V. The Growth of the Legend. — We are now in a position to sketch tentatively the growth of the whole legend. Our primary authorities must be the .Vets and Justin Martyr, because thej' are chronologically the earlier, and because the accept-
ance of them explains the rest. Justin Martyr, who lived in Samaria less than 100 years after the time of Simon, was writing about something that he would know. Whether the fully developed system as described bj' Justin comes directly from the founder of the heresy or was the product of a later member of the school, may of course still be doubted, but the system harmonizes with what we read in the Acts ; nor are there anj' a priori reasons for doubting the story about Simon and the woman he chose to call Helena. The later account of tlie system which we find in Hippolytus was probably the production of some meiiilier of the sect ; but it is on the same lines as the older work, .and we must remember that the essence of Gnosticism was not orthodoxy but speculation. Dilierent members of the school of BasUides produced very dilierent Rj'stems, and in the same way some members of tiie school of Simon produced the later development described above. The main source of the Clemen- tine literature was directly or indirectly Justin, possibly also Hegesippus, and some of the personal details of his life and connexion \vith Dositheus may be authentic.
AVe now pass to the Roman visit. Are there any grounds for thinking that this really took place ? Probably not. Of what linp[)eiied in Samaria, Justin 18 a first-hand authority ; on m.atters in Rome he would be ignorant and misinformed. He saw the statue, anil jumped to the conclusion that Simon, of whom he had known so much, wa.s here represented. It maj' be noticed th.at Justin gives no autliority for the Roman visit except the statue. In another direction Justin is rcsjionsible for the Simon legend, namely, by making him the source and originator of heresy. How far there is an actual historical basis for tlie idea that Gnosticism was directly or indirectly derived from him may be doubtful. His sj'stem exhibits all the elements which go to make up Gnosticism ; especi- ally we may notice that there we first find the idea that the highest God was not the creator of the world ; but then such tendencies and ideas were in the air. The same infiuences of dualism and syncretism which worked in his case would work in others. But, anyhow, Simon w.as the one clear in- stance of a heretic mentioned in the NewTestanient. It was natural, therefore, to represent him as the typical arch-heretic, the originator of heresy, and the place which Justin assigned to him at the he.id of his heretical genealogy was one in which lii^ position was uncontested.
Next comes the Roman contest with Peter. The materials out of which this was constructed were (1) the contest of Peter and Simon in the Acts ; (2) the Rom.an tradition that the Churcli was founded by Peter ; (3) the story of the Simon statue ; (4) a story contained in Suetonius (Nem, 12). At games initiated by Nero, some one, per- sonating Icarus, attempted to fly, and the emperor was sprinkled with blood when he fell. The story of Simon's (light towards heaven was prob- ably invented at Rome before the close of the 2nd cent., not later at any rate than the beginning of the 3rd. Whether the author of the Leucian Acts of Peter — a Gnostic — was the first originator or not we cannot say ; very probably he was, as he seems to have helpeil to give Simon Magus a pro- minent place. According to Photius [Cod. cxiv.) that work taught that the God of the .Jews was evil, whose minister Simon was. This woulil make it very natural that the author wo call Leucius sliduld have invented the episode; and the date which we assign later than Justin, but not later than the end of the 2nd cent., harmonizes with other indications. This story, like manj' other Leucian inventions, was attractive to the orthodox, and therefore we find it here worked up in a com-
626
SIMOX MAGUS
SniON MAGUS
paratively speaking ortliodox dress. Paul was in- troduced as a companion of Pett-r, not because there had been anything anti-Pauline in the original story, hut because the combined activity of Peter and I'aul became a favourite subject of legend. For an Ebionite form of this legend there apjiears to be no evidence. There remains a certain chrono- logical confusion to discuss. According to Justin, it was in the reign of Claudius that Simon came to Kome. The origin of this date was probably the date on the statue which he saw. The earlier form of the story, then, would bring Peter to Rome in the days of Claudius; and in the Actus Petri cum Simone nothing is said about Nero. But the martyrdotn of Peter was by tradition under Nero, so that at a later date the legend was changed to Nero's time. Eusebius, however, had before him the earlier account. He brings Simon to Rome under Claudius, and Peter Immediately after him. Is not this probably the origin of the 25 years' episcopate of Peter at Rome ?