(e) SoniLthing more may be said for the expression in the letter of Peter prefixed to the book in which he speaks ol
,«1....-Here Paul may weU be referred to as 'the enemj whose doctrine waa Uwless; but why should not the enemy he simplv Simon, who was by tradition the source of all false teachin.'? Lawlessness does not mean breakmg the law, but
'*?/'5'ieTorsiJiLflcant passage i» Reccg.i. 70 (a curious episode peculiar to the Reco.piUiom). James hv his preac nng his verv nearlv persuaded the high priest and all the people M be baptized when ' homo inimicus ' appears and bids them not to be deceived byamagician.and attacks theni. He was clearly intendeil to be Saul (in his unconverted davs), tntl he if tpedalbi disHiuimshed from Simon, who is introduced as som^ ™e different in the next chapter but one. Paul is qmte clearly not Simoa here.
It seems very doubtful, indeed, whether Simon is ever intended to represent Paul, nor is there any Pauline teaching put into Simons mouth. The above passages, which are all the more im- portant quoted, are hardly sufficient to establish the theory that Simon U Paul. The author or compiler of the Clementines really starts from the belief that the Simon of the Acts, whom 1 eter combated, was the source of all heresy, and so ha makes his favourite apostle travel from place to place combating in tlie person of Simon the talse Marcionit* teaching of which he was believed to be the originator. This will explain the whole situation, and is much less far-fetched than the explanation which finds St. Paul every
where. ... _ j „j
(ii.) But without forcing this too tal, and ad-
II I
SIMON MAGUS
SIMON MAGUS
523
initlinp that the writer may possibly have been inteudiug somewhat delitiitJly to attack Pauline teaching, there is a furtlier question : Is tliere any ernlcnce for early Ebionite Acts which con- tained a narrative of Peter and Simon (concealing Paul) ?
The theory of Lipsius formerly was that there was an ori^iiiial Ebionite Acts which was the com- mon source ol both the Roman le,:.'eiul and the Clem- entines. He found an external support for this statement in tlie passage given above from the Apoxtolic C/mstittitwns, wliich he boldly said be- lon^^ed to tlie earlier portion of that work. This is an admirable illustration of the danger of such statements, and how very untrustworthy are the attempts of any critic, however able, to guess at the ori''inal portions of a work. Some years l)efore Lipsius wrote thus, Lagarde had already published his Greek version of the Didnscnlia, the earlier fm-m of the Constitutions, and disproved the whole lueorj'. There is no external evidence for the existence of early Ebionite ^ci* as the source of the whole story, and Lipsius has given up the theory in this form, but he still believes in early Ebionite Arts. As a matter of fact, there seems verv little evidence for their existence. He finds Ebionite tendencies in some passages of the Acts of Peter and Paul, but the controversy there is not with Jewish Cliristianity, but with Judaism — and Simon Magus is the champion of Judaism. Th.atis the position that he occupied in the Leucian Arts, and the mssages suggest much more a Leucian than an Ebionite origin. It is even more dillicult to .speak of the sources of the Clementines, but it is very doubtful if it is necessary to assume an Ebionite^c^? which contained an account of Simon. The contest between .Simon and Peter along the Syrian coast is almost absent from the Recognitions, perhaps the earlier form. With the exception of the concluding incident, which was clearly not part of the original work, the portion concerning Simon resolves itself into the account of his career, which is obviously based largely on Justin, and the disjiutes with Peter at Ca-sarea, in which Simon is made the protagonist of Marcioni.sm. The latter would probably be the direct work of the author, and does not demand a source. On no subject con- nected with the Clementines is it possible to speak with certainty ; but this much seems clear, that there is no evidence of Ebionite Acts, and no need to suppose that they existed. They are merely a hypothesis, invented to support preconceived views.
(lii.) If we examine the clironological order of the development of the legend, the Catholic account of the first work of Peter and Paul at Rome is older than the storij of Simon and Peter. Both Dionysius of Corinth and Irenaius know the story of their visit, and both ascribe to them the foundation of the Roman Church. There is no certain trace of till" story concerning the contest of Simon and Peter at Rome before the 3rd cent., although as a matter of fact it probably existed in the Leucian Arts not later than the close of the 2nd century. Chrono- logically, the Catholic story caused the legend, not rice vcrsh.
(iv.) The same is true of the whole growth of the •tory. Wo first of all trace the various elements of it as existing in dilVerent sources and varj'ing forms. The more complicated and fuller stories are the result of later growth, and not the original source. The simple n.irrative of the Acts is the earliest, not the latest account. This will come out more clearly in what follows.