(h) If the Tiibingen theory be recognized as 'lifeless,' there are three questions of importance bearing on the historical value of the Simonian legend.
( 1 ) Is the Simon of the legends a historical person ? Salmon's answer may be accepted at once : ' It cannot reasonably be doubted tliat Simon of Gitta is a historical per.sonage. The heretical sect which claimed him for its founder was regarded by Justin Martyr as most formidable. . . . He speaks of it as predominant in Samaria, and not unknown elsewhere; that is to say, probably, he had met members of the sect at Rome. The exist- ence of the sect is testifled by Hegesipmis and Clement of Alexandria' (op. cit., p. 687 f.). There is nothing to throw doubt upon the delinite state- ments of Justin Martyr about the Simon who is mentioned alongside of Mcnander and iMarcion as the foun<ler of a sect and the object of veneration.
There is less certainty about the details of his life. With regard to his birthjdace— Gitta — Justin was a Samaritan and a good witness ; and the statements of Ilegesippus about his father and his mother, and his being trained at Alexandria, are quite possibly good tradition. Also the general ascription to him of magical powers probably re- flects a claim he made. The persistent story of his journeys, coupled with the existence of Simon- ians outside Palestine, favours the view that he travelled, though considerable haziness hangs over the whole subject of his alleged visit to Koine.
(2) Is the Simon of Ac 8 a historical person? This quest ion also may be answered unhesitatingly in the allirmative. ' The Simon of the Acts is also a real person' (Salmon, op. cit., p. 6S8). With the
* C(. Ez]), 8th ser., v. [1813] 348 n.
496
SIMON MAGUS
SIMON MAGUS
break-down of the Tubingen theory, and tlie re- liabilitation of Luke as a liistorian, all reasons for doubling the essential aeeuraey of the narrative in Acts have disappeareil. Tliat narrative relates to times of whiiOi l^uke had no lirsthand knowledge ; tlierefore it may be coloured by later feeling. But Luke related it because it occurred, and because he had reasons for relating it. What those reasons were, and whether we know very much about Simim, can be discussed best when another question has been answered :
(3) Is Simon of (iitta the same as the Simon of Ac 8 ? This identity was generally assumed until Salmon questioned it in the article referred to above. He believes that Justin Martyr confused Simon. of Gitta with Simon of Acts, and that the confusion has dominated all subsequent references to them. His chief argument is that the Simonian doctrine, being a variant of 2nd cent. Gnosticism, could not have been propounded by a Simon wlio lived in Samaria c. a.d. 40. In support of his theory he adds : ' If Simon had been really the Inventor of tlie Gnostic myths, it is not credible that tliey should pass into so many systems whicli did not care to retain any memory of his name. On the other hand, if this mythology had been in Simon's time already current, it is intelligible that he might make use of it in order to justify to his discipleshisrelations with af alien woman.' Salmon thinks that 'the Simon described by Justin was not, as he supposed, the father of Gnosticism, but had found at the time of his teaching a Gnostic system already developed. It follows, then, that Justin's Simon could not be identical with the con- temporary of the Apostles ; and the name Simon is so common a one, that the supposition of two Simons presents no ilitficulty.' His conclusion is that ' the Simon described by Justin was his elder only by a generation ; that he was a Gnostic teacher who had gained some followers at Samaria ; and that Justin rashly identified him with the magician told of in the Acts of the Apostles' (ib., p. 683). This conclusion is supported generally by St. George Stock in EBr^^ (xxv. 1"26), who says that ' Dr. George Salmon brought light into darkness by distinguishing between Simon of Gitta and the original Simon Magus.' His conclusions are : ' (1) That all we know of the original Simon Magus is contained in Acts ; (2) that from very early times he has been confused with another Simon ' ; and he adds: 'Before such an am.algam of paganism and Christianity could be propounded, it is evident that Christianity must have been for some little time before the world, and that the system cannot possibly be traced back to Simon Magus. Is it not this early struggle between Jewish and Samari- tan universalism, involving as it did a struggle of religion against magic, that is really symijolized under the wild traditions of tlie contest between Peter and Simon?' {ib., p. 127). 'Justin Martyr was decidedly weak in historj', and it is not un- reasonable to suppose that he may have confused the Simon of Acts with a heretical leader of the same name who lived much nearer to his own time, especially as this other Simon also had a great reputation for magic. A full century must have elapsed between the conversion of Simon Magus to Christianity and the earliest date possible . . . for the composition of Justin Martyr's First Apology' [c. A.D. 152) {ib., p. 126). F. H. Chase also accepts this theory, saying, in reference to the Simonian legend, ' the most probable account of its genesis is that it grew out of a mistaken identity' {HDB in. 778).