It seems beyond question that Luke knew the reputation which Simon acquired, and that he re- garded the subsequent history of Simon as the natural result of what occurred at the beginning of his connexion with the Christians.'
But it need not be supposed that when Simon broke with the Christians he renounced all he had learned. It is more probable that be carried some of the Christian ideas with him and that he wove these into a system of his own. This system did contain some of the germs of later Gnosticism. Thus he became the leader of a retrograde sect, perhaps nominally Christian and certainly using some of the Christian terminology, but in reality anti-Christian and exalting Simon himself to the central position which Christianity was giving to Jesus Christ. The separation between Simon and the Christians would probably be widened by the departure of Philip soon after the apostles left Samaria. Philip had been the agent of the Chris- tian movement, and it is not unlikely that on his withdrawal many Samaritans might easily fall again under the spell of Simon, especially if he were ofl'ering himself as a Christian leader.
Now- if Simon was a pervert who originated an apostate sect — an anti-Christian sect, though a sect claiming Christian connexion — is it not com- prehensible that two results happened ? (a) Simon became the arch-heretic in the eyes of the Chris- tians, and tradition was sure to be busy with his name, (b) The sect he founded became absorbed in later Gnosticism, but also contributed some- thing to it. Gnosticism did not enter the 2nd cent. fully grown. A. C. Headlam (art. ' Gnosticism ' in HDB ii. 188) remarks that ' the developed Gnostic heresies of the 2nd cent, presuppose the NT,' and that ' the embryo Gnosticism of the NT takes its proper place in the history of religious de- velopment." May not Simon have been one of the forerunners of Gnosticism ; not, perhaps, its father, as tradition has supposed, but one source of some of its ramilioations? A. C. McGillert refers to this: 'His ell'ort to rival and surpass Jesus very likely began after his contact with the Christians which Luke records. His religious system was apparently a syncretism of Jewish and Oriental elements, and resembled very closely some forms of second century Gnosticism, if it did not indeed give rise to them ' [A History of • Ct. Vernon liartlel, in Kxp, Slh ser., v. 32, 33. VOL. II. — 32
ChriitimtUif in the Apostolic Age, pj). 99-lUO). Without asc'riliing to Simon such prominence as is demanded by tradition, it is permissilile to believe that lie gave his name to a sect which liecame Gnostic but which retained a historical connexion with him, though its doctrines were modilied largely in process of time.
In such circumstances we may find a historical basis for much of the Simonian tradition, whilst recognizing that tradition had been busy eiiihellisb- ing the story of Simon even long before the lime of Justin Martyr. It may be assumed that he was born in the Samaritan village ofGitta; that he was a man of unusual attainments ; that he received some training in Alexandrian i)liiloso|ihy ; that ho startle<l Samaria with his powers ; that be was, for a time, nominally a Christian, but that he broke away from the Christian Church ; tli;it his knowledge of Christian truth was very shallow, and that he carried some Christian ideas over with him, but in confusion ; and that his subsequent teaching was an amalgam of this crude Christian precipitate with Alexandrian speculation and with magic. It is probable that he travelled, preaching his new doctrines, practising his magical arts, and winning for himself and for his teaching something of the devotion with which he was regarded in Samaria. Whether he ever exhibited his skill in Kmne, we have no means of determining ; but at all events he was brought to Rome by popular legend and was represented as winning an extraordinary .success in the Imperial city. His disciples became a sect which bore his name and which persisted long after the death of the original members. Simon's teaching contained some of the germs of 2nd cent. Gnosticism, which it may have done something to evolve and with which the Simonian sect became impregnated, though it still retained many of its early magico- Christian elements. Beyond this it seems im- possible to go. What was actually taught by Simon cannot now be distinguished from what was taught by his followers. The story of Helena may be a Simonian doctrine rather than a fact. It cannot be said whether Simon Magus and Simon Peter ever met again after their encounter in Samaria ; the record of their conllict is probably the romance which tradition has woven round the name of one who was known to have been a Chris- tian once but was rebuked by Peter for his ignor- ance of Christian truth and who became subse- quently an apostate.
(4) Coming back to the story in Ac 8, there seems no reason for doubting its essential accuracy (see 4 (6) (2)).
(i.) Luke's account looks like history. There is no embellishment from the point of view of the Christian romancer. The story does not dilate upon the remarkable conversion, and it leaves Simon directly the purpose of the reference to him is fulfilled. The |)lain record is not em- broidered ; moreover, there is an almost tantalizing brevity, as in several of Luke's stories, which belong to the history of the Christian Church and were not written to .satisfy curiosity.