Lipsius, who had worked out this theory in the most ingenious manner, did so mainly in con- nexion with his researches into the early history of the story of St. Peter's martyrdom at Kome. The original idea of Peter bavin" visited Rome was Ebionite. ' Tlie tradition of Peter's presence in Rome, which, unhistorical as it is, can only be e.xplained by an anti - Pauline interest, is most universally connected in the most ancient records with his relation to Simon ' (Zeller, Acts of t/ie Apostles, i. p. 267, Eng. tr. ). Rome must be claimed for true Christianity and the Jew^sh prince of the apostles, so a story was invented describing the manner in which Peter had visited Rome and there won a great victory over the false apostle, the Samaritan, i.e. Paul. Ultimately, the Roman Church realized how important for their prestige was the visit of Peter to llome and his martyrdom there, and they adopted this legend in a Catholic .sense, Peter and Paul being represented as the first founders of the Ronuin Cliurch. The diffi- culty about this tlieory is that in the documents which we possess the Catholic theory is really the oldest, and therefore it is necessary to invent an early Ebionite Acts of Peter which contain the Ebionite form of the legend. This, according to Lipsius, was the common source of the Simon legend and the Apocryphal Acts, and he devoted great ingenuity to reconstructing it in accordance with his theory. Rut in his later works Lipsius has given up much of his former theory, although lie still holds to the existence of early Ebionite Acts of Peter.
This theory of the identity of Simon Magus and the Apoitle Paul is gradually ceasing to be held, and many scholars summarily dismiss it ; it is, however, we notice, still accepted by Schmiedel (Encyc. Bibl. i. p. 913), and will, no doubt, be fully worked out by him. At first si'dit, from the point of vie\y of common-sense, it se'ems absurd, and as a matter of fact it has very little evidence in its favour. The evidence that tliere seemed to be arose from a certain method of looking at facts owing to preconceived ideas. Without going into the question more thoroughly than space permits, we may touch upon the fol- lowing points : —
(i.> It is very doubtful whether the Simon ot the Clementina eona-vls the Apostle Paul. .^. ..
(ii.) There is Uttle or no evidence for early Ebionite Aett V Peter
(iii ) The evidence for the Catholic history of the visit of Peter to Rome is earUer and better than that for his visit to Rome to combat Simon Magus. That is a later story (not ap- pearing until the 3rd cent.), arising from the combination ol two or three stories. .
(iv.) The catena ot Patristic evidence given above suggesu > quite different account of the growth ol the legend.
(i.) ffmafar does the Simon of the Clementities conceal the Apostle Paul .'—It is quite natural that the writer of the Clementines, who was probably an Ebionite by extraction, should be anti-Pauline, and any teaching that he would consider erroneous, he would put into the mouth of Simon. But how far does the masque of Simon really conceal Paul?
(a) In Horn. xvil. 12-19 Simon defends the thesis that the belief obtained by visions is more cerUin than that from per- sonal intercourse. Peter maintoins that the personal know- ledge that he possesses is more trustworthy. This may very naturally be referred to the claim of St. Paul, that he was an apostle because he hod seen the Lord in a vision ; nor are there wanting verbal paraUels. Peter says (ch. 19; : „ _««Tiv.a.r^>'i'«« ^u Xi^u!, cf. Gal 211 ; so apin, •! Viu^ .«..«" f"f "''.= '^°''' Zz-, u^lhTtMk ifr<i»T.X« ir'.-«', and we know that St. Paul clauncd to have visions (2 Co 12i). This explanation is quite possible: but has not the whole passage probably very much more meaning when applied to the claims made by heretics to have a speciaf revelation superior to the Church revelation?
(M In Ham. ii. 17 Simon is said to be « too i/"" ui »« '>>"i T»iT« ^aW.. He preaches the false doctrine, the coming of which must precede the true which Peter taught. Is not thia Paul coing among the heathen and teaching them falsely, to be followed by Peter, who teaches them what is true? So again Horn. ui. 69 Peter says that when he wished to teach the heathen the beUef in one God. Simon went further, and Uught them to believe in many. In vu. 4-8 Peter teUs the people of T^•re that they have been deceived by his forerunner Simon. Tlie second instance clearly Ukes away from the force of the first, because the faUe teacher is made to teach the behc-l in more than one God, and is clearly the first dissenunator ot Marcionism. ^ ^. _. . ,-
(c) In ifom. xviii. 6-10 we have a condemnation of indis- criminate teaching. This is Peter condemning Paul ; but real v it will have equal meaning if we suppose it introduced to e.vplain why this special doctrine of the Clementines has only been known to a few. , , •™,-„
(d) In Recoo. iii. 49 Simon is colled a vas etecticmu . . . jno^no. a chosen vessel for evil, cf. Ac 91= ; and in Recog. U 18 he is said to be ma'.ujnus traii^fonnaM se m si>lcndorem lucis, ct. 2 Co U". But nothing can be drawn from the last sentence, and the first does not mean much W hy, it PaiU U called a chosen vetsel in a good sense, should not &imoD be cMed a chnsf II vessel /or emll .