THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
has likewise been maintained that Simon Magus is to be identified with the heresiarch Simon of Gitta, who should, on this hypothesis, be dated in the early part of the second century, but for this theory there is not the slightest ground, especially in view of the testimony of Acts, Clement of Alexandria, and Justin. It is, on the other hand, not improbable that Simon Magus is to be identified with a Jewish magician named Simon who acted as a go-between for the procurator Felix of Judea. This Simon is described by Josephus (Ant., XX., vii. 2) as a Cypriot, but this statement probably rests upon a confusion of the Cyprian capital, Cittium (Hebr. Kittim), with the obscure Samaritan village of Gitta (Hebr. Gittim). All evidence goes to prove that Simon was what his epithet Magus implies — a sorcerer. This was the motive for his association with the apostles in Samaria, but while it would seem that he pretended to be, in the pagan sense, a god in human form (cf. Justin, Apol., i. 26), there is no indication that either Acts or Justin regarded him as a 5. A Sorcer- pseudo-Messiah; and even the apocer Syncre- ryphal Acts and the pseudo-Clementine tized with literature characterize him as a false the Sun. Christ merely on the ground that he was the first-born of Satan (cf. Ignatius, Epist. ad Trallenses, longer version, xi.). It is true that the heresiologists describe him as the supreme God and even as the Redeemer, but a careful study of the sources, particularly of the extant fragments of his " Great Announcement " (preserved by Hippolytus, Philosophumena, vi. 6 sqq.), shows that Simon himself made no claim to Messiahship, this being attributed to him by his disciples. With this falls the theory that Simon Magus was the founder of a universal religion intended to rival Christianity; and he was not even the founder of a sect in the sense that such heresiarchs as Marcion were. The very fact that Simon himself became the subject of Gnostic speculation shows that he was not the founder of Gnosticism, nor do the earlier sources so represent him; it was only his followers who made this claim for him. Historically, then, Simon was but a sorcerer who asserted that he was a god. This assertion, aided by the high fame which he enjoyed throughout Samaria (cf. Acts viii.), reached its culmination in his identification with the Semitic sun-god Shamash, whose cult was united with that of the moon-goddess Astarte. This is confirmed by Simon's companion, Helena, who is unknown to Acts, the apocryphal Acts, the Alexandrine heresiologists, or the " Great Announcement," but whose name (" Moon "), combined with the immoral past ascribed her and her Tyrian home, obviously points to the Tyrian moon-goddess with her licentious rites. How long this cult of Simon Magus, which had evidently arisen long before the time of Justin, persisted in Samaria and other regions is unknown, but in the days of Origen the " Simonians " were exceedingly few in number in Palestine and the neighboring countries (Contra Celsum, i. 57), and by the time of Epiphanius (Har., xxii. 2) they had become extinct. On the other hand, they had spread widely in the West before 200, and there long maintained themselves (cf. Hippolytus, Philosophumena, vi. 1,5). They seem to
have developed a sect essentially occult and libertine in character, worshiping Simon (cf. Irenaeus, Hcer., I., xxiii. 4), and finally giving rise to two systems, that of the " Great Announcement " and that described by the heresiologists who based their writings upon Justin.
The authenticity of the " Great Announcement " has been assailed both because of its similarity to other Gnostic systems recorded by Hippolytus and on account of its divergence from 6. The Simon's teachings as described by other Twofold heresiologists. Neither of these argu- Simonian ments, however, is sufficient to prove System, the document spurious, especially in view of the confirmation of Hippolytus by other heresiologists; and the true explanation of the divergencies between the Philosophumena and Justin lies in the fact that there were two Simonian systems, one influenced by Alexandria and the other by Syria. The former influence is especially evident in the doctrine of the Godhead as " He that hath stood," which finds a close parallelism in the Philonian system, and is also perceptible in the purely allegorical method of Biblical exegesis adopted by the " Great Announcement " (cf. also the account in the pseudo-Clementine Homilies, ii. 22 sqq.). It is uncertain whether the " Great Announcement " was written in Alexandria, but at all events its citation of non-Samaritan prophets and of Proverbs shows that it was composed neither by Simon nor by any of his Samaritan followers. The account given by Justin and those who drew upon him, on the other hand, indicates that the second Simonian system was evolved in Syria, its elements being a syncretism of Babylonian mythology and Hellenistic allegory (for the latter cf. Irenaeus, Hcer., I., xxiii. 4; Epiphanius, Hwr., xxi.). Both the Alexandrine and the Syrian form of Simonianism are unique in the history of Gnosticism in that they make a historic personage the supreme God, arid, although destitute of any real Christian spirit, both show Christian influence, the Alexandrian " Great Announcement " using written Gospels and the Petrine and Pauline epistles, and the Syrian system comparing Helena with the lost sheep of Matt. xviii. 12 and Luke xv 6. (Hans Waitz.)
In St. Peter's in Rome in the west division of the left aisle is an oil painting on slate by Francesco Vanni, " The punishment of Simon Magus," representing Simon Magus's fall from the skies at the prayer of St. Peter.
Bibliography: As an indirect source may be taken into account the excerpts from the Apophasis in Hippolytus, Hcer., VI., vii.-xviii (Eng. transl. in ANF, v. 76-81), on which cf. H. Stiihelin, in TV, vi (1891). The most of the sources are named in the text, but the principal ones may be summarized here for convenience: Acts viii. 5-24; Justin Martyr, / Apol., xxvi., lvi., and Trjpho, cxx., both in ANF, vol. i.; Hegesippus, in Eusebius, Hist, eccl., IV., xxii. 5, in NPNF, 2 ser., vol. i.; Irenaeus, Hwr., I., xxiii. 1-4, in ANF, vol. i. ; Clement of Alexandria, Strom., II., xi. 52, VII., xvii. 107-108, in ANF, vol. ii.; Origen, Contr. Celsum, i. 57, vi. 11, in ANF, vol. iv.; the Clementina; Eusebius, Hist, eccl, II., i. 12-15, in NPXF, 2 ser., vol. i.; Gregory Nazianzen, Oratio, xxiii. 16, xliv. Consult: F. C. Baur, in Tubinqer Zeitschrift fur Theologie, 1831, pp. 114-136; idem, Paulus, pp. 85 sqq.. 218 sqq., Tubingen, 1845; H. Simson, in ZHT, xi (1841), 15-79; A. Schliemann, Die Clementinen, Hamburg, 1844; A. Hil-