(c) Before this iiiodiHcation of the view held so long as to the identification of the two Simons can be accepted, regard must be had to the follow- ing points.
(1) Are the references of Justin Martyr histori- cally explicalile on the theory that Simon of Gitta was a 2nd cent. Gnostic? Even if Justin was decidedly ' weak in history ' (Stock), he must have acted 'rashly,' as Salmon allows {/oc, cit.), if he identified two men who lived nearly a century apart, in a public Apology in defence of Christian- ity. His reference to a statue to Simon in Home is generally regarded as a mistake, because in 1574 the base ot a statue was dug up in the island in the Tiber to which he refers, with the inscription ' Senioni S.anco Deo Fidio.' It is supposed, there- fore, that Justin mistook a statue dedicated to a Sabine deity for one erected to Simon. There is considerable force, however, in the plea of the editors of the ' Ante-Nicene Christian Library ' that this is ' very slight evidence on which to reject so precise a statement as Justin here makes ; a state- ment which he would scarcely have hazarded in an apology addressed to Rome, where every person had the means of ascertaining its accuracy. If, as is supposed, he made a mistake, it must have been at once exposed, and other writers would not have so frequently repeated the story as they have done' {Ante-Nicene Christian Library, ii. [1892] 29 n.).
It has also to be considered whether Justin could repeat (chs. 26 and 56) such a flagrant error as bringing Simon to Rome in the reign of Claudius and ascribing public honours to him, if the man Simon was not a generation older than himself, as Salmon's theoiy suggests. Would such a tradition have grown up in the Roman community about a man who was almost their contemporary ? And, if there was no tradition, was Justin likely to have made such a statement, even ailding the plea, ' As for the statue, if you please destroy it ' (56) ? At any rate, would the story have been left unrefuted so that it could be ac- cepted and repeated by later Avriters? If Simon of Gitta was a 2nd cent. Gnostic teacher, either he had not been in Rome, in which case it is difficult to understand why Justin's fallacious reference was not exposed, or he had been in Rome so recently as to make it difficult to understand why Justin pushed back the event for nearly a century.
(2) Further, it has to be noted that there is a real parallelism between the Simonian system and the slight account in Acts of the teaching of Simon Magus. The magical element is prominent in both. Simon in Samaria ' used sorcery, and amazed the people,' a trait very characteristic of the legendary Simon. Acts (8'"- ") says Simon gave out ' that himself was some great one : to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is that power of God which is called Great (^ 5i);'a^is toD 0eov t) Ka\ovii,ivri li.eyi.\-q).' And Simon is said to have been speci- ally struck with the 'signs and great miracles' wrought by Philip (v."). Now, in the Simonian system, Simon is said to have taught that he was the highest God, ttjc !nrip trd.vTa ouvafuv. He called himself 6 e<Trws, 6 crTd^, o ffTTj<r6ij.ei'os, implying his pre-existence and his immortality.
It would seem, therefore, that if the two Simons are different, the 3rd cent. Simon taught doctrines whose elements were taught by the earlier Simon ; also that both were distinguished for sorcery and for magical powers.
The amalgam of paganism and Christianity which was characteristic of Gnosticism, and which was specially obvious in the Simonian system, is readily explicable in the teaching of Simon Magus, who, according to the story in Acts, was brought into intimate contact with Christian teaching without becoming a genuine believer.
(3) Is it not possible to find a mediating theory? First of all, we must think of the Simon of Acts
Sl.MOX ilAGUS
Sl.Mo.N .MAGUS
i'Jl
as a convert whose conversion was sincere as far as it went, but was very superlicial. He is not represented as resenting' Peter's rebuke. It abaslieil liim, ami niaile bini penitent to the extent of asl<in<; humbly for tlie .\poslle's jiraycrs. Tliere is no contest between Simon ami I'eter in Acts. But is it not likely that, when Simon was brought face to face with tlie ileei>er meanings of Christian- ity, he failed to respond ? Instead of advancing in Christian knowledge, ho seceded from a com- munit}' with which his connexion had been anoma- lous. 'Phis view is put forward al.so liy \V. M. Kamsay in lixp, 8th ser., v. 348. Discu.ssing the term ' believe,' he writes, 'The examjjle of Simon Magus seems conclusive. Simon believed (Acts viii. 13), and was baptized. Yet it is hard to sup- pose that he became in the final sense a Christian, although for the time he was a member of the Church. The language of Luke, on the whole, suggests the opposite. Simon, it is true, after baptism, "continued with Philip; and beholding signs and great wonders wrought, he was amazed " (fttffTaTo). Yet no word is said to mitigate the final condemnation pronounced on him by Peter : " thou hast neitlier part nor lot in this matter ; for thy heart is not right." He is described, not as repenting, but only as asking in fear of the future that Peter should pray for him.