably obtained
his timber for building, not from the Lebanon, but from the
mountain - country of the Negeb. The mysterious word
NI$D (Millo) is most probably a corruption of $ncm> (Jerahmeel),
and so too is ~ $ a0y 7 (see MILLO). I t was a t Beth-jerahmeel
that Joash was slain, and since the context requires a place i;
Jerusalem, the most plausible view is that ‘Pth-jerahmeel
means the ‘house of the forest of Lebanon for Solomon’s
Lebanon or perhaps Gebalon, appears to hive been in the
JeraIJmekte Negeb (see SOLOMON, $ 3 6). The same building
is probably specified in the true text of a Ch. 2425 (see Crit.
Bib.). Cp, however, Winckler, KA ?(3) 260, n. 2, and the com-
mentaries of Benzinger and Kittel (less satisfactory conjectures).
T . K. C.
SILOAM, P I L O P , SHELAE, SHILOAR. The
four places in which Shiloah or Siloam are mentioned are : ( I )
Is. 86 (&e31 ‘Q;rbG6arp m0 Z d w + [BN],T. 6. T. S A . [AQF],
The waters of Shiloah, EV); ( 2 ) Neh. 315 (n>F87
roAvpp@p +iv ro&iov [B], om. KW&WV N*, hah. ro,Aiov
N=.amk?., N adds Be TO; ZrAoap, 6 s ~ p + l s 70; Z t h ~ a j L ] .The
pool of Siloah A V , of Shelah RV) ; (3) LL. 134 (b rnipy?c);v 74
XrAo6p; The tower in Siloam); (4) Jn.97 and (not in best
flSS) IT (&,Y roAupgrjOpav mi Z ~ A W ~The ~ , pool of Siloam
which is by interpretation, Sent ’: the better reading seems IO
be 76” 2.).
Possibly also there is a n allusion to Siloam in the
‘ fountain ’ and ‘ pool ’ of Neh. 2 14. For topography
and description see JERUSALEM, 5 3 and diagram ; also
$5 11, 18$, and map facing col. 2420 ; also CONDUITS,
$ 5,. where a translation of the famous Siloam inscription
IS given. Josepbus (BY+. 41 5 140) speaks of the waters
of the fountain ( T T ~ PiXw2s)
+ as sweet and abundant,
and (B/ v. 9. 5 410)reports himself in his speech to his
compatriots as having pointed out that Siloam and the
other springs which were formerly almost dried up when
under the control of the Jews, had, since the advent of
Titus, run more plentifully than they did before.
Jetonie (Commcnt, in Esn. 86) also mentions the
irregular flow of Siloam- a feature which has been
noticed hy most subsequent pilgrims and travellers, and
is explained by the geological formation of the district.
I n N T times certainly, and probably earlier, a healing
virtue was attributed t o the waters of Siloam. On the
mystical meaning of Jn. 9x1 see GOSPELS, $ 56, col.
1803, but cp SHILOH, and, on the miracle, cp . .J O H N ,
5 35, COl. 2539.
In Is. 8 6 the waters of Shiloah ‘ t h a t go softly’
(at least if the text is sound ; see, however, Znt. Bi6.
[ C F . ] ) represent either the power of the house of David,
whlch certainly was insignificant, or the might of Yahwb
which seemed but was not really slight ; they are con-
trasted with the ‘ waters of the River. strong and many ’
(v.7), which symbolise the vast physical power of Assyria.
In J n . 9 7 the ~ T C U T U X ~ C V O S has been taken by most
1 JnSw, emisit ? cp emissary ?
4521
 SILVANUS
interpreters from Theophylact onwards to refer t o
Christ the trtie Siloam ( c p 62938f: 7 2 8 826 1 7 3 2 1 ) .
Whether this is a t all probable may be doubted ; other
interpretations however (see Holtzmann, ad Zoc.) are n o
better. Lucke has pointed out the possibility that the
clause is merely a marginal gloss. Such explanations
abound in the Onomastica.
SILVANUS (CIAOY~NOC), z Cor. 119, etc. See
SILAS:
SILVER (TQP, Kkseph; Aram. K?P2 ; Syr. kespi:
Ass. Kaspu ; root-meaning perhaps ‘ paleness,‘ see
W R S 1.Phil 14125).
T h e word is sometimes nsed, in its proper sense, of
silver ore, e.g., Ezek. 2220 22 (figuratively). etc., but
rekr2ze8.- also often of silver as a measure of weight
a n d value, e.g., ‘ silver 30 shekels ’ (Ex.
2172).
~~
.
,. ‘ L O O silver shekels’ (Gen. 231q).
..,.
and, with the omission of ‘shekel’ or ‘shekels,‘ ’ a
thousand of silver’ (Gen. 2016), ‘twenty of silver‘
(3728). Hence more often still ‘ silver’ (kdseph)=
‘money,’ c p &ppyLsp(ov a n d the French argent, but not
necessarily coined money, e.g., Gen. 31 15 4225 27 Dt.
2320 [19]. I n Gen. 4225 35 the plural form (as if
‘ monies ’) is found.
O n silver mining, alluded t o in Job281, and o n the
methods of refining the crude ore alluded to in (Is. 125)
Ezek. 22 2 0 22 2 c h . 13 g Mal. 3 3 Prov. 17 3 27 21 (we
must not add Ps. 126 [7]). see METALS. T h e separ-
ated silver was called k&ph girziph (qn: 192, Ps.
127 [6]); b. mezu++ik ( p q n ‘J, I Ch. 294 Ps. 127 [6]);
k. n i b & i ~(i??? ’I, Prov. 1020). T h e crucible is called
mayt‘ph (~-IQ, Prov. 1 7 3 2 7 2 1 ) . ~ In Jer. 109 we read
of ‘silver beaten out into plates’ ; where it came from
we shall have to ask presently. Hebrew traditions
told of great abundance of silver in early times. These
traditions, which a r e supported by the use of kdseph
(silver) for ‘ money,’ are doubtless correct. Abram
a n d Ephron ‘ the Hittite’ have certainly n o lack of
silver, according to Gen. 23, a n d , though this passage
comes from the much disparaged priestly writer, h e
probably does but repeat the statements of earlier
writers.
According to a view which even if new may nevertheless do
justice to old and forgotten {ruth the scine of the transaction
described was not at Hehron hui at some place of hallowed
associations in the Negeb-probably Rehohoth 3 which would
justly be represented as Kirjath-‘arab 4 ‘city bf Arabia.’ In
this connection we may refer to osiph‘s silver divining cup
(Gen. 442). It is not impossible tlat the original scene of the
fascinating story of Joseph was not in Egypt hut in the Negeh.
But even if this was not the case, we are assured on the best
authority that silver in Egypt had at first a higher value than
gold (see E GYPT, g 38). The tme Hittites, too (whose capital
was Kadesh on the Orontes), bad abundance of silver in the
time of Rameses I1 ’ the treaty between them and this powerful
Egyptian king was’dn a silver tablet.
I n Solomon’s time, it would appear as if the larger
introduction of gold depreciated the value of silver.
W e a r e told ( I K. 10 21)that none of the king’s ‘vessels ’
were of silver, which ‘was nothing accounted of in
1 @, as we now have it, gives in Ps. 2.c. SoKipiov qj yi. In
Prov. 27 ax S O K ~corresponds
~. to I%!, ‘crucible.’ Did the text
of @ in Ps. at one time run . iy v ’ i ~ o vrrempopivov i v ~ O K L ~ ~
( = d o r r p c i y ) without qj y f i i fleissmann ( N e w Bi6cZstudie~,
70) thinks that the only tolerable sense of ~ O K ~ ~ L6O W IS
genuine silver for the laitd.’ At any rate both the M T and C3
of Ps. 12 7 [61 attest the activity of scribes working upon a cor-
rupt text. Cp n. 2.
a Nestle (Ex#.T8287) would give the same sense to h ?,
wpch in Prov. 27 zz=‘pestle.’ This affects the criticism of
4’7~1. May we read * $ y ~‘,in the crucible ’? There seems to
be a better solution.
3 ‘ Hittite ’ itself when used of any person in the S. of Pales-
tine, is a mutilated’form of ‘ Rehohothite.’ See R EHOBOTH.
For instances of numerals which are corruptions of ethnic
yames, see MOSES,I 11, P ROPHET, 5 7, Crit. Bi6. on Gen. 15 13.
City of Four’ (Kirjath-arha) is as improbable as ‘daughter of
Seven ’ (see SOLOMON, 0 2).
4.523
SIMEON
the days of Solomon,’ and (v. 27) that he ‘made silver
to b e in Jerusalem as stones. ’
From what sources was this plentiful supply of silver
derived? I t is geologically impossible that either gold
2. sources. or silver should exist in the mountains of
Syria a n d Palestine. W e may suppose
that most of the silver of the ’ Hittites ’ came from the
mines of Bulgar Dagh in Lycaonia. According to
Prof. Sayce :-
‘The Hittite inscription found near the old mines of these
mountains by Mr. Davis, proves that they once occupied the
locality. It is even possible that their settlement for a time in
Lydia was also connected with their passion, for “the bright
metal.” At all events, the Gumush Dagh, or “ Silver Mountains,”
lie to the S. of the Pass of Karabel, and traces of old workings
can still he detected in them.’l
As to the treasures of Solomon, we are told in I K.
1022 (cp SOLOMON, 4, end) that the ‘navy of Tarshish’
brought silver as well as gold. Upon this Prof. W. M.
Muller remarks ( O L Z 3269) that this points to great
ignorance of the Red Sea coasts. There was, however,
according to the Arabic notices, n o lack of silver in
the mountains of Yemen, and it was hence, 2 s Oskar
Fraas thinks (HWBP) 1007a),that Solomon derived the
precious metals. And what is to be said of Tartessus 7
If the current opinion is correct, though Solomon’s ships
did not get out so far as Spain, the later supply of silver
to Palestine was largely derived from the rich territory
by the Guadalquivir. We fear the opinion needs to be
accepted with reserve. Tartessus was, n o doubt, in a
rich district. T h e story is, that since the Phoenicians
found that they could not carry all their silver away,
they made ‘ silver anchors ’ in place of those that they
had brought (Aristot. De A4irub. 148 ; c p Diod. 535).
Unfortunately there is considerable danger that, except in late
passages, like z kh. 9 21%Jon. 13, ‘ Tarshish’ is a corruption of
‘Asshur ; and there is one extremely late passage (Jer. 109)
where the same restoration C silver ... brought from Asshur ’)
should apparently be made. Perhaps the most important
passage is Ezek. 37 12 where, according to MT, silver, together
with iron, tin, and lead, is represented to have been brought to
Tyre from Tarshish. A close investigation of the passage in its
context suggests that Missur (not Tyre) provides the market, and
N. Arabian peoples provide the merchandise disposed of (see
Crit. Bi6.). The Aeshurite merchants, it would seem, were the
middlemen between the miners in some perhaps distant part 0.
Arabia, and the rich and powerful people of Misur. Another
evidence of the abundance of silver in N. Arabia is supplied by
2 S. 8 10-12 (in the light of criticism), where the spoil taken by
David from ZOBAH [q.v.l,or rather Missur and other N. Arabian
regions bordering on Palestine (such as ‘Aram’-i.c., Jerahmeel),
is said to have consisted in vessels of silver, of gold, and oi brass.
It is noteworthy, too, that the poem of Job, which most probably
arose either in N. Arabia or under strong N. Arabian influences
(the names point decidedly to this, see J OB [BOOK], 09 4, g),
shows great interest in gold and silver mines. On two out of
the three references in Job (22 25 286), see GOLD,5 I, col. 17jo.
T. K. C.
SILVER, PIECE OF (aprypla), Mt. 2615. See
STATER, ad/Fn.
SIMALCUE ( C I N M A ~ K O Y H [AJ), I Mace. 1139 AV,
R V IMALCUE.
SIMEON
Where settled? (s I). Extra-biblical? (I 6).
Conclusion (I 7).
Gen. 34 49 (0 2).
Deut. 33 (9 3). Name (i3 8).
!$z:{g)! Genealogical lists (5 9).
Geographical lists (5 IO).
Simeon (]iUp@; C Y M ~ ~[BAL] N ; see below, 5 8)
Q
was the brother 3 of Levi and Dinah (Gen. 3425, J ; c p
W h a t genealogical scheme underlay
. where 49.5).
1settled? thls representation we do not know.4 I n
the scheme followed by the final redactors
Simeon had five full brothers ; how many sisters (Gen.
3735, J ; 467, D) we are nowhere told. Moreover,
1 Tke Hittites (1888), 95.
2 We do not add I K. 22 47 (see JEHOSHAPHAT, col. 2352).
3 On O ~ inN Gen. 49 see 0 8, i.
4 It is natural to suppose a genealogy that made Simeon,
Levi, and Dinah the only children of their mother. We cannot
assume this with confidence however. Sirneon and Reuben
form a pair in Gen. 48 5 (P), and Simeon 1s styled brother of
Judah in Judg. 1 3 (J).
4524
 SIMEON
Simeoii the brother of Dinah figures as a tribe in the
district of Shechem, whereas the Simeon whose cities
are enumerated in the well-known lists (s
I O ) is there
connected with the S. country and associated with
Judah rather than 1srael.l I t has been customary to
identify these two Simeons. I t is not impossible, how-
ever, to hold that there were more Simeons than one
(see below, 6). If, however, we identify them, are we
t o regard the two representations as variant theories,
belonging to a time u-hen the real life of the tribe had
been forgotten? Or may we suppose that they both
contain reminiscences of history, that in fact Simeon
lived, let us say, in the neighbourhood of Shechem and
then removed to the S. ? There would be more chance
of giving confident answers to these questions, if we
knew whether the framers of our sources had actual
knowledge of a Simeon tribe or Simeon families ; if, for
example, we could point with confidence to sanctuaries
which at least had been distinctively Simeonite. where
therefore there might have been preserved a tradition of
Sirneon's having come S . from the highlands of central
Palestine. It is, no doubt, natural to suppose that
Beersheba was such a sanctuary. It may very well
have been ; it was certainly famous, and, in particular,
was at least at times in touch with northern Israel.
T h e difficulty is to prove that it, or any other definite
spot, was Simeonite. Simeon is never mentioned as a
component part of the southern kingdom.2
Still, although we may not be able t o point with
confidence to any contemporary statement about
*. aen.34 49. Simeon in the literature accessible t o
us, the editors whose work has reached
us may have had such evidence lying before t h e m 3
i. It must be remembered that the end of J's story
of the Shechem exploit ascribed to the tribe has been
lost. That may have told of Simeon's removal towards
the south. From the fact that the redactor suppressed
the passage we may plausibly conjecture that what it
narrated was more or less of the nature of a catastrophe
discreditable to ' Israel.' I t may therefore have been
historical, and may have come from a time when
Simeon was still really a tribe. How a later writer
would have told (and did tell) the story we can perhaps
see from Gen. 355 : After the incident which forms the
subject of chap. 34 the Israelites moved off leisurely,
their god having interfered in their behalf so that there
fell on the natives of the land an awe such a s fell on
the Greeks when Apollo brought the seemingly
vanquished Hector back to the fight strong as ever
(ZZ.1 5 q g j ? ) . So, a later writer thought, must it ever
fare with Israel. T h e older story, however, told not of
'Israel,' but of Simeon and LevL4 All that a later
editor was willing to retain of it was the remonstrance
of Jacob: you have brought a disaster (nni3v) on
us, in making us abominable to all the natives of the
land ; as we are but a small company they will band them-
selves against us and defeat us, and we shall be destroyed.
ii. W h a t the sequel of the older narrative was can
probably be inferred from Gen. 49 5-7. Even there we
are not told explicitly what happened ; but there was
a power to fulfil itself in the father's curse (cp B LESSING
AN D C U R S I N G ) : I will divide them in Jacob, And
scatter them in Israel. W h a t meaning the writer would
put into these words is uncertain. Steuernagel thinks
that Jacob is here a tribe name and that the verse
means that Simeon was dispersed in the highlands of
1 Cheyne, however, suggests that the Shechem-story also
dealt originally not with central Palestine, hut with a district
on the N. Arabian border, in or near the Negeb (cp MOSES, 8
SHECHEH 2.
2,011Simeol;'s never being assigned to either kingdom c
Graf, Stamiii Simeon, i g : also, on theories connecting him w i t i
the northern kingdom, 16. 33. For the Chronicler's notice see
below 8 5 iv.
3 Oh I 6 h . 4 38-41 see below, # 5.
4 "here s e e m , however, tp have been an independent story
which did speak of ' Israel. See Gen. 482rf: [El (cp Gunkel
in ll/iPJ ad Loc.), and the legend in Jubilees 342-8 (cp Charles
ad Zoc. and the literature cited by him).
4525
SIMEON
central Palestine (Einwunderung, 104),some, however,
perhaps wandering southwards (i6. 15). As treating
of the early fortunes of Shechem, the story of Gen. 34
is dealt with elsewhere (see EPHHAIM, 6, D I N A H ) .
Dinah was perhaps supposed to have disappeared com-
pletely (see D I N A H , 6 ) ; what the real history of Levi
was is a difficult question (see LEVI,LEVITES, G ENE -
ALOGIES , § 7). I t is with Simeon that we are here con-
cerned. That it was not always counted as a tribe
appears to follow from its absence from Dt. 33 (blessing
of Moses).'
It has been questioned, however, whether the omission
of Simeon in Dt. 33 is original.
Not only does B A L apply v. 66 to Simeon ( m i w p c o v [@E
om. v.1 ; m u rrohhs i v aprefr;), to whom the words however
they are to be 'taken (R EUBEN , B 4), 'are quite
3. Dt. 33. as applicable as to Reuben. It has been thought
also(Graetz, Gesch. ii. 1486J, Heilprin, Hist. Poet.
Heb.lrr3 f. cp Halevy, 3. A s . , 1897a, pp. 329-31) that 78
perhaps beldnged to Simeon (there might be a play on the name
in 'Hear'). If these proposals were combined the Simeon
saying 2 would read :
Let Simeon be a small company.
Hear, Yahwk, his voice,
And bring him in unto his people.
The case for such a text, however, is not strong (see Driver,
ad ZOC.).~
If the passage really mentioned Simeon in some such
way it would seem to imply that Simeon had somehow
come to be severed from ' his people.' T h a t would be
a n interesting variant of the view of Simeon represented
in the ' Jacob Blessing ' (Gen. 49), where Simeon is not
detached from his people but dispersed among them.
Moreover if Simeon is really mentioned in the
Esarhaddon tablet to be discussed later (5 6, iii.), a
position of detachment for Simeon at a comparatively
late period would be established by contemporary
extra-biblical evidence. Gen. 49 (and 34) is, however,
by no means the only biblical reference to movements
on the part of Sinieon.
Of special interest are the references in Judg. 1, a s
giving a theory, doubtless widely held, as to Simeon's
4. Judg.1. arrival on the scene. There, as we have seen
(col. 4524, n. 4 ) , Simeon's brother is Judah
(vu. 3 17). Israel, having agreed to a division of the
land among the tribes, inquires of Yahwe who is to
begin the attack. T h e answer being ' Judah,' Judah
asks Sinieon to join in the expedition, promising to
return the favour later. Simeon consents, and the
two peoples advance against the Canaanites, defeating
them signally at Bezek, if the text is sound (see BEZEK).
Whether the tradition made Simeon and Judah then
settle in the central highlands is not clear.4 T h e
meagreness of the account of Judah's campaign suggests
that the old story of Judah's advent was lost or
suppressed : we hear of Calebs appropriation of
Hebron, Othniel's of Debir, the Kenites' of the district
of Arad (Judg. 116 ; on the text see the comm.), and
Simeon's of Zephath-Hormah ; but nowhere are we told
where or how Judah settled.6 It is difficult to think that
this is accidental: the redactor would have told of
Judah's southward progress if he could. Perhaps one
reason why he could not was that, as Graf suggested
(Stamm Simeon, IS), the district which ultimately bore
the name of Judah was entered from the S. If Judah is
primarily the name of the southern kingdom, which
consisted of Kenites, Calebites, Jerahmeelites, Simeon-
ites, and other southern elements, the settlement stories
would naturally deal with the fortunes of its component
1 On its omission in Judg. 5 see below, note 4.
a 'I'his theory thus suggests that the Judah saying is : 76 I T .
3 On the various proposals see further, Graf, Der Segen
Moses 24-26 (1857).
4 Ii'so, are we to suppose that old tradition did not always
distinguish between udah and ' Levi ' ? (Gen. 34). Only in this
connection can the aisence of any reference to Simeon in Judg.
4 or Judg. 5 have any significance.
5 To infer from the Hormah exploit being elsewhere (Nu. 21 3
see HORMAH) given to ' Israel,' that some assigned to Simeon in
early times a position of great importance would be precarious.
6 Gen. 38 is somewhat different.
4526
 SIMEON
parts.' Even, however, if the other Judah elements
entered from the S., Simeon might first have lost a
footing temporarily gained in Central Palestine. T h a t
might account for the Shimeon at Semiiniyeh (right
across Esdraelon from Ibzik) of Josh. 11 I 1220 if that
is the true reading (see S HIM R O N , and below, 5 6, ii.).
O n the other hand the story of the partnership of
' J u d a h ' a n d Simeon may not rest on prehistoric
relations so early as the settlement. It may reflect a
later time.
It has been thought, for example (Wi. G l 2 2 0 1 n.), that
underneath what now appears in I Ch. 4 24 as a mere list of names
it is possible to detect a statement relating to a migration of
Simeon southwards. Accoiding to this theory Simeonites were
settled in the southern part of the territory out of which Saul
carved an extensive Benjamite state (above, col. 2583, n. I),
and rather than yield to him they moved south. That would
be a likely thing to happen, especially if the Simeonites were
not firmly settled. Of course such a movement would a ree
passably with the suggestion of Gen. 49 and the story in Zen.
34. Nor is there anything impossible ahout an origin such as
Winckler proposes for the genealogical list. Still, the sug-
gestion in question is perhaps hardly convincing enough (see
below, $ 9, i.) to form the basis of a definite theory of the history
of Simeon.
T o the same period was assigned by Dozy a move-
ment, or movements, on the part of Simeon of which
6.
~~.*. the Chronicler's account is still in the form
of a narrative, although it contains a good
many names. T h e passage ( I Ch. 438-43) contains
several statements, the relation of which to one another
is not clear, the text being more or less doubtful.2
(a) ,According to 438.40 certain Simeonites pushed down to
the district of Gedor or Gerar in search of pasture for their
sheep.
(a) According to v. 41 these men went in the time of Hezekiah
. .
and smote3 . and the Meunim who were 'there' and
banned them and dwelt in their place.
(c) According to n. 42f: some of 'them' (500 with 4 leaders)
went to Mt. Seir and smote those who were left of the fugitive
Amalekites and settled there.
i. According to Renzinger these three statements are
divergent accounts of the same thing ( K H C , 17f:), all
of them being later insertions into the Chronicler's work.
A question more important than the date of their
insertion is whence they were drawn. We must allow
for the possibility that they come from a good source.
Of course that need not imply the correctness of the
reference to Hezekiah.4 T h e r e is nothing in itself
improbable in the Hezekiah date. T h e Meunim seem t o
b e mentioned under Uzziah, also Arabs in Gur ( = Gerar?
a n d sfl for $PI? : Winckler, K A T(3)143,n. I : 2 Ch.
267 ; c p MEUNIM,6). A little later, under Manasseh,
according to one interpretation of a passage in a cunei-
form tablet, we find Simeon as a whole reckoned as
belonging to MuSri, not Judah (below, 5 6 , iii.).
ii. Dozy (De IsraZliten f e Mekka [1864], 56 [Germ.
Trans. SO]), however, thinks that w. 316 shows that the
events belong to the time of Saul, a n d in a n extremely
ingenious manner works out the following theory :- .
When Saul's expedition was sent with orders to extirpate the
Amalekites the king was spared and brought hack (I S. 153 9).
In Yethrib-Medina it was told that when the disohedienl army
returned to Palestine they were exiled for their disobedience
and returned to the Amalekite lands (603 [53A]). The force
sent would likely he Simeonite (the most southern tribe, 63 [56]).
Afterwards, when David punished the Amalekites for their attack
on Ziklag, 400 escaped (I S. 30 17). to be destroyed later by 500
Simeonites who settled in Seir (I Ch. 442f: : p. 36f: (501). In
Hezekiab's time an interest was felt in these Simeonite exiles
1 In this connection we may note the absence of all mention
of Judah from the Shechem story in Gen. 34 39. See above,
col. 4526, n. 4.
2 For Cheyne's view of the text see MEUNIM, a.
On the text compare Winckler, MVG, 1896, pp. + 8 8
4 Dozy argue.; that it is only the writing down that is ascribed
to Hezekiah's time (Israel. f e Mekka, 56 [491). Bertheau thinks
the reference is intended to include the exnedition. It is
difficult to see how the person who inserted [he notice could
ap ly it to any other than the time of Hezekiah.
f The Gedor of v. 39 is thus thejidar or sanctuary at Mekka
(89 [So]), 'the valley' (of v. 39) is E. of Mekka (92-94 [ 8 3 J ] ) ,
whichreceiveditsnarnefromthegreatfight (2?? ??;=Macornha:
81 r ~ n .
4527
SIMEON
(56 [4g1, l a 1641) and Is. 21 I I ~ 1
: isan invitation to them to come
back (67-73 [60-651). In time they came to he called Ishmael
(103-110 [g3-99]) ; cp below, g 8 . X
Dozy's reason for assigning the Simeonite movement
t o the time of Saul does not seem cogent : v. 316 ( ' these
were their cities unto the reign of D a v i d ' ) is not t h e
Chronicler's ; it is a marginal gloss which has intruded
so as to sever ' a n d their villages ' ( v . 32) from the words
to which the parallel Josh. 19 shows that they belong
(so Be. ad bc.). N o r can Dozy's other combinations
be accepted (for a sober criticism see G r a f s review,
ZDMG 19330-351 [1865]).
iii. N. 1. Weinstein (Zur Genesis der Agada, 291-156
[1901]), however, adopts most of Dozy's combin:rtions,
a n d a d d s others of his own.
H e tries to show that the Minim of Talmudic literature are
the Meunim of the OT, and they in their turn Dozy's wander-
ing Simeonites, whose name he supposes later writers to have
avoided on account of a reproach under which they lay, suhsti-
tuting Meunim or Minim. Much of this seems open to the
same kind of criticism as Dozy's discussion.
iv. O n the other hand, there seems n o definite reason
to urge in support of the view that the Chronicler's
statements are a late invention (We. P ~ o l . 212 ( ~ ) ; ET
213). W h y should he invent such a story? Else-
where the Chronicler seems to treat Simeon as belong-
ing t o northern Israel [but c p Cn't. Bi6. 16, on Is.
97-1041 ( 2 Ch. 1 5 9 : Ephraim, Manasseh, Sinieon; 3 4 6 :
Manasseh, Ephraim, Sinieon, Naphtali). It would b e
a strong point in favour of a n early source for the state-
ments in I Ch. 439-43 if it could be proved that Simeon
was still a current name in S. Palestine in the seventh
century B.C. (see 5 6 , iii.).
A t this m i n t . accordingly, we may conveniently turn
I _
to extra-biblical sources in search of
Extra- references.
6.biblical
i. We may begin with the attempt t o
references* find such in Thotmes 111,'s list of I I O
places of Upper Rtnu.
No. 35 is Sa-m-*-n-'and no. 18 Sa-m-'-n-'-w (var. Sa-m-'-'-w),
which looks like the plural of no. 35. We nlay grant the
similarity of the names to Simeon(cp the spelling of Sa-ra-ha-na);
but we cannot infer much. We cannot locate them. Aciording
to W. M. Muller, they, at least, were not in the S.. as the list (he
believes) does not include names in the S. of Judah. Cp also
col. 3546, number 35 and notes z and 3. The conjecture, there-
fore, that Simeon (w'ith Levi) was an early settler in Palestine
(Hommel, A N T 268 ; Sayce, Early Neb. Trrrd. 392) remains a
hypothesis.
ii. N o r are we much better off a century or more
later in the Amarna correspondence.
There is a letter (KB 5 , no. 2203) from Samu-Addu, prince of
a place called Sa-am-hu-na which is phonetically= Simeon and
is definitely iudicatea as h e name of a town ( a h ) . bit we
cannot tell where it lay. Steuernagel inclines to iAentify it
with the Symot3n (Xuvpowu) of @SB in Josh. 11 I (ESAFL Bovprpwv,
MT pip@, SHIMRON, $ I) mentioned with Achshaph, and
SymoOn (so Buhl, Pal. 21s) with Semiiniyez (see below,
iii u [I]). There is nothing to make the identity of Samhuna
wiih one of the places mentioned in the Karnak list improgahle
(so also Meyer, Glossen, 73). If the identity be held probable,
it would appear to stand in the way of connecting Simeon in
any very definite manner with the gabiri as Steuernagel
proposes to connect the Leah tribes generally.
iii. Unfortunately, none of the later Egyptian lists
contains a name resembling Simeon. I t might be
surmised that the old towns, or a t least their names,
had died out. Sayce conjectures that Simeon preceded
Judah in the occupation of S. Palestine, a n d had dis-
appeared b y the time of David ( E a r & Heb. T m d .
3 9 2 ) . T h e r e is a passage, however, in one of the
fragments relating to the successful Egyptian expedition
of Esarhaddon, which must be taken account of.
1 Dozy(70[631), Gdtz(Gesck. ii. 1485: atheorylaterabandoned)
follow Aq. Sym. Theod. in inserting fugitives ( T . l = ~ 6 y o n a s )
as subject to 'call.' On a supposed reference to Simeon in
hlic. 115 (Movers, UnfcrsucR. rid. a'. Chron. 136; Hitzig, ad
lor.) see Graf, Stamm Simeon, 32 ; on a supposed connection of
Massa of Prov. 301 31 I (Hitzig, Spdckc SaL 310J and others)
with Simeon Fee id. 34, and on other supposed references see
Weinstein (id 'in 5 5 iii.).
2 Petrie, also, places sam!~unain Galilee (Hist. E&t, 2 317).
498
 SIMEON
‘ Froni ( c ~ ~ m h . yMu-sur
l ‘ Fays Esarhaddon, ‘‘I marshalled my
cam (karaiu ad-ki-6)’:t hle-luh-ha I directed my march, 30
hirr&-&z&zr from l&C Ap-ku -which is in (or ‘by‘) (pa-fi)
L c o u n W $a-me-n[al to LriW Ra-pi-& to (a-nui-te)l the WPdy
of Muyx.
If this is really the text of the tablet-it is the read-
ing of Budge, Peiser, Craig, and (doubtfully) Rogers’
-it is important ; the district (?nut)in which Ap-ku lies
is not, as has been supposed, Samaria, but Sa-me-n[a].
a name which might be an Assyrian representation of
Simeon.3 According to this, there was probably in the
first half of the seventh century B. c. a district known to
the Assyrians as l [ p ] 0 1 7 , apparently somewhere in Pales-
tine. T h e next question is, W h e r e ?
u. The district contained, or had on its border (pa&>,a town
called Apku, which lay 30 kusdu-k&ku~from Rapibi-Raphia
=er-Refah. What the length of a kush-&k+ur was is un-
certain-‘(;rt kilom. [=7En$.m.]Por5fkilom.[=3+m.]). The
average day’s march in this inscription is a kash-b@kar.
( I ) If the day’s march was about 7 m., 3 0 k a s 6 u - k ~ k ufrom
r would be the establishment of such a contemporary
Rapihi would give the site of Apku as somewhere ahout 100 m.
from kr-Refah-that is to say, ihout as far as, e.g., between
Dothaii and Jenin. It might then be a question whether
Sa-me-n[al is not perhaps a clerical error for Sa-me-ri-na.
‘ Aphek in Sharon ’ (cp APHEK,end) seems too far S. Fik, E.
of the Sea of Galilee, with which Schrader identified Apku
( K A T P ) 204) is some 135 m. from er-Refah; kal’at eZ-Sema‘
SE. of Tyre, with which sanda (MVG, ITZ, p. 58 [Z7.f])
connects the district of Samen[al, identifying Apku with ‘ Aphek
in Asher’ of Josh. 1930, is over 140 m. ; Semilniye (above, ii.),
somewhat over 110 m.
( z ) If the day’s march was about 14 m., 30 Kus6u-~ukkav
from Rapihi would make A ku some 200 m. from er-Refah-
that is to say farther than &rot. Afki (in B j on map facing.
col. 3736 : cp APHEK, I ) seems to be about 215 m. from er-Refah.
6. The attempt to do justice to the Apku part of Esarhaddon’s
statement, however, raises a difficulty in what precedes.
( I ) Esarhaddon seems to say that when he directed his march
to Me-Ink-tp he was in M u ~ u and r there marshalled his camp,
starting from Apku. Now Mu-sur is nowhere used of N.
Palestine. It has been argded wiih Feat force, however by
Winckler (and by no Assyriologist disproved*) that Mu& is
- quite unambiguous.? Esarhaddon mkht then, from a N.
1Hommel, literally, ‘ t o the borders of’ (Aufsdbe, 295).
2In 3 R. 35 no. 4 ohv., 1. 11, the name is read [1870] Sa-me-ru.
G. Smith (TSBA3.$j7[r8741) does not quote the name, but
(Assyr. Dircm. -12 [18751) renders it Samaria; similarly in W.
Boscawen’s text (TSBA 493 [187~l),andStrassmAlpk. Vcr,eich,
533, no. 4238 : Sa-me-[ri-na], the reading followed by Schrader,
p‘K A ’TP)[188z]) and Delitzsch (Par.286). Meanwhile Budge
however, Hist. of Eswhnddon [18eOl 118 reads Sa-me-&
(without query). This is rejected (edend,h?) explicitly hy
Tiele (BAG 3 j 0 , n. I [1888]), and silently by Winckler (Unterr.
I. alto?. Gesclr. 98 : translit. text [1889l). Later however, the
original was examined by Peiser and J. A. Craii and declared
to read Sa-me-na ( M Y G iii. 1 8 [18981) which is likewise the
reading (shown shaded) of Rogers(‘ Two Esarhaddon Texts ’in
Haverford Coiie S t d i e s , no. Z, 1889). The present miter
examined the t a b g , and is convinced that the reading Samerina
is quite impossible (so also Budge, and C. A. Thompson, in
conversation). There are several possibilities ; hut Samena
seems most likely. See also $ 6 iii, a (I).
3 On Ass. bn=Heb. Bn (for an) see Delitzsch on ‘Samaria’
(Ass. LesestBckr,(4) 1936). For disappearance of ‘ayin at
the beginning of a syllable, cp i6b1 from i6&= iKu2 (5~2,).
4 Cp Del. Pur. 177-179,and C. H. W. Johns as in n. I , col.
0,and the literature cited there and in Muss-Am. Dict. 414.
452 Since the above was written, E. A. W. Budge has given
his reasons for rejecting the view of Winckler (Hist. of Egypt G
pp. ix-xxx). I t can hardly be claimed, however, that they sethe
the question. ( I ) The fragment (83, 1-18,836) cited by Winckler
as apparently mentioning hlusri and Mi[gri] side by side must
indeed he left out of the argument. It is broken off so close t;
the u&ht wedge of ‘i:’ that it is illegitimate to argue as if
the character were complete, and therefore is. It might quite
well he &A ( K A TP)145, n. 3). Budge and King go further
and say that they can see clearly a trace of the head of a second
iiprisht wedge (the present writer, after examination of the
tablet, is inclined to think that they may he right). The reading
would then probably he Mi-lu[t~-ba]as Winckler suggests
( K A T(3) 145, n. 3 : mi for me would be unusual [Wi.] :
the reff. in the index to Bezold’s Catalogue yield no parallel ;
still, in Khors. 103 Oppert and Menant [/ourn. as. 6 ser. I,
begin., ~8.531give k,though Botta, Mon., pl. 150. 1. 9 , gives
the usual ,n[e], and Winckler’s edition follows). Winckler‘s
theory, however, by no means falls with the surrender nf this
reading. He never treated the tablet as the main justification
of his theory(see M q r i , etc., I). (2) Budge’s other arguments,
however geem open to criticism as inconclusive. In particular
the tranklation of ana @jllafielimQt Mu:ri (KZ. In. 34) by ‘ :t
the wardenship of fhe Marciies of Egypt,’ although following
time-honoured precedent, has never been justified. The pho-
netic value of NI.GAB when it meam gate-guardian, as in
4529
SIMEON
sometimes to he understood as referri!ig to the neighhourhood
of the Negeb of Judah.
Winckler, accordingly, conjectures that the Same[na]
in question was in Musri, used in the sense just indi-
cated, Apku being the Apheka of Josh. 1553, where it
is assigned to Judah. T h e Joshua context suggests the
neighbourhood of Hebron ; at all events, somewhere in
the hill country of Judah. This theory would give us
the most interesting and remarkable datum that, about
a generation and a half after the fall of Samaria, the
name Sim[eo]n was at least known as a geographical
term denoting a district not far from Hebron, and the
further datum that the Assyrians counted it to MuSri.
This would have some bearing on the theory which
finds Sirneon referred to in Dt. 33 (see above, 3) and
explain the prayer for its return to Judah. Many
interesting problems would thus assume a new aspect ;
but the point most important for our present object
geographical use of the name Simeon as would virtually
prove a real knowledge of a Sirneonite people in S.
Palestine, which would give us a valuable starting-point
for dealing with the Hebrew Simeon legends.
There is, however, a difficulty in the way of identify-
ing Esarhaddon’s Apku . . with the Tudahite Aphek of
Josh. 15 53.
Hebron is barely some 60 m. from Ra hia, which could equal
30 kas6u-kukkur only if the kusbu-&uk& were some z m. If
that is not tinahle, the Hehron A&u theory couldbe maintained
only by supposing that ‘ 30’ (since there is no douht about the
reading) is a mistake of the Assyrian scribe or of the source from
- _.
which he comDiled.1 Placine h k u in S. Palestine is. there-
fore, not heyoid criticism.
( 2 ) On the other hand, the difficulty of a N. Palestine
site for Apku hardly seems to be quite as great a s
Winckler suggests.
It is no doubt natural to suppose that Esarhaddon was him-
self in hlusur when he set out for Meluhba ; but ad-ki-e is not
Palestine Apku have ordered his army out of Mugi and have
marched himself to join it. Sa-me-na might in that case be
connected, perhaps, with one of the places in Thotmes 111.’~ list
mentioned above(( 6, i.) (so Sanda, [Z 58 741, n. ; cp above, i.$).
There remains, however, against the N. Palestine
theory, the difficulty emphasised by Winckler :
How came Esarhaddon’s army to he in Musri so as to he
called forth by Esarhaddon, unless that were, as Winckler
suggests, simply the stage on the expedition reached at the
point in the narrative? And, if so, how was Esarhaddon not
with the army?
W e must thus, apparently, be content to leave the
problem open for the present. Simeon may be mentioned
,. Conclusion. in contemporary documents belonging
to the sixteenth century, the fifteenth,
or the seventh ; but we cannot be sure. T h e hope of
securing a fixed starting-point for the story of Simeon
in strictly contemporary evidence is for the present not
fulfilled. Any day, howeter. new material may enable
us to decide the question. Meanwhile, we must be
content with possibilities.
When the character of the development which resulted
eventually in the formation of the kingdom of Judah is
fully considered, and the suggestions of affinity with
‘Descent of IStar ’ fussim, is pit6 or muS.%S ( 5 R. 136 137) ;
when its phonetic value is kepu (as a comparison of Rost, Plate
. .
23 16 ki . ti with Plate 376, NI.GAB-u-ti, shows that it is in
the Esarhaddon passage [cp what is said by C. H. W. Johns on
the phonetic value of NI.GAB in his careful discussion of the
k@u ofice in Assyrian Deeds and Documents, 2 64-88, which
!he present writer did not see till after this note was written]),
it means governor. Schrader admitted twenty-four years ago
that ‘ governor over Egypt ’ was impossible (KGF 765) ; only,
he gave up ‘ governor ’ instead of giving up ‘ Egypt. On &b#u
see also Johns, Doomsday Bk. 9.
1 Or by regardinggKur6u-ka&r as not a technical measure
hut a general term : long jonrney’ (cp C. H. W. Johns, Assyr.
Deeds and Documents, 2 208).
2 The contexts in which it oftenest occurs give it the meaning
of ‘muster, marshall forces where one is’ (e.g., in laylor
Cylinder, 5 23 : assemble your army [#u-u&-&irum-man-ha],
muster your camp [di-ku-akurmk-ku]); but it need not imply
presence ’ cp 4 R. 48 12 13a : ‘ Bel will call forth (i.da-has.
fum-rna)’a foreign foe ahinst him ‘ (Del. Ass. HWR).
4530
 SIMEON
Ishmaelite. Edomite, Kenite, etc. are allowed for, it is
natural t o conjecture that Simeon stands for one of the
unsettled elements of the southern population fused
more or less permanently into a state by David,
especially when it is noted (cp Sayce, Bur+ He6reur
History, 392) how many (5 out of 11) of the towns
( I S . 3027-31) to which he is said t o have ' s e n t gifts'
appear in the list of Simeonite towns, for there does
not seem to be between the lists any literary connection
(below, 0 I O ) . According t o Land (De Gids, Oct.
1871, p. 2 1 ) Simeon was very possibly an Ishmaelite
group that attached itself to Israel.' If we think that
Beersheba was markedly Simeonite, interesting problems
arise connected with such names as Abraham, Isaac,
(cp Stade, GY11155), Samuel's sons, David, Amos.
i. In all the statements we have referred to, the name
has borne practically the same form. I t appears to
8. Name. consist of the radical 5m' with the nominal
termination dn = W h a t view of the
name was taken in early times we cannot say. I t is
not necessary to suppose that the story of Leah's grati-
tude for the hearing of her supplications (Gen. 2 9 3 3 )
was a very early explanation. It is exactly parallel to
the explanation of the cognate name Ishmael (Gen.
1611 : J).
The name Simeon has been connected by Hitzig ( G V I 7)
W. R. Smith (/Phil., 1880, p. So), Stade (GVI 1152), Ker%e;
(Die rcZ. -gesch. Bedeut. d. He6. Ei'emz. 71) with the Arabic
sfm', said to mean the offspring of the hyaena and the female
wolf (Hommel, SuugeUiere, 304)~ and Ball (SBOT, ad loc.
and 114) proposes to read Gen. 49 5 : Simeon and Levi are #ai?
(for ahim: 'brot)ers'3), in the sense of 'bowling creatuies
perhaps ' hyznas. Unfortunately, 8hzm occurs only in Is. 13 I;
and its meaning is not known (Chi. SBOT, 'jackals'. but
Duhm, Marti, probably 'wild owls' ; cp Staerk, S t u d i d , 2 IS
[18991). Smith supports his explanation by citing the Arabic
tribal names Sim', qsubdivision of the defenders (the Medin-
ites) ' 4 and Sam's,, a subdivision of Tamim,' and compares
such' names as Zabyan (+y, gazelle), Wa'liin (wa'l, ibex)
Labwiin (Zndma, 'lioness), with which he classes such Hebred
names as Zibeon ( p y x , hyaena), Ephron ( p y , lay, &ifr, calf
of wild cow).
If Simeon is really mentioned by Esarhaddon's scribe
as Sa-me-n[a] (I6 iii. ), it would seem that the name was
a t that time, a t least, sometimes pronounced SaniEn.
On the other hand, there was, as we have seen, a place-
name pronounced Samhuna in the fourteenth century
B. c. (above, 6 ii. ), and there is a contract tablet dated
in the thirty-sixth year of Artaxerxes I. which mentions
a man named Sa-ma-ah-h-na (Hilprecht, no. 45, Z. 2),
brother of Ia-hu-6-na-ta-nu ( =Jehonathan). Later,
as a personal name, Simeon became common (see
S I M E O N ~1-6,andSrMoN,1-13;
~., SIMON PETER,^ ~ a , b ; appears in MT thus-
cp. for Palmyrene inscriptions, Lidzbarski, Ephemeris,
vol. i., index (under {>yaw).
ii. T h e name appears in regular gentilic form a s
gim'dni, S IMEONITE ('?ypw : -cp Reuben, ReubEni).
Qa, however, everywhere iepresents the gentilic by the noun
form ( m p e w v : in Nu. 25 14 '?LnW:! becomes in @ E TOY u. [AFL
om 70~1). It is possible, therefore, that the w p c w v of QaBKAQl'
in Zech. 1 2 13 implies that Shimei, *&@ was known as analterna-
tive form of the gentilics (cp WRS, YPhiZ. 996 [188o]) 'ust
as in Arabic there is the similar pair ending in -'i a n d
respectively (WRS, 80).
~~~
1 Cp Dozy's view, above, 0 5 ii. (small type, end), and below
f 8 iii.
a Cp Noldeke ZDMG 15806 [1861].
8 Gemini, according to Zimmem (ZA 7 16aJ) and Stucken
( n w c : 1902, p. 189).
4 H ; does not allude to DOZY'S daring~.hypothesis referred to mast famous of the towns claimed for Simeon. Shemuel b.
above (f 5).
5 The gentilic ( U m W Sa-ma-u-nu-ai Dccurs along with IumW
Pu-ku-du-ai i n a letter to 'the king'(K. 1248). What '(city)
Sa-um-'-u-na (so, according to the text in Del. Lrsesttickc (4)
not [as in K52 1061 Sa-am-u-nu),son of Marduk-apil-iddina 'in
Sennacherib's Taylor Prism inscription (5 3 3 5 ) can mean it
would be hard to say. ka(?)-ma-'-mnuwas the name of one
of the sons of Bel-ikab (ruler of the half-Aramaean tribe of the
Gambulai) executed by Ab-bsni- al:.. Samuna in Sa-mu-na-
aplu-iddina (Johns, Doomsday BJ! vni. 1 6 = K . 8179) and in
Sa-mu-nu-ia-tu-ni (Ass. Deeds and Doc. 160 R. I I = K . 279) is
doubtless Eshmuii (Doomsday Bk. 16).
e The Shemaiah also of I Ch. 437 appears in BB as o v p c o v .
4537
SIMEON
iii. Names containing the three radicals y n w are so
common, especially in the neighbourhood of S. Palestine,
that they would be enough in themselves to suggest the
theory of dispersion underlying Gen. 49. In that theory
there may be more than popular fancy. W e cannot
here profitably discuss W . R. Smith's view that ' t h e
dispersion of the tribe Simeon is most easily under-
stood on the principles of exogamy and female kinship'
(/Phil. 9 9 6 [ISSO]). A historical connection of some
kind, however, between at least some of the various
cognate names seems extremely probable.
We find Shimei as Simeonite ( I Ch. 427), Levite (Ex. 6 17).
Reubenite ( I Ch. 54}-all Leah tribes-Benjamitel (2 S. 1611
etc. ; cp I K. 4 18), and in the family of David ( 2 S. 21 21 Kt.)
as the name of the only brother mentioned in old sources (Bu.
on I S. 16 9 in KHC); besides which we find cognate names like
Eshtemoa, and Ishrnael,a pronounced now in Egypt, Isma'ins
(cp Bethel, B@tin; Reubel, Reuben).r
Not only are the names Simeon and Ishmael cognate.
There seem t o be also in the genealogy of Ishmael points
of contact with that of Simeon (see MIBSAM,M ISHMA ),
to which we now pass.
i. As in the case of Reuben, P's genealogy of
Simeon occurs in Ex. 615 as well as in
9.
logical Genes-
lists. the usual passages. T h e list is as
follows :-
8 -
inrt nit1 n1rt
5rxwr* hW* h W *
TheGen. =Ex. list seemstocontain threenames each appearing
twice: $Nin*=$iNv, p = p ~ and, y n ~ = - ~ n i Nu.,
. changing
one sibilant, gives nl7 for ins, and drops its double (17~).I Ch.
4 further shows xq, for 1 9 1 , .
Winckler thinks that we have here a case the converse of what
is suggested elsewhere with regard to ISSACHAR(5 7): the
Chronicler's list is he thinks (GI2201 n. I) the corruption of a
sentence telling tdat the b'ne Shim*& we& southwards when
Saul contested with the Zarhites.6 On this suggestion see
above (g 4, end).
If the list be taken for a real ' genealogy ' it is difficult
t o choose between the variants (see the special articles).
Bertheau decides in favour of Jakin as against Jarib, but only
for the (weak> reason that it occurs thrice. He thinks that the
best known Simeonite clan was S h a d (Shad's mother is known
as a Canaanite and he alone has [three] sons, of whom M i h a '
in turn bas three). It would seem that some popular story was
current about this Shad and his Canaanite mother. According
to Jubilees 3420 her name was Adibaa, and according to 44 13
she was a woman of Zephath, which, according to Judg. 117, was
the city captured b Simeon and called Hormah. I n Gen.
Rd.80 she is said to Lvebeen Dinah (cp Char+, /rr6iZces, zq6).
ii. In the Chronicler's special genealogy (I. 425 A), which
Shaul
1 -~
I I I
Shallum e Mibsam Mishma
I
1
Hammuel
r-
Zaccur
___I
Shimei
1 Note also Jamin and Saul as Simeonite names (I Cb. 424).
9 Cp Graf Der Stamnr Simeon, 23, Ewald, GGA, 1864,
p. 1274, and hove, fB 5 ii. 7.
8 Indeed the note on the name in Gen. 16 I I (J) is mn' ynw
- p v $8, with q y as in the case of REUBEN (f 7 i.).
4 How cautious it is necessary to be in reasoning from simi-
larity of names appears from the remarkable fact that Saul as
well as Shimei is a Shconite name, and that Samuel, who
'discovered' Saul, is brought into relation with Beersheha, the
Ammihud is the name of the Simeonite representative in the
partition of W. Palestine (Nu. 34 20).
h w nv IT, inN i*n' 58 113 irynp m~.This mlgbt be
made more plausible perhaps by reading ~ D J ,instead of the
strange iii,, fo? in> of hwx ; but the clause h u w nir x ~ i n i i
is not convmcing.
6 Cp P's Simeonite census prince Shelumiel b. Zurishaddai
(Nu. 1 6 2 12 7 36 10rg) from whom Judith is said to be descended
(Judith 8 I). Saln (&.but @B uahpwv, @FL uahop) was the
father of the Simeonite Zimri who was slain with the Midianite
woman Nu. 25 14 (see f IO, a,end). The other nvnes assigned
to SimLon are Shaphat b. $ori, the 'spy' (Nu.135), and
Shephatiah b. Maacah, the ruler (I Ch. 27 16).
4532
 SIMEON
the names, apart from the Ishinaelite Mibsam and Mishma‘ and
the Judahite Ham(m)uel, need not be old (cp Gray, HPiV 236) :
indeed QSB omits Hammuel and Zaccur, and Shimei mi ht be a
duplicate of &fishma’. Moreover, they all appear in %B* as
descendants in progressive generations of Shaul.
iii. Still more suspicious looking is the peculiar list in vu, 34-
37. (On the number, thirteen,l of the names, some of which are
supplied with genealogies, see below, $ IO, i.).
I t may be noted, however, in connection with Simeon’s
being a brother of Levi, that the names brought into
-prominence in the list- Shaul, Shimei, Ziza (traced
back five generations 3)-are known otherwise as
Levitical names (cp G ENEALOGIES i., 5 7[v.]).
a. l h e theory of the statistical writers evidently was
that Simeon was gradually merged in J u d a h : the
Simeonites first settled amongst the
lo. Gee-
graphical lists. Judahites (Josh. 19 I 9) and then, in the
time of David ( I C ~431b-it. is a
marginal gloss to the whole list : see above, 5 E.),
SIMON
is taken of the variants in 6. It will suffice here to
note that in list ( I ) bB inserts Buhxa after Rimmon ;
in list (3) omits Heshmon and bA identifies
ASHAN (a.42) with A S H N A H(v. 43). In list (4) @L
follows M T ; but BBNAomits all except Jeshua and
Beersheba.
i. T h e main list (i.) appears to consist of thirteen
towns agreeing with the thirteen ( I Ch. 434-37) names
(some with genealogies attached) of their inhabitants
who afterwards migrated to Gerar ( I Ch. 439).
ii. T h e main list of towns is followed by a supple-
mentary list (ii.) of four (Ain Rimmon being a single
place, and Tochen preserved only in I Ch. 432),agreeing
with the four ‘ captains ’ who migrated to Mt. S i r .
iii. Of the list of nine Judahite or Simeonite towns
assigned to the priests ( I Ch. 6 57-59 [42-44]= Josh. 21 13-
16) only ASHAN(g.v.; in Joshua iniswritten A I N ) is ever
called Simeonite. H. W. H.

SIMEON (fly?* ; C Y M ~ W N [BAL] ; see SIMEON

i., 5 8, i., end). I . EV accurately SHIMEON, in the
list of those with foreign wives ( E Z R A i., 5 5, end),
Ezra 1031 (t5Bh.* 2 c p c ~ v ) .
2. Grandfather of M ATTATHIAS ( I Macc. 2 I ) ; see
M ACCABEES i . , 5 2.
3. A devout man of Jerusalem, mentioned in Lk.’s
Gospel of the Infancy (Lk. 222-39): , H e was gifted
with the ‘holy spirit’-i.e., the spirit of prophecy-
and had learned by revelation that he should not die
without having seen the Messiah. Having been super-
naturally guided to the temple courts, he saw the child
Jesus brought in by his parents, according to custom,
on the completion of the period of the mother’s puri-
fication. H e then burst into an inspired song (vu. 29-
32), known to us as the h’unc Dimittis (cp H YMNS , 5 3 ) .
H e could now depart, like a relieved sentinel, and could
transmit to others the happy tidings of the dawn of the
Messianic day (see G OSPELS , 5 39). For Mary he added
a special word of prophecy, pointing to the different
results of the preaching of the Cross of Jesus, which
would lead some to a new life, and others to anguish
a t his crucifixion (vv. 34f.). See further, J. Lightfoot
on Lk. 225.
It is possible to regard Simeon as a poetic personification of
sheba that inner circle of Jewish believers which formed the true
Moladah Moladah Moladah Moladah S ERVANT OF THE L ORD ( p a . ) . Long had it waited for the ful-
Hazar-gaddah filment of the prophecies of salvation, and now (Le., when this
Heshmon ‘ Gospel of the Infancy ’ was written) its members were passing
Bethpalet Bethphelet one by one into the company of believers in esus Nor need
Hazar-shual Hazar-shual Hazar-shual Hazar-shual we be startled to find an imperfect parallel to tie story of Simeon
-Beersheha Beersheba in one ofthe legends which cluster round the birth of the Buddha
(see Carpenter, The Synoptic GosgeLsP), 155).
4. RV, SYMEON (Lk. 330). See G ENEALOGIES OF
J ESUS , 5 3.
5. RV. SYMEON, ‘ t h a t was called Niger’ (CYMBWN
b Kaholipevor Nlycp [Ti. W H ] ) , is mentioned along
with Barnabas, Lucius. Manaen, and Saul, among
the prophets and teachers in the primitive church
at Antioch (Acts131f). See M INISTRY , 37. Niger
was probably his Gentile name, whether chosen with
any reference to his complexion we cannot tell; the
name was not uncommon (see Dict. Gr. and Rom.
Biogr. and MjfhoZ.).
The list of the first preachers of the Gospel given by
11. Epiphanius (Epiph. Opera, 1337, ed. Dindorf)closes with the
Ether /-Ether names Bapv@av, K& ‘AaeMljv, ‘Po+v, Nlyepc ai roar Aoorrobr
Tochen TSY I&Solnjrov~a
860.
Ashan Ashan Ashan 6. RV, S YMEON (Acts 1514). See SIMON P ETER ,
T h e names have been given in the forms under which § 1.
they are discussed in the separate articles, where account
1 In the Chronicler’s expanded version of the Hexateuch list SIMON ( cI N ; = ‘ snub-nosed ’ ? a Greek name
( I Ch. 4 24.26) it is necessary to include Simeon himself to make [see SIMON P ETER , 5 I a ] of frequent occurrence among
up the full thirteen. post-exilic Jews [fin*D]; cp J ASON ; see SIMON P E T ER,
2 In the form Zizah ; see ZINA.
3 Ending in BB with Simeon himself (mourov for Shemaiah). 5 Ib.
4 On the varying ethical judgment on the conduct of Simeon T h e persons who bear the name in 6 or NT are :-
in Gen. 34 see Gunkel nd LOG. and Charles’ BK. O F J UBILEES, I. Simon Chosameus ( C I M W N XOCAMAOC [B]
on 302-6.
5 In the case of the other four-Reuben (3000), Ephraim .. , x o c p ~ a i o c[A]), I Esd. 932=Ezra1031, SHIMEON
(Em), Naphtali (8ooo),Gad ( m o o t t h e fall is slight. [b. Harim].
145 4533 4534
 SIMON
2. Son of Mattathias surnamed THAW( I Macc. 2 3 ;
B ~ U U ~ S[A], e a g a [ ~ l[NV]
r ; thus; [VI ; ph ~~yr.1
Jos. Ant. xii. 61, Burrs). See M ACC A BEES , $5 I, 5.
3. Son of Onias, ' t h e great priest,' uhose praise is
set forth in Ecclus. 50. It is doubtful whether Simon
I. ( ' the Just ') or Simon 11. is alluded to ; cp ECCLESI-
A S T I C ~ ~7 ; C ANON , Q 36 ; O NIAS . 4-7.
4. A Benjamite, who, wishing to avenge himself upon
Onias, informed Apollonius of the existence of huge sunis
of money in the temple treasury ( 2 Macc. 3-4). T h e ac-
count of the attempt of HELIODORUS [ q . ~ . ]to seize the
treasure is well known. See AAPOLLONIUS, M ENELAUS ,
O NIAS , 5 6. H e is called the xpourd~vsso6 kpoD ( 3 4 )
or temple overseer, and it was perhaps his duty to look
after the daily supplies of the temple. C p T EMPLE, Q 36.
5. Named in Mt. 1 3 5 5 Mk. 63, together with James,
Joses, or Joseph, and Judas, as one of the brethreh '
of Jesus. H e is not mentioned elsewhere in the N T ;
but it is not impossible that he is identical with the
Simeon, son of Clopas the brother of Joseph, mentioned
by Hegesippus as ' cousin german ' (dve$rbs) of Jesus,
who succeeded James in the bishopric of Jerusalem and
suffered martyrdom in the reign of Trajan. See CLOPAS.
6. Surnamed theCANANACAN,AV CANAANITE (6 Kav-
uvu?os : Mt. 10 4 Mk. 3 1 8 ) , or the Z EALOT (6 Zvhwr+s,
Lk. 6 15 Acts 113) ; named as a n apostle in all the four
canonical lists (A POSTLE , 5 I ). There is no doubt about
the superiority of the reading Kuvavaios to that of TR,
~ a u u v i ~ ~though
s, the latter has the support of b! ; but
although the writer of the Third Gospel and Acts tookit as
representing, and has translated it, 'Zealot' (see ZEAL-
ors), many modern critics (cp J UDAS , 9, § 2) are inclined
to take the word as a Greek modification of ' j t t ? ~or
*m;c, meaning, ' a man of Canan. or C a n a ' (there were
several Canas). Simon does not reappear in the N T
history. I n ecclesiastical tradition he is usually men-
tioned in conjunction with Judns of James ; and indeed
in some western authorities in Mt. 104 the epithet Zelotes
is given to Jndas not to Simon, Judas Zelores taking
the place of Thaddaeus. ' T h e addition of Zelotes is
probably due to a punctuation of Lk.'s text which might
not seem unnatural if no connection of sense were recog-
nised between ~avavu?osand (vXw7?js ' (WH). Simon
the Zealot is frequently identified with the Simon
(Simeon) of Clopas mentioned by Hegesippus (ap. Eus.
f f E 332) a s a descendant of David who was alive in
Jerusalem in the days of Trajan and suffered martyrdom
under the consular Atticus; but this identification is
not made by Hegesippus or Eusebius themselves, and
appears to be first met with in the Chronicon Pnschnk,
Pseudo-Hippolytus. and Pseudo-Dorotheus, all of which
call him Simon Judas.
Later ecclesiastical tradition varies as to the field of Simon's
apostolic labours, One set of legends laces his activity in
Babylon or on the shores of the Black &a. But, as Lip&s
goints out (Apokr.-A#.-gesch. 3 142fl), these representations
ave probably arisen from a confusion with Simon Peter who
writes from ' Babylon' and addresses the Christians in ' Pontus.'
Another set of legends, especially met with in late Greek writers,
represents him as preaching in Egypt, Libya, Mauretania, and
Eritain ; but the same districts are also assigned by some tradi-
tions to Simon Peter. I n the Western church the festival of
Saints Simon and Judas is observed on Oct. z8. The Brevinry
lesson fo; the day has it that 'Simon Chananaus qui et Zelotes,
et Thaddaeus qui et Judas Jacobi appllatur in Evangelia, unius
ex catholicis Epistolir scriptpr ' evangelised Egypt (Simon) and
Mesopotamia (Jude) respectively, and afterwards went together
into Persia and ended a successful ministry there in a glorious
martyrdom.
7. Of C Y R E N E [q.v.] ( X p w v Kupvvuios [Ti. W H ] ) ,
perhaps a Hellenistic Jew, who came from the country
and was compelled to carry the cross for the crucifixion
(Mt. 2 7 3 2 Mk. 1521 Lk. 2326). Afterwards he was
reckoned among the seventy others' (apostles), Lk.
101,and he was said to have died on the cross i r d p
Xpr~~oO--i.e.,for the sake of Christ. T h e Basilidian and
perhaps also other Gnostics believed that he died in place
of Jesus ; c p R. A. Lipsius, Apokr. ApostelgeJch. 11g5f.
453s
SIMON MAGUS
204 3427. According t o Mk. he u-as the father of
; A LEXANDER and R U F U S Cgg.v.1. W. H. Ryder ( I D L
17196f., 1898) thinks that Simon's eldest son was
Alexander, his second Rufus, his third Tertius, and his
fourth Quartus- all Christians living in or near Rome
when Mark wrote. Living among Gentiles, Simon
gave his sons Greek and Latin names. This Rufus has
been conjectured by many to be the same as the Rufus of
Rom. 1613. E. P. tiould, St. M a r k , 289J (1896), re-
marks ' It is the height of foolish conjecture to identify
this Rufus. the son of Simon of Cyrene, with the one in
Rom. 16 13 : St. Mark will only indicate that the names
Alexander and Rufus were known to the early church.'
Deep indeed is our ignorance on such points.
W. C. Y. M. (No. 7 . )
8. ' T h e leper ' of Bethany, in whose house the woman
anointed Jesus with the contents of the alabaster cruse
(Mt. 266 Mk. 1 4 3 ; cp M ARY , Q 2s). An incredible
apocryphal story makes him the husband of Mary the
sister of Martha ; cp LAZARUS. [The designation 'leper'
has greatly exercised the critics. It is worth recalling,
however, that the mother of JEROBOAM [q.v. I] is called
in M T nyns. 'aleper' ( I K. Ilza), and that Naaman in
the extant recast of an older story'( z K. 5 I ) is represented
as y$p, ' a leper.' I n both cases the original tradition
stated that a Misrite was referred to. I t is possible that
the Simon referred to was said to have come (like ' that
Egyptian ' in Acts 21 38) from Egypt t o Jerusalem, a n d
that the original narrative (in Hebrew) called him w?;.
C p also 'Simon of Cyrene.' Chajes (iMarkur-studien
[1899], p. 75) supposes a n original Hebrew reading
yo+?, ' the humble '-Le., ' pious ' (as often in Talmud).
I One who had been a leper ' is at any rate a miserable
explanation.-T. K. c.]
9. T h e Pharisee, in whose house the penitent woman
anointed Jesus' hands and feet (Lk. 740). C p GOSPELS,
5 I O , and MARY. 5 25. col. 2970. Against the identi-
fication of this anointing with that of Mary of Bethany,
just before the Passion, see Plummer (209). T h e theory
is at any rate ancient, for, as Plummer remarks, Origen
o n Mt. 266 contends against it. It is also supported by
Keim (Jesu von Naaavn, S Z Z ~ )Holtzmann
, (HCPI, 273,
PI 346), and Scholten (Het PauZinisch Evangelie, 254).
T h e last-named scholar is of opinion that ' the influence
of Paulinism on the changed representation of Luke i s
unniistakeable,' and that ' leper' in Mt. and Mk. was a
symbolic phrase for Pharisee. Without committing
ourselves to this, we may reasonably hold that here, as
often in collections of traditions, a germ-idea received
conflicting developments.
IO. A tanner of Joppa with whom Peter lodged (Acts
'943). T h e reference to his trade is significant ; the
narrator suggests that Peter was losing his old pre-
judices. I t is said that a wife could claim a divorce
from a husband who became a tanner (Mishna,
Kithziddth 7 IO). C p H ANDICRAFT , $ 5 ; JOPPA (end).
11. T h e father of Judas Iscariot, Jn. 671 131 26.
12. For Simon Magus, see below (special article).
On the 'Great Apophasis' see GOSPELS, Q 91 ( a n d
references).
13. For Simon Peter, see below (special article).
W. C. v. M. (No. 7. )
SIMON MAGUS,
CONTENTS
Introductory : Acts 8 g q (E I). Anti-Pauline and Anti-Gnostic
Extra-canonical data (# zJ). polemic (@ 9-11
Simon= Paul (56 4-7). Historical Simon-&pres($12).
Four distinct SimonAgures Conclusion on Acts 89-24
(S 8). (? 13x:).
Literature (6 15).
Simon Magus is mentioned in the N T only in Acts
89-aq. ( 4 ) I n Acts 85-8 we read that Philip the
1. In Acts. Evangelist preached the Christ in the city
of Samaria, and wrought many miracles
of healing. Next (vv. 9-13), we are told that Simon
4536
 SIMON MAGUS
had previously to this bewitched the people by his
magical arts, giving out that he was some great one,
and being declared by them to be that power of God
which is called Great. After that men and women had
received baptisni at the hands of Philip, Simon also did
so, and continued with Philip, full of amazement a t his
miracles. Meanwhile ( v v . 74-r7), at the instance of the
apostles in Jerusalem, Peter and John had come to
Samaria, and through laying on of hands had obtained
the Holy Ghost for those who had been baptised. Upon
this, Simon ( u v . 18-24) offered them money and desired
the same power, but after a severe rebuke from Peter,
finally besought the two apostles to pray for him, that
the punishment they had threatened might be averted.
( b ) This narrative contains much that is strange.
That, instead of the city of Samaria (as in vv. 5 By.)
the country of Samaria should be named in 21. 14, may
be set down to a pardonable want of exactness. T h e
designation of Sinion as ‘ that power of God which is
called Great ’ and his designation of himself as ’ some
great one ’ are not intrinsically incompatible with his
sorcery ; but it is very surprising that the sorcery is
referred to twice (m.9 ? I ) and that its second mention
is preceded by the same word (?rpou&xov, ‘gave heed’)
as had already been employed in v . IO.
This appears to indicate that the two explanations of his
popularity come from two different sources. By the reference
to his sorcery, he would, in that case, be characterised as a mere
y6vs of the sort that was very abundant in those days ; ‘that
power of God which is called Great’ would signify something
much more exalted. Now, it is not easy to imagine that an
editor would have introduced v. 11 if he had already found m.
9f: lying hefore him in his text. I t is more probable that D. IO
was interpolated, and that in the process ‘ took heed ’ (rrpooai-
xov) was borrowed from v. 11. The close of 7,. 9 (Simon’s giving
out that he was some great one) can in that case have belonged
to the original text, for it is far from conveying necessarily any-
thing nearly so high as ‘the power of God which is called
Great’ ; but it is hard to believe that ‘bewitching and bringing
the nation of Samaria into a maze ( p a y d w v xa; ;.$OT&OV r b
&os 6 s Zapapsiar) also should come from the author of v. 11.
Perhaps the original text had m. 9 10a(down to ‘great,’pfyya;\ov);
the redactor beginning with ‘saying,’ A ~ y o v r e s(v. I&), added
the designation of Simon as the power of God that is called
Great, and then thought it necssrary to return in v. I I to the
idea of sorcery (from which attention had meanwhile heen
called away), and in doing so borrowed ‘ took heed ’ (rpomixov)
from 71. loa and i&uTariuar from v. 9 ( I f r r n i v o v ) . This re-
newed mention of Simon’s sorcery, however, was not indispens-
able : v. 12 could ouite as well have followed directlv on D. IO.
It wbiild have bee; equally superfluous if it had heen inserted
by the redactor in v. 9 (payeu’wv to PaJIa riar), had 7.1. I I
belonged t o the original text (in which case d e whole of 21. ro,
on acroiint of the rrpou&pv, would have to be attributed to the
redactor). If there is reluctance to assign to any redadov the
doubled mention of the sorcery, there remains only the alternative
that axopyist who acted as independently and arbitrarily as the
copyist of D (or a preliminary stage of D ; see ACTS, $ 172)
substituted at his own instance the other reference to the magical
practices for that which he found hefore him : that then, upon
comparison of this transcription with an unaltered copy, the
new form of the idea was written upon the margin, and then was
taken by the next copyist for a n integral portion of the text left
out by his predecessor hy an oversight, and was accordingly
introduced into it at what seemed to be an appropriate place.
(c) T h e idea that only apostles (by laying on of
hands) can procure the gift of the Holy Ghost is quite
unhistorical (see MINISTRY, 5 34 c). From this, it
would not at once follow, however, that it is a later
insertion : for the whole passage may be equally un-
historical.
At the same time it is, in fact, apparent, that vw. 14-18a intro-
Guce a representation which in the actual connection is surpris-
ing. According to v. 13, Simon has heen only astonished at
Philip’s miracles : as for the bestowal of the Holy Ghost, he
wiches to he able to do the .same. In a sorcerer would it not
have been more natural to desire to possess the niiraculous
power of Philip (cp SIMONPETER, 5 3 3 4 ? Among the
scholars, therefore, who separate sources in Acts (see ACTS, 111,
we find Van Manen, Feine, Clemen, Jiingst supposing that In
the source Simon did seek to piirchase Philip’s miraculous power
with money. On this, supposition it is simplest to regard the
last word of v. ‘3 (i&uraro, ‘he was amazed ’) and ZRI. 14-18a
1 Perhaps originally it ran merely as in 5 36 f h a i r w a iaurdv
-I that he was somebody’-and ‘ great ’ (p<yau) may have been
merely an explanatory gloss to ‘somebody’ (rtva); cp the nenter
&ai T L , ‘to be somewhat,’ Gal. 2 6 6 3.
4537
SIMON MAGUS
(down to r v r s p a ) as interpolated. In this case, in the immedi-
ately following context we must regard at least, v. rq, the
‘ them’ ( a h o i s ) instead ’of ‘him ’ ( a h $ ) i; v. 18, ‘ Peter’ in v.
20 and the plurals 8njOqre and &p+are in D. 24 as adjustnierits
caused by the interpolation.
(d) However plausible this separation may seem to
be, It by no means completely solves the riddle of our
passage. T h e problem still remains quite dark, how it
was that the editor could ever have come to interpolate,
at one and the same time, into a source which consist-
ently represented Simon as a sorcerer .( 9 or I,), and as
wishing to possess still greater magical powers, two
such foreign elements as the designation of Simon as
the power of God that is called Great and the com-
munication of the Holy Ghost through the apostles (uv.
I O ’4-17). l h e two have not theslightest connection with
each other. It might perhaps be suggested that the desig-
nation had been borrowed by the editor from a second
source, and that the reference to the Holy Ghost was
his own contribution; but this would not furnish us
with any intelligible motive for his proceeding. Yet it
seems highly necessary that we should discover such a
motive: for a second surprising point which is not
cleared up by separation of sources, and hardly can
be, is the question how it could come to pass that a
man to whom the whole people of Saniaria gave heed,
and showed high honour, should have been so easily
converted to Christianity, and that as a sorcerer, he
should so little resemble the Bar-jesus of 136-12 who quite
naturally opposed the Christian missionaries so strenu-
ously. Moreover, it is surprising that the story has
no close ; we are not told what in the end became of
Simon. Here, once more, can it be seen how useless
it is to carry out separation of sources merely on the
ground of indications of broken connections, while not
concerning oneself at all about the deeper questions re-
lating to the composition of a piece, and about ‘ tendency’
criticism. T h e solution of the problem can be led u p
to only by widely extended investigations.
Simon, to begin with, plays a great part in the
writings of the Fathers.
( a ) Justin (about 152 A . D . ) cites him as an instance
to prove that, even after the ascension of Jesus, the
2. In the demons caused men to come forward who
Church- gave themselves out to be deities, and were
Fathers. actually worshipped as such. Such was a
certain Samaritan named Simon, of the
village of Gitta,’ who performed feats of magic by
demonic arts in Rome during the reign of Claudius,
was held to be a god, and was honoured by Senate and
people with a statue in the middle of the Tiber. between
the two bridges, bearing the inscription in Latin:
‘ Simoni deo sancto,’ and almost all the Samaritans, as
well as a few people else%-here, worshipped him as the
first god ’ (7bv ?rp&ov B d v ) , ’ the god above all rule
and authority and power’ (Oebv G m p d v w ?rdur)s dpx?js
K a t 8~ouuias K R ~ Guvdpews), and declared a certain
Helena, who had formerly lived in a house oi evil fame,
and afterwards travelled about with him, to be the first
1 ’Arb v J p q ~h e y o p i q r rirrov. Thus Gitton would be a
possible form of the name. r i r r o v , however, is certainly gen.
pl., since Gitta is met with elsewhere also as the name of a
town : in Josepbus (rima or F&a, gen. Timqc or r i n w v ; see,
cg.,Ant. vi. 13 IO, $5 319-321) for the Philistian Gath i Pliny
( H N v . 19[11]75) for a place on Cannel (Getta), d d n i n the
Philosojhumem (6 7) we have b l’rrrqvds (not l’rrrwv6r). For
further details see Lipsius, Petrussafe, 33, n. In all the editions
of Justin known to the present writer indeed, the word is ac-
centuated TcrGv, and soalso in Eus. H k i i . 1 3 3 and Epiphanius
HEY.21 I . I n that case the nominative would he rirrar ; this)
however, inview of thegen. rims is quite unlikely. If both genil
tive forms are to be explicable, the nominatives must coincide.
Cp ropippap (2 Pet. 2 6 ) alongTide of Topdppov (bft. 10 IS),
Au’urpav(Acts14621 16r)alongsideof Adorpois(14816z aTim.
8 II), @v&e.rerpav(Rev. 1 I I : so in Lachmann. and as an alternative
reading in WH) alongside of Buarripors ( 2 18 24), and Buarfipwv
(Acts 16 14), A488ar (Acts9 38) alongside of the accus. Au’88a
(9 32 35). Similar variations are found in I Macc. in the cases of
A8&, Badoovpa, Tacapa. The word form ‘ex vico Gethonum
(Clem. Recogn. 2 7) rests upon a misunderstanding.
4538
 SIMON MAGUS
thought that had proceeded from him ( ~ p & v hvora :
see ApoZ. 126 56 215, Dial. 120).
( a ) T h e base of the pillar referred to was dug up on
the island in the Tiber, a t the place indicated by Justin,
in 1574; the inscription runs : ' Semoni Sanco deo fidio
sacrum. Sex. Pompeius ... donum dedit.' Thus,
the pillar was dedicated to the Sabine god Semo Sancus
(cp Ovid Fast. 6213-218)~and not by Senate and people,
but by the piety of a private individual.
As Justin has gone so far astray here, Lipsius ( B L 5318;
ApOkr. Aj.-gesch. ii. 1 p$) ventures to trace hack also the
alleged worship of Simon and Helena by 'almost all the
Samaritans ' to misunderstanding of certain sacred pillars or
massebahs (see MASSEBAH),to wit those of Hercules-Melljart,
the"'king of the city' of Tyre and the Tyrian moon-goddess
Selene-Astarte, whose impure worship is alluded to in the
reference to the house of evil fame (according to Iren. Her.
i. 16 [23] 2 and according to the quotation of Justin, Apol. i. 26 3
in Eus. H E ii. 134, it was in Tyre). In the seudo Clementine
Recognitions Helena isactuallycalled Luna, tEat is t i say, Selene
(ZeA+q), and according to the HorniZies(223) she wa.. amon the
companions of John the Baptist (of whom Simonwas the firs3 the
only woman-thus only 'half man' ( i j p ~ m &vSp6s), to indicate
that these 30 companions really represent the number of days in
a lunar month, which are not 30 complete days hut only zgt.
( c ) W h a t we read about the ' first god ' ( T ~ B T OB&) S cent., before Eus. [HEiii. 38 5]-this after Chapman [below, P 151
and his ' first thought ' ( r p h r v hvvora) is taken from the
Gnostic system which is attributed to Simon. W e ' m a y
suppose Justin to have given full information a s to this
in the work cited by himself in Ap0Z.i. 268, but now lost,
entitled a t h a y p a Kurd Tau& ai$uewv, which was
used by later heresiologists from Irerireus (Her. 116 [23])
and the author of the PhiZosophumena (67-20) down-
wards. Harnack (Lehr6.d. DGW 1206-m8) finds in Simon
a new ' universal religion of the supreme God,' Lipsius
nothing more than the ordinary Gnosis which had
become widely diffused in Syria from about the time
of Trajan, and is known t o us mainly through the
Ophites, Kith this difference alone that here Simon
takes the place of Jesus a s the Redeemer. According
t o Kreyenbiihl (Evang. d. Wahrheit, 1 , 1900,pp.
174-264)Simon was not a founder of a religion, but the
first genuine philosopher of religion, to whom belongs
the undying merit of having been the first to formulate
a n d scientifically to elaborate the fundamental principle
of all Christian philosophy, namely, an ' anthropo-
logical pantheism ' or an ' absolute and universal
theanthropologism ' (240).
In the ' Great Announcement' (klr6gwrc (rqyMv), attributed
to Simon, which is first mentioned in the Pltiloso~~urnena and
copiously extracted from, Kreyenhiihl discerns, not, like all other
critics, the work of a later Simonian, hut a genuine production
of Simon himself. For our present purpose it is not necessary
to discuss this question or to set forth the Simonian system, for
which the reader may consult Li ius (BL 5 316J)and Hilgenfeld
(Ketzergesch., 1884, pp. i63-186p:
( d ) Suffice it to observe here that all the church
fathers from Irenzus onwards make Simon the prime
author of all heresies, and inform us that he was
regarded not merely as a leader of a sect, but also a s a
manifestation of the supreme Deity, a s Messiah, also
by the name of ' t h e Standing O n e ' (6 turds), or,
more precisely, according to the ' Great Announcement '
(Philos. 69 13) a s 6 CUT~S,U T ~ S U , T T J U ~ ~ E ~ O S - ~ the
.~.,
permanently Abiding. C p further, T I e. f.
( a ) This interpretation of the expression ' t h e
-
Standing One' is confirmed also by the pseudo-
3. pseudo-clem. Clementine HomiZies (222 : &E
U T ~ U ~ ~ WdelO S' a s intimating that he
aecogg. : (and a ) on shall always stand ') and Recogni-
tions (2 7 : ' negat posse se aliquando
.-.-..
the Gnostic
mmon.
.~~ dissolvi, asserens carnem suam ita
divinitatis sure virtute comDactam ut
possit in reternum durare '). According to Recogn. 172,
Simon further designated himself as ' virtutem summam
excelsi Dei qui sit supra conditorem mundi.' C,p § 14d.
(b) W e thus find in Simon's case also application of the
Gnostic distinction between the supreme Deity and his
subordinate, the creator of the world or demiurge. T h e
supreme Deity is incomprehensible and unknown to all
( R w q n . 237j:).
4539
SIMON MAGUS
He sent forth the creative Deity to make the world ; having
done so, the latter declared himself to he God, and demanded
observance of the Mosaic law. To Simon, also, is attributed
the doctrine that the souls of men proceed from the supreme
God (&ho at the same time is called The Good), but that they
have been let down into captivity within the world. The body
is their prison (2 5 7 ~ 3 . This enables us to understand what is
meant when we are told that Simon denied the resurrection of
the dead (Horn. 2 22). It can be explained from z Tim. 2 In,
according to which the false teachers, who are simply Gnostics,
declared that the resurrection was past already. By the resur-
rection they understood the soul's arrival a t knowledge of its
he?venly origin, and its superiority to the body which is its
prison. Therefore, in their view, for all Gnostics the resur-
rection has already come about, and they consistently denied
any future resurrection of the body.
(c) These data may be sufficient t o show that it is a
form of Gnosticism that the pseudo-Clementine HomiZies
and Recognitions are combating in the person of Simon.
If they contained nothing more they would accordingly
be seen to have arisen, at the earliest, sometime in. the
second century.
Other indications which do not need to he discussed here lead
us to the beginning of the third century (so Lipsius, ii. 137, n. 2 ;
Harnack, Lehrb. d. DG('4, 1266: beginning or middle of third
century, according to TLZ,i p z , p. 570, even as late as the 4th
had disputed their employment by Origen), and to infer a Catholic
redaction of both writings (so Harnack, Z.C.), or at least of the
Recopifions (so Lipsius, Z.C.). The story as to the members of
Clement's family who became separated as non-Christians, and
after their conversion find one another and recognise (whence
the name ' Recognitiones,' bvayvwpcupol) one another, both in a
bodily and in a higher sense, has a purely edificatory purpose.
A art from the final redaction (see above) the proper standpoint
o?the authors-a Gnostical Jewish Christianity-does not point
hack to the oldest times and can hardly have emrcised much
influence. Thns, from &hat has been said up to this point. it
might well appear that these writings 'contribute nothing
a
towards knowledge of the origin of the Catholic church and
doctrine. This is, in fact, the opinion of Harnack (Lehrh. d.
Dogm.-Gesch.P),? 268), and in his view, indeed, 'it may he re-
garded as certain.
T h e pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions,
however, contain yet another element of the very
4. ( b )On greatest importance. I n them Simon
displays features which are unques-
tionably derived from Paul, and
plainly show him t o b e a caricature of that apostle
drawn by an unfriendly hand. ( a )T h e principal passage
is Horn. 17 19.
Here Peter says to Simon: ' If, then, our Jesus,manifesting him-
self in a vision, made himself known to thee also, and conversed
with thee, in doing so it was as one who is wroth with an
adversary, and therefore speaks by visions and dreams [Nu.
l26-8], or, it may be, even by revelations which [yet] were
external. But can any one be qualified fo: the teaching office
through a vision? And if thou wilt say It is possible,' then
(I ask) 'Why did our teacher for a wiole year continually
converse with those who were awake? And, further, how are
we to believe thy word that he even appeared to thee? How
can he have appeared to thee, when thy manner of thinking
is wholly contrary to his doctrine? But if thou hast for even
so much as a single hour been made blessed and instructed for
the apostleship h a manifestation of him, then pray declare his
doctrine, set fortx his words, love his apostles, and strive not
against me who companied with him. For indeed thou hast
come forward as adversary against me who am a firm rock, the
foundation of the church [Mt. 16 IS]. If thou wert not an
adversary ( & Y T L K P ~ ~ ~ Y O Cthou
) wouldest not slander me and
revile my preaching, in order that I, when I utter that which I have
heard from the Lord face to face, may find no credence, plainly
as if I were a condemned and reprobate person [read I& dpo)
L S O K ~ ~ 6O~U7 0 s .cp I Cor. 9271. But if thou sayest that I am
condemned (d'i a v vouplrbov pe AG'yyrrs), in doing so thou
inveighest against &od who revealed Christ to me, and
inveighest against him who on account of this revelation did
call me blessed [Mt. 16 171,' and so forth.
W h a t Gnostic ever personally withstood Peter 7
According to the incontrovertible statement of Hege-
sippus (a?. Eus. HE iii.327$), Gnosticism arose from
the times of Trajan after that the sacred choir of the
apostles had deceased. For what Gnostic had it ever
been possible to be, like Peter, a personal disciple of
Jesus during his lifetime upon earth? W h a t Gnostic
ever gave himself out to be an apostle? W h a t Gnostic
ever claimed to have been qualified for the apostolate
by a definite vision which he described? And who
ever except Paul (Gal. 211) spoke of Peter as 'con-
demned' (Kaseyvwupdvos)? Thus, it was a t Antioch
4.540
 SIMON MAGUS
that ' S i m o n ' assailed Peter a n d spoke evil of his
preaching, and it was his vision o n the way to Damascus
(for Paul, according to I Cor. 9 I Gal. 1I 12,the basis of
his claim to the apostolate) that is here intended t o
be reduced ad absurdum by a dialectic that really h a s
much to say far itself. Already in chaps. 1 4 a n d 16 it is
urged that such a vision could have been produced by
a n evil demon, just as well as by Jesus.
(b) N o r is this all. T h e words of Peter in his
Epistle to James prefixed to the HomiZics (chap. 2)
relate also to the same incident i n Antioch : ' Some of
the Gentiles have rejected my doctrine which is in
accordance with the law [of Moses], while imputing to
m e a certain lawless a n d nonsensical doctrine (&uop6u
riua Kal @hvap&q &8auKahfau) of the hostile man.
And indeed while I was in my journeyings some took
in hand by manifold interpretations t o wrest m y words
' unto the dissolution of the law, as if I myself also were come from Paul himself, but from the author of Acts. This
of such a mind but did not openly proclaim it ' (cp the
charge of hypocrisy, Gal. 21zf.). Nay, more, in Horn.
20 19=Recog. 1061, it is related that Faustus, father of
Clement, to whom Simon h a s by witchcraft given his own
outward semblance, is in Antioch constrained by order
of Simon publicly to proclaim his repentance in the
following words :-
' I, Simon, declare this to you, confessing that I have unjustly
slandered Peter. For he is no false teacher, no murderer, no
sorcerer, nor any other of those wicked things which I in my
wrath formerly accused him of. I myself, who have been
the author of your hatred against hi& beg of you to cease from
your hatred of him ; for he is a true apostle of the true prophet
sent by God for the salvation of the world. ... And now I will
tell you why it is that I have made this confeqion. Last night
angels of God severely scourged me, the godless one, as being
an enemy (iX8pds) to the herald of the truth. I beseech you
therefore, if ever I again should come forward and venture t i
speak against Peter do not listen to me. For I confess to you :
I am a magician, I'am a false teacher I am a sorcerer. Per;
haps it is possible by repentance to k p e out my past sins.
If the father of Clement did not occur in an older form of the
book, we may conjecture that this confession was originally
there put directly into the mouth of Simon. What is said ahout
his chastisement is a malicious allusion to the declaration of
Paul in 2 Cor. 12 7, as to the cause of his malady, that an angel
of Satan (a"wfAos Earam?) had been sent to buffet him. I t is
iniportant to observe that in Recog. we have the sing.: 'an
angel,' not the pl. ' angels ' as in Hom.
(c) If w e have here a well-ascertained case in which
an utterance of Pan1 regarding himself is spitefully
twisted to his discredit, soon also we find more of the
same kind elsewhere.
In the course of his vindication of himself Paul had, with
great reserve, declared that he had once been carried up into
the third heaven ( z Cor. 12 IX). This is made ridiculous in
Rec. 2 65 : si putas facilem menti tuae accessurn esse super caelos of Simon as ' enemy ' (6 PxOpbs bvepwTos,or simply as
et considerare te posse qu;e illic snnt atque immensae illius lucis d &Op6s, inimicus, see, e . g . , above, 6) in both writings,
scientiam capere, puto ei qui illa potest comprehendere facilius
esse ut sensum suum qui illuc novit ascendere in alicujus
nostrum, qui adsistimus, cor et pectus injiciat et dicat quas in
eo cogitationes gerat.1 The doctrine of Paul that to eat meat
offered to idols is not forbidden (see more fully under COUNCIL see how Paul could have felt a n y occasion t o ask the
8 1 1 , col. 924,f) is distorted into the story that Simon in th;
market-place entertained the people of Tyre with the flesh of a
sacrificial ox and with much wine thus bringing them under the
power of the evil demons (Horn! 7 3 ; c 4 4) This distortion
IS all the more worthy of attention, fecaise the author, in
connection with it, gives admonitions in the very words of Paul
'to abstain from (or not to be partakers of) the table of devils'
(rparri<qs 6a~p6vov&rrCxeuBar, or p$ prraAqBa'vrrv, 7 4 8 ; cp
I Cor. 10 203). In view of the miracles which Paul himself
claims in 2 Cor. 1 2 12 Rom. 15 19,it is easy to understand that
he came to be spoken of as a magician. In the enumeration of
the magical powers of which ' Simon ' makes his b a s t in Recog-.
. .
2 9, the ' when bound I can loose myself . when confined in
prison I can make the barriers open of their own accord ' ( I nnctus
memetipsum solvam . .. in carcere colligatus claustra sponte J U D E (p.v., 8 z), in common with all Gnostics, divided mankind
patefieri faciam ') specially recalls Paul's liberation from prison
at Philippi (Acts 16 23-26). Even if this liberation is unhistorical themselves
(ACTS, 5 z), it found belief after it had been related, and it can
have been related a considerable time before the date at which
Acts was written. Once more, let u s take another word that is
used, not indeed by Paul himself, but with reference to him by
' If you think that there is easy access for your mind above
the heavens, and that you are able to conceive the things that
are there and to apprehend knowledge of that immense light I
think thit for him who can comprehend these things it wdre
easier to throw his sense which knows how to ascend thither
into the heart and breast of some one of us who stand by, and
to tell what thoughts he is cherishing in his breast.'
4541
SIMON MAGUS
a follower. In Acts9 15 he is called a chosen vessel of the
Lord ; in Recog. 3 49, Simon is called a vas e/ectionis of the
devil.1
( d ) I n this violent polemic it is not surprising t o find
thrown back at Simon-Le., Paul-the charges which
Paul h a d himself levelled a t his opponents.
In z Cor. 1113 Paul calls the Judaising emissaries at Corinth
' false apostles ' ( + e u 6 a r r 6 ~ 7 o A o;~ )in Wont.16 21 Peter says that
Jesus foretold false apostles (+ru8arr6urohor) false prophets the
forming of sects and lists for supremacy all'which seem to'him
to have taken their beginning with Si6on the blasphemer of
God. In z Cor. 1114 Paul proceeds : 'And no marvel. for
even Satan fashioneth himself into an angel of light' ; in RLcog.
2 1 8 , Simon is called the 'malignus transformans se in splen-
dorem lucis.' According to Horn. 2 33 wickedness ( K d a ) sent
forth its comrade in arms, Simon, like a serpent (IF ~ + L Y; cp
z Cor. 113), according to Horn. 1135, as one who preaches urider
a pretence of truth in the name of the Lord and sows false
doctrines (rrA&q), and it was with reference to him that Jesus
(Mt. 7 15) foretold the coming of ravening wolves in sheep's
clothing. Here, also, may he recalled a saying which does not
writer puts into Paul's mouth (2029) the prophecy that after
his departure grievous wolves shall make their appearance in
Ephesus, not sparing the flock. It is very probable that refer-
ence is intended here to the ewish Christian school of thought
which was prevalent in Epiesus inde; John in the last third
of the first centpry. Paul himself, had already in I Cor169
spoken of the many adversaries ( L V T L K ~ ~ C rroMhoQ VOL in
Ephesus. This expression, also, is taken up and turned against
himself in the passage already cited under a,above.
( e ) More especially we find recurring in the pseudo-
Clementine Homilies a n d Recognitions three designations
which are already referred t o in the epistles of Paul as
having been m a d e use of against him.
When in 2 Cor. 6 8 Paul says of himself, 'as deceivers and
[yet] true' (IFnA\a'vor ral ciA18&), the censure implied in the
word rrha'vos is just as little purely imaginary as is that contained
inGg : I;c ciyvooip~vac,ic rrars.vd~svor('unknown "chastened')
etc., or that repudiated in 4 5 ('we preach not burselves'), 0;
that hinted at in 3 I ('are we beginning again to commend our-
selves?'), c 512. All these charges had actually been made
otherwise 8aul would not have nceded to repel them (( 9 e):
The word most fitted to stick as a term of reproach was 'the
deceiver' (6 rrAkvos), and in point of fact it does reappear in
Nom. 2 17,which represents Jesus as having foretold that 'first
must come a false gospel by the instrumentality of a certain
deceiver' [the gospel of freedom from the law] (rrpirov +vBZS
Sei iA8riv e+anCArov 6xb ~ArhdvouT L Y ~ F ) . Cp the rAC;vr) in the
quotation (11 35)cited under a', asalso themiracles which Simon
works (2 33) ' to astonish and deceive ' (rrpbs rra&rrA&v La;
krra'np) or \74), the expression 'deceived before by Simon'
. .
( h b soh . Pipovor rrpoaraq8Cvrss), or the decejtiones of
Simon (Recog. 3 65), his 'slanders' (dra,¶oAal : Horn. 3 59).
Notice further that, according to Gal. 1 IO, it was made a
reproach against Paul that he sought by his doctrine to please
men ; this comes up again in the words of Peter in Nom. 18 IO:
'Since ye have thus spoken to please the multitudes who are
present ' (drerQ L~CUK~VTWF sois rrapairurv 6~AorcoGros F+vs).
Above all, however, it is of the constant designation
that w e are able to infer from Gal. 416 with a high
degree of probability that it had already been applied
by his Galatian adversaries to Paul. It is difficult to
Galatians whether he had been the enemy of the
Galatians by his preaching of the true gospel, that is of
the gospel freed from the law (this is what is intended
by CiXqOdwu I&% : 416) if he h a d not been spoken of
t o the Galatians as being their ' enemy.' Here should
be added Mt. 1328 (see below, 6 c ) .
(f) This ' h o m o quidam inimicus' according to
Recog. 170 f. raises a tumult against James the episco-
1 This very drastic kind of polemic is exemplified in the NT
also. The Gnostics who are controverted in the Epistle of
into the two categories of ' psychic ' and 'pneumatic ' ; they held
to be pneumatic. This the author tnrns round the
other way in v. r9 : 'these are they who make a division [i.e.,
between psychic and pneumatic ; not, as in AV, ' who separate
themselves,' or, as in RV, ' who make separations 'I, sensual, not
having the spirit.' There is a still closer parallel to this sub-
stitution of the devil for God in Rev. 2 24. It is hardly to be
supposed that the followers of Jezebel made it their boast
that they ' know the deep things of Satan ' ; we may he perfectly
certain that their boast was that theyknew thedeep thingspf God.
All the more sharply sarcastic in the form of the phrase : Know
...
the deep things of Satan, U S they say.' But it is Paul who
is the author of the claim to possess the spirit that searcheth all
things, yea, the deep things of God (I Cor. 2 10.12). Cp D 6 6.
4542
 SIMON MAGUS
porumprin-eps at Jerusalem, snatches a firebrand from
the altar and with this begins a general Jewish massacre
of Christians; he throws James down headlong from
the top of the steps, so that he lies as one dead. After
three days the Christians who have fled to Jericho learn
that the hostile man has received from Caiaphas the
high priest the commission to persecute all Christians,
and armed with written missives ( ‘ epistolae ’) from him is
about to go to Damascus in order to begin the persecu-
tion there, believiugthat Peterhasbetaken himself thither’
(cp Acts83 91$ 224$ 269-12 Gal. 1 1 3 I Cor. 159).
(8)Even the style of Paul is plainly imitated in a
mocking way. In the recantation (Huin. 20 19) 2f
Simon mentioned above (6) we have his 66opu~hpwv
( ‘ I beseech you’ : Gal. 4 I,), a h b s $76 ( ‘ I myself’ :
2 Cor.lOr), ei8B;ur Lpis @.!A, ( ‘ I would have you
G (‘ I beseech there-
know’ : I Cor. 113), W U ~ U K U A otv
f o r e ’ : Rom.121 I Cor.416; cp Eph.41 I T i m . 2 1 ) ;
elsewhere 7i ydp, ri 03v, etc.
S o also with the apocryphal Acts of Peter and Acts
of Peter and Paul (as to which see S IMON PETER,
~. Apocryphal 55 32-34). Whilst in the apocryphal
Acts. correspondence of Paul with the
Corinthians which belongs to the Acta
Pauli (see SIMON P ETER , § 39e, n . ) - t h e doctrine
attributed to Simon is Gnostic, in the Apocrypha just
mentioned Simon appears less as a gnostic than as a
wonder-worker : hut that by him the apostle Paul was
originally meant is manifest here also.
( a ) T h e question of Paul to Simon : ‘ W h y didst
thou deliver up circumcised men and compel them to be
condemned and put to d e a t h ? ’ (6rd ri uir mpmerpq-
p b O U S Tapd8lOKUS K U i 7)VdyKUUUS UdTOhS KUTUKpL@.!lTUS
droKrav@+ur : see S IMON P ETER, 34 e ) is decisive.
There is no Gnostic who could have had either such
power or such inclination. T h e words can refer only
to what Paul did according to Gal. 1 1 3 I Cor. 159
Acts83 91$ 224$ 269-12. In this way what follows
gains in cogency, the original reference to Paul being
not so absolutely palpable without this key.
(6) In the (pre-Catholic) Acta Petri Simon is spoken
of as ’inimicus,’ ‘condemned’ ( § 4 a , e, and SIMON
PETER, 33 d ) , and even the Greek word ~ X d v o s(5 4 e )
has found its way into the Latin text ; according t o the
Actirs Petri cum Simone ( 4 12,in Acta Apocr. i. p. 49,l.
13 and p. 60, 1. 4 ) not only is Paul called ( ‘ magus ’ or)
‘ planus,’ but Simon also is described as ‘planus (et
deceptor).’ I n the (Catholic) Acta Petri et PauC (43)
Nero makes it clear that Simon persecutes Peter and
Paul out of envy, and is a ‘manifest enemy’ (7rpb6+ot
6x@p6s) of both and of their Master.
( c ) I n the disputation on circumcision touched on
above ( a : cp S IMON PETER,$8 34 e , 39 c), Simon warns
the Emperor against believing Peter and Paul, a s they
are circumcised and therefore worthless persons. Paul
makes answer : before we knew the truth we had the
circumcision of the flesh ; since then, only the circuni-
cision of the heart. Peter a d d s : if circumcision is
something bad, why art thou circumcised, Simon? It
will be manifest a t once that only the words of Peter,
not those of Paul. are any effective reply to the reproach
of Simon. If with Lipsius (11. 1 360) we remove those
of Paul a s being a later addition (cp S IMON P ETER ,
J 35 e ) , then the pure antithesis between Simon a s the
opponent and Peter as the defender of circumcision
comes to light. This, however, is directly contrary to
the whole representation of Peter elsewhere in these
Acts ; for here he figures as the one who is doing away
with the law (S IMON P ETER , 34 a , 39 c ) . In so far,
however, as Peter defends circumcision the effect is to
take away his complete agreement with Paul (the
accentuation of which is nevertheless one of the main
objects of the book: see SIMON P ETER , 5 35 d ) , for
1 He is not here expressly called Simon. Should this be
intentional, this passage would then have to be relegated to 5 6
as being direct polemic against Paul.
4543
SIMON MAGUS
here it is only the circumcision of the heart that Paul
stands up for. Thus in our present passage it is not
at all the Catholic Peter, but the original genuinely
Jewish-Christian Peter with whom we have to do, and
this is our evidence that his opponent was not origin-
ally a Gnostic, but simply an opponent of the Judaising
.
of Christianity, in other words, no other than Paul. .
( d ) To Paul also applies the further accusation in
the same passage, that ‘ Simon ’ found it necessary to
give himself out falsely to be a Jew and to put on the
semblance of strict observance of the law in order t o
deceive the people whom otherwise he would not have
been able to win over t o his erroneous doctrine (see
SIMON P ETER , 5 34e). This clearly points back to
I Cor. 920 : ’ to them that are under the law ( I became)
as under the law, not being myself under the law, that
I might gain them that are under the law.’ W e .
recognise also, however, the charge which, according to
Gal. 5 II 1IO. was made against Paul by his Judaistic
opponents, that outside of Galatia he still continued to
preach circumcision, for everywhere he shapes his
doctrine so as to please men (see G ALATIANS , 5 13,
middle).
( e ) With this accords (even if not conclusive a s
evidence) the favour which Simon finds with Nero.
After Nero had proved himself the most dreadful enemy
which Christianity had, it mnst have suggested itself
very readily to the adversaries of Paul to lay it t o Paul’s
discredit that h& had so expressly enjoined obedience t o
Nero (Rom. 13 1-7) and that Panl’s captivity had been
so mild (Acts 28 so$ ). As a result of his submissive-
ness such a partiality of the emperor as we find him ex-
pressing for Simon in the Catholic and also in the pre-
Catholic Acta (S IMON P ETER , 5 33 h ) seemed natural.
C p below, 12 6.
(f)Lipsius (ii. 1363J) has even conjectured that the
story of the seeming beheading of Simon (J 34 c) has a t
its root malicious misrepresentation of the beheading of
Paul.
In order that Paul might not have the glory of martyrdom
his traducers had it that be had not been beheaded, hut by a
trick had brought it about that a ram was decapitated in his stead.
To this was then added the further touch that he presented him-
self to the emperor as one who had risen from the dead, in order
thereby to secure acknowledgment of his divinity, and of the
truth of the promise he had previously made, of a return from
death after three days. This promise is met with also in quite
another form in the PkiZoso$huiiteaa 6 20 where Simon suffeFs
himself to be buried by his disciples, ’md proposes to rise again
after three days, hut does not revive (see S r ~ o P s ETER 5 92 a
n. I). Evidently the theme has gone through several va;iationsI
In accord with it is what we read in the Catholic Acta, that Nero
causes the body of Simon, who has fallen down from the clouds,
to he watched for three days so as to know whether he will rise
or not (see SIMONPETER, 5 34g). With Simon’s promise
Lipsius confronts thestatement of the Acts of Paul ( = ‘ Martynum
Pauli,‘ 4, 6=Pseudo-Linus, ‘Passio Pauli,’B, r8, in Aria Apost.
Apocr. 1112.11632 42) that it was Paul who foretold to Nero
his return after his beheading and who also fulfilled this pre-
diction.
(g)Lastly, mention must be made of the attempt of
Simon to fly to heaven (see SIMON PETER, § 33 [f],
5 34 [A). T h e supposition lies close a t hand that
here too we have a malicious perversion of the saying
of Paul that he had been caught up to the third heaven
(2 Cor. 122) and that precisely the story of his fall and
of his death was connected with this because the appeal
to this rapture into heaven was regarded a s a flagitious
piece of self-glorification. and, should the conjecture of
Lipsins just mentioned prove correct, the beheading of
Paul was not regarded as being the true end of his life.
At the same time it must be observed that Simon’s flying is
reported in two forms. Alongside of the statement just recorded
above, that his desire was to reach heaven by it, defind another
much simpler one that his intention was simply hy a brief flight,
to give proof of his magical powers, and theriby secure public
attention (SIMONPETER 50 3 3 a , 34c). For this we have an
authenticated parallel. SLetonins (Nero, 12)relates that a flying
professor who had undertaken to play the part of Icarus in a re-
pFesentation.of mythological scenes organised by Nero, in the
circus on the Campus Martius (that is to say, exactly on the
scene of the alleged attempt of Simon), at his first attempt fell
to the ground close beside Nero, who was bespattered with his
4544
 SIMON MAGUS
blood. If it was this or some similar occurrence that suggested
the ascription to Simon of the attempt at flight, the statement
that Simon’s intention was to fly to heaven is a further develop.
ment. The possibility remains that the story was manufactured
with z Cor.12 z in view ; yet we cannot he confident of this. I n
the pseudo-Clementine Howdies we find merely that Simon flies
occasionally (2 32)) and in the +‘ecognifions (29) this takes the
special form that Simon promises: ‘si me de monte excelsq
praxipitrm, tanquam subvectus ad tetras illaesus deferar.
What seems to lie at the hasis of this is the promise of Satan
to Jesus in the temptation on the pinnacle of the temple (Mt.
45J=Lk. 4{-1r]. ,The evidential value of the arguments ad-
duced a t the eginniiig of this section, however, is not impaired
Ly the ambiguous character of the indications last adduced.
How small is the right of any one to set aside any
such polemic against Paul as being from the outset
I I
6. Analogous jmpossible is shown by the fact that
~n early Christian literature the same
polemicPaul. thing is found also without intervention
of the mask of Simon, and even
occasionally with express mention of the name of Paul.
( a ) Epiphanins ( H a w . 30 16, end) tells us that in
Ebionitic Acts of the Apostles was found, regarding the
apostle Paul, the statement that he was the son of a
Greek mother and a Greek father belonging t o Tarsus,
that he had spent some rime in Jerusalem and there
desired the daughter of the high priest in marriage, on
which account he became a proselyte and accepted
circumcision ; but, having after all failed in his suit, in
his wrath he wrote against circumcision, the Sabbath,
and the law.
( b ) In Rev. 214 20 it is said of the followers of Balaam
and Jezebel that they eat things sacrificed to idols a n d
commit fornication. T h e two classes of persons are
thus identical in spite of their different names. N o r
are the Nicolaitans [cp NICOLAITANS] distinct from
them, for w e read (215): ‘so also hast thou them that
hold the teaching of the Kicolaitans in like manner ’
(&or 8xxerr ~ a l u (not3 : ufi xal j K p a r o i h a s r+v 6t6aXi)v
T O Y NtKohaLTOv dpoiws).
That is to say, In that thou (the church of Pergamos) hast the
Balaamites, thou hast also [in the same persons] those that hold
the teaching of the Nicolaitans in like manner as the Church of
Ephesus has (‘26). Now the Nicolaitans a t Ephesus are in 2 2
said to be apostles who have been found to be false ; and of the
adherents of Jezebel we are told in 2 24 that they profess to have
known the depths of Satan. All these accusations fit Paul. the
last of them must he understood in the manner indicated sthove
(8 4 c, n.). To eat meat offered to idols and to commit fornica;
tion had heen indeed sanctioned by Paul if we take ‘fornication
in the sense that has been indicated under COUNCIL, 8 TI, col.
gzj. As he had already called his opponents false apostles
(2 Cor. 11 13) it is not surprising if we find them hurling hack
this reproach at himself and his followers (cp 5 4 4 . The later
the date to which the epistles in Rev. Zj: are assigned (see J O H N ,
SON O F ZEBEDEE,0 1 1 ) the more easily ossihle does it become
that in them it is no longer Paul himselfhut a later school that
is being controverted, a school which made perhaps a more
thoroughgoing use in practice of this doctrine of freedom from
the law than he himself made, or which even abused that
nrinciole : but neither is it uossihle to show from the text itself
ihat ii cannot by any mea& have been directed even against
Paul. On 1311-17,see B 76.
ic) Even in the First gospel. in all Drobabilitv. it is
Paul who is alluded to h e as the ;enemy’ (&Xepbr
cZuOpwrro~~, of Mt. 1328, and as the ‘least ’ (&hdxtu~os)
in the kingdom of heaven ; see G OSPELS , $1 1 1 2 c, 128 c.
C p above. $ 4 e , end.
( d ) As for the canonical book of Acts, the polemic
against Paul which underlies 89-24 and 2422-26, and
which is artificially turned aside by the composer, will
come under our consideration later ($5 I ~ J , 1 2 6 ;
cp also BAKJESUS). Kreyenbuhl(z14-216; 1 15 below),
it may be added, sees also in Acts 148-20 and 1911-19
a similar proceeding on the composer’s part.
In Lystra Paul was only stoned ; the divine worship which he
is represented as having received, rests only on the detraction
of his Judaising adversaries, who thereby as elsewhere in
the person of Simon, wished to represen; him as a man
who owed his success with the Gentiles-these according. to
Kreyenhtihl, are figured in the lame man blind f;om his hirth-
to magical arts. The magical efficacy assigncd to the handker-
chiefs and aprons touched by him (19 12) is held in like manner
to be an invention due to a similarly hostile intention. In the
Nicolaus, also, of Clement of Alexandria (Stronr. iii. 4 2 5 , p.
522, ed. Potter), who, when he hadbeen rebuked hythr apostles
for jealousy, offered his heautiful wife to any one who chose to
4545
SIMON MAGUS
marry her, Kreyenhiihl also (190J) finds Paul who gave up the
‘chaste virgin ’ the primitive church, to the Gentiles, and thus
to fornication.’ Such conjectures hardly rise to the level of
probability, even although the difficulties suggested by stories
of this kind when literally taken remain worthy of attention.
( e ) Similarly it is necessary to receive with caution
the view of Prenschen ( Z N T W , 1901, pp. 169 [186]-
ZOI), that the form of Paul underlies the delineation of
the Antichrist in the Christian Apocalypse of Elias,’
although the coincidences, especially also with the
Acta Pauli. are some of them really striking.
Preuschen himself says that a searching investigation as to
the historyof theorigin of this Apocalypse is still needed. Ac-
cording to Schiirer (TLZ,1899,pp. 4-8), it is later than Clement
of Alexandria. If this be so, the features of the picture of Paul
cannot have been transferred to the Antichrist for the first time
when Paul’s high place had become undisputed ; that must have
occurred much earlier, when the hatred against Paul was still
alive and did not shrink even from such a distortion of his
picture as this. In the transference of these features to the
Apocalypse of Elias now before us, misunderstandings, hou,ever,
can easily have crept in. This admonishes to great caution.
Moreover, Preuschen’s work i b not yet completed.
, At the same time, however, F’reuschen’s view regard-
Simon a8 ing the Apocalypse of Elias leads tb the
Antichrist ia question whether perhaps the figure of
Simon may not also underlie the picture
of the Antichdst in apocalyptic writings.
( a ) Preuschen (2.c. 173-176) answers t h k question-in
the affirmative so far as Si6yU 3 63-74 2165-170 are con-
cerned. T h a t in 363 the expression ‘afterwards shall
Beliar come forth from the Sebastenes’ (CK & ZcpaurVuGu
Bchtap pm5atuOcv), Ze,Baur~volhas never as yet
been satisfactorily explained is true.
Pe+m6r is the Greek rendering of Aogustus, a name of
honour which Octavian first received in 27 B.C. Should Pcpau-
q v o i , however, mean, not people of Augustus, but people of
Samaria, neither is this designation possihle at an earlier date
than 27 B.c., for it was not till then that Samaria receivcd the
name Sehaste. In order to be able to maintain the very tempt-
ing interpretation which refers the widow ruling the world in
3 75-80 to Cleopatra, and the triumvirate clearly indicated in
951J to Antony Octavian, and Lepidus, and thus fixes the
date of the whole’piece 336-92as falling somewhere between 40
and 30 B.c., scholars have found it necessary to take the ex-
pression Pq¶au.nlvoi as proleptically possible even before the
official bestowal of his name of honour upon Augustus, or to
regard the verse in which it occurs as an interpolation. Preuschen
understands the world-ruling woman (v. 75) of Rome (that in v.
77 she is called a widow, and that in zw. 47 52 Rome is designated
by its own proper name he does not take into consideration) and
then interprets the Beliar who is to arise from among the
Samaritans as referring to Simon the Magician. It is correct to
say that the rather vague delineation here and in 2165-170
presents no obstacle to stand in the way of this identification ;
but the identification is not yet thereby established.
In fact it appears even to he directly excluded if v. 69 is
correctly ’interpreted : Beliar is to seduce many men, namely
‘as well faithful and elect Hebrews as also lawless ones, and
other men who never at all heard of God ’ (rrrrr~odcT’ &ACKK&
B‘ ‘Eflpaious bv6pous r e r a l hhhaus & ‘ p a s orrrvrs o&mB’ Ghos
BeoS eu+oumnv). Jiilicher, who was the first to interpret Reliar
as referring to Simon Magus ( T L Z , 1896, 379), finds mankind
here divided into three classes : ( I ) Christians(rmroirs &herrode),
(2) Jews (‘Eppaioue Lvipovs), and (3) Gentiles ( d M a v s Lvipas,
etc.). In that case, honever, the third r s ought to have come
after ‘Eppaiovs, not after Lvipous. Grammatically possible
would be another threefold division : (I) r r m o d c , (2) ; r h e r ~ o 3 s
‘E,3paious. ( ~ ) ~ v ~ ~ral
A ohhhovs
u c &‘pas, etc. Only, in that case
the w r u ~ o would
i certainly not mean Christians ; otherwise the
‘EBpa2or would not he called CrhsrTai. If the passage is due to
a Christian, as Jtilicher supposes, then the only right construe.
tion is that which takes Lvipovs a b a predicate of ‘Eppaious
as above. Moreover, in the third class just supposed the
would have a disturhing effect. If the T C after avipovs could
mean ‘and,’ then it would he ermissible to render mi by ‘also’ :
‘andalso other godlessmen.’ ?‘he;;; however,after iv6povsmust
mean ‘as also since that after r r r ~ r o d smeans ‘ as well ’ ; cou-
sequentlv .ai can only mean ‘and. The only unexceptionable
translatibn is accordingly the following: ‘ A s well fajthful a~td
elect Hebrews a7 also lawless ones, and other men, etc. As
these ‘other men’,are the Gentiles, only Jews can he meant by
the ‘ lawless ones. If on this rendering one were to seek for
Christians also! they must he indicated by the ‘faithful and
elect Hebrews, in other words must he exclusively Jewish
~-
1 German translation from the Coptic by Steindorff in TU
17 3, 1899 ; as Apocalypse of Sophonias already puhlished by
Stern in 2.J &y#t. Spi-uch 1886, pp. 115-135,and in French
by Bouriant, M/moires de 2a)wrission avchkologigue (iu Caii-e
i. 2 260-279 (1885) : not to be confounded with the Jewish Apocal
lypce of Elias cited by the Church Fathers ; see Schiirer, G j Y P )
2 673-676,E T ii. 3 129.132.
4546
 SIMON MAGUS
Christians, which will hardly be supposed by any one. Rather
does the author divide the Jews into the two classes of the
‘faithful and elect’ and the ‘lawless,’ placing the Gentiles
alongside of them. In that case however the passage is not
the work of a Christian, and thereiore it doe: not relate to Simon
Magus ; for it was only among Christians and not a1 all among
Jews that Simon Magus passed for a person so objectionable
and at the same time so important that he could be identified
with the devil.
Nor yet even among Christians was any such estimate put
upon him at so early a date as in the apostolic age ; he acquired
it by the enhanced importance which came to be attached to
him through the romance of which he was the hero. Thus if
Simon should be meant we should have to reject as too early
the dating of Preuschen who understauds b the three men
who destroy Rome (v. SI>) Galba Otho and h e l l i u s (68 and
69 A.D.) and by the fire from heaLen (v.’ 533) the eruption of
Vesuvius in 79 A . D . Moreover the second dating cancels the
first : for that Galba Otho and Vitellius had destroyed Rome
could no longer be Lelieveh after 69 A . D . Geffcken (Tu231
p. !:), who agrees with Jiilicher asregards Simon Magus,
judiciously leaves the date undetermined. Yet it is altogether
wrong to take m. 36-99 or even only w. 46-92 as a unity. In
the passage before us the destruction of the world by fire is
predicted as something new no less than three times (53-61,
71-74, 84-87); and moreover the destruction of Rome by the
three men just referred to follows upon the reign of the Messiah
over all the earth (46-52), whilst of course it must have preceded
it, and the reign of the widow over the world follows upon the
destruction of the world together with Beliar and his followers
by fire (71.77). and also upon’the destruction of Rome by the
three men already related in v. 5rJ, which would be equally
inappropriate whether the widow he taken as meaning the
widow Cleopatra or Rome. Thus only ZN.63-74 come into
account as a unity for our present discussion.
(6j Simon the Magician has been detected in the
‘other beast’ of Rev. 1311-17 (which in 1613 1920 2010
is called the false prophet ’) in recent years by Spitta
(O@nb. d. /oh., 1889,pp. 380-385)and Erbes (Ofenb.
/oh., 1891,pp. 25-27}. This identification may in some
measure suit the wonderful works which are attributed
to this beast in 1313-15a. But it no way suits the regard
for the worship of the Emperor in m.12156, and the
exclusion of those who have not the mark of the beast
on hand or forehead from the buying and selling, unless
we choose t o suppose that the figure of Simon furnished
merely the outlines for this second beast which were
filled in by the author with essentially new features.
Still less have Volkmar (Comm. z. Oflend.Joh., 1862, p 197-
213)~Blom (Th.T, 1884, pp. 175.181) and Kappeler g h e o l .
Ztschr. a m der Schweiz, 1893, pp. 40-62> 65-69) succeeded,
without resort to the greatest lengths ofallegoricalinterpretation,
in finding the apostle Paul in the second beast ; on any literal
exegesis, not even the miracles which cause no difficulty when
referred to Simon can, by any possibility, be assigned to Paul.
(c) In so far, however, as, after the example of
Gunkel (Schiipf. u. Chaos, 1895) and Bousset ( A n t i -
christ, 1895). the line taken is that of seeking in the
leading apocalyptic forms merely renewals of older
figures, whether of mythological or of literary origin,
which assumed once for all a normative character that
underwent only slight modifications when applied to
new circumstances and conditions, it may certainly
be worth while to inquire whether Paul, or Simon, or
the features in the figure of Simon which have been de-
rived from Paul, have contributed elements t o the shaping
of these renewed apocalyptic figures. Preuschen’s aim
is nothing less than to show that it was by the introduc-
tion of the form of Paul that the figure of Antichrist,
originally thought of a s a ruler, assumed the character
of a false teacher, so that both types of Antichrist
thenceforward existed alongside of each other.
After the survey just made of the appearances of
Simon in the literature of early Christianity, our next
8. Four forms task must be to ascertain what results,
of Simon dis- if any, can be claimed. ( a ) In the
tinguished. first place, it has become evident that
we have to do with three distinct
magnitudes which meet us, now here now there, under
the form of Simon. To these must be added a s a
fourth a Jewish magician of Cyprus, Simon, a guard of
the procurator Felix, who employed him tu draw away
Drusilla from her husband, Azizns king of Emesa, and
procure her in marriage for himself (Jos. Ant. xx. 72, 5
141J ). To him we shall return afterwards ( 5 12 b c e ) .
4547
SIMON MAGUS
Meanwhile, the three figures that have come before us
in the literature we have hitherto been surveying are :
( I ) the Samaritan magician as Acts, on the first im-
pression, seems t o present him ; (2)the Gnostic, founder
of the Gnostic sect of the Simonians : (3)the distorted
image of the apostle Paul.
(6) 1‘. is indispensably necessary that we should
distinguish these three forms a s sharply as possible, and
especially necessary in cases where they may have come
t o be-mixed up in one and the same writing. In this
sense, we have already treated separately the Gnostic
and the perverted image of Paul as they are found in
the pseudo- Clementine HorniZies and Recognitions
(S 3f.). In these writings Simon appears a s a magician
also : but if thereby the magician who, according t o
Acts, made his appearance in the very first years of
Christianity, is to be understood, then the Gnostic
system ascribed t o him does not a t all fit, for it is of
much later date.
Now, magicians have existed in all ages, and thus it were
easily conceivable that the author of the Gnostic system in
questi??,lin the second century, was really also a t the same time
a magician. As against this suggestion, however, two considera-
tions must be borne in mind ; not only that Gnosis and magical
arts are unitedin the fancy of the Church fathers (whoattributed
to their adversaries, without discrimination, all kinds of evil
things) more easily than they are in reality, but also that, on
this view we lose all connection with the Samaritan Simon of
the earlieit Christian times, a connection which is nevertheless
presupposed in so far as Simon is opposed by Peter. If, in view
of this, we decline to give up the connection, we must neverthe-
less recognise that in the pseudo-Clementines all the three forms
of Simon are mixed up with one another so as to form a com.
pletely impossible figure. The case is similar in the apocryphal
Acts ; only, there the Gnostic features in the person of Simon
are not very prominent. On Acts 8 9-24 see 8 14.
(c) If, then, we desire to get at the truth of the
matter, it is an exceedingly perilous thing t o be too
readily prepared t o find a harmonious picture, instead
of various features derived from distinct sources. Thus,
the argument is very widely cnrrent that, inasmuch a s in
the Simon of the pseudo-Clementine HorniZies a n d
Recognitions a Gnostic tendency is being controverted,
he cannot, a t the same time, have any Pauline features ;
in fact, the myth has even come into being that Lipsius
too, in conceding the Anti-Gnostic character of these
writings, has also given up their Anti-Pauline character.
Similarly, it is often supposed that nothing more is re-
quired than the postulate of the actual existence of a
Samaritan magician of the name of Simon, in order t o
make it possible to set aside all supposed reference to
Paul in the narrative of Acts 8 : or, where a little more
caution is exercised, it is supposed that the same result
can be reached by the observation that the figure of
Simon there exhibits Gnostic characteristics.
If once we are prepared to keep these different
9. The Anti- characteristics strictly separate, and a t
Pauline the same time to recognise their
polemic older presence together (should they happen
to be present together) in one and the
than the same writing, the next question for us
Anti-Gnostic.
comes to be whether the Anti-Pauline
polemic is older than the Anti-Gnostic.
( a ) One might suppose that the answer could not be
doubtful, seeing that Paul himself was before Gnosticism.
T h e consequences, however, which have been deduced
by the Tiibingen school from this view of the case cause
many to shrink from accepting this result, however
obvious.
These critics are utterly averse to making the admission that
any such intense hatred could really ever have been directed
against Paul as would follow from the malignant and perverse
representatidn of him implied in the HomiZies,and Recognifions,
and in the apocryphal Acts, should it be the fact that the
passages in question date from the earliest Christian times.
The ideal of Acts, that the multitude of them that believed (as
also the apostles) were of one heart and soul (4 32) dominates
the current conception of that period much too strongly to make
it possible for many to recognise as historical any conflict of so
profpund and far-reaching a character as that revealed in these
writings.
(6) Only, what is it that is done in order to avoid the
4548
 SIMON MAGUS
unwelcome admission of its historical character ? Any
attciiipt to explain away the hatred which these writings
breathe against the Simon with whom they deal,
promises little success. Thus, of necessity, one is
driven to the assertion that the Anti-Gnostic interest is
in these authors. the original one and the Anti-Pauline
features are merely later introductions, much in the
same way as an artist, in order to give greater life to
his picture, will introduce into it here and there a few
additional touches, but without altering the nature of
the work as a whole.
( c ) This assumption, however, of the posteriority of
the Anti-Pauline polemic in these nritings i s completely
untenable. How should the writers have come to
make precisely Paul their target? If there had been a
conflict between him and another school of primitive
Christianity from which these writers were not perhaps
far removed, the conflict was nevertheless buried a t the
death of Paul.
It is coming to he more and more generally recognised that
the real Paulinism hardly survived the lifetime of its author (so
Harnack himself, Lehrh. d. DGllz) 46 n. I , 5zf: 78$,,116 etc.).
Whilst the most general of all its resilts- the admission bf the
Gentiles to Christianity without observance of the law-was
accepted in its own interests by the Church now beginning to he
Catholic, every other special interest which Paul had promoted,
and even his services in connection with the carrying out of the
universalism which now was taken as a thing of course, passed
into oblivion. Already the hook of Acts represents Peter as the
real originator of this, and Paul as but his follower in it (ACTS,
$ 4). Simultaneously, however, this hook and the whole of that
literature and period gave to Paul more and more a place of
honour beside Peter (see MINISTRY, $ 36), and his writings
during the second century gained more and more of a canonical
position.
Thus, partly forgotten so far as his conflict with the
attitude of the original apostles is concerned, and partly
highly honoured as a n apostle of bygone days : how
should Paul ever come to be in the second, or, so far as
the pseudo-Clcmentine Homilies and Recognitions are
concerned, even in the third or fourth centnry, the
object of so fanatical a hatred? It is a psychological
impossibility. Add to this that the writers, by the
introduction of Pauline features, would have been making
unrecognisable the picture of that which they wished to
combat ( 5 IO a ) .
(.d) Harnack has felt this, and drawn the consequence
which is the only possible o n e : ‘perhaps the Pauline
features of the [pseudo-Clementine] magician altogether
are an appearance merely (Lehrb. d. Dogm. -gesch.
1(9 269). In the light of our preceding investigations,
the boldness of this proposition will be apparent.
How could such a judgment he possible or that of Headlam
(JirhSt., 19013, pp. 53,f): ‘With the hssihle exception of
one passage, there is not the slightest sign of anti-Paulinism,
and nowhere is there any opposition t o St. Paul’? Is it
perchance, due to the fact that Headlam has his eye only 0;
the real Paulinism and finds that the polemic of the pseudo-
Clementines and apocryphal Acts does not touch that, and then
omits to ask whether the authors gerhaps recisely by their
malicious distortion of the image of aul dederately wished to
harm him more than would have been possible by means of any
honourable polenric?
( e ) T h e examples of polemic against Paul without
the mask of Simon, already adduced in 16, must have
shown how deep the antipathy to Paul went, and how
widespread it was even where we have not to do with
writings which clothe themselves in the form of a
romance. T h e epistles of Paul himself, however, con-
tain still more traces of this.
I n 69 4 a sd, we hare already touched on what admits of
heing inferred from Gal. 5 I I (still preaching circumcision),
1 I O (seek to please men), 416 (d&&), z Cqr. 6 8 (m?&os).
Paul’s self-commendation in 2 Cor. 3 I 5 r i J , his preaching of
himself (4 s), and his claim to have been taken up into the third
heaven and into Paradise (12 2-4), needed only to be exaggerated
a little and the charge of self-deification was ready. To these
hare to be added, further, the charges which Paul would not he
found repudiating so emphatically if they had never heen made
against him : such as that he walks in carnal wisdom ( 2 Cor. 1IZ),
writes other things than appear (113). says Yea and Nay in
the same breath (117), corrupts the word of God (2 17), seeks
to he lord of the faith (124), uses his power for the destruction
of the churches (108 13 IO), when present is weak hut comes
forward in his letters with the greatest claims (10 9f: I).
4549
SIMON MAGUS
From his refusal of financial support for himself, the.inference
was drawn that plainly he was conscious of not being a real
apostle, otherwise he would have made use of the privilege of
those who were ( I Cor. 9 15 2 Cor. 11 IO). To this it was added,
further, that he applied to his own uses the collections which he
caused to be made for the poor in Jerusalem (2 Cor. 1 2 16-18 7 z,
end). Finally, ‘chastened ’ (mar8cvdpcvor) in 2 Cor. 6 9 can only
be understood as meaning that his malady had been interpreted
as a divine punishment for his opposition to the Christianity of
the original apostles.
(j)All these charges and reproaches, however,proceed,
in the last resort at least, from the Judaizers who came
to Corinth or to Galatia and sought to turn against
Paul the churches which he had founded- in other
words, from the representatives of that school which
speaks i n the pseudo-Clementine writings and apocryphal
Acts or at least in their sources. If one desires not to
be unjust to them, one will even have to concede that
Pan1 had provoked them to the utmost by his persistent
advocacy of his own views, by his unsparing attack even
upon Peter a t Antioch ( G ~ L Z I I - Z I )by , his blunt judg-
ment upon things which they regarded as sacred, by
the anathema he pronounced upon their gospel (Gal.
lEJ), by his biting sarcasm (Gal. 512), and by his
sweeping condemnation of everything about them
( 2 Cor. 11 13-15), W e are only too readily inclined to
take sides with Paul and to find in his case certain
things to be perfectly correct, which in his adversaries
we would either condemn without qualification, or even
declare to be historically impossible. Whether, for
example, Paul says that his opponents are servants
of Satan (11r5), or whether the pseudo-Clementine
Rrcognifions say that Paul is a chosen instrument of
Satan (349) comes to very much the same thing ; and.
viewed from their standpoint, Paul must really hale
seemed to them quite as much the enemy of the truth
a s they to him-for after all he was doing away with
the law concerning which they could quite honestly
feel convinced that it had been laid down by God as
of perpetual obligation (see C OUNCIL , 5 3, begin.).
Instead of denying the manifestly-patent fact that the
opposing schools, within the borders of primitive
Christianity, carried on their controversies u i t h the
utmost violence, we ought rather to be unfeignedly
glad that the Christian religion possessed within itself
sufficient vitality to enable it to survive so severe a
crisis.
(g) There is accordingly but one presiipposition
only, by means of which it will be really possible to
hold the anti-Pauline features in the pseudo-Clementines
to be more recent than the anti-Gnostic, namely the
assumption that the principal Pauline epistles are
more recent than the Gnosticism, which the pseudo-
Clementines combat. So Loman ( T h . T, 1883.
pp. 25-47), Meyboom (ib. 1891, 1-46), and Steck
(Galaterbrief, 325-335 [1888]). It makes little differ-
ence here, whether on this view the two things are
also regarded as contemporaneous. Marcion passes
for the chief representative of the gnosis which is
controverted. W e note further that Meyboom finds
the polemic in the Homilies the fresher, and derived
more from direct observation of the two views he opposes,
Marcionitism and the Antinomism set forth by the
‘ canonical Paul’ ; that of the Recognitions he finds
more colourless and confused. Against the
denial of the genuineness of the principal Pauline
epistles altogether, see G A L A T I a N S . $5 1-9.
If then it is impossible to deny the existence of the
Anti-Pauline uolemic or to maintain that it is later than
lo. anti-Pauline the Anti-Gnostic, the next question
andAnti-onostic comes to be a s to how it came to
be connected, and even combined
polemichow with the Anti-Gnostic in such a
connected. manner as we see, esDeciallv in the
HomiZies and Recognitions. ( a ) Harnack, i n so far
a s he does not explain the Anti-Pauline element as only
seeming (above, 5 9 d ) , says upon this point (Zoc. czt.)
that the pseudo-Clementines ‘ before aught else con-
4550
 SIMON MAGUS
troverted Simon Magus and his followers .. ., but
also the apostle Paul, and seem to have transferred
Simonian features to Paul, and Pauline features t o
Simon.' . T h e question still remains, however, W h y
they did so ? If they depicted Simon or Paul otherwise
than each of them in reality was, they only obscured the
picture of each, whilst in the polemic that was being
waged, it must nevertheless have always been a matter
of primary importance to depict the adversary in such
a way that every one could clearly recognise him. T h e
literary skill of the authors must accordingly, on the
assumption of Harnack here presupposed, that they
wrote their works as we now have them without making
use of any sources, be ranked very low ; in reality,
however, it is admittedly very considerable. By the
judgment we have quoted, accordingly, Harnack has
merely raised another problem, not solved the one in
hand.
( b ) Harnack proceeds (Zuc. tit.), 'Yet it remains also
possible that the Pauline featnres, borne by the magician,
came first into existence in the process of redaction, in
so far as in the course of this the whole polemic against
Paul was deleted, but certain portions of it were woven
into the polemic against Simon.' T h e assumption
underlying these words is of the utmost importance.
W e see Harnack here reckoning, as he had not yet
done in the preceding sentence, with literary antecedents
of the pseudo-Clementine writings.
This is in point of fact indispensable, if onlyforthe reason that
we find the Homiliesfor considerable stretches dealing with the
same matters as the Recognifiom, and then again diverging
widely from them and also changing the order of the occurrences
which both rrlate in common. Further in Rccog. 374f- it is
said that Clement, at the instance of Pher, wrote down and
sent to James in ten books (the so-called K i p J y p a r a of Peter)
the discourses held by Peter in his disputation with Simon in
Cresarea, and in the same place is given a list of the contents of
this writing which shows that it dealt with things which occur
also in the pseudo-Clementines of today. To this must he
added the family romance, and other matter which again points
to a separate origin (above, 5 3 c).
And yet it is precisely ,this question as t o possible
sources of this literature that we may not propound
if Harnack's dictum is to hold good that these writings
cannot be called into requisition in any investigation
regarding primitive Christianity, because they did not
come into existence at all until the third or fourth century.
Granted that their present form is not older than the
third or fourth century, nevertheless their sources
certainly are older, and it is the bounden duty of the
historian to look into them. Harnack withdraws him-
self from the task, although he has himself recognised
its existence in the sentence w e have quoted. Finally,
immediately afterwards he goes on t o say as quoted
above (5. g d ) . ' the Pauline features of the magician are
perhaps only apparent.' T h e student who finds him-
self disinclined to follow this path out of the difficulty
which Harnack himself treads so hesitatingly, has no
longer to face the question whether one is to ' believe '
in a primeval Simon-romance (so Harnack ; see S IMON
P ETER , 5 31 n), but whether one is prepared in dis-
charge of the duty of a historian t o probe the matter t o
the bottom.
(c) That Harnack's hint of the result to which this
would lead (above, b, begin.) is a happy one cannot
be said. How are we to conceive t o ourselves even
so much as the initial juxtaposition of a n anti-Simonian
and an anti-Pauline polemic, which Harnack even
presupposes a t a certain stage of his hypothesis
where he does not yet take account of a fusion of
different sources? But why afterwards was the anti-
Pauline polemic deleted ? How came it about that never-
theless certain portions of the polemic against Paul got
themselves woven into that against Simon ? From mere
confusion ? No doubt some transference of traits that
suit Paul to Simon has occurred; but this can be
explained with any psychological probability only by
supposing that the hatred against Paul in those circles,
within which these writings took their rise, still con-
4551
SIMON MAGUS
tinued t o be active, and that what this hatred had found
to be worthy of detestation in Paul, was involuntarily
imputed, without any basis of fact, to other persons also
simply from the need it felt to give itself air. This is
only a proof of the original strength and bitterness of
the hostility in question against the apostle. In hini
his enemies saw the embodiment of all that was detest-
able, nay devilish. If now, in course of time, there
arose other teachers-whose position resembled his, yet
was not identical with it, the inclination was only too
natural, in those who disapproved, to fix their attention
only on the points of agreement, and to carry over,
without alteration, to the newcomers the sentence of
condemnation that had long ago been pronounced upon
Paul, and all the words of censure in which it had
been conveyed- 'enemy,' ' false teacher,' ' devil's tool,'
' magician,' deifier of self,' and the like. Without
the existence of a deeply-rooted hatred against Paul
that continued to be active down to a later time, all
this would not have been possible ; but as smn as its
existence is recognised, the mingling of the attributes
of distinct persons is no longer unintelligible. I n like
manner also in that case one is in a position to under-
stand that people of this fanatical sort, when nn-
questionably new characteristics emerged, did not allow
themselves to be led by this to recognise that a new
thing had appeared, that was not to be identified with
the old, but simply regarded the new characteristics in
question as a fresh development of the long familiar
a n d detestable characteristics of the original adversary.
( d ) One new eharacteristic of the kind just referred
to, undoubtedly, was the divine worship implied in the
erection of a statue in Rome (above, 5 2 u). Even the
most fertile imagination could hardly have constructed
this out of the image of Paul.
Lipsius, therefore (ii 140 A); is prohahly right when he
supposes this assertion about Simon to owe its origin to the
stupid misunderstanding of Justin, and to have found its way
into the Recognitions only after Justin's statement had become
current. Here it is even put in the mouth of Simon as a
prophecy: 'adorahor ut deus, publice divinis donahor honoribus,
ita ut simulacrum mihi statnentes tanquam denm colant et
adorent' ( 2 9 ; cp 363 where Rome is expressly named as the
place). It is however as great a misunderstanding of the
meaning of cpsius as ;hat already (8 8 c ) noted when Erbes
(2.J K{rckengesclr. 22, ~ p r 13J)
, reports it in the following
terms : that the Clementine story of Peter's conflicts with
Simon in Rome can only have arisen on the foundation of
the statement of ustm ' Lipsius does not sap this of these
conflicts in geneiai hut express1 only of ' t h e Gnostic figure of
Simon. From the view which Erbes adopts, he draws the con-
clusion that 'we have no need at all to go into the question
as to the sources and the strata of that [pseudo-Clementinel
literature. and are now already in a position to affirm that the
legend which hrings Peter in conjunction with Simon Magus ty
Rome, cannot have arisen until after 147 A . D . [;.e.,after Justin].
W h a t Lipsius holds, a n d a t the same time what we
too, it would seem, ought to hold, is the exact opposite
of this. If, through an error of Justin with reference
to a certain Gnostic, a statement arose which sobse-
quently came t o be incorporated in the pseudo-
Clementines, we have all the more pressing occasion
for inquiring what was the form which these writings
exhibited, and what the picture of Simon which they
presented, before the introduction of such Gnostic
features.
( e ) Lipsius, it is frue; since 1876 ( / P T 6 3 6 J ,
Apoki: .4p. -gesch. ii. 1 3 8 J 363) has abandoned his
earlier attempt to reconstruct, as a single writing, a
purely Anti-Panline, pre-Gnostic source which should
embrace the whole of the existing Anti-Pauline material
that we now find dispersed in the pseudo-Clemmtines
and the apocryphal Acta- not, however, because it
had been shown to be wrong, but simply because it
could not be proved to be right. All the more
decidedly, however, does he maintain that this whole
Anti-Pauline polemic existed in an oral form before the
introduction of the Gnostic features. This is in fact
the least that we must suppose, iinless all the facts
which we have pointed out regarding the polemic
4552
 SIMON MAGUS
against Paul are to be simply denied. Nor should a
renewed attempt to find in the Clementines a written
source of this kind be simply banned as impossible.
Attention must, however, be called also to the fact that
the position held by Lipsius has only in appearance
been made worse by the new turn he has given to it,
and in reality has been improved.
I t can appear to he more questionable if it is unable to find
support on any written source capable of heing separated out from
the writings before us, and if the possibility has to be reckoned
with that the Anti-Pauline legend existed for long only in an
oral form, and was reduced to writing only after the Gnostic
features had heen combined with it. Nor is this really difficult
to suppose. The mixture of features, and the difficulty felt in
keeping them clearly separate, become easily intelligible on the
assumption that the writing was done at a late date ; but the
certainty of the existence of a mass of matter that was originally
purely Anti-Pauline is not destroyed by the absence of any hook
in which this had heen committed to writing. The hatred
against Paul which still finds expression through the present
forms of the writing which have been so much worked over, was
strong enough to secure that every one, even without their
being committed to writing, should know perfectly well what
was the nature of the charges brought against Paul.
T h e positive advantage offered by the new form of
the hypothesis of Lipsius is a chronological one. On
the supposition of a written source, difficulties can be
raised by the question a s to whether it is really older
than the period of Gnosticism (from about I M A ~ .D.), was enabled to set it right’ (6 njs 6du& .rb U K O T W & ~ ~ & ro;
from which the non-Pauline features of the legend are
derived. In presence of a legend that existed orally
only. this difficulty disappears; for such a legend
naturally must have existed since the days of Paul, in
whose own letters we have already been able to point
out so many of the features which it presents ( 5 9.).
If originally it was Paul who was attacked under the
-guise of Simon alike in the Pseudo-Clementine NorniZies
and Keco,%ifions and in the Apocryphal
11. Original Acts (above, 5 4 J ) , the question in-
oneness of evitably arises whether this happened
anti-Pauline in the two groups of writings indepen-
elements in dently, or whether bot5 groups have a
Pa.-Clem. and common origin.
Apocr. Acts. ( a i T h e first view is favoured bv the contain references back to earlier conflicts of Simon
circumstance that ;he pseudo-Clernentine Nomilie; a n d
R e c o p i f i o n s deal exclusively with encounters in Palestine
a n d Syria, the .4pocryphal Acts only with encounters in
Rome. In many instances scholars have contented
themselves with establishing this fact and then holding
the question as at once settled.
(6) T h e idea, however, which underlies this whole
polemic against ‘ Simon ’ is most distinctly against this,
the idea, namely, that Peter has t o follow Simon into
every place where the latter has spread his erroneous
teaching.
That this is Peter’s task is everywhere taken for granted as a
thing of course. Take, for example, Horn. 14 12, where we find
Peter saying that Simon is in Antioch (with Annuhion); ‘when,
then, we get there and come upon them, the disputation can
take place’ ; out of a large number of other passages we may
point also to 2 17 where Peter speaks of himself as having come in
upon Simon ‘as light upon darkness as knowledge upon ignor-
ance, as healing upon disease’( ~ s ~ A d hAsv UK&C+ +s, As Lyvola
y v i u r s , ;E v6uw r a m s ) . According to 46 none but Peter ca;
cope with Simoh, and his companions complain that he has sent
them on this occasion before him. In Recog. 365 Peter says :
‘Since Simon has gone forth to preoccnpy the ears of the
Gentiles who are called to salvation. it is necessarv that I also
follow upon his track so that whatever disputat<on he raises
may be corrected by us’(Quia Simon egressus est aures gentilium
qui ad salutem vocati sunt praevenire, necesse est et me vestigia
ejus insequi ut si quid forte a b ill0 diaputatum fuerit corrigatur
a nohis), anh in 3 6 8 we read that ‘Simon has set o h , wishing ,
to anticipate our iournev: him we should have followed steg by 1 ing out that church fathers mention the presence of
step, that wheresoever he tries to subvert any there he might
forthwith he confuted by us’ (Simon praecedere volens iter
nostrum profectus est, quem oportuerat e vestigio insequi, ut
sicubi nliyuos subvertere tentaret, continuo confutaretur a nohis).
In view of such passages as these it is not conceivable
that the plan of the Hondies and Recognifions became
limited to conflicts between ‘ Simon ’ and Peter in the
East, as soon as it was know1 to the author that Simon
had come also to Rome. But this was in point of fact
actually known to the author. unless one is prepared to
deny that the apostle Paul is meant by ‘ Simon.’ Even
4553
SIMON MAGUS
if it is a Gnostic Simon that is controverted in the
Zz‘uumilies and A‘erognifions, it was Paul who supplied
the basis for this Gnostic figure (above, 5 g J ) ; and it
is only with the originaZ oneness of the anti-Pauline
elements in the Huntilies and Raozzitions on the one
hand and in the Apocryphal Acts on the other that we
have here to do.
(c) Nor yet are direct indications wholly wanting in
the Homilies and Recognitions that the conliicts must
be continued in Rome also.
Thus in Rec. 3 63 f: we read of Simon’s going from Csrsarea to
Rome saying that ‘there he would please the people so much
that he should he reckoned a god and receive divine honours’
(dicens se Komam petere ; ihi enim in tantum placitiirum ut deus
putetur et divinis donetur honorihus); see above, 5 za. With
this it agrees that Peter makes the request of Clement who is
brought to him by Earnahas: ‘travel with us, pnrticipatinm in
the words of truth which I am going to speak from city to Piiy
as far as Rome itself’ (ouvd8euuov pesaAap@dvwv 7;” 76;
Mqfklns A6yov, fu r a 6 r r h v r o & d a r &Ahw p + p ~ ‘P&p?s
a h j s : Hon:. 116=Kecog. 113: iter age nohiscum et audi ser-
monem veritatis quem habituri surnus per loca singuia, usyuequo
ad ipsam nobis perveniendum sit urhem Romam ; cp 1 7 4 : usque-
quo deo favente perveniatur ad ipsam quo iter nostrum diri-
genduni credimus urhem Romam). So also in the Epistle of
Clement to James prefixed to the Howziiies (ch. 1) Peter is spoken
of as being he ‘who as being fittest of all was commanded to
enlighten the darker part of the world namely the West and
K ~ U ~ O pCpos
U As rrdvrov ;xav&cpoc Owrluar rrAauu8ck rai iar-
op8iroar 6vv778cir), and as having died in Rome.
T h e value of these passages as evidence beconies
greater in proportion to the fulness of their agreement
with the fundamental idea set forth above, under 6.
All the more significant, therefore, is the simple ignor-
ing of them by Harnack and Clemen who do not accept
this idea, and all the bolder the view of Chase (Hastings,
D B 37756) that they ‘ are so incidental in character that
they may well be the interpolation of a later editor, the
writer, for example, who composed the E$isfle of Clemenf
t o James. prefixed to the Homilies.’
( d ) Of equal importance is the fact that the Apo-
cryphal Acts which deal only with conflicts in Rome
with Peter (and Paul) in the East.
For the pre-Catholic Acts, 17, 23, see S IMON PETER, 5 33 L, 2,
and for the Catholic Acts see chap. 17 where 5imon says of
Peter and Paul : ‘They have turned adde all Judaea from he-
lieving in me’ (6rdu~pe+auBhqv r j v ’Iou8alau ros p j rrru~ederv
poi), to which Peter makes answer ‘ Thou hast heen able to im-
pose upon all, hut upon me never ;’and thosealsowho have heen
deceived, God has t h r o q h me recalled from their error’ (rrim
6r’ ;rrdCrrcoc +6vnj&s, rpoi 6’ 066Crro~e.rai a&& ai. TOLF
s C O G 6 8sbc & njs ;Slap r A d w L v r r d i o a s o ) .
; ~ a r a ~ @ & s a6r’
Simon again holds precisely similar language in chap. 28 where
he mentions all Palestine and Caesarea as well as Judaea (ac-
cording to the Recognitions it was in Caesarea that the last
great disputation between Simon and Peter occurred). With
this it agrees that in the pre-Catholic Acts (ch. 5), in exact
parallelism with the pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recog-
nitians,. Peter receives from Christ in a vision the following
instruction : ‘ quem tu ejecisti de Judaea approhatuin magum
Simonem, iterum przeoccupavit vos Roma: . . . crastina die
proficiscere whereupon Peter says to his Christian brethren
‘necesse esi me ascendere Romae [for Romam] ad expugnandum
hostern et inimicum domini et fratrum nostrum’ [for ‘nostrorum’]
:cp SIMON PETEK, $5 34c, 33 6).
T h u s the pseudo -Clementines ancl the Apocryphal
4cts d i k e make it plain that both of them ha\,e the
inderlying idea of a controverting of Simon by Peter
n the East as well as in Rome, even although only the
m e hnlf is developed in the one group of writings and
.he othrr half in the other.
The attempt has been made to this by p oint -
Simon in Rome while a t the same time not speaking of
controversies between him and Peter. This is indeed
true of Justin, who knows nothing of any presence of
Peter in Rome at all (above, z ; SIMON P ETER, 5 gog),
as also of I r e n z u s (116[23]; about 185 A . D . ) and
Tertullian (ApoZ. 1 3 ; cp De anima, 34, 5 7 ; about
zoo A . D . ) who elsewhere do speak of the appearance
of Peter in Rome (see S IMON PETER, §§ 25 6, 26 a , and.
.
conversely, the mention of Peter and Pan1 without
Simon, 41 c). Only, this argument from silence
4554
 SIMON MAGUS
cannot prove that Simon really did make a n appear-
ance in Rome without any conflict with Peter.
In the writings of the church fathers the first mention of
this conflict occurs in the Philosophumcna, about 235 A . D .
(see S IMON P ETER , $ 39 d). Amongst the sources of this work,
however, must unquestionably be reckoned the d v r a y p o +r
8rrckar T ~ Fa;pimrs of Hippolytus, written about zoo A.D.,
even if Hippolytus may not be held to have been the author of
the Philosophumena itself; and Lipsius has made it probable
(fPT,1876, p. 607) that this crlimaypa of Hippolytus, now no
longer extant, already contained the conflict between Peter and
Simm. If this be so, it can no longer be asserted that the
tradition of the conflict is later than the opposite tradition 01
Tertullian and Ireneus. Moreover, it cannot be maintained
that these two authors had any urgent occasion, in the particular
connections in which they were writing, to mention this conflict
if they had known it.
(l) I n the case of Justin such an occasion un-
deniably did exist: and, moreover, Justin as being
the earlier (about 152 A . D . ) is also the most important
witness. He, however, as already pointed out, knows
nothing of Peter's presence in Rome. T h u s what he
says about Simon admits of explanation without any
difficulty, even if a tradition was already in existence
before his time to the effect that Simon had been
controverted by Peter in Rome. One part of this
tradition-that about Simon's presence in Rome- he
found himself able to accept (in fact he held it t o be
confirmed by the statue, which he brought into con-
nection with Simon ; see above, § z a ) , the other- that
about Peter's presence in Rome- he was unable t o
accept. W h y he could not, is a matter of indifference ;
what is certain is that one who, as Justin does, regards
all the twelve original apostles as having engaged in
missions to the Gentiles, and is completely silent about
Paul (MINISTRY, 5 36a) would have had no difficulty
in accepting the presence of Peter in Rome, if he was
in possession of credible information to this effect. One
must reflect that the circles from which the traditions
relating t o the controverting of 'Simon' by Peter
emanated enjoyed small repute in the church, and
certainly no mistake will have been committed if we
suppose that it was Justin's knowledge of the Roman
tradition, which he acquired on the spot, that pre-
vented him from believing in the presence of Peter
there (cp SIMONP E T ER , § 40d).
(g)As soon as the later hypothesis of Lipsius, which
a s we have seen (above, 5 I o e ) has most t o recommend
it, is adopted-viz., that the entire anti-Pauline polemic
existed, in the first instance, in oral tradition- we are
all the less in a position to doubt that from the beginning
it formed a unity ; and sayings of church-fathers about
a presence of Simon in Rome without any conflict with
Peter cannot, on the other hand, be regarded as proving
anything, if only because they are all of them much
later, since the oral tradition just referred to must have
come into existence during and shortly after the lifetime
of Paul.
( h ) Nor can the fact that in the Homilies and
Rzcognzizons only the eastern conflicts are dealt with,
and in the Apocryphal Acts only the Roman be held as
having force against this conclusion, even if we are not
able to explain it.
At the same time we may certainly conjecture that the resi-
dence and the geoiraphicd horizon of the various authors had
a determining influence on the selection of the places which they
made thescenes of their romance. Otherwise, the HomiZies and
Recopifions would certainly not have confined themselves to
Palestine and Syria, but would have included Asia Minor and
even Macedonia and Greece as well, where also Paul had exer-
cised his missionary activities. Moreover, neither the Homilies
and Recupifions nor yet the Apocryphal Acts (though this
does not hold t h e of them in the same degree) exhibit
unity of conception in their present form. We cannot tell
whether older forms of them would not give us a clearer insight
into the original oneness of this whole body of literature.
Having - now examined the Simon-romance in all its
Simon ramifications, our next question must
la. be : what element of historical truth
simons) (if any) is there attaching to Simon ?
historical ? ( a ) Of the four Simon-figures
distinguished above (6 S), the caricature of Paul in the
4555
SIMON MAGUS
FZomilies and Recognitions and in the Apocryphal Acts
was interpreted as having its basis in the historical Paul
and no other historical person whatsoever by the
Tiibingen school, followed by Noldeke (in Lipsius,
BrpinaungsheJit, 3 2 3 ) and Liideinann (below, 5 15), as
also a t an earlier date by Lipsius.
On this interpretation the explanation of the name Simon is
that Paul, whose real name of course could not be mentioned,
was the opponent of Simon Peter and thus was the false Simon ;
he was called a Samaritan, it was held, because he was a Jew,
and yet also no Jew since be rejected the law of Moses. On all
other features see above, $5 4-7, 9-11.
(6) Krenkel (below, § 15). to explain the caricature
of Paul, calls in the Cyprian magician Simon, who
stood high in favour with Felix because of his services
in helping him to win Drusilla (above, § 8 a ) .
As Paul also was well treated by Felix when in prison at
Casarea (Acts 24 22-26), it was a comparatively easy thing for
Jewish-Christian slander to assert that he really was identical
with the Cyprian Simon, and that, using this name, in order the
more easily to gain followers he gave himself out to be the apostle
Simon Peter. This last conjecture is altogether improbable ;
but the first also goes somewhat far, although it seems to have
some support in Paul's preaching before Felix and Drusilla ' of
righteousness and temperance and the judgment to come ' (Acts
2425 ; see BARJESUS, B j d ) . Cp above, 5 5 e.
( c ) Kreyenbiihl (205-214 ; see below, 5 15) goes still
further.
The accusation against Paul of having brought Drusilla to
Felix, he attributes not to the Jewish Christians, but to the
Jews who accused him before Felix. According to Kreyenbiihl
a Cyprian Simon never existed ; what Josephus relates regardin;
him is simply this slander which was current against Paul, having
been brought against him under the name of Simon which was
given to him. But the question arises : How came non-Christian
Jews to give to Paul the name of Simon? Kreyenbiihl's ex-
planation of how it was that at the same time they designated
him as a Cyprian by birth, is that Barjesus or Elymas (Acts
136-12) was originally the apostle Paul (see BARJESUS,5 46).
Both names are, according to Kreyenbuhl, nicknames which
were given him by Jews (not Christian Jews), because he was
received in a friendly way in Cyprus by Sergius Paulus, and
there fully declared his apostasy from Judaism by changing hi:
name. Elymas means 'magician,' literally 'man of Elam
(IIAKJESUS, 0 I e), the classical land of magic ; Barjesus means
' fo!lower of Jesus. Such hypotheses are exceedingly pre-
carious. The historicity of the Cyprian Simon, attested as it is
by Josephns, must not be questioned ; b u t it is not to the Paul
of the Simon-romance, as Krenkel thinks (above, a), but only
to the Paul who is presented under the name of Barjesus that
features have been transferred from him (BAKJESUS5 4 6 c).
Should it so happen that his name was not Simon, dut k t o k s
('Ampor), as Niese reads with the Milan codex and the epitome
of Josephus, then one would be tempted to bring this into
combination with the Erorpas, which is D's reading for Elymas
in Acts 13 8 (so Harris, E@. q o z a,pp. 189.195 ; cp BARJESUS,
% 1, 8 a).
( d ) Lipsius, in his latest treatment of the subject
( ApuRr. Ap. -Gesch. ii. 149-56),has recognised a Samaritan
y6qs named Simon as historical. By doing so, he holds,
we make it easier to understand the bestowal of the name
of Simon upon Paul, and Justin's statement that Gitta
was the birthplace of Simon, as well as the fact that
Simon passes not only for the father of all heresies, but
also as the revelation of the supreme God, and thus as a
kind of Messiah (above, 2 d ) . If Paul was the only
basis for the figure of Simon, then only the first of these
two predicates, not the second also, would have been
attached to it. Lipsins adds, as a possibility, that this
Samaritan Simon may be identical with the Cyprian
Simon of Josephus.
( e ) Harnack, in his turn, also maintains the historicity
of the Samaritan S i m o n ; not, however, as explaining
the caricature of Paul (above, 4 3 ) . but because the
Gnostic sect of the Simonians must have had a founder.
Lipsius (5 I $ ) adduces this reason for believing in the
historicity of Simon only with the reservation that it is
not necessary to bring the Simonians into direct historical
connection with Simon ; they seem to have marked him
out as the representative of their ideas only by an after-
thought. K r e y e n b u h l ( ~ g g - z o r )in
, like manner, postu-
lates a founder for the Simonian sect, but places him a t
the beginning of the second century, since the Gnostic
contents of his 'Arrb@aurs McydXq, which he accepts as
genuine (above, 2c), do not fit in with the first century,
and Justin himself says that Simon was a pupil of
4556
 SIMON MAGUS
Menander, and pupils of Menander ‘ a r e alive even
now’ ( v E v ; ApoL i. 264), that is to say, about 1 5 2 A.D.
Justin, it is true, says in the same chapter, and often,
that Simon came to Rome under the emperor Claudius
or, it may be (as Kreyenbiihl thinks), under (Claudius)
Nero (see SIMONP ETER , 5 3 7 4 ; but Kreyenbiihl
supposes him to draw this from another source without
regard to chronology. I n truth, the Simon of Acts
shows very little if any of the attributes of a Gnostic
leader of a sect, and we must be on our guard against
holding him for such, on the ground, merely, that
tradition names no other. If we assume a Gnostic
Simon of Gitta a t the beginning of the second century,
then we do not need, as Kreyenbiihl a t the same
time does, to deny the historicity of the Samaritan
magician named Simon in the first century- a historicity
which the reasons adduced by Lipsius make very prob-
able. If, further, we hesitate about identifying the
Samaritan with the Cyprian Simon-an identification
which has nothing in its favour except that the name
and the quality of magician is the same in both cases-
we find ourselves in the end accepting three persons
named Simon. T h e point, however, is difficult to decide.
(f) It is certain, however, from all our premises, that
not only Peter, but also the Samaritan Sinion of the
apostolic age, never appeared in Rome. It is told of
Simon merely because by his figure Paul is intended.
T h e only writer who represents Simon as appearing in
Rome without Peter-Justin-in view of his fiction
about the statue of Simon is not entitled to credence,
especially as his statement also, and not merely that of
a simultaneous appearance of Simon always with Peter,
is quite easily intelligible if it be taken as resting on the
romance of Sinion= Paul (5 11e, f). Whether a
Gnostic of the second century named Simon appeared
in Rome remains an open question; but it is not of
decisive importance for our present investigation.
T h e acceptance of a Samaritan Simon in the first
century does not, however, by . any. means, ipso. facto,
- Lipsius can uphold his view only on the assumption that the
13. Acts 89-24 : carry with it the acknowledgement of
= the credibility of Acts 89-24. The
features enumerated in a preceding
section ( 5 I c, d ) , which are by no means appropriate
to a magician, find a satisfactory explanation only when
it is recognised that the apostle Paul underlies this figure
also. ( u ) Only Paul, not a magician, could have had
the wish to be able to impart the gift of the Holy Spirit,
and thereby attain equality of rank with the original
apostles ; and Simon’s so rapid conversion to Christianity
can apply only to Paul, the narrative already pre-
supposing him to be a Christian and interesting itself
solely in his desire to be able to impart the gift of the
Spirit. I n the samedirection point also the words of
Peter (821): ‘ t h o u hast neither part nor lot ( K X ~ ~ P O in E)
the matter’ : for ~hljpos( R V ‘portion,’ RVmS ‘lot ’)
is in 1 1 7 ( c p 1 2 5 ) used of the apostolate, the attainment
of which by a magician is barred from the outset.
( a ) Equality of rank with the original apostles was
refused to Paul also by their party ( I Cor. 92 : ‘if to
others I ani not an apostle,’ etc.), for which reason the
apostle himself claims it with the emphasis which we
see ( 9 I 1 I 2 Cor. 1 I Gal. 1I Rom. 11-6). Now, it is
not difficult to discern in Peter’s other expressions also
in Acts8zr-23, traces of the polemic which was being
carried on against Paul.
‘Thy heart is not ri‘ht before God’ (7,. 21) has a close
similarity to the expression used in 1310 in addressing Bar-
jesus (i.e., Paul): ‘wilt thou not cease to pervert the r&&
waysof the Lord?’ At the same time, however, thephraseology
recalls also Gal. 2 14 : ‘ they walked not uprightly ( o h bp8o-
rro8oiuw) according to the truth of the gospel.’ So Paul
cypresses himself in Antioch against Peter and his fellows.
Thus we perceive that ActsS9-24 is the counterpart to the
setting down of Peter by Paul at Antioch and we are able to
understand 3 23. For this verse does not hean, as in AV RV!
‘thou art in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.
‘In the ?,ond’mighthe intelligible, but ‘in the gall’not. Thus
s k X O X ~ .Y . . 6 p i rc Bvra is the same familiar Hebraism as we
find in Mt. 19 5 : ‘ I see tha: thou art bitter gall and an iniquitous
4557
SIMON MAGUS
bond.’ Paul must have seemed like bitter gall‘ on account of
his opposition to Peter in Antioch, and an ‘ iniquitous restraint’
in so far as he endeavoured to prevent Peter from again
withdrawing from table -fellowship with the Gentile Christians.
Lastly, Simon’s repentance (6 24) has its parallels (i.e., according
to # 9, its foundation) in the Homilies and Kecopiirons (above,
s 46).
(c) But, did Paul really offer the original apostles
money in order to obtain from them a recognition of his
equality with them? Certainly not. But it was merely
the finishing touch to the discovery of the Simon
romance when Volkmar (TU6. Zheol. Iahrb6. 1856, pp.
279-286) perceived that Paul, according to Jewish-
Christian scandal, was held to have done so when he
carried the great collection to Jerusalem on the occa-
sion of his last journey thither ( I Cor. 161-4 2 Cor. Sf.
Rom. 1525-28).
On this presupposition, let us now ask what judg-
ment we ought to form as to the literary activity of the
14. Tendency author of Acts. ( u ) If the Samaritan
of Acts89-24. Simon was not a historical peison, the
author of Acts invented him in order to
say that not Paul but a Samaritan magician was the
Simon with regard to whom Jewish-Christian stories
told that he had wished to purchase equality with the
apostles with money, and had been repulsed by Peter.
If, on the other hand, a Samaritan Simon really did
exist, then also the aiithor of Acts can nevertheless have
made use of him simply as a means for attaining the
same purpose. I n this event, the representation that
the affair had happened before Paul’s conversion, must
be regarded as specially effective.
( b ) I n order not to be compelled to attribute this to
the author of Acts, Lipsius in his latest treatment
(ApoRr. Ap.-Gesch. ii. 1S I $ ) assumed not only that the
Samaritan Simon had actually existed, but also that he
had an encounter with Peter.
At the same time inasmuch as what is said in Acts 8 14-17 as
to the prerogative 0; Peter and John in regard to the imparting
of the Holy Spirit is quite unhistorical (MINETRV,$ 3 4 ~ ) ~
encounter between Peter and Simon had another occasion.
When this hypothesis is entertained, however, not only has a
region of pure conjecture to be entered upon, but the tendency
of the author of Acts remains just as,it was before-a tendency
to say something unhistorical about Simon in order to blunt the
point of the Judaistic allegation that it applied to Paul.
(c) Lipsius further propounds it as a possibility that
this substitution for Paul of the Samaritan Simon
already lay before the author in one of the sources of
Acts. This source, accordingly, it was which followed
the tendency t o divert from Paul the charge of bribery ;
the author of Acts, however, failed to perceive this
tendency, but relates the story as referring to the
Samaritan Simon in all good faith in its trustworthiness.
( d ) By way of support of some such expedient, it had
already been urged before Lipsius that the magician
does not wear Pauline features; or at least not ex-
clusively Pauline features, but also Gnostic ones.
In this connection, however, 8 g cannot be urged : ‘ giving out
that himself was some great one ’ ; for by this expression he is
more nearly brought on a level with Thendas (5 36). Even the
fact of his being called ‘the power of God that is called Great
(6 I O) admits of being carried back to Paul. Paul, indeed, not
only calls his gospel a power of God (Rom. 116 I Cor. 1 18q),
but also claims himself to possess the power of God ( 2 Cor.
4 7 G7 129 134 I Cor.54). Yet it remains possible that the
expression in Acts 6 IO is a Gnostic one, especially in view of
the word ~aAovpCvq. We have no more reason for omitting
this with HLP sah than we have for deleting TO; Baoi, after
Blass ( S t . Kr. p. 462), on the sole ground of the Latin
translation of Perpignan (ACTS, col. 50, n. 2). On the other
hand, neither also 1s there any occasion for taking pryiAq as the
Aramaic participle Pael ( ~ 5 or 1 ~.ilo= ‘ the revealer ’ ; so
Klostermann, Pro6kl~zeim Aflmosfeltut, 1883, pp. 15-m). In
the pseudo-Clementine Hotniiies ( 2 2 2 ) we read In the dercrip-
tion of the Gnostic predicates of Simon : ‘he wishes to he
accounted a certain supreme power, higher even than the god
who created the world’(8CAfr vopi<cudar a v o r i r q n c d v a r Gdvaprs
K d airoi, 705 T~)Yrdupov K r ~ U a V r o rBroi [ & v w d p a is perhaps to
be supplied] : Kecog. 2 7 : excelsam virtutem quz supra creatorem
deum sit ; cp P 3a, and SIMON P ETER , 8 33 a).
( e ) Yet, even if the author of Acts has already taken
up a Gnostic feature into his presentation of Simon, the
4558
 SIMON MAGUS
fact remains that he was aware of, and wished to
obviate, the reproach that Paul had wished to purchase
for himself equality with the original apostles by means
of his great collection. Otherwise, he would not have
passed the collection over in such complete silence in
chap. 21, where we should have expected its delivery to
be recorded, whilst yet he has preserved in 2 0 4 from
the ' we-source ' (according to a , highly probable con-
jecture) the list of those who brought it (GALATIA,
§ 1 2 ) . Not till 2 4 1 7 has been reached does the author
allude to it a t all, but here in such a manner that it
becomes something quite different-viz., ' alms for my
nation,' not for the Christians in Palestine only. For
the main purpose of the book- the representation of the
harmony subsisting between Paul and the original
apostles (A CTS , 3, end)- the mention of the collection
would have been serviceable in the highest degree.
This may be the reason why a collection brought by
Paul to the Christians in Jerusalem is actually mentioned,
though at a time at which it is historically impossible
(1129f. 1 2 2 5 ; cp C OUNCIL , $ I L Z ) . All these circum-
stances speak for tendency too clearly to allow us t o
shut our eyes to the presence of the same thing in 89-24.
(f)T h e decision which must be pronounced, that
tendency is at work here, is not weakened, but
strengthened, by separating out a source which was
not (as with Lipsins; above, c) already a tendency-
document, but rather a s absolutely historical as possible
(above, I, b-d) ; for the user of this source has all the
more assuredly, in that case, purposely introduced by
his interpolations the tendency which the present
narrative as a whole exhibits.
(g).What we are able to absolve him from, then, is
certainly In no case (whether he used sources or not)
the deliberate intention of representing the great collec-
tion in another light than that which agreed with actual
ElIMON PETER
facts, in order to take away all foundation from evil
rumours about Paul which were based on the facts ; the
most that one can do is to absolve him from the charge
of having deliberately invented statements of fact, if we
assume that he actually knew of the existence of the
Samaritan Simon which we must recognise as a fact,
and in good faith believed that it must have been this
Simon who made the attempt to bribe, and that Peter
must have withstood him. This view admits of being
understood as a result of his general assumption that
the party of the original apostles cannot possibly have
stood in a relation of such hostility to Paul (cp the
similar judgment expressed under BaRJEsuS, $ 4 c).
I t still, however, remains impossible to deny that the
author has been led by tendency to be silent as to the
real history of the collection, just as he has been led to
be silent about the dispute between Peter and Paul a t
Antioch, and about Titus (see C OUNCIL , §§ 3 end, 7
end), or that he relates matters for which he had n o
historical warrant.
Baur, Ta6. 2tschr.f: Theol., 1831, d,114-136; Simson, 2.x
hist. TheoZ. 1841, c, I 5-79 ; Hilgenfeld, Z W T , 1868, 357-396 ;
Kefzergesch. 1884 163-186,453-461; Lipsms,
16. Literature. $?reZen d. >bm.'Petmssage, 1872, 13.46 ;
Simon Magus' in BL, 5 , 1875, 301-321;
Ajokr. Ap..Gesch. ii. 1 1887 28-69 et$a.ssim (seeErgdnzullgs-
Ite f , 238x1; LiidemaLn, Pr& KZ, r887, 953-961 (on Lipsius);
d r n a c k , Simon Magus' in EBM ; Lehrb. d. Dogmen-
gesch.(z),204-2c9, 264-270 ; Dieterlen, L'apbfre Paul et Siinon
le magicien Nancy, 1878; Krenkel, Josejhus u. Lucas, 1894.
178.190 ; K;eyenbiihl E71ahg.d. Wahrheit 1, 1900, 174-284.
On the pseudo. dementine writings d e Schliemann, Die
Clementinen 1844. Hilgenfeld, Die clment. Kccogn. U.
Homilien r&8 ; Uhlhorn, Die HomiZ. u. Recop. des Cknrens
Rom. 18;4. Langen, Die CCetnensromane, 1890 : Hort Notes
?nfro>ucfor> to t h Study ofthe C k m . Recog., 1902 ; gig-, in
S t u d . Bi6. 2, 1890, 157-193 ; Headlam, JThSf igor J?, 41-58 :
Chapman, ibid. 436-441 ;and (in agreement witi him) Harnack,
TLZ, IgoZ, 57.3. P. w. s.

SIMON PETER
CONTENTS
N AME (K I)
PALESTZNZAN PERZOD (s2-23)
I. I N P AUL A N D ACTS. Transfiguration Stater ($ 8J). 111. IN FOURTH GOSPEL.
Parallels ($24). , ?:her doubtful;lenfents~$~p!. , , , divergent points($ 18).
Less, strongly
~ ,D

in ACES alone ( 9 4).
11. I N SVNOPTISTS.
Synoptists as Sources (8 5).
Walking on water ($ 6).
Other unhistorical narratives (5 7).
1. IN NTAND CHURCH FATHERS(@25.31). 11.
Earliest and later witnesses (I z 5 x ) .
Ascensio Jesaiae, I Clem. (8 2 7 s ) .
IVlutyrdom pnlocated (%29). .
silence on sojourn ana marryraom(s 30).
,"
~ Cathoe Azta Petri et Pauli (&34J1-
Provisional conclusions (5 31).
iviinor notices wlrn nisrorlcat Kernel (8 11).
Jairus' daughter (5 12).
Call, draught of fishes (5 135).
Denial confession (5 15~5).
Designfation as Satan (5 17).
LATER PERZOD ($5 24-48)
M I S S I O N A R Y FIELDS (I
24)
<"" I .
IN APOCRYPHAL ACTS ($8 32-39).
Literary (8 32).
Pre-Catholic Acta Petri (BB 33 36).
xrrivai in Kome, m y or aeatn ( 9 37~.1.
Conclusions from Apocr. Acts (5 39).
ueniai (8 19).
Call (5 20).
Footwashing (8 21).
Peter and beloved disciple ($ 22).
Clurracter ofPete7 (5 23).
,
111. IN PSEUDO-CLEM. HOM. AND RECOG.
Inference
(' 40J). from pseudo. Clenientine
_7Homilies an-d2-ey$ioys (D 40).
n o counter resumony (8 41).

Ba6yLnii a.s$eZd o f acfivi!y (5 42f.'). Place ofdeafh :ConcZusiorr($ 4 4 s ) . Importance for Roman Church (8 46).
Babylon of I Pet. 5 rg=Rome? (5 42). Where did Peter die? (A 44). Later Traditions(S 47).
Babylonia and adjoining countries as Conclusion as to Peter's later life and Writihgs attributed fo Peter (B 48).
Peter's mission-field (0 43). death (I 45). SiHiog~a#hy(5 49).
Simon, or Symeon (CYMcmN ; so 6 for liLtr$ ; see only once hi>great prandl;ltlrer(2 I), and the sonof the patriarch
Jacoh thrice (4 .\lace. 2 19 Judith 6 15 32). E'or the last-named
S IMEON . § S), was the original and proper name of the Josephus invariably writes Symeon (or Semeon : I v p c J v ,
1. Name. intimate disciple of Jesus who was destined iar. Z a p d v ) for all other persons he has Simon ( Z l p o v )
to be for ever known throughout all except in tdo cases (Ant. xii. 6 r , 8 zbs-for the ancestor f.
Christendom by the surname of Peter. the Maccahees-and in B/ iv. 3 9, 5 159 where in each case
P v p d v is found). Soon after the apostdlic age it even came
(a)The name Simon is a clarsical one which occurs (for about that the Greek form was taken to underlie the Hebrew
example) in Aristophanes Lysias, and Demosthenes. Ever
since the Jews began the bractice qf assuming Greek or Greek- and I'D'! was written instead of j\@ (cp N AMES , P, 86,
sounding names, alongside of their proper Hehrew ones, to be end). (c) In the N T Simon (Plwov) is the current form.
employed in intercourse with the outside world (cp BARNABAS Symeon (Pvpcdv), in fact (if we lkave out of account the
I I , end, and N AMES, 5 86), Simon was regarded as an apDroprii patriarch mentioned in Rev. 7 7 , the ancestor of Jesus in
ate equivalent for Symeon, all the more because in the selection Lk. 3 30 'the aqed prophet of Lk. 225 36, and the prophet
of such equivalents similarity of soiind was considered an im- and teaher of Antioch in Syria who bore the surname of Niger,
portant element. ( G ) The form Simon(Pipov) is that almost Acts 191)occurs but twice ' and in both instances-in 2 Pet. 1I
invariably met with in the OT Apocrypha (3 Ezra [ I Esd.] 9 3 2 as well as in Acts 15 1 4 4 ; used with the obvious intention of
Ecclus. 50 I : also in I , 2 and 4 Macc.). Only once is the well. giving special solemnity to the designation of the apostle. In
known Maccabaean leader called Zupehiv (I Macc. 2 65) ; so too Acts 15 this is all the more unmistakable because Peter is the
4559 4560