shall have to suppose that the mention of Silvanus, as also that of Mark (513), who also can hardly have been still alive at so late a date as 1 1 2 A . D ., subserves a definite purpose. Both had been members of the primitive church (for Mark, c p Acts 1212) and a t b e same time companions of Paul ; thus, on the one hand, they become fitted to figure as comrades of Peter, and, on the other, the naming of them creates the impression that Peter had a thoroughly good understanding with Paul the founder of many of the churches included in the address of the epistlc (Pontus, Galatia. Cappadocia. Asia, and Uithynia). T h e remaining contents of the epistle show little of that tendency to bring about a reconciliation between Paulinism and Jewish Christianity which the Tiibingen school attributed to i t ; but the closing verses which have been under our consideration must doubtless be taken in this sense (cp P ETER , EPISTLES O F , 6, end). In doing so it is a matter of indifference whether we are to understand by ‘through’ (8~6) that Silvanus is indicated as the individual who like Tertius in Rom. 16 22, wrote the epistle a t the apostle’s dictation (so the subscription to Rom. in cod. 133 : ‘it was written through Tertius, iyp&+q 8rd T E ~ T ~or , ) whether, as the analogy of the other spurious subscriptions of Pauline letters would warrant, we are intended to look upon him as the bearer of the letter ; all that is excluded is the attribution to him of any sort of independent share in the composition of the epistle. In the lists of the ‘seventy’ (Lk.101) Silas and Silvanus figure as distinct individuals the former as bishop of Corinth, the latter i s bishop of Thessalonica. Accord9. Later views. ing to the T I c p L d o r Bapv6pa John Mark was baptized by Barnabas, Paul, and Silas in Iconium(Lipsius, A j o k r . A#. -gesch. i. 203, ii.1 gf: 2 277 z& 285). ’ Many interpreters maintain Silas to be the ‘brother’ referred to in 2 Cor. 8 1sf: This brother, however, must rather have been a Xlacedonian, as he was chosen by the hfacedonians to represent them in conveying the collection to Jerusalem. Against the theory that Silas was the author of the ‘we’-source of Acts see ACTS, 5 9. Against the view put forward in 1825 by B6hme and BIynster that Silas was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews the same considerations hold good as have been urged against the authorship of Barnaba in so far as they both belonged to Jerusalem (see BARNABAS, 52.. 8 Van Vloten, ’Lucas u. Silas in ZWT,1867, pp. 223f:; 1871~ pp. 437-434; against him, Cro p, i6id. 1868, pp. 353-355; Marcker, Steiung der Pnrforalbriefi irn 10. Literature. Leden des Paulws, Gymnasialpro ramm Meininqen 1861,pp. 10-12. TitusSi%anas. i6id. 1864 ; Graf in HeideAheim’s Vierte&hrsschm~ fd; mngli‘ch-theologixhe Forschung, 2, 1865, pp. 373-394 ; Seufert, ZWT,1885, p 359-371 ; Zimmer, Ztschr.f: kirchl. Wissensch. u Kirchl. Le& . 1881, pp. 169174; J P T , 1881,pp. 721-723; against him Jiilicher 3P7‘, 1882, pp. 538.552 ; Adolf Johannes (catholic), Comm. eu. I Thess., 1898, pp. 147-153. P w .s. . SILENCE (npVt; AAHC; i n f i m u m ) , a title of S H E O L (q.”.), PS. 9417 11517. The existence of such a word is, however, most im robable, and there is no Ass. parallel. e ’ s $$s may = n&. See S HADOW OF DSATH. SILK occurs in AV as the rendering of three different words. I. ~ . @ , is rendered ‘silk’ in AV text of Pr. 31 22, and mg. G, of Gen. 41 42 Exod. 25 4. On this see L INEN (7). 2. V n me?& (rpiXaTros),l Ezek. 1610 13t. v, Amidst .* the variety of ancient renderings there is a general agreement that some cloth of fine texture is intended ; Jewish tradition favours ‘ silk ’ (Ges. Thes. ), a meaning with which the rendering in 6 is not inconsistent ; and Movers (Phiin. ii. 3264) contends that silk was, at least as far back as Ezekiel’s time, conveyed from China into W. Asia by the land route through Mesopotamia, thongh it was probably almost unknown in Europe till after Alexander’s conquests, and did not come into general use before the period of the Roman Empire.2 Cp T RADE , 62. In any case the reference in Ezek. 1610 is to a long outer vail of fine material which covered the entire person (Smend, ad Zoc.).

3. UlpLK&, i.e., U7JpLK6Y, the familiar Greek name for silk (from ZTp : see Strabo, 516, 701),occurs in Rev.
1 8 1 z t , in the enumeration of wares which formed the merchandise of the apocalyptic Babylon. The references in classical writers show that, under the early empire, silk was of great costliness, and its use a sign of extreme luxury. The larva ofthe silk-worm moth B o A y x mom’, so called from its feeding on mulberry leaves, prAduces far the greatest bulk of the silk in use. Inferior silks are, however, produced by several species of the same genus, and Tussar silks are spun from the cocuons of Antkerc~a jernyi, which feeds on oaks, in China ; a i d of A. myZitta in India, and from other species mostly belonging to the,family Saturniid=. The silk is the hardened extract of certain silk glands which open just below the mputh of the caterpillar, and is excreted to make the cocoon within which the insect passes its pupal stage. Cp Hitzig, ZDMG 8 Z I Z ~ N. M.- A. E. S.

S I U B (N\D; CEAA [Eus. US 296, 991 ; SELA [Jcr., Vg.]), a place-name in the account of the murder of Joash ( 2 K. 1220[21]). ‘ A t the house of Millo [or, a t Beth-millo] which goeth down t o Silla,’ as A\’ gives, is clearly wrong (Pv o k y paaXw rbv yaaXXa [B, 2v y. Bab], paXhwv r@ T< Kara/%irreL ahXwv [L], . Iv paaXw rbv KaTaphvovra yaaXa6 [A, sic ut vid.]), Knd ne&-fh luasCZna‘ [Pesh.]). The key to the problem is supplied by the theory that the people with whom the Israelites had most constant relations were the Jerabmeelites, and that Solomon most probably obtained his timber for building, not from the Lebanon, but from the mountain - country of the Negeb. The mysterious word NI$D (Millo) is most probably a corruption of $ncm> (Jerahmeel), and so too is ~ $ a0 7 (see MILLO). I t was a t Beth-jerahmeel y that Joash was slain, and since the context requires a place i; Jerusalem, the most plausible view is that ‘Pth-jerahmeel means the ‘house of the forest of Lebanon for Solomon’s Lebanon or perhaps Gebalon, appears to hive been in the JeraIJmekte Negeb (see SOLOMON, 6). The same building $3 is probably specified in the true text of a Ch. 2425 (see Crit. B b ) Cp, however, Winckler, KA ?(3) 260, n. 2, and the comi.. mentaries of Benzinger and Kittel (less satisfactory conjectures). T . K. C.




Te h

four places in which Shiloah or Siloam are mentioned are : ( I ) Is. 86 (&e31 ‘Q;rbG6arp m0 Z d w + [BN],. 6. T. S A . [AQF], T The waters of Shiloah, EV); ( 2 ) Neh. 315 (n>F87 roAvpp@p +iv ro&iov [B], om. KW&WV N*, hah. ro,Aiov N=.amk?., N adds Be TO; ZrAoap, 6 s ~ p + l s 70; Z t h ~ a j L ] .The pool of Siloah A V , of Shelah RV) ; (3) LL. 134 (b rnipy?c);v 74 XrAo6p; The tower i Siloam); (4) Jn.97 and (not in best n flSS) IT (&,Y roAupgrjOpav m Z ~ A W ~The pool of Siloam i ~ , which is by interpretation, Sent ’: the better reading seems IO

be 76” 2.).

subtilia and g o i p i t u s , besh. &elhi (‘ vail ‘), and tekZZfhi (‘blue ’). 2 Cp EBW 22 56.


I.e., ‘woven ofhair‘; Aq. has $qA and rnoA6~rms. Th. mer$

T ~ and C



Sym. Vg.

Possibly also there is a n allusion to Siloam in the and ‘ pool ’ of Neh. 2 14. For topography and description see JERUSALEM, 5 3 and diagram ; also $5 11, 18$, and map facing col. 2420 ; also CONDUITS, $ 5,. where a translation of the famous Siloam inscription IS given. Josepbus (BY+. 41 5 140) speaks of the waters of the fountain ( T T ~ PiXw2s) as sweet and abundant, + and (B/ v. 9. 5 410)reports himself in his speech to his compatriots as having pointed out that Siloam and the other springs which were formerly almost dried up when under the control of the Jews, had, since the advent of Titus, run more plentifully than they did before. Jetonie (Commcnt, in Esn. 86) also mentions the irregular flow of Siloam- a feature which has been noticed hy most subsequent pilgrims and travellers, and is explained by the geological formation of the district. I n N T times certainly, and probably earlier, a healing virtue was attributed t o the waters of Siloam. On the mystical meaning of Jn. 9x1 see GOSPELS, $ 56, col. 1803, but cp SHILOH, and, on the miracle, cp .J O H N , . 5 35, COl. 2539. In Is. 8 6 the waters of Shiloah ‘ t h a t go softly’ (at least if the text is sound ; see, however, Znt. Bi6. [ C F . ] ) represent either the power of the house of David, whlch certainly was insignificant, or the might of Yahwb which seemed but was not really slight ; they are contrasted with the ‘ waters of the River. strong and many ’ (v.7), which symbolise the vast physical power of Assyria. In J n . 9 7 the ~ T C U T U X ~ C V O S has been taken by most 1 JnSw, emisit ? cp emissary ?

‘ fountain ’



interpreters from Theophylact onwards to refer t o Christ the trtie Siloam ( c p 62938f: 7 2 8 826 1 7 3 2 1 ) . Whether this is a t all probable may be doubted ; other interpretations however (see Holtzmann, ad Zoc.) are n o better. Lucke has pointed out the possibility that the clause is merely a marginal gloss. Such explanations abound in the Onomastica.

the days of Solomon,’ and (v. 27) that he ‘made silver

to b e in Jerusalem as stones. ’
From what sources was this plentiful supply of silver derived? I t is geologically impossible that either gold 2. sources. or silver should exist in the mountains of Syria a n d Palestine. W e may suppose that most of the silver of the ’ Hittites ’ came from the mines of Bulgar Dagh in Lycaonia. According to Prof. Sayce :‘The Hittite inscription found near the old mines of these mountains by Mr. Davis, proves that they once occupied the locality. It is even possible that their settlement for a time in Lydia was also connected with their passion, for “the bright metal.” At all events, the Gumush Dagh, or “ Silver Mountains,” as lie to the S. of the P s of Karabel, and traces of old workings can still he detected in them.’l As to the treasures of Solomon, we are told in I K. 1022 (cp SOLOMON, 4, end) that the ‘navy of Tarshish’ brought silver as well as gold. Upon this Prof. W. M. Muller remarks ( O L Z 3269) that this points to great ignorance of the Red Sea coasts. There was, however, according to the Arabic notices, n o lack of silver in the mountains of Yemen, and it was hence, 2 s Oskar Fraas thinks (HWBP) 1007a), that Solomon derived the precious metals. And what is to be said of Tartessus 7 If the current opinion is correct, though Solomon’s ships did not get out so far as Spain, the later supply of silver to Palestine was largely derived from the rich territory by the Guadalquivir. We fear the opinion needs to be accepted with reserve. Tartessus was, n o doubt, in a rich district. T h e story is, that since the Phoenicians found that they could not carry all their silver away, they made ‘ silver anchors ’ in place of those that they had brought (Aristot. De A4irub. 148 ; c p Diod. 535). Unfortunately there is considerable danger that, except in late passages, like z kh. 9 21% Jon. 13, ‘ Tarshish’ is a corruption of s ‘Asshur ; and there i one extremely late passage (Jer. 109) where the same restoration C silver brought from Asshur ’) should apparently be made. Perhaps the most important passage is Ezek. 37 12 where, according to MT, silver, together with iron, tin, and lead, is represented to have been brought to Tyre from Tarshish. A close investigation of the passage in its context suggests that Missur (not Tyre) provides the market, and N. Arabian peoples provide the merchandise disposed of (see Crit. Bi6.). The Aeshurite merchants, it would seem, were the . middlemen between the miners in some perhaps distant part 0 Arabia, and the rich and powerful people of Misur. Another evidence of the abundance of silver in N. Arabia is supplied by 2 S. 8 10-12 (in the light of criticism), where the spoil taken by David from ZOBAH [q.v.l,or rather Missur and other N. Arabian regions bordering on Palestine (such as ‘Aram’-i.c., Jerahmeel), is said to have consisted in vessels of silver, of gold, and oi brass. It is noteworthy, too, that the poem of Job, which most probably arose either in N. Arabia or under strong N. Arabian influences (the names point decidedly to this, see J OB [BOOK], 09 4, g), shows great interest in gold and silver mines. On two out of the three references in Job (22 25 286), see GOLD, I, col. 17jo. 5



z Cor. 119, etc.


SILVER (TQP, Kkseph; Aram. K?P2 ; Syr. kespi: Ass. Kaspu ; root-meaning perhaps ‘ paleness,‘ see W R S 1 Phil 14125). .
T h e word is sometimes nsed, in its proper sense, of silver ore, e.g., Ezek. 2220 22 (figuratively). etc., but also often of silver as a measure of weight a n d value, e.g., ‘ silver 30 shekels ’ (Ex. 2172). ‘ L O O silver shekels’ (Gen. 231q). ,. ..,. and, with the omission of ‘shekel’ or ‘shekels,‘ ’ a thousand of silver’ (Gen. 2016), ‘twenty of silver‘ (3728). Hence more often still ‘ silver’ (kdseph)= ‘money,’ c p &ppyLsp(ov a n d the French argent, but not necessarily coined money, e.g., Gen. 31 15 4225 27 Dt. 2320 [19]. I n Gen. 4225 35 the plural form (as if ‘ monies ’) is found. O n silver mining, alluded t o in Job281, and o n the methods of refining the crude ore alluded to in (Is. 125) Ezek. 22 2 0 22 2 c h . 13 g Mal. 3 3 Prov. 17 3 27 21 (we must not add Ps. 126 [7]). see METALS. T h e separated silver was called k&ph girziph ( n 192, Ps. q: 127 [6]); b. mezu++ik ( p q n ‘J, I Ch. 294 Ps. 127 [6]); k. n i b & i ~(i??? ’I, Prov. 1020). T h e crucible is called mayt‘ph (~-IQ, Prov. 1 7 3 2 7 2 1 ) . ~ In Jer. 109 we read of ‘silver beaten out into plates’ ; where it came from we shall have to ask presently. Hebrew traditions told of great abundance of silver in early times. These traditions, which a r e supported by the use of kdseph (silver) for ‘ money,’ are doubtless correct. Abram a n d Ephron ‘ the Hittite’ have certainly n o lack of silver, according to Gen. 23, a n d , though this passage comes from the much disparaged priestly writer, h e probably does but repeat the statements of earlier writers. According to a view which even if new may nevertheless do justice to old and forgotten {ruth the scine of the transaction described was not at Hehron hui at some place of hallowed associations in the Negeb-probably Rehohoth 3 which would justly be represented as Kirjath-‘arab 4 ‘city bf Arabia.’ In this connection we may refer to osiph‘s silver divining cup (Gen. 442). It is not impossible tlat the original scene of the fascinating story of Joseph was not in Egypt hut in the Negeh. But even if this was not the case, we are assured on the best authority that silver in Egypt had at first a higher value than gold (see E GYPT, g 38). The tme Hittites, too (whose capital was Kadesh on the Orontes), bad abundance of silver in the time of Rameses I1 ’ the treaty between them and this powerful Egyptian king was’dn a silver tablet. I n Solomon’s time, it would appear as if the larger introduction of gold depreciated the value of silver. W e a r e told ( I K. 10 21)that none of the king’s ‘vessels ’ were of silver, which ‘was nothing accounted of in




T. K. C. SILVER, PIECE OF (aprypla), Mt. 2615. See STATER, ad/Fn. SIMALCUE
R V IMALCUE. Where settled? Gen. 34 49 (0 2). Deut. 33 (9 3).
( C I N M A ~ K O Y H [AJ), I Mace. 1139 AV,

(s I).

Extra-biblical? (I 6). Conclusion (I 7). Name (i3 8). Genealogical lists (5 9 ) . Geographical lists (5 IO).

1 @, as we now have it, gives in Ps. 2.c. SoKipiov qj yi. In Prov. 27 ax S O K ~corresponds to I ! ‘crucible.’ Did the text ~. % , of @ in Ps. at one time run . v ’ i ~ o vrrempopivov i v ~ O K L ~ ~ i y ( = d o r r p c i y ) without qj y f i i fleissmann ( N e w Bi6cZstudie~, 70) thinks that the only tolerable sense of ~ O K ~ ~ L6 W IS O genuine silver for the laitd.’ At any rate both the M T and C 3 of Ps. 12 7 [61 attest the activity of scribes working upon a corrupt text. Cp n. 2. a Nestle (Ex#.T8287) would give the same sense to h , ? wpch in Prov. 27 zz=‘pestle.’ This affects the criticism of , 4’7~1. May we read * $ y ~‘ in the crucible ’? There seems to be a better solution. 3 ‘ Hittite ’ itself when used of any person in the S. of Palestine, is a mutilated’form of ‘ Rehohothite.’ See R EHOBOTH. For instances of numerals which are corruptions of ethnic yames, see MOSES,I 11, P ROPHET, 5 7, Crit. Bi6. on Gen. 15 13. City of Four’ (Kirjath-arha) is as improbable as ‘daughter of Seven ’ (see SOLOMON, 0 2).

Simeon (]iUp@ C Y M ~ ~ N ; [BAL] ; see below, 5 8) Q was the brother 3 of Levi and Dinah (Gen. 3425, J ; c p W h a t genealogical scheme underlay 1 where 49.5). . settled? thls representation we do not know.4 I n the scheme followed by the final redactors Simeon had five full brothers ; how many sisters (Gen. 3735, J ; 467, D) we are nowhere told. Moreover, 1 Tke Hittites (1888), 95. 2 We do not add I K. 22 47 (see JEHOSHAPHAT, col. 2352). 3 On O ~ in Gen. 49 see 0 8, i. N 4 It is natural to suppose a genealogy that made Simeon, Levi, and Dinah the only children of their mother. We cannot assume this with confidence however. Sirneon and Reuben form a pair in Gen. 48 5 (P), and Simeon 1s styled brother of Judah in Judg. 1 3 (J).


453 .2


Simeoii the brother of Dinah figures as a tribe in the district of Shechem, whereas the Simeon whose cities are enumerated in the well-known lists I O ) is there connected with the S. country and associated with Judah rather than 1srael.l I t has been customary to identify these two Simeons. I t is not impossible, however, to hold that there were more Simeons than one (see below, 6). If, however, we identify them, are we t o regard the two representations as variant theories, belonging to a time u-hen the real life of the tribe had been forgotten? Or may we suppose that they both contain reminiscences of history, that in fact Simeon lived, let us say, in the neighbourhood of Shechem and then removed to the S. ? There would be more chance of giving confident answers to these questions, if we knew whether the framers of our sources had actual knowledge of a Simeon tribe or Simeon families ; if, for example, we could point with confidence to sanctuaries which at least had been distinctively Simeonite. where therefore there might have been preserved a tradition of Sirneon's having come S . from the highlands of central Palestine. It is, no doubt, natural to suppose that Beersheba was such a sanctuary. It may very well have been ; it was certainly famous, and, in particular, was at least at times in touch with northern Israel. T h e difficulty is to prove that it, or any other definite spot, was Simeonite. Simeon is never mentioned as a component part of the southern kingdom.2 Still, although we may not be able t o point with confidence to any contemporary statement about aen.34 49. Simeon in the literature accessible t o us, the editors whose work has reached us may have had such evidence lying before t h e m 3 i. It must be remembered that the end of J's story of the Shechem exploit ascribed to the tribe has been lost. That may have told of Simeon's removal towards the south. From the fact that the redactor suppressed the passage we may plausibly conjecture that what it narrated was more or less of the nature of a catastrophe discreditable to ' Israel.' I t may therefore have been historical, and may have come from a time when Simeon was still really a tribe. How a later writer would have told (and did tell) the story we can perhaps see from Gen. 355 : After the incident which forms the subject of chap. 34 the Israelites moved off leisurely, their god having interfered in their behalf so that there fell on the natives of the land an awe such a s fell on the Greeks when Apollo brought the seemingly vanquished Hector back to the fight strong as ever (ZZ.1 5 q g j ? ) . So, a later writer thought, must it ever fare with Israel. T h e older story, however, told not of 'Israel,' but of Simeon and LevL4 All that a later editor was willing to retain of it was the remonstrance of Jacob: you have brought a disaster (nni3v) on us, in making us abominable to all the natives of the land ; as we are but a small company they will band themselves against us and defeat us, and we shall be destroyed. ii. W h a t the sequel of the older narrative was can probably be inferred from Gen. 49 5-7. Even there we are not told explicitly what happened ; but there was a power to fulfil itself in the father's curse (cp B LESSING AN D C U R S I N G ) : I will divide them in Jacob, And scatter them in Israel. W h a t meaning the writer would put into these words is uncertain. Steuernagel thinks that Jacob is here a tribe name and that the verse means that Simeon was dispersed in the highlands of



central Palestine (Einwunderung, 104),some, however, perhaps wandering southwards (i6. 15). As treating of the early fortunes of Shechem, the story of Gen. 34 is dealt with elsewhere (see EPHHAIM, 6, D I N A H ) . Dinah was perhaps supposed to have disappeared completely (see D I N A H , 6 ) ; what the real history of Levi was is a difficult question (see LEVI, EVITES, G ENE L ALOGIES , § 7). I t is with Simeon that we are here concerned. That it was not always counted as a tribe appears to follow from its absence from Dt. 33 (blessing of Moses).' It has been questioned, however, whether the omission of Simeon in Dt. 33 is original. Not only does B A L apply v. 66 to Simeon ( m i w p c o v [@E
om. v.1 ; m u rrohhs i v aprefr;), to whom the words however they are to be 'taken (R EUBEN , B 4), 'are quite 3. Dt. 33. as applicable as to Reuben. It has been thought also(Graetz, Gesch. ii. 1486J, Heilprin, Hist. Poet. Heb.lrr3 f. cp Halevy, 3. A s . , 1897a, pp. 329-31) that 78 perhaps beldnged to Simeon (there might be a play on the name in 'Hear'). If these proposals were combined the Simeon saying 2 would read : Let Simeon be a small company. Hear, Yahwk, his voice, And bring him in unto his people. The case for such a text, however, is not strong (see Driver, ad ZOC.).~


1 Cheyne, however, suggests that the Shechem-story also dealt originally not with central Palestine, hut with a district on the N. Arabian border, in or near the Negeb (cp MOSES, 8

If the passage really mentioned Simeon in some such way it would seem to imply that Simeon had somehow come to be severed from ' his people.' T h a t would be a n interesting variant of the view of Simeon represented in the ' Jacob Blessing ' (Gen. 49), where Simeon is not detached from his people but dispersed among them. Moreover if Simeon is really mentioned in the Esarhaddon tablet to be discussed later (5 6, iii.), a position of detachment for Simeon at a comparatively late period would be established by contemporary extra-biblical evidence. Gen. 49 (and 34) is, however, by no means the only biblical reference to movements on the part of Sinieon. Of special interest are the references in Judg. 1, a s giving a theory, doubtless widely held, as to Simeon's 4. Judg.1 arrival on the scene. There, as we have seen . (col. 4524, n. 4 ) , Simeon's brother is Judah (vu. 3 17). Israel, having agreed to a division of the land among the tribes, inquires of Yahwe who is to begin the attack. T h e answer being ' Judah,' Judah asks Sinieon to join in the expedition, promising to return the favour later. Simeon consents, and the two peoples advance against the Canaanites, defeating them signally at Bezek, if the text is sound (see BEZEK). Whether the tradition made Simeon and Judah then settle in the central highlands is not clear.4 T h e meagreness of the account of Judah's campaign suggests that the old story of Judah's advent was lost or suppressed : we hear of Calebs appropriation of Hebron, Othniel's of Debir, the Kenites' of the district of Arad (Judg. 116 ; on the text see the comm.), and Simeon's of Zephath-Hormah ; but nowhere are we told where or how Judah settled.6 It is difficult to think that this is accidental: the redactor would have told of Judah's southward progress if he could. Perhaps one reason why he could not was that, as Graf suggested (Stamm Simeon, IS), the district which ultimately bore the name of Judah was entered from the S. If Judah is primarily the name of the southern kingdom, which consisted of Kenites, Calebites, Jerahmeelites, Simeonites, and other southern elements, the settlement stories would naturally deal with the fortunes of its component

On its omission in Judg. 5 see below, note 4. a 'I'his theory thus suggests that the Judah saying is : 76 I T . 3 On the various proposals see further, Graf, Der Segen

2,011Simeol;'s never being assigned to either kingdom c Graf, Stamiii Simeon, i g : also, on theories connecting him w i t i the northern kingdom, 16. 33. For the Chronicler's notice see below 8 5 iv. 3 Oh I 6 h . 4 38-41 see below, # 5. 4 "here s e e m , however, tp have been an independent story which did speak of ' Israel. See Gen. 482rf: [El (cp Gunkel in ll/iPJ ad Loc.), and the legend in Jubilees 342-8 (cp Charles ad Zoc. and the literature cited by him).

Moses 24-26 (1857). 4 Ii'so, are we to suppose that old tradition did not always distinguish between udah and ' Levi ' ? (Gen. 34). Only in this connection can the aisence of any reference to Simeon in Judg. 4 or Judg. 5 have any significance. 5 To infer from the Hormah exploit being elsewhere (Nu. 21 3 see HORMAH) given to ' Israel,' that some assigned to Simeon in early times a position of great importance would be precarious. 6 Gen. 38 is somewhat different.



parts.' Even, however, if the other Judah elements entered from the S., Simeon might first have lost a footing temporarily gained in Central Palestine. T h a t might account for the Shimeon at Semiiniyeh (right across Esdraelon from Ibzik) of Josh. 11 I 1220 if that is the true reading (see S HIM R O N , and below, 5 6, ii.). O n the other hand the story of the partnership of ' J u d a h ' a n d Simeon may not rest on prehistoric relations so early as the settlement. It may reflect a later time. It has been thought, for example (Wi. G l 2 2 0 1 n.), that underneath what now appears in I Ch. 4 24 as a mere list of names it is possible to detect a statement relating to a migration of Simeon southwards. Accoiding to this theory Simeonites were settled in the southern part of the territory out of which Saul carved an extensive Benjamite state (above, col. 2583, n. I, ) and rather than yield to him they moved south. That would be a likely thing to happen, especially if the Simeonites were not firmly settled. Of course such a movement would a ree passably with the suggestion of Gen. 49 and the story in Zen. 34. Nor is there anything impossible ahout an origin such as Winckler proposes for the genealogical list. Still, the suggestion in question is perhaps hardly convincing enough (see below, $ 9, i.) to form the basis of a definite theory of the history of Simeon. T o the same period was assigned by Dozy a movement, or movements, on the part of Simeon of which the Chronicler's account is still in the form 6. of a narrative, although it contains a good many names. T h e passage ( I Ch. 438-43) contains several statements, the relation of which to one another is not clear, the text being more or less doubtful.2 (a) ,According to 438.40 certain Simeonites pushed down to the district of Gedor or Gerar in search of pasture for their sheep. (a) According to v. 41 these men went in the time of Hezekiah and smote3 . and the Meunim who were 'there' and banned them and dwelt in their place. (c) According to n 42f: some of 'them' (500 with 4 leaders) . went to Mt. Seir and smote those who were left of the fugitive Amalekites and settled there. i. According to Renzinger these three statements are divergent accounts of the same thing ( K H C , 17f:), all of them being later insertions into the Chronicler's work. A question more important than the date of their insertion is whence they were drawn. We must allow for the possibility that they come from a good source. Of course that need not imply the correctness of the reference to Hezekiah.4 T h e r e is nothing in itself improbable in the Hezekiah date. T h e Meunim seem t o b e mentioned under Uzziah, also Arabs in Gur ( = Gerar? a n d sfl for $PI? : Winckler, K A T(3) 143,n. I : 2 Ch. 267 ; c p MEUNIM,6). A little later, under Manasseh, according to one interpretation of a passage in a cuneiform tablet, we find Simeon as a whole reckoned as belonging to MuSri, not Judah (below, 5 6 , iii.). ii. Dozy (De IsraZliten f e Mekka [1864], 56 [Germ. Trans. SO]), however, thinks that w. 316 shows that the events belong to the time of Saul, a n d in a n extremely ingenious manner works out the following theory :- . When Saul's expedition was sent with orders to extirpate the Amalekites the king was spared and brought hack (I S. 153 9). In Yethrib-Medina it was told that when the disohedienl army returned to Palestine they were exiled for their disobedience [53A]). The force and returned to the Amalekite lands (603 sent would likely he Simeonite (the most southern tribe, 63 [56]). Afterwards, when David punished the Amalekites for their attack on Ziklag, 400 escaped (I S. 30 1) to be destroyed later by 500 7. Simeonites who settled in Seir (I Ch. 442f: : p. 36f: (501). In Hezekiab's time an interest was felt in these Simeonite exiles

(56 [4g1, l a 1641) and Is. 21 I I ~ 1 isan invitation to them to come : back (67-73 [60-651). In time they came to he called Ishmael (103-110 [g3-99]) ; cp below, g 8 . X

~~. *.

. .

1 In this connection we may note the absence of all mention of Judah from the Shechem story in Gen. 34 39. See above, col. 4526, n. 4. 2 For Cheyne's view of the text see MEUNIM, a. On the text compare Winckler, MVG, 1896, pp. + 8 8 4 Dozy argue.; that it is only the writing down that is ascribed to Hezekiah's time (Israel. f e Mekka, 56 [491). Bertheau thinks the reference is intended to include the exnedition. It is difficult to see how the person who inserted [he notice could ap ly it to any other than the time of Hezekiah. f The Gedor of v. 39 is thus thejidar or sanctuary at Mekka (89 [So]), 'the valley' (of v. 39) is E of Mekka (92-94 [ 8 3 J ] ) , . whichreceiveditsnarnefromthegreatfight (2?? ??;=Macornha:

Dozy's reason for assigning the Simeonite movement t o the time of Saul does not seem cogent : v. 316 ( ' these were their cities unto the reign of D a v i d ' ) is not t h e Chronicler's ; it is a marginal gloss which has intruded so as to sever ' a n d their villages ' ( v . 32) from the words to which the parallel Josh. 19 shows that they belong (so Be. ad bc.). N o r can Dozy's other combinations be accepted (for a sober criticism see G r a f s review, ZDMG 19330-351 [1865]). iii. N. 1. Weinstein (Zur Genesis der Agada, 291-156 [1901]), however, adopts most of Dozy's combin:rtions, a n d a d d s others of his own. H e tries to show that the Minim of Talmudic literature are the Meunim of the OT, and they in their turn Dozy's wandering Simeonites, whose name he supposes later writers to have avoided on account of a reproach under which they lay, suhstituting Meunim or Minim. Much of this seems open to the same kind of criticism as Dozy's discussion. iv. O n the other hand, there seems n o definite reason to urge in support of the view that the Chronicler's statements are a late invention (We. P ~ o l . 212 ; ET (~) 213). W h y should he invent such a story? Elsewhere the Chronicler seems to treat Simeon as belonging t o northern Israel [but c p Cn't. Bi6. 16, on Is. 97-1041 ( 2 Ch. 1 5 9 : Ephraim, Manasseh, Sinieon; 3 4 6 : Manasseh, Ephraim, Sinieon, Naphtali). It would b e a strong point in favour of a n early source for the statements in I Ch. 439-43 if it could be proved that Simeon was still a current name in S. Palestine in the seventh century B.C. (see 5 6 , iii.). A t this m i n t . accordingly, we may conveniently turn to extra-biblical sources in search of 6. Extra- references. biblical i. We may begin with the attempt t o references* find such in Thotmes 111,'s list of I I O places of Upper Rtnu. No. 35 is Sa-m-*-n-' and no. 18 Sa-m-'-n-'-w (var. Sa-m-'-'-w), which looks like the plural of no. 35. We nlay grant the similarity of the names to Simeon(cp the spelling of Sa-ra-ha-na); but we cannot infer much. We cannot locate them. Aciording to W. M. Muller, they, at least, were not in the S.. as the list (he believes) does not include names in the S. of Judah. Cp also col. 3546, number 35 and notes z and 3. The conjecture, therefore, that Simeon (w'ith Levi) was an early settler in Palestine (Hommel, A N T 268 ; Sayce, Early Neb. Trrrd. 392) remains a hypothesis. ii. N o r are we much better o f a century or more f later in the Amarna correspondence. There is a letter (KB 5 , no. 2203) from Samu-Addu, prince of a place called Sa-am-hu-na which is phonetically= Simeon and i definitely iudicatea as h e name of a town ( a h ) . bit we s cannot tell where it lay. Steuernagel inclines to iAentify it with the Symot3n (Xuvpowu) of @SB in Josh. 11 I (ESAFL Bovprpwv, MT pip@, SHIMRON,I) mentioned with Achshaph, and $ SymoOn (so Buhl, Pal. 21s) with Semiiniyez (see below, iii u []. There is nothing to make the identity of Samhuna I) wiih one of the places mentioned in the Karnak list improgahle (so also Meyer, Glossen, 7) 3. If the identity be held probable, it would appear to stand in the way of connecting Simeon in any very definite manner with the gabiri as Steuernagel proposes to connect the Leah tribes generally. iii. Unfortunately, none of the later Egyptian lists contains a name resembling Simeon. I t might be surmised that the old towns, or a t least their names, had died out. Sayce conjectures that Simeon preceded Judah in the occupation of S. Palestine, a n d had disappeared b y the time of David ( E a r & Heb. T m d . 3 9 2 ) . T h e r e is a passage, however, in one of the fragments relating to the successful Egyptian expedition of Esarhaddon, which must be taken account of.
I _


r ~ n .

1 Dozy(70[631), Gdtz(Gesck. ii. 1485: atheorylaterabandoned) follow Aq. Sym. Theod. in inserting fugitives ( T . l = ~ 6 y o n a s ) as subject to 'call.' On a supposed reference to Simeon in hlic. 115 (Movers, UnfcrsucR. rid. a' Chron. 136; Hitzig, ad . lor.) see Graf, Stamm Simeon, 32 ; on a supposed connection of Massa of Prov. 301 31 I (Hitzig, Spdckc SaL 310J and others) with Simeon Fee id. 34, and on other supposed references see Weinstein (d 'in 5 5 iii.). i 2 Petrie, also, places sam!~unan Galilee (Hist. E&t, i 2 37. 1)



t cam (karaiu ad-ki-6)’: hle-luh-ha I directed my march, 30 hirr&-&z&zr from l&C Ap-ku -which is in (or ‘by‘) (pa-fi) L c o u n W $a-me-n[al to LriW Ra-pi-& to (a-nui-te)l the WPdy of Muyx. If this is really the text of the tablet-it is the reading of Budge, Peiser, Craig, and (doubtfully) Rogers’ -it is important ; the district (?nut)in which Ap-ku lies is not, as has been supposed, Samaria, but Sa-me-n[a]. a name which might be an Assyrian representation of Simeon.3 According to this, there was probably in the first half of the seventh century B. c. a district known to the Assyrians as l [ p ] 0 1 7 , apparently somewhere in Palestine. T h e next question is, W h e r e ? u. The district contained, or had on its border (pa&>,a town called Apku, which lay 30 kusdu-k&ku~from Rapibi-Raphia =er-Refah. What the length of a kush-&k+ur was is uncertain-‘(;rt kilom. [=7En$.m.]Por5fkilom.[=3+m.]). The average day’s march in this inscription is a kash-b@kar. ( I ) If the day’s march was about 7 m., 3 0 k a s 6 u - k ~ k ufrom r Rapihi would give the site of Apku as somewhere ahout 100 m. from kr-Refah-that is to say, ihout as far as, e.g., between Dothaii and Jenin. It might then be a question whether Sa-me-n[al is not perhaps a clerical error for Sa-me-ri-na. ‘ Aphek in Sharon ’ (cp APHEK, seems too far S. Fik, E. end) of the Sea of Galilee, with which Schrader identified Apku ( K A T P ) 204) is some 135 m. from er-Refah; kal’at eZ-Sema‘ SE. of Tyre, with which sanda (MVG, ITZ, p. 58 [Z7.f]) connects the district of Samen[al, identifying Apku with ‘ Aphek in Asher’ of Josh. 1930, is over 140 m. ; Semilniye (above, ii.), somewhat over 110 m. ( z ) If the day’s march was about 14 m., 30 Kus6u-~ukkav from Rapihi would make A ku some 200 m. from er-Refahthat is to say farther than &rot. Afki (in B j on map facing. col. 3736 : cp APHEK, I ) seems to be about 215 m. from er-Refah. 6. The attempt to do justice to the Apku part of Esarhaddon’s statement, however, raises a difficulty in what precedes. ( I ) Esarhaddon seems to say that when he directed his march r to Me-Ink-tp he was in M u ~ u and there marshalled his camp, starting from Apku. Now Mu-sur is nowhere used of N. Palestine. It has been argded wiih Feat force, however by Winckler (and by no Assyriologist disproved*) that Mu& is

sometimes to he understood as referri!ig to the neighhourhood of the Negeb of Judah. Winckler, accordingly, conjectures that the Same[na] in question was in Musri, used in the sense just indicated, Apku being the Apheka of Josh. 1553, where it is assigned to Judah. T h e Joshua context suggests the neighbourhood of Hebron ; at all events, somewhere in the hill country of Judah. This theory would give us the most interesting and remarkable datum that, about a generation and a half after the fall of Samaria, the name Sim[eo]n was at least known as a geographical term denoting a district not far from Hebron, and the further datum that the Assyrians counted it to MuSri. This would have some bearing on the theory which finds Sirneon referred to in Dt. 33 (see above, 3) and Many explain the prayer for its return to Judah. interesting problems would thus assume a new aspect ; but the point most important for our present object would be the establishment of such a contemporary geographical use of the name Simeon as would virtually prove a real knowledge of a Sirneonite people in S. Palestine, which would give us a valuable starting-point for dealing with the Hebrew Simeon legends. There is, however, a difficulty in the way of identifying Esarhaddon’s Apku with the Tudahite Aphek of .. Josh. 15 53. Hebron is barely some 60 m. from Ra hia, which could equal 30 kas6u-kukkur only if the kusbu-&uk& were some z m. If that is not tinahle, the Hehron A&u theory couldbe maintained only by supposing that ‘ 30’ (since there is no douht about the reading) is a mistake of the Assyrian scribe or of the source from which he comDiled.1 Placine h k u in S. Palestine is. therefore, not heyoid criticism. ( 2 ) On the other hand, the difficulty of a N. Palestine site for Apku hardly seems to be quite as great a s Winckler suggests. It is no doubt natural to suppose that Esarhaddon was himself in hlusur when he set out for Meluhba ; but ad-ki-e is not quite unambiguous.? Esarhaddon mkht then, from a N. Palestine Apku have ordered his army out of Mugi and have marched himself to join it. Sa-me-na might in that case be connected, perhaps, with one of the places in Thotmes 111.’~ list mentioned above(( 6, i.) (so Sanda, [Z 58 741, n. ; cp above, i.$). There remains, however, against the N. Palestine theory, the difficulty emphasised by Winckler : How came Esarhaddon’s army to he in Musri so as to he called forth by Esarhaddon, unless that were, as Winckler suggests, simply the stage on the expedition reached at the point in the narrative? And, if so, how was Esarhaddon not with the army? W e must thus, apparently, be content to leave the problem open for the present. Simeon may be mentioned Conclusion. in contemporary documents belonging to the sixteenth century, the fifteenth, or the seventh ; but we cannot be sure. T h e hope of securing a fixed starting-point for the story of Simeon in strictly contemporary evidence is for the present not fulfilled. Any day, howeter. new material may enable us to decide the question. Meanwhile, we must be content with possibilities. When the character of the development which resulted eventually in the formation of the kingdom of Judah is fully considered, and the suggestions of affinity with

‘ Froni ( c ~ ~ m h . y l Mu-sur ‘ Fays Esarhaddon, ‘‘I marshalled my

- _.

Hommel, literally, ‘ t o the borders of’ (Aufsdbe, 295). In 3 R. 35 no. 4 ohv., 1 11, the name is read [1870] Sa-me-ru. . G. Smith (TSBA3.$j7[r8741) does not quote the name, but (Assyr. Dircm. -12 [18751) renders it Samaria; similarly in W. Boscawen’s text (TSBA 493 [187~l),andStrassmAlpk. Vcr,eich, 533, no. 4238 : Sa-me-[ri-na], the reading followed by Schrader, K A ’TP) [188z]) and Delitzsch (Par.286). Meanwhile Budge however, Hist. of Eswhnddon [18eOl 118 reads Sa-me-& (without query). This is rejected (edend,h?) explicitly hy Tiele (BAG 3 j 0 , n I [1888]), and silently by Winckler (Unterr. . I alto?. Gesclr. 98 : translit. text [1889l). Later however, the . original was examined by Peiser and J. A. Craii and declared to read Sa-me-na ( M Y G iii. 1 8 [18981) which i likewise the s reading (shown shaded) of Rogers(‘ Two Esarhaddon Texts ’in Haverford Coiie S t d i e s , no. Z, 1889). The present miter examined the t a b g , and is convinced that the reading Samerina is quite impossible (so also Budge, and C. A. Thompson, in conversation). There are several possibilities ; hut Samena seems most likely. See also $ 6 iii, a (I). 3 On Ass. bn=Heb. Bn (for an) see Delitzsch on ‘Samaria’ (Ass. LesestBckr,(4) 1936). For disappearance of ‘ayin at the beginning of a syllable, cp i6b1 from i6&= iKu2 (5~2,). 4 Cp Del. Pur. 177-179,and C. H. W. Johns as in n. I , col. 0,and the literature cited there and in Muss-Am. Dict. 414. Since the above was written, E. A. W. Budge has given his reasons for rejecting the view of Winckler (Hist. o Egypt G f pp. ix-xxx). I t can hardly be claimed, however, that they sethe the question. ( I ) The fragment (83, 1-18,836) cited by Winckler as apparently mentioning hlusri and Mi[gri] side by side must indeed he left out of the argument. It is broken off so close t; the u&ht wedge of ‘i:’ that it is illegitimate to argue as if the character were complete, and therefore is. It might quite 145, n. 3). Budge and King go further well he &A ( K A TP) and say that they can see clearly a trace of the head of a second iiprisht wedge (the present writer, after examination of the tablet, is inclined to think that they may he right). The reading would then probably he Mi-lu[t~-ba] Winckler suggests as ( K A T(3) 145, n. 3 : mi for me would be unusual [Wi.] : the reff. in the index to Bezold’s Catalogue yield no parallel ; still, in Khors. 103 Oppert and Menant [/ourn. as. 6 ser. I, begin., ~8.531 give k,though Botta, Mon., pl. 150. 1. 9 , gives the usual ,n[e], and Winckler’s edition follows). Winckler‘s theory, however, by no means falls with the surrender nf this reading. He never treated the tablet as the main justification of his theory(see M q r i , etc., I. (2) Budge’s other arguments, ) however geem open to criticism as inconclusive. In particular the tranklation of ana @jllafi elimQt Mu:ri (KZ. In. 34) by ‘ : t the wardenship of fhe Marciies o Egypt,’ although following f time-honoured precedent, has never been justified. The phonetic value of NI.GAB when it meam gate-guardian, as in


, .


‘Descent of IStar ’ fussim, is pit6 or muS.%S ( 5 R. 136 137) ; when its phonetic value is kepu (as a comparison of Rost, Plate 23 16 ki . ti with Plate 376, NI.GAB-u-ti, shows that it is in the Esarhaddon passage [cp what is said by C. H. W. Johns on the phonetic value of NI.GAB in his careful discussion of the k@u ofice in Assyrian Deeds and Documents, 2 64-88, which !he present writer did not see till after this note was written]), it means governor. Schrader admitted twenty-four years ago that ‘ governor over Egypt ’ was impossible (KGF 765) ; only, he gave up ‘ governor ’ instead of giving up ‘ Egypt. On &b#u see also Johns, Doomsday Bk. 9. 1 Or by regardinggKur6u-ka&r as not a technical measure hut a general term : long jonrney’ (cp C. H. W. Johns, Assyr. Deeds and Documents, 2 208). 2 The contexts in which it oftenest occurs give it the meaning of ‘muster, marshall forces where one is’ (e.g., in laylor Cylinder, 5 23 : assemble your army [#u-u&-&ir um-man-ha], muster your camp [di-ku-a kurmk-ku]) but it need not imply ; presence ’ cp 4 R. 48 12 13a : ‘ Bel will call forth (i.da-has. fum-rna)’a foreign foe ahinst him ‘ (Del. Ass. HWR).

. .





iii. Names containing the three radicals y n w are so Ishmaelite. Edomite, Kenite, etc. are allowed for, it is common, especially in the neighbourhood of S. Palestine, natural t o conjecture that Simeon stands for one of the that they would be enough in themselves to suggest the unsettled elements of the southern population fused theory of dispersion underlying Gen. 49. In that theory more or less permanently into a state by David, there may be more than popular fancy. W e cannot especially when it is noted (cp Sayce, Bur+ He6reur here profitably discuss W . R. Smith's view that ' t h e History, 392) how many (5 out of 11) of the towns dispersion of the tribe Simeon is most easily under( I S . 3027-31) to which he is said t o have ' s e n t gifts' stood on the principles of exogamy and female kinship' appear in the list of Simeonite towns, for there does (/Phil. 9 9 6 [ISSO]). A historical connection of some not seem to be between the lists any literary connection kind, however, between at least some of the various (below, 0 I O ) . According t o Land (De Gids, Oct. cognate names seems extremely probable. 1871, p. 2 1 ) Simeon was very possibly an Ishmaelite We find Shimei as Simeonite ( I Ch. 427), Levite (Ex. 6 17). If we think that group that attached itself to Israel.' Reubenite ( I Ch. 54}-all Leah tribes-Benjamitel (2 S. 1611 Beersheba was markedly Simeonite, interesting problems etc. ; cp I K. 4 18), and in the family of David ( 2 S. 21 21 Kt.) arise connected with such names as Abraham, Isaac, as the name of the only brother mentioned in old sources (Bu. on I S. 16 9 in KHC); besides which we find cognate names like (cp Stade, GY11155), Samuel's sons, David, Amos. Eshtemoa, and Ishrnael,a pronounced now in Egypt, Isma'ins i. In all the statements we have referred to, the name (cp Bethel, B@tin Reubel, Reuben).r ; has borne practically the same form. I t appears to Not only are the names Simeon and Ishmael cognate. 8. Name. consist of the radical 5m' with the nominal There seem t o be also in the genealogy of Ishmael points termination dn = W h a t view of the of contact with that of Simeon (see MIBSAM, ISHMA ), M name was taken in early times we cannot say. I t is to which we now pass. not necessary to suppose that the story of Leah's gratii. As in the case of Reuben, P's genealogy o f tude for the hearing of her supplications (Gen. 2 9 3 3 ) Simeon occurs in Ex. 615 as well as in 9. Geneswas a very early explanation. It is exactly parallel to logical lists. the usual passages. T h e list is as the explanation of the cognate name Ishmael (Gen. follows :1611 : J). The name Simeon has been connected by Hitzig ( G V I 7) W. R. Smith (/Phil., 1880, p. S ) Stade (GVI 1152), Ker%e; o, (Die rcZ. -gesch. Bedeut. d. He6. Ei'emz. 71) with the Arabic sfm', said to mean the offspring of the hyaena and the female wolf (Hommel, SuugeUiere, 304)~ and Ball (SBOT, ad loc. 8 n1rt inrt nit1 and 114) proposes to read Gen. 49 5 : Simeon and Levi are #ai? 5rxwr* hW* h W * (for ahim: 'brot)ers'3), in the sense of 'bowling creatuies TheGen. =Ex. list seemstocontain threenames each appearing perhaps ' hyznas. Unfortunately, 8hzm occurs only in Is. 13 I ; twice: $Nin*=$iNv, p = p ~ , y n ~ = - ~ n i Nu., changing and its meaning is not known (Chi. SBOT, 'jackals'. but and . Duhm, Marti, probably 'wild owls' ; cp Staerk, S t u d i d , 2 IS one sibilant, gives nl7 for ins, and drops its double (17~).I Ch. [18991). Smith supports his explanation by citing the Arabic 4 further shows xq, for 1 9 1 , . tribal names Sim', qsubdivision of the defenders (the MedinWinckler thinks that we have here a case the converse of what ites) ' 4 and Sam's,, a subdivision of Tamim,' and compares is suggested elsewhere with regard to ISSACHAR(5 7): the gazelle), Wa'liin (wa'l, ibex) such' names as Zabyan (+y, Chronicler's list is he thinks (GI2201 n. I) the corruption of a Labwiin (Zndma, 'lioness), with which he classes such Hebred sentence telling tdat the b'ne Shim*& we& southwards when names as Zibeon ( p y x , hyaena), Ephron ( p y , lay, &ifr, calf Saul contested with the Zarhites.6 On this suggestion see of wild cow). above (g 4, end). If Simeon is really mentioned by Esarhaddon's scribe If the list be taken for a real ' genealogy ' it is difficult as Sa-me-n[a] (I6 iii. ), it would seem that the name was t o choose between the variants (see the special articles). a t that time, a t least, sometimes pronounced SaniEn. Bertheau decides in favour of Jakin as against Jarib, but only for the (weak> reason that it occurs thrice. He thinks that the On the other hand, there was, as we have seen, a placebest known Simeonite clan was S h a d (Shad's mother is known name pronounced Samhuna in the fourteenth century as a Canaanite and he alone has [three] sons, of whom M i h a ' in turn bas three). It would seem that some popular story was B. c. (above, 6 ii. ), and there is a contract tablet dated current about this Shad and his Canaanite mother. According in the thirty-sixth year of Artaxerxes I. which mentions to Jubilees 3420 her name was Adibaa, and according to 44 13 . a man named Sa-ma-ah-h-na (Hilprecht, no. 45, Z 2), she was a woman of Zephath, which, according to Judg. 117, was the city captured b Simeon and called Hormah. I n Gen. brother of Ia-hu-6-na-ta-nu ( =Jehonathan). Later, Rd.80 she is said to Lvebeen Dinah (cp Char+, /rr6iZces, zq6). as a personal name, Simeon became common (see ii. In the Chronicler's special genealogy (I. 425 A), which SIMEON~~., 1-6,andSrMoN,1-13; SIMON PETER,^ ~ a , b ; appears in MT thusShaul cp. for Palmyrene inscriptions, Lidzbarski, Ephemeris, vol. i., index (under {>yaw). 1 -~ ii. T h e name appears in regular gentilic form a s I Mishma gim'dni, S IMEONITE ('?ypw : -cp Reuben, ReubEni). Shallum e Mibsam I Qa, however, everywhere iepresents the gentilic by the noun ___I form ( m p e w v : in Nu. 25 14 '?LnW:! becomes in @ E TOY u [AFL . 1 Zaccur Shimei Hammuel om 70~1). It is possible, therefore, that the w p c w v of QaBKAQl' in Zech. 1 2 13 implies that Shimei, *&@ was known as analterna1 Note also Jamin and Saul as Simeonite names (I Cb. 424). tive form of the gentilics (cp WRS, YPhiZ. 996 [188o]) 'ust 9 Cp Graf Der Stamnr Simeon, 23, Ewald, GGA, 1864, as in Arabic there is the similar pair ending in -'i a n d p. 1274, and hove, fB 5 ii. 7. respectively (WRS, 80). 8 Indeed the note on the name in Gen. 16 I I (J) is mn' ynw - p v $8, with q y as i the case of REUBEN (f 7 i.). n 1 Cp Dozy's view, above, 0 5 ii. (small type, end), and below 4 How cautious it is necessary to be in reasoning from simif 8 iii. larity of names appears from the remarkable fact that Saul as a Cp Noldeke ZDMG 15806 [1861]. well as Shimei is a Shconite name, and that Samuel, who 8 Gemini, according to Zimmem (ZA 7 16aJ) and Stucken 'discovered' Saul, is brought into relation with Beersheha, the ( n w c : 1902, p. 189). mast famous of the towns claimed for Simeon. Shemuel b. 4 H does not allude to DOZY'S ; daring hypothesis referred to ~. Ammihud is the name of the Simeonite representative in the above (f 5). partition of W. Palestine (Nu. 34 20). 5 The gentilic ( U m W Sa-ma-u-nu-ai Dccurs along with IumW h w nv I , inN i*n' 58 113 irynp m~.This mlgbt be T Pu-ku-du-ai i n a letter to 'the king'(K. 1248). What '(city) made more plausible perhaps by reading ~ D J ,instead of the Sa-um-'-u-na (so, according to the text in Del. Lrsesttickc (4) not [as in K52 1061 Sa-am-u-nu),son of Marduk-apil-iddina 'in strange iii,, fo? in> of hwx ; but the clause h u w nir x ~ i n i i Sennacherib's Taylor Prism inscription (5 3 3 5 ) can mean it is not convmcing. 6 Cp P s Simeonite census prince Shelumiel b. Zurishaddai ' would be hard to say. ka(?)-ma-'-mnu was the name of one (Nu. 1 6 2 12 7 36 10rg) from whom Judith is said to be descended of the sons of Bel-ikab (ruler of the half-Aramaean tribe of the Gambulai) executed by Ab-bsni- al:.. Samuna in Sa-mu-na(Judith 8 I). Saln (&.but @B uahpwv, @FL uahop) was the aplu-iddina (Johns, Doomsday BJ! vni. 1 6 = K . 8179) and in father of the Simeonite Zimri who was slain with the Midianite Sa-mu-nu-ia-tu-ni (Ass. Deeds and Doc. 160 R. I I = K . 279) is woman Nu. 25 14 (see f IO, a,end). The other nvnes assigned doubtless Eshmuii (Doomsday Bk. 1) 6. to SimLon are Shaphat b. $ori, the 'spy' (Nu.135), and e The Shemaiah also of I Ch. 437 appears in BB as o v p c o v . Shephatiah b. Maacah, the ruler (I Ch. 27 16).







the names, apart from the Ishinaelite Mibsam and Mishma‘ and the Judahite Ham(m)uel, need not be old (cp Gray, HPiV 236) : indeed QSB omits Hammuel and Zaccur, and Shimei mi ht be a duplicate of &fishma’. Moreover, they all appear in %B* as descendants in progressive generations of Shaul. iii. Still more suspicious looking is the peculiar list in vu, 3437. (On the number, thirteen,l of the names, some of which are supplied with genealogies, see below, $ IO, i.). I t may be noted, however, in connection with Simeon’s being a brother of Levi, that the names brought into -prominence in the list- Shaul, Shimei, Ziza (traced back five generations 3)-are known otherwise as Levitical names (cp G ENEALOGIES i., 5 7[v.]). a. l h e theory of the statistical writers evidently was that Simeon was gradually merged in J u d a h : the lo. Gee- Simeonites first settled amongst the graphical lists. Judahites (Josh. 19 I 9) and then, in the . is a time of David ( I C ~431b-it marginal gloss to the whole list : see above, 5 E.),

is taken of the variants in 6. It will suffice here to note that in list ( I ) bB inserts Buhxa after Rimmon ; in list (3) omits Heshmon and bA identifies
ASHAN (a.42) with A S H N A H (v. 43). In list (4) @L follows M T ; but BBNA omits all except Jeshua and Beersheba. i. T h e main list (i.) appears to consist of thirteen towns agreeing with the thirteen ( I Ch. 434-37) names (some with genealogies attached) of their inhabitants who afterwards migrated to Gerar ( I Ch. 439). ii. T h e main list of towns is followed by a supplementary list (ii.) of four (Ain Rimmon being a single place, and Tochen preserved only in I Ch. 432), agreeing with the four ‘ captains ’ who migrated to Mt. S i r . iii. Of the list of nine Judahite or Simeonite towns assigned to the priests ( I Ch. 6 57-59 [42-44]= Josh. 21 1316) only ASHAN (g.v.; in Joshua iniswritten A I N ) is ever called Simeonite. H. W. H.

sheba Moladah




Moladah Moladah Hazar-gaddah Heshmon Bethpalet Bethphelet Hazar-shual Hazar-shual -Beersheha Beersheba

SIMEON (fly?* ; C Y M ~ W N [BAL] ; see SIMEON i., 5 8, i., end). I . EV accurately SHIMEON, the in list o those with foreign wives ( E Z R A i., 5 5, end), f Ezra 1031 (t5Bh.* 2 c p c ~ v ) . 2. Grandfather of M ATTATHIAS ( I Macc. 2 I ) ; see M ACCABEES i . , 5 2. 3. A devout man of Jerusalem, mentioned in Lk.’s Gospel of the Infancy (Lk. 222-39): , H e was gifted with the ‘holy spirit’-i.e., the spirit of prophecyand had learned by revelation that he should not die without having seen the Messiah. Having been supernaturally guided to the temple courts, he saw the child Jesus brought in by his parents, according to custom, on the completion of the period of the mother’s purification. H e then burst into an inspired song (vu. 2932), known to us as the h’unc Dimittis (cp H YMNS , 5 3 ) . H e could now depart, like a relieved sentinel, and could transmit to others the happy tidings of the dawn of the Messianic day (see G OSPELS , 5 39). For Mary he added a special word of prophecy, pointing to the different results of the preaching of the Cross of Jesus, which would lead some to a new life, and others to anguish a t his crucifixion (vv. 34f.). See further, J. Lightfoot on Lk. 225. It is possible to regard Simeon as a poetic personification of that inner circle of Jewish believers which formed the true S ERVANT OF THE L ORD ( p a . ) . Long had it waited for the fulfilment of the prophecies of salvation, and now (Le., when this ‘ Gospel of the Infancy ’ was written) its members were passing one by one into the company of believers in esus Nor need we be startled to find an imperfect parallel to tie story of Simeon in one ofthe legends which cluster round the birth of the Buddha (see Carpenter, The Synoptic GosgeLsP), 155). 4. RV, SYMEON (Lk. 330). See G ENEALOGIES OF

5. RV. SYMEON, ‘ t h a t was called Niger’ (CYMBWN b Kaholipevor Nlycp [Ti. W H ] ) , is mentioned along
with Barnabas, Lucius. Manaen, and Saul, among the prophets and teachers in the primitive church at Antioch (Acts131f). See M INISTRY , 37. Niger was probably his Gentile name, whether chosen with any reference to his complexion we cannot tell; the name was not uncommon (see Dict. Gr. and Rom. Biogr. and MjfhoZ.). The list of the first preachers of the Gospel given by Epiphanius (Epiph. Opera, 1337, ed. Dindorf)closes with the names Bapv@av, K& ‘AaeMljv, ‘Po+v, Nlyepc ai roar Aoorrobr TSY I&Solnjrov~a 860. 6. RV, S YMEON (Acts 1514). See SIMON P ETER ,




/-Ether Tochen Ashan Ashan Ashan T h e names have been given in the forms under which they are discussed in the separate articles, where account 1 In the Chronicler’s expanded version of the Hexateuch list ( I Ch. 4 24.26) it is necessary to include Simeon himself to make up the full thirteen. 2 In the form Zizah ; see ZINA. 3 Ending in BB with Simeon himself (mourov for Shemaiah). 4 On the varying ethical judgment on the conduct of Simeon in Gen. 34 see Gunkel nd LOG. and Charles’ BK. O F J UBILEES, on 302-6. 5 In the case of the other four-Reuben (3000), Ephraim (Em), Naphtali (8ooo),Gad ( m o o t t h e fall is slight. 145



1 .

N ; = ‘ snub-nosed ’ ? a Greek name SIMON ( cI [see SIMON P ETER , 5 I a ] of frequent occurrence among post-exilic Jews [fin*D] cp J ASON ; see SIMON P E T ER, ; 5 Ib. T h e persons who bear the name in 6 or NT are :I. Simon Chosameus ( C I M W N XOCAMAOC [B] , xocp~aioc [A]), I Esd. 932=Ezra1031, SHIMEON [b. Harim].




2 .


Son of Mattathias surnamed THAWI Macc. 2 3 ; (

e a g a [ ~ l[NV] ; thus; [VI ; r ~~yr.1 Jos. Ant. xii. 61, Burrs). See M ACC A BEES , $5 I, 5. 3. Son of Onias, ' t h e great priest,' uhose praise is set forth in Ecclus. 50. It is doubtful whether Simon I. ( ' the Just ') or Simon 11. is alluded to ; cp ECCLESIA S T I C ~ ~ ; C ANON , Q 36 ; O NIAS . 7 4-7. 4. A Benjamite, who, wishing to avenge himself upon Onias, informed Apollonius of the existence of huge sunis of money in the temple treasury ( 2 Macc. 3-4). T h e account of the attempt of HELIODORUS . ~ . ]to seize the [q treasure is well known. See AAPOLLONIUS, M ENELAUS , O NIAS , 5 6. H e is called the xpourd~vsso6 kpoD ( 3 4 ) or temple overseer, and it was perhaps his duty to look after the daily supplies of the temple. C p T EMPLE, Q 36. 5. Named in Mt. 1 3 5 5 Mk. 63, together with James, Joses, or Joseph, and Judas, as one of the brethreh ' of Jesus. H e is not mentioned elsewhere in the N T ; but it is not impossible that he is identical with the Simeon, son of Clopas the brother of Joseph, mentioned by Hegesippus as ' cousin german ' (dve$rbs) of Jesus, who succeeded James in the bishopric of Jerusalem and suffered martyrdom in the reign of Trajan. See CLOPAS. 6. Surnamed theCANANACAN,AV CANAANITE (6 Kavuvu?os : Mt. 10 4 Mk. 3 1 8 ) , or the Z EALOT (6 Zvhwr+s, Lk. 6 15 Acts 113) ; named as a n apostle in all the four canonical lists (A POSTLE , 5 I ). There is no doubt about the superiority of the reading Kuvavaios to that of TR, ~auuvi~~s, though the latter has the support of b ; but ! although the writer of the Third Gospel and Acts tookit as representing, and has translated it, 'Zealot' (see ZEALors), many modern critics (cp J UDAS , 9, § 2) are inclined or to take the word as a Greek modification of ' j t t ? ~ meaning, ' a man of Canan. or C a n a ' (there were several Canas). Simon does not reappear in the N T history. I n ecclesiastical tradition he is usually mentioned in conjunction with Judns of James ; and indeed in some western authorities in Mt. 104 the epithet Zelotes is given to Jndas not to Simon, Judas Zelores taking the place of Thaddaeus. ' T h e addition of Zelotes is probably due to a punctuation of Lk.'s text which might not seem unnatural if no connection of sense were recognised between ~avavu?osand (vXw7?js ' (WH). Simon the Zealot is frequently identified with the Simon (Simeon) of Clopas mentioned by Hegesippus (ap. Eus. f f E 332) a s a descendant of David who was alive in Jerusalem in the days of Trajan and suffered martyrdom under the consular Atticus; but this identification is not made by Hegesippus or Eusebius themselves, and appears to be first met with in the Chronicon Pnschnk, Pseudo-Hippolytus. and Pseudo-Dorotheus, all of which call him Simon Judas. Later ecclesiastical tradition varies as to the field of Simon's apostolic labours, One set of legends laces his activity in Babylon or on the shores of the Black &a. But, as Lip&s goints out (Apokr.-A#.-gesch. 3 142fl), these representations ave probably arisen from a confusion with Simon Peter who writes from ' Babylon' and addresses the Christians in ' Pontus.' Another set of legends, especially met with in late Greek writers, represents him as preaching in Egypt, Libya, Mauretania, and Eritain ; but the same districts are also assigned by some traditions to Simon Peter. I n the Western church the festival of Saints Simon and Judas is observed on Oct. z8. The Brevinry lesson fo; the day has it that 'Simon Chananaus qui et Zelotes, et Thaddaeus qui et Judas Jacobi appllatur in Evangelia, unius ex catholicis Epistolir scriptpr ' evangelised Egypt (Simon) and Mesopotamia (Jude) respectively, and afterwards went together into Persia and ended a successful ministry there in a glorious martyrdom. 7. Of C Y R E N E [q.v.] ( X p w v Kupvvuios [Ti. W H ] ) , perhaps a Hellenistic Jew, who came from the country and was compelled to carry the cross for the crucifixion (Mt. 2 7 3 2 Mk. 1521 Lk. 2326). Afterwards he was reckoned among the seventy others' (apostles), Lk. 101, and he was said to have died on the cross i r d p Xpr~~oO--i.e.,for the sake of Christ. T h e Basilidian and perhaps also other Gnostics believed that he died in place of Jesus ; c p R. A. Lipsius, Apokr. ApostelgeJch. 11g5f.
B ~ U U ~ S [A],



According t o Mk. he u-as the father of ; A LEXANDER and R U F U S Cgg.v.1. W. H. Ryder ( I D L 17196f., 1898) thinks that Simon's eldest son was Alexander, his second Rufus, his third Tertius, and his fourth Quartus- all Christians living in or near Rome when Mark wrote. Living among Gentiles, Simon gave his sons Greek and Latin names. This Rufus has been conjectured by many to be the same as the Rufus of Rom. 1613. E. P. tiould, St. M a r k , 289J (1896), remarks ' It is the height of foolish conjecture to identify this Rufus. the son of Simon of Cyrene, with the one in Rom. 16 13 : St. Mark will only indicate that the names Alexander and Rufus were known to the early church.' Deep indeed is our ignorance on such points. W. C. Y. M. (No. 7 . ) 8. ' T h e leper ' of Bethany, in whose house the woman anointed Jesus with the contents of the alabaster cruse (Mt. 266 Mk. 1 4 3 ; cp M ARY , Q 2s). An incredible apocryphal story makes him the husband of Mary the sister of Martha ; cp LAZARUS. [The designation 'leper' has greatly exercised the critics. It is worth recalling, however, that the mother of JEROBOAM [q.v. I] is called in M T nyns. 'aleper' ( I K. Ilza), and that Naaman in the extant recast of an older story'( z K. 5 I ) is represented as y$p, ' a leper.' I n both cases the original tradition stated that a Misrite was referred to. I t is possible that the Simon referred to was said to have come (like ' that Egyptian ' in Acts 21 38) from Egypt t o Jerusalem, a n d ?. that the original narrative (in Hebrew) called him w ; C p also 'Simon of Cyrene.' Chajes (iMarkur-studien [1899], p. 75) supposes a n original Hebrew reading yo+?, ' the humble '-Le., ' pious ' (as often in Talmud). I One who had been a leper ' is at any rate a miserable explanation.-T. K. c.] 9. T h e Pharisee, in whose house the penitent woman anointed Jesus' hands and feet (Lk. 740). C p GOSPELS, 5 I O , and MARY. 5 25. col. 2970. Against the identification of this anointing with that of Mary of Bethany, just before the Passion, see Plummer (209). T h e theory is at any rate ancient, for, as Plummer remarks, Origen o n Mt. 266 contends against it. It is also supported by Keim (Jesu von Naaavn, S Z Z ~ ) , Holtzmann (HCPI, 273, PI 346), and Scholten (Het PauZinisch Evangelie, 254). T h e last-named scholar is of opinion that ' the influence of Paulinism on the changed representation of Luke i s unniistakeable,' and that ' leper' in Mt. and Mk. was a symbolic phrase for Pharisee. Without committing ourselves to this, we may reasonably hold that here, as often in collections of traditions, a germ-idea received conflicting developments. IO. A tanner of Joppa with whom Peter lodged (Acts '943). T h e reference to his trade is significant ; the narrator suggests that Peter was losing his old prejudices. I t is said that a wife could claim a divorce from a husband who became a tanner (Mishna, Kithziddth 7 IO). C p H ANDICRAFT , $ 5 ; JOPPA (end). 11. T h e father of Judas Iscariot, Jn. 671 131 26. 12. For Simon Magus, see below (special article). On the 'Great Apophasis' see GOSPELS, Q 91 ( a n d references). 13. For Simon Peter, see below (special article). W. C. v. M. (No. 7. )
204 3427.

CONTENTS ) . Introductory : Acts 8 g q (E I Anti-Pauline and Anti-Gnostic Extra-canonical data (# zJ). polemic (@ 9-11 Simon= Paul (56 4-7). Historical Simon-&pres($12). Four distinct SimonAgures Conclusion on Acts 89-24 Literature (6 15). Simon Magus is mentioned in the N T only in Acts ( 4 ) I n Acts 85-8 we read that Philip the 89-aq. 1 In Acts. Evangelist preached the Christ in the city . of Samaria, and wrought many miracles of healing. Next (vv. 9-13), we are told that Simon

(S 8).

(? 13x:).



had previously to this bewitched the people by his magical arts, giving out that he was some great one, and being declared by them to be that power of God which is called Great. After that men and women had received baptisni at the hands of Philip, Simon also did so, and continued with Philip, full of amazement a t his miracles. Meanwhile ( v v . 74-r7), at the instance of the apostles in Jerusalem, Peter and John had come to Samaria, and through laying on of hands had obtained the Holy Ghost for those who had been baptised. Upon this, Simon ( u v . 18-24) offered them money and desired the same power, but after a severe rebuke from Peter, finally besought the two apostles to pray for him, that the punishment they had threatened might be averted. ( b ) This narrative contains much that is strange. That, instead of the city of Samaria (as in vv. 5 By.) the country of Samaria should be named in 21. 14, may be set down to a pardonable want of exactness. T h e designation of Sinion as ‘ that power of God which is called Great ’ and his designation of himself as ’ some great one ’ are not intrinsically incompatible with his sorcery ; but it is very surprising that the sorcery is referred to twice (m.9 ? I ) and that its second mention is preceded by the same word (?rpou&xov, ‘gave heed’) as had already been employed in v . IO. This appears to indicate that the two explanations of his popularity come from two different sources. By the reference to his sorcery, he would, in that case, be characterised as a mere y6vs of the sort that was very abundant in those days ; ‘that power of God which is called Great’ would signify something much more exalted. Now, it is not easy to imagine that an editor would have introduced v. 11 if he had already found m. 9f: lying hefore him in his text. I t is more probable that D. IO was interpolated, and that in the process ‘ took heed ’ (rrpooaixov) was borrowed from v. 11. The close of 7,. 9 (Simon’s giving out that he was some great one) can in that case have belonged to the original text, for it is far from conveying necessarily anything nearly so high as ‘the power of God which is called Great’ ; but it is hard to believe that ‘bewitching and bringing the nation of Samaria into a maze ( p a y d w v xa; ;.$OT&OV r b &os 6 s Zapapsiar) also should come from the author of v. 11. Perhaps the original text had m. 9 10a(down to ‘great,’pfyya;\ov); the redactor beginning with ‘saying,’ A ~ y o v r e s(v. I&), added the designation of Simon as the power of God that is called Great, and then thought it necssrary to return in v. I I to the idea of sorcery (from which attention had meanwhile heen called away), and in doing so borrowed ‘ took heed ’ (rpomixov) from 71. loa and i&uTariuar from v. 9 ( I f r r n i v o v ) . This renewed mention of Simon’s sorcery, however, was not indispensable : v. 12 could ouite as well have followed directlv on D. IO. It wbiild have bee; equally superfluous if it had heen inserted by the redactor in v. 9 (payeu’wv to PaJIa riar), had 7.1. I I belonged t o the original text (in which case d e whole of 21. ro, on acroiint of the rrpou&pv, would have to be attributed to the redactor). If there is reluctance to assign to any redadov the doubled mention of the sorcery, there remains only the alternative that axopyist who acted as independently and arbitrarily as the copyist of D (or a preliminary stage of D ; see ACTS, $ 172) substituted at his own instance the other reference to the magical practices for that which he found hefore him : that then, upon comparison of this transcription with an unaltered copy, the new form of the idea was written upon the margin, and then was taken by the next copyist for a n integral portion of the text left out by his predecessor hy an oversight, and was accordingly introduced into it at what seemed to be an appropriate place. (c) T h e idea that only apostles (by laying on of hands) can procure the gift of the Holy Ghost is quite From this, it unhistorical (see MINISTRY, 5 34 c). would not at once follow, however, that it is a later insertion : for the whole passage may be equally unhistorical. At the same time it is, in fact, apparent, that vw. 14-18a introGuce a representation which in the actual connection is surprising. According to v. 13, Simon has heen only astonished at Philip’s miracles : as for the bestowal of the Holy Ghost, he wiches to he able to do the .same. In a sorcerer would it not have been more natural to desire to possess the niiraculous power of Philip (cp SIMON ETER, 5 3 3 4 ? Among the P scholars, therefore, who separate sources in Acts (see ACTS, 111, we find Van Manen, Feine, Clemen, Jiingst supposing that In the source Simon did seek to piirchase Philip’s miraculous power with money. On this, supposition it is simplest to regard the last word of v. ‘3 (i&uraro, ‘he was amazed ’) and ZRI. 14-18a
1 Perhaps originally it ran merely as in 5 36 f h a i r w a iaurdv -I that he was somebody’and ‘ great ’ (p<yau) may have been merely an explanatory gloss to ‘somebody’ (rtva); cp the nenter &ai T L , ‘to be somewhat,’ Gal. 2 6 6 3.

(down to r v r s p a ) as interpolated. In this case, in the immediately following context we must regard at least, v. rq, the ‘ them’ ( a h o i s ) instead ’of ‘him ’ ( a h $ ) i; v. 18, ‘ Peter’ in v. 20 and the plurals 8njOqre and &p+are in D. 24 as adjustnierits caused by the interpolation. However plausible this separation may seem to be, It by no means completely solves the riddle of our passage. T h e problem still remains quite dark, how it was that the editor could ever have come to interpolate, at one and the same time, into a source which consistently represented Simon as a sorcerer . 9 or I) and as ( ,, wishing to possess still greater magical powers, two such foreign elements as the designation of Simon as the power of God that is called Great and the communication of the Holy Ghost through the apostles (uv. I O ’4-17). l h e two have not theslightest connection with each other. It might perhaps be suggested that the designation had been borrowed by the editor from a second source, and that the reference to the Holy Ghost was his own contribution; but this would not furnish us with any intelligible motive for his proceeding. Yet it seems highly necessary that we should discover such a motive: for a second surprising point which is not cleared up by separation of sources, and hardly can be, is the question how it could come to pass that a man to whom the whole people of Saniaria gave heed, and showed high honour, should have been so easily converted to Christianity, and that as a sorcerer, he should so little resemble the Bar-jesus of 136-12 who quite naturally opposed the Christian missionaries so strenuously. Moreover, it is surprising that the story has no close ; we are not told what in the end became of Simon. Here, once more, can it be seen how useless it is to carry out separation of sources merely on the ground of indications of broken connections, while not concerning oneself at all about the deeper questions relating to the composition of a piece, and about ‘ tendency’ criticism. T h e solution of the problem can be led u p to only by widely extended investigations. Simon, to begin with, plays a great part in the writings of the Fathers. ( a ) Justin (about 152 A . D . ) cites him as an instance to prove that, even after the ascension of Jesus, the 2. In the demons caused men to come forward who Church- gave themselves out to be deities, and were Fathers. actually worshipped as such. Such was a certain Samaritan named Simon, of the village of Gitta,’ who performed feats of magic by demonic arts in Rome during the reign of Claudius, was held to be a god, and was honoured by Senate and people with a statue in the middle of the Tiber. between the two bridges, bearing the inscription in Latin: ‘ Simoni deo sancto,’ and almost all the Samaritans, as well as a few people else%-here, worshipped him as the first god ’ (7bv ?rp&ov B d v ) , ’ the god above all rule and authority and power’ (Oebv G m p d v w ?rdur)s dpx?js K a t 8~ouuias K R ~ Guvdpews), and declared a certain Helena, who had formerly lived in a house oi evil fame, and afterwards travelled about with him, to be the first
1 ’Arb v J p q ~h e y o p i q r rirrov. Thus Gitton would be a possible form of the name. r i r r o v , however, is certainly gen. pl., since Gitta is met with elsewhere also as the name of a town : in Josepbus (rima or F&a, gen. Timqc or r i n w v ; see, cg., Ant. vi. 13 IO, $5 319-321) for the Philistian Gath i Pliny ( H N v . 19[11]75) for a place on Cannel (Getta), d d n i n the Philosojhumem (6 7) we have b l’rrrqvds (not l’rrrwv6r). For further details see Lipsius, Petrussafe, 33, n. In all the editions of Justin known to the present writer indeed, the word is accentuated TcrGv, and soalso in Eus. H k i i . 1 3 3 and Epiphanius HEY.21 I . I n that case the nominative would he rirrar ; this) however, inview of thegen. rims is quite unlikely. If both genil tive forms are to be explicable, the nominatives must coincide. Cp ropippap (2 Pet. 2 6 ) alongTide of Topdppov (bft. 10 IS), Au’urpav(Acts14621 16r)alongsideof Adorpois(14816z aTim. 8 II), @v&e.rerpav(Rev. 1 I I : so in Lachmann. and as an alternative reading in WH) alongside of Buarripors ( 2 18 24), and Buarfipwv (Acts 16 1 ) A488ar (Acts9 38) alongside of the accus. Au’88a 4, (9 32 35). Similar variations are found in I Macc. in the cases of A8&, Badoovpa, Tacapa. The word form ‘ex vico Gethonum (Clem. Recogn. 2 7) rests upon a misunderstanding.




thought that had proceeded from him ( ~ p & v hvora : see ApoZ. 126 56 215, Dial. 120). ( a ) T h e base of the pillar referred to was dug up on the island in the Tiber, a t the place indicated by Justin, in 1574; the inscription runs : ' Semoni Sanco deo fidio sacrum. Sex. Pompeius donum dedit.' Thus, the pillar was dedicated to the Sabine god Semo Sancus (cp Ovid Fast. 6213-218)~and not by Senate and people, but by the piety of a private individual. As Justin has gone so far astray here, Lipsius ( B L 5318; ApOkr. Aj.-gesch. ii. 1 p$) ventures to trace hack also the alleged worship of Simon and Helena by 'almost all the Samaritans ' to misunderstanding of certain sacred pillars or massebahs (see MASSEBAH), wit those of Hercules-Melljart, to the"'king of the city' of Tyre and the Tyrian moon-goddess Selene-Astarte, whose impure worship is alluded to in the reference to the house of evil fame (according to Iren. Her. i. 16 [23] 2 and according to the quotation of Justin, Apol. i. 26 3 in Eus. H E ii. 134, it was in Tyre). In the seudo Clementine Recognitions Helena isactuallycalled Luna, tEat is t i say, Selene (ZeA+q), and according to the HorniZies(223) she wa.. amon the companions of John the Baptist (of whom Simonwas the firs3 the only woman-thus only 'half man' ( i j p ~ m &vSp6s), to indicate that these 30 companions really represent the number of days in a lunar month, which are not 30 complete days hut only zgt. ( c ) W h a t we read about the ' first god ' ( T ~ B T OB&) S and his ' first thought ' ( r p h r v hvvora) is taken from the Gnostic system which is attributed to Simon. W e ' m a y suppose Justin to have given full information a s to this in the work cited by himself in Ap0Z.i. 268, but now lost, entitled a t h a y p a Kurd Tau& ai$uewv, which was used by later heresiologists from Irerireus (Her. 116 [23]) and the author of the PhiZosophumena (67-20) downwards. Harnack (Lehr6.d. DGW 1206-m8) finds in Simon a new ' universal religion of the supreme God,' Lipsius nothing more than the ordinary Gnosis which had become widely diffused in Syria from about the time of Trajan, and is known t o us mainly through the Ophites, Kith this difference alone that here Simon takes the place of Jesus a s the Redeemer. According t o Kreyenbiihl (Evang. d. Wahrheit, 1 , 1900,pp. 174-264) Simon was not a founder of a religion, but the first genuine philosopher of religion, to whom belongs the undying merit of having been the first to formulate a n d scientifically to elaborate the fundamental principle of all Christian philosophy, namely, an ' anthropological pantheism ' or an ' absolute and universal theanthropologism ' (240). In the ' Great Announcement' (klr6gwrc (rqyMv), attributed to Simon, which is first mentioned in the Pltiloso~~urnena and copiously extracted from, Kreyenhiihl discerns, not, like all other critics, the work of a later Simonian, hut a genuine production of Simon himself. For our present purpose it is not necessary to discuss this question or to set forth the Simonian system, for which the reader may consult Li ius (BL 5 316J)and Hilgenfeld (Ketzergesch., 1884, pp. i63-186p: ( d ) Suffice it to observe here that all the church fathers from Irenzus onwards make Simon the prime author of all heresies, and inform us that he was regarded not merely as a leader of a sect, but also a s a manifestation of the supreme Deity, a s Messiah, also by the name of ' t h e Standing O n e ' (6 turds), or, more precisely, according to the ' Great Announcement ' (Philos. 69 13) a s 6 CUT~S,U T ~ S U T T J U ~ ~ E ~ O S - ~the. , , .~ permanently Abiding. C p further, T I e. f. ( a ) This interpretation of the expression ' t h e Standing One' is confirmed also by the pseudo3. pseudo-clem. Clementine HomiZies (222 : &E U T ~ U ~ ~ W O S a s intimating that he del ' aecogg. : (and shall always stand ') and Recognia ) on tions (2 the Gnostic dissolvi,7 : ' negat posse se aliquando .~~ asserens carnem suam ita mmon. divinitatis sure virtute comDactam ut possit in reternum durare '). According to Recogn. 172, Simon further designated himself as ' virtutem summam excelsi Dei qui sit supra conditorem mundi.' C,p § 14d. (b) W e thus find in Simon's case also application of the Gnostic distinction between the supreme Deity and his subordinate, the creator of the world or demiurge. T h e supreme Deity is incomprehensible and unknown to all ( R w q n . 237j:).

He sent forth the creative Deity to make the world ; having done so, the latter declared himself to he God, and demanded observance of the Mosaic law. To Simon, also, is attributed the doctrine that the souls of men proceed from the supreme God (&ho at the same time is called The Good), but that they have been let down into captivity within the world. The body is their prison (2 5 7 ~ 3 . This enables us to understand what is meant when we are told that Simon denied the resurrection of the dead (Horn. 2 22). It can be explained from z Tim. 2 In, according to which the false teachers, who are simply Gnostics, declared that the resurrection was past already. By the resurrection they understood the soul's arrival a t knowledge of its he?venly origin, and its superiority to the body which is its prison. Therefore, in their view, for all Gnostics the resurrection has already come about, and they consistently denied any future resurrection of the body. (c) These data may be sufficient t o show that it is a form of Gnosticism that the pseudo-Clementine HomiZies and Recognitions are combating in the person of Simon. If they contained nothing more they would accordingly be seen to have arisen, at the earliest, sometime in. the second century. Other indications which do not need to he discussed here lead us to the beginning of the third century (so Lipsius, ii. 137, n. 2 ; Harnack, Lehrb. d DG('4, 1266: beginning or middle of third . century, according to TLZ,i p z , p 570, even as late as the 4th . cent., before Eus. [HEiii. 38 5]-this after Chapman [below, P 151 had disputed their employment by Origen), and to infer a Catholic redaction of both writings (so Harnack, ZC) or at least of the .., Recopifions (so Lipsius, Z.C.). The story as to the members of Clement's family who became separated as non-Christians, and after their conversion find one another and recognise (whence the name ' Recognitiones,' bvayvwpcupol) one another, both in a bodily and in a higher sense, has a purely edificatory purpose. A art from the final redaction (see above) the proper standpoint o?the authors-a Gnostical Jewish Christianity-does not point hack to the oldest times and can hardly have emrcised much influence. Thns, from &hat has been said up to this point. it might well appear that these writings 'contribute nothing towards knowledge of the origin of the Catholic church and doctrine. This is, in fact, the opinion of Harnack (Lehrh. d. Dogm.-Gesch.P),? 268), and in his view, indeed, 'it may he regarded as certain. T h e pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, however, contain yet another element of the very 4. ( b )On greatest importance. I n them Simon displays features which are unquestionably derived from Paul, and plainly show him t o b e a caricature of that apostle drawn by an unfriendly hand. ( a )T h e principal passage is Horn. 17 19. Here Peter says to Simon: ' If, then, our Jesus,manifesting himself in a vision, made himself known to thee also, and conversed with thee, in doing so it was as one who is wroth with an adversary, and therefore speaks by visions and dreams [Nu. l26-8], or, it may be, even by revelations which [yet] were external. But can any one be qualified fo: the teaching office through a vision? And if thou wilt say It is possible,' then (I ask) 'Why did our teacher for a wiole year continually converse with those who were awake? And, further, how are we to believe thy word that he even appeared to thee? How can he have appeared to thee, when thy manner of thinking is wholly contrary to his doctrine? But if thou hast for even so much as a single hour been made blessed and instructed for the apostleship h a manifestation of him, then pray declare his doctrine, set fortx his words, love his apostles, and strive not against me who companied with him. For indeed thou hast come forward as adversary against me who am a firm rock, the foundation of the church [Mt. 16 IS]. If thou wert not an adversary ( & Y T L K P ~ ~ ~ Y O Cthou wouldest not slander me and ) revile my preaching, in order that I, when I utter that which I have heard from the Lord face to face, may find no credence, plainly as if I were a condemned and reprobate person [read I& dpo) L S O K ~ ~ 6 ~U 0 s .cp I Cor. 9271. But if thou sayest that I am O 7 condemned (d'i a v vouplrbov pe AG'yyrrs), in doing so thou inveighest against &od who revealed Christ to me, and inveighest against him who on account of this revelation did call me blessed [Mt. 16 171,' and so forth. W h a t Gnostic ever personally withstood Peter 7 According to the incontrovertible statement of Hegesippus (a?. Eus. HE iii.327$), Gnosticism arose from the times of Trajan after that the sacred choir of the apostles had deceased. For what Gnostic had it ever been possible to be, like Peter, a personal disciple of Jesus during his lifetime upon earth? W h a t Gnostic ever gave himself out to be an apostle? W h a t Gnostic ever claimed to have been qualified for the apostolate by a definite vision which he described? And who ever except Paul (Gal. 211) spoke of Peter as 'condemned' (Kaseyvwupdvos)? Thus, it was a t Antioch







that ' S i m o n ' assailed Peter a n d spoke evil of his preaching, and it was his vision o n the way to Damascus (for Paul, according to I Cor. 9 I Gal. 1I 12,the basis of his claim to the apostolate) that is here intended t o be reduced ad absurdum by a dialectic that really h a s much to say far itself. Already in chaps. 1 4 a n d 16 it is urged that such a vision could have been produced by a n evil demon, just as well as by Jesus. (b) N o r is this all. T h e words of Peter in his Epistle to James prefixed to the HomiZics (chap. 2) relate also to the same incident i n Antioch : ' Some of


a follower. In Acts9 15 he is called a chosen vessel of the Lord ; in Recog. 3 49, Simon is called a vas e/ectionis of the devil.1 ( d ) I n this violent polemic it is not surprising t o find thrown back at Simon-Le., Paul-the charges which Paul h a d himself levelled a t his opponents. In z Cor. 1113 Paul calls the Judaising emissaries at Corinth ' false apostles ' ( + e u 6 a r r 6 ~ 7 o A o; ) Wont.16 21 Peter says that ~ in Jesus foretold false apostles (+ru8arr6urohor) false prophets the forming of sects and lists for supremacy all'which seem to'him to have taken their beginning with Si6on the blasphemer of God. In z Cor. 1 14 Paul proceeds : 'And no marvel. for 1 even Satan fashioneth himself into an angel of light' ; in RLcog. 2 1 8 , Simon is called the 'malignus transformans se in splenthe Gentiles have rejected my doctrine which is in dorem lucis.' According to Horn. 2 33 wickedness ( K d a ) sent accordance with the law [of Moses], while imputing to forth its comrade in arms, Simon, like a serpent (IF ~ + L Y; cp m e a certain lawless a n d nonsensical doctrine (&uop6u z Cor. 1 3), according to Horn. 1135, as one who preaches urider 1 a pretence of truth in the name of the Lord and sows false riua Kal @hvap&q &8auKahfau) of the hostile man. doctrines (rrA&q), and it was with reference to him that Jesus And indeed while I was in my journeyings some took (Mt. 7 15) foretold the coming of ravening wolves in sheep's in hand by manifold interpretations t o wrest m y words clothing. Here, also, may he recalled a saying which does not ' unto the dissolution of the law, as if I myself also were come from Paul himself, but from the author of Acts. This writer puts into Paul's mouth (2029) the prophecy that after of such a mind but did not openly proclaim it ' (cp the his departure grievous wolves shall make their appearance in charge of hypocrisy, Gal. 21zf.). Nay, more, in Horn. Ephesus, not sparing the flock. It is very probable that refer20 19=Recog. 1061, it is related that Faustus, father of ence is intended here to the ewish Christian school of thought which was prevalent in Epiesus inde; John in the last third Clement, to whom Simon h a s by witchcraft given his own of the first centpry. Paul himself, had already in I Cor169 outward semblance, is in Antioch constrained by order spoken of the many adversaries ( L V T L K ~ ~ C rroMhoQ in VOL of Simon publicly to proclaim his repentance in the Ephesus. This expression, also, is taken up and turned against himself in the passage already cited under a,above. following words :( e ) More especially we find recurring in the pseudo' I, Simon, declare this to you, confessing that I have unjustly slandered Peter. For he is no false teacher, no murderer, no Clementine Homilies a n d Recognitions three designations sorcerer, nor any other of those wicked things which I in my which are already referred t o in the epistles of Paul as wrath formerly accused him of. I myself, who have been having been m a d e use of against him. the author of your hatred against hi& beg of you to cease from When in 2 Cor. 6 8 Paul says of himself, 'as deceivers and your hatred of him ; for he is a true apostle of the true prophet [yet] true' (IF nA\a'vor ral ciA18&), the censure implied in the sent by God for the salvation of the world. And now I will word rrha'vos is just as little purely imaginary as is that contained tell you why it is that I have made this confeqion. Last night inGg : I;c ciyvooip~vac, rrars.vd~svor('unknown "chastened') ic angels of God severely scourged me, the godless one, as being etc., or that repudiated in 4 5 ('we preach not burselves'), 0; an enemy (iX8pds) to the herald of the truth. I beseech you that hinted at in 3 I ('are we beginning again to commend ourtherefore, if ever I again should come forward and venture t i selves?'), c 512. All these charges had actually been made speak against Peter do not listen to me. For I confess to you : otherwise 8aul would not have nceded to repel them (( 9 e): I am a magician, I'am a false teacher I am a sorcerer. Per; The word most fitted to stick as a term of reproach was 'the haps it is possible by repentance to k p e out my past sins. deceiver' (6 rrAkvos), and in point of fact it does reappear in If the father of Clement did not occur in an older form of the Nom. 2 17,which represents Jesus as having foretold that 'first book, we may conjecture that this confession was originally must come a false gospel by the instrumentality of a certain there put directly into the mouth of Simon. What is said ahout deceiver' [the gospel of freedom from the law] (rrpirov +vBZS his chastisement is a malicious allusion to the declaration of Sei iA8riv e+anCArov 6xb ~ArhdvouT L Y ~ F ) . Cp the rAC;vr) in the Paul in 2 Cor. 12 7, as to the cause of his malady, that an angel quotation (11 35)cited under a', asalso themiracles which Simon of Satan (a"wfAos Earam?) had been sent to buffet him. I t is works (2 33) ' to astonish and deceive ' (rrpbs rra&rrA&v La; iniportant to observe that in Recog. we have the sing.: 'an krra'np) or \74), the expression 'deceived before by Simon' angel,' not the pl. ' angels ' as in Hom. ( h b soh . Pipovor rrpoaraq8Cvrss), or the decejtiones of (c) If w e have here a well-ascertained case in which Simon (Recog. 3 65), his 'slanders' (dra,¶oAal : Horn. 3 59). an utterance of Pan1 regarding himself is spitefully Notice further that, according to Gal. 1 IO, it was made a reproach against Paul that he sought by his doctrine to please twisted to his discredit, soon also we find more of the men ; this comes up again in the words of Peter in Nom. 18 IO: same kind elsewhere. 'Since ye have thus spoken to please the multitudes who are In the course of his vindication of himself Paul had, with sois rrapairurv 6~Aorc oGros F+vs). present ' (drerQ L~CUK~VTWF great reserve, declared that he had once been carried up into Above all, however, it is of the constant designation the third heaven ( z Cor. 12 IX). This is made ridiculous in or of Simon as ' enemy ' (6 PxOpbs bvepwTos, simply as Rec. 2 65 : si putas facilem menti tuae accessurn esse super caelos et considerare te posse qu;e illic snnt atque immensae illius lucis d &Op6s, inimicus, see, e . g . , above, 6) in both writings, scientiam capere, puto ei qui illa potest comprehendere facilius that w e are able to infer from Gal. 416 with a high esse ut sensum suum qui illuc novit ascendere in alicujus degree of probability that it had already been applied nostrum, qui adsistimus, cor et pectus injiciat et dicat quas in eo cogitationes gerat.1 The doctrine of Paul that to eat meat by his Galatian adversaries to Paul. It is difficult to offered to idols is not forbidden (see more fully under COUNCIL see how Paul could have felt a n y occasion t o ask the 8 1 1 , col. 924,f) is distorted into the story that Simon in th; Galatians whether he had been the enemy of the market-place entertained the people of Tyre with the flesh of a Galatians by his preaching of the true gospel, that is of sacrificial ox and with much wine thus bringing them under the power of the evil demons (Horn! 7 3 ; c 4 4) This distortion the gospel freed from the law (this is what is intended IS all the more worthy of attention, fecaise the author, in by CiXqOdwu I % : 416) if he h a d not been spoken of & connection with it, gives admonitions in the very words of Paul t o the Galatians as being their ' enemy.' Here should 'to abstain from (or not to be partakers of) the table of devils' (rparri<qs 6a~p6vov&rrCxeuBar, or p$ prraAqBa'vrrv, 7 4 8 ; cp be added Mt. 1328 (see below, 6 c ) . I Cor. 10 203). In view of the miracles which Paul himself (f) This ' h o m o quidam inimicus' according to claims in 2 Cor. 1 2 12 Rom. 15 19,it is easy to understand that Recog. 170 f raises a tumult against James the episco. he came to be spoken of as a magician. In the enumeration of the magical powers of which ' Simon ' makes his b a s t in Recog-. 1 This very drastic kind of polemic is exemplified in the NT 2 9, the ' when bound I can loose myself . when confined in also. The Gnostics who are controverted in the Epistle of prison I can make the barriers open of their own accord ' ( I nnctus J U D E (p.v., 8 z), in common with all Gnostics, divided mankind memetipsum solvam . in carcere colligatus claustra sponte into the two categories of ' psychic ' and 'pneumatic ' ; they held patefieri faciam ') specially recalls Paul's liberation from prison themselves to be pneumatic. This the author tnrns round the at Philippi (Acts 16 23-26). Even if this liberation is unhistorical other way in v. r9 : 'these are they who make a division [i.e., (ACTS, 5 z), it found belief after it had been related, and it can between psychic and pneumatic ; not, as in AV, ' who separate have been related a considerable time before the date at which themselves,' or, as in RV, ' who make separations 'I, sensual, not Acts was written. Once more, let u s take another word that is having the spirit.' There is a still closer parallel to this subused, not indeed by Paul himself, but with reference to him by stitution of the devil for God in Rev. 2 24. It is hardly to be supposed that the followers of Jezebel made it their boast ' If you think that there is easy access for your mind above the heavens, and that you are able to conceive the things that that they ' know the deep things of Satan ' ; we may he perfectly are there and to apprehend knowledge of that immense light I certain that their boast was that theyknew thedeep thingspf God. All the more sharply sarcastic in the form of the phrase : Know think thit for him who can comprehend these things it wdre the deep things of Satan, U S they say.' But it is Paul who easier to throw his sense which knows how to ascend thither is the author of the claim to possess the spirit that searcheth all into the heart and breast of some one of us who stand by, and to tell what thoughts he is cherishing in his breast.' 01) things, yea, the deep things of God (I Cor. 2 1 . 2 . Cp D 6 6.


. .

. .





porumprin-eps at Jerusalem, snatches a firebrand from the altar and with this begins a general Jewish massacre
of Christians; he throws James down headlong from the top of the steps, so that he lies as one dead. After three days the Christians who have fled to Jericho learn that the hostile man has received from Caiaphas the high priest the commission to persecute all Christians, and armed with written missives ( ‘ epistolae ’) from him is about to go to Damascus in order to begin the persecution there, believiugthat Peterhasbetaken himself thither’ (cp Acts83 91$ 224$ 269-12 Gal. 1 1 3 I Cor. 159). (8)Even the style of Paul is plainly imitated in a mocking way. In the recantation (Huin. 20 19) 2f Simon mentioned above (6) we have his 66opu~hpwv ( ‘ I beseech you’ : Gal. 4 I,), a h b s $76 ( ‘ I myself’ : 2 Cor.lOr), ei8B;ur Lpis @.!A, ( ‘ I would have you G know’ : I Cor. 113), W U ~ U K U A otv (‘ I beseech theref o r e ’ : Rom.121 I Cor.416; cp Eph.41 I T i m . 2 1 ) ; elsewhere 7i ydp, ri 03v, etc. S o also with the apocryphal Acts of Peter and Acts of Peter and Paul (as to which see S IMON PETER, Apocryphal 55 32-34). Whilst in the apocryphal Acts. correspondence of Paul with the Corinthians which belongs to the Acta Pauli (see SIMON P ETER , § 39e, n . ) - t h e doctrine attributed to Simon is Gnostic, in the Apocrypha just mentioned Simon appears less as a gnostic than as a wonder-worker : hut that by him the apostle Paul was originally meant is manifest here also. ( a ) T h e question of Paul to Simon : ‘ W h y didst thou deliver up circumcised men and compel them to be condemned and put to d e a t h ? ’ (6rd ri uir mpmerpq-

here it is only the circumcision of the heart that Paul stands up for. Thus in our present passage it is not at all the Catholic Peter, but the original genuinely Jewish-Christian Peter with whom we have to do, and this is our evidence that his opponent was not originally a Gnostic, but simply an opponent of the Judaising . of Christianity, in other words, no other than Paul. . ( d ) To Paul also applies the further accusation in the same passage, that ‘ Simon ’ found it necessary to give himself out falsely to be a Jew and to put on the semblance of strict observance of the law in order t o deceive the people whom otherwise he would not have been able to win over t o his erroneous doctrine (see SIMON P ETER , 5 34e). This clearly points back to I Cor. 920 : ’ to them that are under the law ( I became) as under the law, not being myself under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law.’ W e . recognise also, however, the charge which, according to Gal. 5 II 1IO. was made against Paul by his Judaistic opponents, that outside of Galatia he still continued to preach circumcision, for everywhere he shapes his doctrine so as to please men (see G ALATIANS , 5 13, middle). ( e ) With this accords (even if not conclusive a s evidence) the favour which Simon finds with Nero. After Nero had proved himself the most dreadful enemy which Christianity had, it mnst have suggested itself very readily to the adversaries of Paul to lay it t o Paul’s discredit that h& had so expressly enjoined obedience t o Nero (Rom. 13 1-7) and that Panl’s captivity had been so mild (Acts 28 so$ ). As a result of his submissiveness such a partiality of the emperor as we find him expressing for Simon in the Catholic and also in the preCatholic Acta (S IMON P ETER , 5 33 h ) seemed natural. C p below, 12 6. (f) Lipsius (ii. 1363J) has even conjectured that the story of the seeming beheading of Simon (J 34 c) has a t its root malicious misrepresentation of the beheading of Paul. In order that Paul might not have the glory of martyrdom his traducers had it that be had not been beheaded, hut by a trick had brought it about that a ram was decapitated in his stead. To this was then added the further touch that he presented himself to the emperor as one who had risen from the dead, in order thereby to secure acknowledgment of his divinity, and of the truth of the promise he had previously made, of a return from death after three days. This promise is met with also in quite another form in the PkiZoso$huiiteaa 6 20 where Simon suffeFs himself to be buried by his disciples, ’md proposes to rise again after three days, hut does not revive (see S r ~ o PETER 5 92 a s n. I). Evidently the theme has gone through several va;iationsI In accord with it is what we read in the Catholic Acta, that Nero causes the body of Simon, who has fallen down from the clouds, to he watched for three days so as to know whether he will rise or not (see SIMON ETER, 5 34g). With Simon’s promise P Lipsius confronts thestatement of the Acts of Paul ( = ‘ Martynum Pauli,‘ 4, 6=Pseudo-Linus, ‘Passio Pauli,’B, r8, in Aria Apost. Apocr. 1112.11632 42) that it was Paul who foretold to Nero his return after his beheading and who also fulfilled this prediction. (g)Lastly, mention must be made of the attempt of Simon to fly to heaven (see SIMON PETER, § 33 [f], 5 34 T h e supposition lies close a t hand that here too we have a malicious perversion of the saying of Paul that he had been caught up to the third heaven (2 Cor. 122) and that precisely the story of his fall and of his death was connected with this because the appeal to this rapture into heaven was regarded a s a flagitious piece of self-glorification. and, should the conjecture of Lipsins just mentioned prove correct, the beheading of Paul was not regarded as being the true end of his life. At the same time it must be observed that Simon’s flying is reported in two forms. Alongside of the statement just recorded above, that his desire was to reach heaven by it, defind another much simpler one that his intention was simply hy a brief flight, to give proof of his magical powers, and theriby secure public attention (SIMON ETER 50 3 3 a , 34c). For this we have an P authenticated parallel. SLetonins (Nero, 12)relates that a flying professor who had undertaken to play the part of Icarus in a repFesentation.of mythological scenes organised by Nero, in the circus on the Campus Martius (that is to say, exactly on the scene of the alleged attempt of Simon), at his first attempt fell to the ground close beside Nero, who was bespattered with his


p b O U S Tapd8lOKUS K U i 7)VdyKUUUS UdTOhS KUTUKpL@.!lTUS

droKrav@+ur : see S IMON P ETER, 34 e ) is decisive. There is no Gnostic who could have had either such
power or such inclination. T h e words can refer only

to what Paul did according to Gal. 1 1 3 I Cor. 159 Acts83 91$ 224$ 269-12. In this way what follows
gains in cogency, the original reference to Paul being not so absolutely palpable without this key. (6) In the (pre-Catholic) Acta Petri Simon is spoken of as ’inimicus,’ ‘condemned’ ( § 4 a , e, and SIMON PETER, 33 d ) , and even the Greek word ~ X d v o s(5 4 e ) has found its way into the Latin text ; according t o the Actirs Petri cum Simone ( 4 12,in Acta Apocr. i. p. 49,l. 13 and p. 60, 1. 4 ) not only is Paul called ( ‘ magus ’ or) ‘ planus,’ but Simon also is described as ‘planus (et deceptor).’ I n the (Catholic) Acta Petri et PauC (43) Nero makes it clear that Simon persecutes Peter and Paul out of envy, and is a ‘manifest enemy’ (7rpb6+ot 6x@p6s) of both and of their Master. ( c ) I n the disputation on circumcision touched on above ( a : cp S IMON PETER,$8 34 e , 39 c), Simon warns the Emperor against believing Peter and Paul, a s they are circumcised and therefore worthless persons. Paul makes answer : before we knew the truth we had the circumcision of the flesh ; since then, only the circunicision of the heart. Peter a d d s : if circumcision is something bad, why art thou circumcised, Simon? It will be manifest a t once that only the words of Peter, not those of Paul. are any effective reply to the reproach of Simon. If with Lipsius (11. 1 360) we remove those of Paul a s being a later addition (cp S IMON P ETER , J 35 e ) , then the pure antithesis between Simon a s the opponent and Peter as the defender of circumcision comes to light. This, however, is directly contrary to the whole representation of Peter elsewhere in these Acts ; for here he figures as the one who is doing away with the law (S IMON P ETER , 34 a , 39 c ) . In so far, however, as Peter defends circumcision the effect is to take away his complete agreement with Paul (the accentuation of which is nevertheless one of the main objects of the book: see SIMON P ETER , 5 35 d ) , for Should this be 1 He is not here expressly called Simon. intentional, this passage would then have to be relegated to 5 6


as being direct polemic against Paul.



blood. If it was this or some similar occurrence that suggested the ascription to Simon of the attempt at flight, the statement that Simon’s intention was to fly to heaven is a further develop. ment. The possibility remains that the story was manufactured with z Cor.12 z in view ; yet we cannot he confident of this. I n the pseudo-Clementine Howdies we find merely that Simon flies occasionally (2 3 ) and in the +‘ecognifions (29) this takes the 2) special form that Simon promises: ‘si me de monte excelsq praxipitrm, tanquam subvectus ad tetras illaesus deferar. What seems to lie at the hasis of this is the promise of Satan to Jesus in the temptation on the pinnacle of the temple (Mt. 45J=Lk. 4{-1r]. ,The evidential value of the arguments adduced a t the eginniiig of this section, however, is not impaired Ly the ambiguous character of the indications last adduced. How small is the right of any one to set aside any such polemic against Paul as being from the outset 6. Analogous jmpossible is shown by the fact that ~n early Christian literature the same polemic Paul. thing is found also without intervention of the mask of Simon, and even occasionally with express mention of the name of Paul. ( a ) Epiphanins ( H a w . 30 16, end) tells us that in Ebionitic Acts of the Apostles was found, regarding the apostle Paul, the statement that he was the son of a Greek mother and a Greek father belonging t o Tarsus, that he had spent some rime in Jerusalem and there desired the daughter of the high priest in marriage, on which account he became a proselyte and accepted circumcision ; but, having after all failed in his suit, in his wrath he wrote against circumcision, the Sabbath, and the law. ( b ) In Rev. 214 20 it is said of the followers of Balaam and Jezebel that they eat things sacrificed to idols a n d commit fornication. T h e two classes of persons are thus identical in spite of their different names. N o r are the Nicolaitans [cp NICOLAITANS] distinct from them, for w e read (215): ‘so also hast thou them that hold the teaching of the Kicolaitans in like manner ’ (&or 8xxerr ~ a l u (not : ufi xal j K p a r o i h a s r+v 6t6aXi)v 3 T O Y NtKohaLTOv dpoiws). That is to say, In that thou (the church of Pergamos) hast the Balaamites, thou hast also [in the same persons] those that hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans in like manner as the Church of Ephesus has (2) Now the Nicolaitans a t Ephesus are in 2 2 ‘6. said to be apostles who have been found to be false ; and of the adherents of Jezebel we are told in 2 24 that they profess to have known the depths of Satan. All these accusations fit Paul. the last of them must he understood in the manner indicated sthove (8 4 c, n.). To eat meat offered to idols and to commit fornica; tion had heen indeed sanctioned by Paul if we take ‘fornication in the sense that has been indicated under COUNCIL, 8 TI, col. gzj. As he had already called his opponents false apostles (2 Cor. 11 13) it is not surprising if we find them hurling hack this reproach at himself and his followers (cp 5 4 4 . The later the date to which the epistles in Rev. Zj: are assigned (see J O H N , SON O F ZEBEDEE,0 1 1 ) the more easily ossihle does it become that in them it is no longer Paul himselfhut a later school that is being controverted, a school which made perhaps a more thoroughgoing use in practice of this doctrine of freedom from the law than he himself made, or which even abused that nrinciole : but neither is it uossihle to show from the text itself ihat ii cannot by any mea& have been directed even against Paul. On 1311-17,see B 76. ic) Even in the First gospel. in all Drobabilitv. it is Paul who is alluded to h e as the ;enemy’ (&Xepbr cZuOpwrro~~, Mt. 1328, and as the ‘least ’ (&hdxtu~os) of in the kingdom of heaven ; see G OSPELS , $1 1 1 2 c, 128 c. C p above. $ 4 e , end. ( d ) As for the canonical book of Acts, the polemic against Paul which underlies 89-24 and 2422-26, and which is artificially turned aside by the composer, will come under our consideration later ($5 I ~ J , 1 2 6 ; cp also BAKJESUS). Kreyenbuhl(z14-216; 1 15 below), it may be added, sees also in Acts 148-20 and 1911-19 a similar proceeding on the composer’s part. In Lystra Paul was only stoned ; the divine worship which he is represented as having received, rests only on the detraction of his Judaising adversaries, who thereby as elsewhere in the person of Simon, wished to represen; him as a man who owed his success with the Gentiles-these according. to Kreyenhtihl, are figured in the lame man blind fo his hirth;m to magical arts. The magical efficacy assigncd to the handkerchiefs and aprons touched by him (19 12) is held in like manner to be an invention due to a similarly hostile intention. In the Nicolaus, also, of Clement of Alexandria (Stronr. iii. 4 2 5 , p. 522, ed. Potter), who, when he hadbeen rebuked hythr apostles for jealousy, offered his heautiful wife to any one who chose to

marry her, Kreyenhiihl also (190J) finds Paul who gave up the ‘chaste virgin ’ the primitive church, to the Gentiles, and thus to fornication.’ Such conjectures hardly rise to the level of probability, even although the difficulties suggested by stories of this kind when literally taken remain worthy of attention. ( e ) Similarly it is necessary to receive with caution the view of Prenschen ( Z N T W , 1901, pp. 169 [186]ZOI), that the form of Paul underlies the delineation of the Antichrist in the Christian Apocalypse of Elias,’ although the coincidences, especially also with the Acta Pauli. are some of them really striking. Preuschen himself says that a searching investigation as to the historyof theorigin of this Apocalypse is still needed. According to Schiirer (TLZ, 1899,pp. 4-8), it is later than Clement of Alexandria. If this be so, the features of the picture of Paul cannot have been transferred to the Antichrist for the first time when Paul’s high place had become undisputed ; that must have occurred much earlier, when the hatred against Paul was still alive and did not shrink even from such a distortion of his picture as this. In the transference of these features to the Apocalypse of Elias now before us, misunderstandings, hou,ever, can easily have crept in. This admonishes to great caution. Moreover, Preuschen’s work i b not yet completed. At the same time, however, F’reuschen’s view regardSimon a8 ing the Apocalypse of Elias leads tb the ia question whether perhaps the figure of Simon may not also underlie the picture of the Antichdst in apocalyptic writings. ( a ) Preuschen (2.c. 173-176) answers t h k question-in the affirmative so far as Si6yU 3 63-74 2165-170 are concerned. T h a t in 363 the expression ‘afterwards shall Beliar come forth from the Sebastenes’ (CK & ZcpaurVuGu Bchtap pm5atuOcv), Ze,Baur~volhas never as yet been satisfactorily explained is true. Pe+m6r is the Greek rendering of Aogustus, a name of honour which Octavian first received in 27 B.C. Should Pcpauq v o i , however, mean, not people of Augustus, but people of Samaria, neither is this designation possihle at an earlier date than 27 B.c., for it was not till then that Samaria receivcd the name Sehaste. In order to be able to maintain the very tempting interpretation which refers the widow ruling the world in 3 75-80 to Cleopatra, and the triumvirate clearly indicated in 951J to Antony Octavian, and Lepidus, and thus fixes the date of the whole’piece 336-92as falling somewhere between 40 and 30 B.c., scholars have found it necessary to take the expression Pq¶au.nlvoi as proleptically possible even before the official bestowal of his name of honour upon Augustus, or to regard the verse in which it occurs as an interpolation. Preuschen understands the world-ruling woman (v. 75) of Rome (that in v. 77 she is called a widow, and that in zw. 47 52 Rome is designated by its own proper name he does not take into consideration) and then interprets the Beliar who is to arise from among the Samaritans as referring to Simon the Magician. It is correct to say that the rather vague delineation here and in 2165-170 presents no obstacle to stand in the way of this identification ; but the identification is not yet thereby established. In fact it appears even to he directly excluded if v. 69 is correctly ’interpreted : Beliar is to seduce many men, namely ‘as well faithful and elect Hebrews as also lawless ones, and other men who never at all heard of God ’ (rrrrr~odcT’ &ACKK&



here divided into three classes : ( I ) Christians(rmroirs &herrode), Jews (‘Eppaioue Lvipovs), and (3) Gentiles ( d M a v s Lvipas, etc.). In that case, honever, the third r s ought to have come after ‘Eppaiovs, not after Lvipous. Grammatically possible would be another threefold division : (I) r r m o d c , (2) ; r h e r ~ o 3 s ‘E,3paious. ( ~ ) ~ v ~ ~ralohhhovs &‘pas, etc. Only, in that case A u c i the w r u ~ o would certainly not mean Christians ; otherwise the ‘EBpa2or would not he called CrhsrTai. If the passage is due to a Christian, as Jtilicher supposes, then the only right construe. tion is that which takes Lvipovs a b a predicate of ‘Eppaious as above. Moreover, in the third class just supposed the would have a disturhing effect. If the T C after avipovs could mean ‘and,’ then it would he ermissible to render m by ‘also’ : i ‘andalso other godlessmen.’ ?‘he;;; however,after iv6povsmust mean ‘as also since that after r r r ~ r o d smeans ‘ as well ’ ; cousequentlv .ai can only mean ‘and. The only unexceptionable translatibn is accordingly the following: ‘ A s well fajthful a~td elect Hebrews a also lawless ones, and other men, etc. As 7 these ‘other men’,are the Gentiles, only Jews can he meant by the ‘ lawless ones. If on this rendering one were to seek for Christians also! they must he indicated by the ‘faithful and elect Hebrews, in other words must he exclusively Jewish

B‘ ‘Eflpaious bv6pous r e r a l hhhaus & ‘ p a s orrrvrs o&mB’ Ghos BeoS eu+oumnv). Jiilicher, who was the first to interpret Reliar as referring to Simon Magus ( T L Z , 1896, 3 9 , finds mankind 7)

~1 German translation from the Coptic by Steindorff in TU 17 3, 1899 ; as Apocalypse of Sophonias already puhlished by and in French Stern in 2.J &y#t. Spi-uch 1886, pp. 115-135, by Bouriant, M/moires de 2a)wrission avchkologigue (iu Caii-e i. 2 260-279 (1885) : not to be confounded with the Jewish Apocal lypce of Elias cited by the Church Fathers ; see Schiirer, G j Y P ) 2 673-676, T ii. 3 129.132. E



Christians, which will hardly be supposed by any one. Rather does the author divide the Jews into the two classes of the ‘faithful and elect’ and the ‘lawless,’ placing the Gentiles alongside of them. In that case however the passage is not the work of a Christian, and thereiore it doe: not relate to Simon Magus ; for it was only among Christians and not a1 all among Jews that Simon Magus passed for a person so objectionable and at the same time so important that he could be identified with the devil. Nor yet even among Christians was any such estimate put upon him at so early a date as in the apostolic age ; he acquired it by the enhanced importance which came to be attached to him through the romance of which he was the hero. Thus if Simon should be meant we should have to reject as too early the dating of Preuschen who understauds b the three men who destroy Rome (v. SI>) Galba Otho and h e l l i u s (68 and 69 A.D.) and by the fire from heaLen (v.’ 533) the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 A . D . Moreover the second dating cancels the first : for that Galba Otho and Vitellius had destroyed Rome could no longer be Lelieveh after 69 A . D . Geffcken (Tu231 p. !) who agrees with Jiilicher asregards Simon Magus, :, judiciously leaves the date undetermined. Yet it is altogether wrong to take m. 36-99 or even only w. 46-92 as a unity. In the passage before us the destruction of the world by fire is predicted as something new no less than three times (53-61, 71-74, 84-87); and moreover the destruction of Rome by the three men just referred to follows upon the reign of the Messiah over all the earth (46-52), whilst of course it must have preceded it, and the reign of the widow over the world follows upon the destruction of the world together with Beliar and his followers by fire (71.77). and also upon’the destruction of Rome by the three men already related in v. 5rJ, which would be equally inappropriate whether the widow he taken as meaning the widow Cleopatra or Rome. Thus only ZN.63-74 come into account as a unity for our present discussion. (6j Simon the Magician has been detected in the ‘other beast’ of Rev. 1311-17 (which in 1613 1920 2010 i called the false prophet ’) in recent years by Spitta s (O@nb. d. /oh., 1889,pp. 380-385) and Erbes (Ofenb. /oh., 1891,pp. 25-27}. This identification may in some measure suit the wonderful works which are attributed to this beast in 1313-15a. But it no way suits the regard for the worship of the Emperor in m.12156, and the exclusion of those who have not the mark of the beast on hand or forehead from the buying and selling, unless we choose t o suppose that the figure of Simon furnished merely the outlines for this second beast which were filled in by the author with essentially new features. Still less have Volkmar (Comm. z Oflend.Joh., 1862, p 197. 213)~Blom (Th.T, 1884, pp. 175.181) and Kappeler g h e o l . Ztschr. a m der Schweiz, 1893, pp. 40-62> 65-69) succeeded, without resort to the greatest lengths ofallegoricalinterpretation, in finding the apostle Paul in the second beast ; on any literal exegesis, not even the miracles which cause no difficulty when referred to Simon can, by any possibility, be assigned to Paul. (c) In so far, however, as, after the example of Gunkel (Schiipf. u. Chaos, 1895) and Bousset ( A n t i christ, 1895). the line taken is that of seeking in the leading apocalyptic forms merely renewals of older figures, whether of mythological or of literary origin, which assumed once for all a normative character that underwent only slight modifications when applied to new circumstances and conditions, it may certainly be worth while to inquire whether Paul, or Simon, or the features in the figure of Simon which have been derived from Paul, have contributed elements t o the shaping of these renewed apocalyptic figures. Preuschen’s aim is nothing less than to show that it was by the introduction of the form of Paul that the figure of Antichrist, originally thought of a s a ruler, assumed the character of a false teacher, so that both types of Antichrist thenceforward existed alongside of each other. After the survey just made of the appearances of Simon in the literature of early Christianity, our next 8. Four forms task must be to ascertain what results, of Simon dis- if any, can be claimed. ( a ) In the place, it tinguished. first have to has become evident that we do with three distinct magnitudes which meet us, now here now there, under the form of Simon. To these must be added a s a fourth a Jewish magician of Cyprus, Simon, a guard of the procurator Felix, who employed him tu draw away Drusilla from her husband, Azizns king of Emesa, and procure her in marriage for himself (Jos. Ant. xx. 72, 5 141J ). To him we shall return afterwards ( 5 12 b c e ) .

Meanwhile, the three figures that have come before us in the literature we have hitherto been surveying are : ( I ) the Samaritan magician as Acts, on the first impression, seems t o present him ; (2)the Gnostic, founder of the Gnostic sect of the Simonians : (3)the distorted image of the apostle Paul. (6) 1‘. is indispensably necessary that we should distinguish these three forms a s sharply as possible, and especially necessary in cases where they may have come t o be-mixed up in one and the same writing. In this sense, we have already treated separately the Gnostic and the perverted image of Paul as they are found in the pseudo- Clementine HorniZies and Recognitions (S 3f.). In these writings Simon appears a s a magician also : but if thereby the magician who, according t o Acts, made his appearance in the very first years of Christianity, is to be understood, then the Gnostic system ascribed t o him does not a t all fit, for it is of much later date. Now, magicians have existed in all ages, and thus it were easily conceivable that the author of the Gnostic system in questi??,lin the second century, was really also a t the same time a magician. As against this suggestion, however, two considerations must be borne in mind ; not only that Gnosis and magical arts are unitedin the fancy of the Church fathers (whoattributed to their adversaries, without discrimination, all kinds of evil things) more easily than they are in reality, but also that, on this view we lose all connection with the Samaritan Simon of the earlieit Christian times, a connection which is nevertheless presupposed in so far as Simon is opposed by Peter. If, in view of this, we decline to give up the connection, we must nevertheless recognise that in the pseudo-Clementines all the three forms of Simon are mixed up with one another so as to form a com. pletely impossible figure. The case is similar in the apocryphal Acts ; only, there the Gnostic features in the person of Simon are not very prominent. On Acts 8 9-24 see 8 14. (c) If, then, we desire to get at the truth of the matter, it is an exceedingly perilous thing t o be too readily prepared t o find a harmonious picture, instead of various features derived from distinct sources. Thus, the argument is very widely cnrrent that, inasmuch a s in the Simon of the pseudo-Clementine HorniZies a n d Recognitions a Gnostic tendency is being controverted, he cannot, a t the same time, have any Pauline features ; in fact, the myth has even come into being that Lipsius too, in conceding the Anti-Gnostic character of these writings, has also given up their Anti-Pauline character. Similarly, it is often supposed that nothing more is required than the postulate of the actual existence of a Samaritan magician of the name of Simon, in order t o make it possible to set aside all supposed reference to Paul in the narrative of Acts 8 : or, where a little more caution is exercised, it is supposed that the same result can be reached by the observation that the figure of Simon there exhibits Gnostic characteristics. If once we are prepared to keep these different 9. The Anti- characteristics strictly separate, and a t Pauline the same time to recognise their polemic older presence together (should they happen to be present together) in one and the than the Anti-Gnostic. same writing, the next question for us comes to be whether the Anti-Pauline polemic is older than the Anti-Gnostic. ( a ) One might suppose that the answer could not be doubtful, seeing that Paul himself was before Gnosticism. T h e consequences, however, which have been deduced by the Tiibingen school from this view of the case cause many to shrink from accepting this result, however obvious. These critics are utterly averse to making the admission that any such intense hatred could really ever have been directed against Paul as would follow from the malignant and perverse representatidn of him implied in the HomiZies,and Recognifions, and in the apocryphal Acts, should it be the fact that the passages in question date from the earliest Christian times. The ideal of Acts, that the multitude of them that believed (as also the apostles) were of one heart and soul (4 32) dominates the current conception of that period much too strongly to make it possible for many to recognise as historical any conflict of so profpund and far-reaching a character as that revealed in these writings. (6) Only, what is it that is done in order to avoid the



unwelcome admission of its historical character ? Any attciiipt to explain away the hatred which these writings breathe against the Simon with whom they deal, promises little success. Thus, of necessity, one is driven to the assertion that the Anti-Gnostic interest is in these authors. the original one and the Anti-Pauline features are merely later introductions, much in the same way as an artist, in order to give greater life to his picture, will introduce into it here and there a few additional touches, but without altering the nature of the work as a whole. ( c ) This assumption, however, of the posteriority of the Anti-Pauline polemic in these nritings i s completely untenable. How should the writers have come to make precisely Paul their target? If there had been a conflict between him and another school of primitive Christianity from which these writers were not perhaps far removed, the conflict was nevertheless buried a t the death of Paul. It is coming to he more and more generally recognised that the real Paulinism hardly survived the lifetime of its author (so Harnack himself, Lehrh. d DGllz) 46 n. I , 5zf: 78$,,116 etc.). . Whilst the most general of all its resilts- the admission bf the Gentiles to Christianity without observance of the lawwas accepted in its own interests by the Church now beginning to he Catholic, every other special interest which Paul had promoted, and even his services in connection with the carrying out of the universalism which now was taken as a thing of course, passed into oblivion. Already the hook of Acts represents Peter as the real originator of this, and Paul as but his follower in it (ACTS, $ 4). Simultaneously, however, this hook and the whole of that literature and period gave to Paul more and more a place of honour beside Peter (see MINISTRY, $ 36), and his writings during the second century gained more and more of a canonical position. Thus, partly forgotten so far as his conflict with the attitude of the original apostles is concerned, and partly highly honoured as a n apostle of bygone days : how should Paul ever come to be in the second, or, so far as the pseudo-Clcmentine Homilies and Recognitions are concerned, even in the third or fourth centnry, the object of so fanatical a hatred? It is a psychological impossibility. Add to this that the writers, by the introduction of Pauline features, would have been making unrecognisable the picture of that which they wished to combat ( 5 IO a ) . (.d) Harnack has felt this, and drawn the consequence which is the only possible o n e : ‘perhaps the Pauline features of the [pseudo-Clementine] magician altogether are an appearance merely (Lehrb. d. Dogm. -gesch. 1(9 269). In the light of our preceding investigations, the boldness of this proposition will be apparent. How could such a judgment he possible or that of Headlam (JirhSt., 19013, pp. 53,f): ‘With the hssihle exception of one passage, there is not the slightest sign of anti-Paulinism, and nowhere is there any opposition t o St. Paul’? Is it perchance, due to the fact that Headlam has his eye only 0; the real Paulinism and finds that the polemic of the pseudoClementines and apocryphal Acts does not touch that, and then omits to ask whether the authors gerhaps recisely by their malicious distortion of the image of aul dederately wished to harm him more than would have been possible by means of any honourable polenric? ( e ) T h e examples of polemic against Paul without the mask of Simon, already adduced in 16, must have shown how deep the antipathy to Paul went, and how widespread it was even where we have not to do with writings which clothe themselves in the form of a romance. T h e epistles of Paul himself, however, contain still more traces of this. I n 69 4 a sd, we hare already touched on what admits of heing inferred from Gal. 5 I I (still preaching circumcision), 1 I O (seek to please men), 416 (d&&), z Cqr. 6 8 (m?&os). Paul’s self-commendation in 2 Cor. 3 I 5 r i J , his preaching of himself (4 s), and his claim to have been taken up into the third heaven and into Paradise (12 2-4), needed only to be exaggerated a little and the charge of self-deification was ready. To these hare to be added, further, the charges which Paul would not he found repudiating so emphatically if they had never heen made against him : such as that he walks in carnal wisdom ( 2 Cor. 1IZ), writes other things than appear (113). says Yea and Nay in the same breath (117), corrupts the word of God (2 17), seeks to he lord of the faith (124), uses his power for the destruction of the churches (108 13 IO), when present is weak hut comes forward in his letters with the greatest claims (10 9f: I ) .

From his refusal of financial support for himself, the.inference was drawn that plainly he was conscious of not being a real apostle, otherwise he would have made use of the privilege of those who were ( I Cor. 9 15 2 Cor. 11 I) To this it was added, O. further, that he applied to his own uses the collections which he caused to be made for the poor in Jerusalem (2 Cor. 1 2 16-18 7 z, end). Finally, ‘chastened ’ (mar8cvdpcvor) in 2 Cor. 6 9 can only be understood as meaning that his malady had been interpreted as a divine punishment for his opposition to the Christianity of the original apostles. (j) All these charges and reproaches, however,proceed, in the last resort at least, from the Judaizers who came to Corinth or to Galatia and sought to turn against Paul the churches which he had founded- in other words, from the representatives of that school which speaks i n the pseudo-Clementine writings and apocryphal Acts or at least in their sources. If one desires not to be unjust to them, one will even have to concede that Pan1 had provoked them to the utmost by his persistent advocacy of his own views, by his unsparing attack even upon Peter a t Antioch ( G ~ L Z I I - Z I ) , his blunt judgby ment upon things which they regarded as sacred, by the anathema he pronounced upon their gospel (Gal. lEJ), by his biting sarcasm (Gal. 512), and by his sweeping condemnation of everything about them ( 2 Cor. 11 13-15), W e are only too readily inclined to take sides with Paul and to find in his case certain things to be perfectly correct, which in his adversaries we would either condemn without qualification, or even declare to be historically impossible. Whether, for example, Paul says that his opponents are servants of Satan (11 r5), or whether the pseudo-Clementine Rrcognifions say that Paul is a chosen instrument of Satan (349) comes to very much the same thing ; and. viewed from their standpoint, Paul must really hale seemed to them quite as much the enemy of the truth a s they to him-for after all he was doing away with the law concerning which they could quite honestly feel convinced that it had been laid down by God as of perpetual obligation (see C OUNCIL , 5 3, begin.). Instead of denying the manifestly-patent fact that the opposing schools, within the borders of primitive Christianity, carried on their controversies u i t h the utmost violence, we ought rather to be unfeignedly glad that the Christian religion possessed within itself sufficient vitality to enable it to survive so severe a crisis. (g) There is accordingly but one presiipposition only, by means of which it will be really possible to hold the anti-Pauline features in the pseudo-Clementines to be more recent than the anti-Gnostic, namely the assumption that the principal Pauline epistles are more recent than the Gnosticism, which the pseudoClementines combat. So Loman ( T h . T, 1883. pp. 25-47), Meyboom (ib. 1891, 1-46), and Steck (Galaterbrief, 325-335 [1888]). It makes little difference here, whether on this view the two things are also regarded as contemporaneous. Marcion passes for the chief representative of the gnosis which i s controverted. W e note further that Meyboom finds the polemic in the Homilies the fresher, and derived more from direct observation of the two views he opposes, Marcionitism and the Antinomism set forth by the ‘ canonical Paul’ ; that of the Recognitions he finds more colourless and confused. Against the denial of the genuineness of the principal Pauline epistles altogether, see G A L A T I a N S . $5 1-9. If then it is impossible to deny the existence of the Anti-Pauline uolemic or to maintain that it is later than lo. anti-Pauline the Anti-Gnostic, the next question andAnti-onostic comes to be a s to how it came to be connected, and even combined polemichow with the Anti-Gnostic in such a connected. manner as we see, esDeciallv in the HomiZies and Recognitions. ( a ) Harnack, i n so far a s he does not explain the Anti-Pauline element as only seeming (above, 5 9 d ) , says upon this point (Zoc. czt.) that the pseudo-Clementines ‘ before aught else con-



troverted Simon Magus and his followers ., but also the apostle Paul, and seem to have transferred Simonian features to Paul, and Pauline features t o Simon.' . T h e question still remains, however, W h y they did so ? If they depicted Simon or Paul otherwise than each of them in reality was, they only obscured the picture of each, whilst in the polemic that was being waged, it must nevertheless have always been a matter of primary importance to depict the adversary in such a way that every one could clearly recognise him. T h e literary skill of the authors must accordingly, on the assumption of Harnack here presupposed, that they wrote their works as we now have them without making use of any sources, be ranked very low ; in reality, however, it is admittedly very considerable. By the judgment we have quoted, accordingly, Harnack has merely raised another problem, not solved the one in hand. ( b ) Harnack proceeds (Zuc. tit.), 'Yet it remains also possible that the Pauline featnres, borne by the magician, came first into existence in the process of redaction, in so far as in the course of this the whole polemic against Paul was deleted, but certain portions of it were woven into the polemic against Simon.' T h e assumption underlying these words is of the utmost importance. W e see Harnack here reckoning, as he had not yet done in the preceding sentence, with literary antecedents of the pseudo-Clementine writings. This is in point of fact indispensable, if onlyforthe reason that we find the Homiliesfor considerable stretches dealing with the same matters a the Recognifiom, and then again diverging s widely from them and also changing the order of the occurrences which both rrlate in common. Further in Rccog. 374f- it is said that Clement, at the instance of Pher, wrote down and sent to James in ten books (the so-called K i p J y p a r a of Peter) the discourses held by Peter in his disputation with Simon in Cresarea, and in the same place is given a list of the contents of this writing which shows that it dealt with things which occur also in the pseudo-Clementines of today. To this must he added the family romance, and other matter which again points to a separate origin (above, 5 3 c). And yet it is precisely ,this question as t o possible sources of this literature that we may not propound if Harnack's dictum is to hold good that these writings cannot be called into requisition in any investigation regarding primitive Christianity, because they did not come into existence at all until the third or fourth century. Granted that their present form is not older than the third or fourth century, nevertheless their sources certainly are older, and it is the bounden duty of the historian to look into them. Harnack withdraws himself from the task, although he has himself recognised its existence in the sentence w e have quoted. Finally, immediately afterwards he goes on t o say as quoted above (5. g d ) . ' the Pauline features of the magician are perhaps only apparent.' T h e student who finds himself disinclined to follow this path out of the difficulty which Harnack himself treads so hesitatingly, has no longer to face the question whether one is to ' believe ' in a primeval Simon-romance (so Harnack ; see S IMON P ETER , 5 31 n), but whether one is prepared in discharge of the duty of a historian t o probe the matter t o the bottom. (c) That Harnack's hint of the result to which this would lead (above, b, begin.) is a happy one cannot be said. How are we to conceive t o ourselves even so much as the initial juxtaposition of a n anti-Simonian and an anti-Pauline polemic, which Harnack even presupposes a t a certain stage of his hypothesis where he does not yet take account of a fusion of different sources? But why afterwards was the antiPauline polemic deleted ? How came it about that nevertheless certain portions of the polemic against Paul got themselves woven into that against Simon ? From mere confusion ? No doubt some transference of traits that suit Paul to Simon has occurred; but this can be explained with any psychological probability only by supposing that the hatred against Paul in those circles, within which these writings took their rise, still con-



tinued t o be active, and that what this hatred had found to be worthy of detestation in Paul, was involuntarily imputed, without any basis of fact, to other persons also simply from the need it felt to give itself air. This is only a proof of the original strength and bitterness of the hostility in question against the apostle. In hini his enemies saw the embodiment of all that was detestable, nay devilish. If now, in course of time, there arose other teachers-whose position resembled his, yet was not identical with it, the inclination was only too natural, in those who disapproved, to fix their attention only on the points of agreement, and to carry over, without alteration, to the newcomers the sentence of condemnation that had long ago been pronounced upon Paul, and all the words of censure in which it had been conveyed- 'enemy,' ' false teacher,' ' devil's tool,' ' magician,' deifier of self,' and the like. Without the existence of a deeply-rooted hatred against Paul that continued to be active down to a later time, all this would not have been possible ; but as smn as its existence is recognised, the mingling of the attributes of distinct persons is no longer unintelligible. I n like manner also in that case one is in a position to understand that people of this fanatical sort, when nnquestionably new characteristics emerged, did not allow themselves to be led by this to recognise that a new thing had appeared, that was not to be identified with the old, but simply regarded the new characteristics in question as a fresh development of the long familiar a n d detestable characteristics of the original adversary. ( d ) One new eharacteristic of the kind just referred to, undoubtedly, was the divine worship implied in the erection of a statue in Rome (above, 5 2 u). Even the most fertile imagination could hardly have constructed this out of the image of Paul. Lipsius, therefore (ii 140 A); is prohahly right when he supposes this assertion about Simon to owe its origin to the stupid misunderstanding of Justin, and to have found its way into the Recognitions only after Justin's statement had become current. Here it is even put in the mouth of Simon as a prophecy: 'adorahor ut deus, publice divinis donahor honoribus, ita ut simulacrum mihi statnentes tanquam denm colant et adorent' ( 2 9 ; cp 363 where Rome is expressly named as the place). It is however as great a misunderstanding of the meaning of cpsius as ;hat already (8 8 c ) noted when Erbes (2.J K{rckengesclr. 22, ~ p r 13J) reports it in the following , terms : that the Clementine story of Peter's conflicts with Simon in Rome can only have arisen on the foundation of the statement of ustm ' Lipsius does not sap this of these conflicts in geneiai hut express1 only of ' t h e Gnostic figure of Simon. From the view which Erbes adopts, he draws the conclusion that 'we have no need at all to go into the question as to the sources and the strata of that [pseudo-Clementinel literature. and are now already in a position to affirm that the legend which hrings Peter in conjunction with Simon Magus ty Rome, cannot have arisen until after 147 A . D . [;.e.,after Justin]. W h a t Lipsius holds, a n d a t the same time what we

too, it would seem, ought to hold, is the exact opposite
of this. If, through an error of Justin with reference to a certain Gnostic, a statement arose which sobsequently came t o be incorporated in the pseudoClementines, we have all the more pressing occasion for inquiring what was the form which these writings exhibited, and what the picture of Simon which they presented, before the introduction of such Gnostic features. ( e ) Lipsius, it is frue; since 1876 ( / P T 6 3 6 J , Apoki: .4p. -gesch. ii. 1 3 8 J 363) has abandoned his earlier attempt to reconstruct, as a single writing, a purely Anti-Panline, pre-Gnostic source which should embrace the whole of the existing Anti-Pauline material that we now find dispersed in the pseudo-Clemmtines and the apocryphal Acta- not, however, because it had been shown to be wrong, but simply because it could not be proved to be right. All the more decidedly, however, does he maintain that this whole Anti-Pauline polemic existed in an oral form before the introduction of the Gnostic features. This is in fact the least that we must suppose, iinless all the facts which we have pointed out regarding the polemic





if it is a Gnostic Simon that is controverted in the against Paul are to be simply denied. Nor should a renewed attempt to find in the Clementines a written Zz‘uumilies and A‘erognifions, it was Paul who supplied source of this kind be simply banned as impossible. the basis for this Gnostic figure (above, 5 g J ) ; and it is only with the originaZ oneness of the anti-Pauline Attention must, however, be called also to the fact that the position held by Lipsius has only in appearance elements in the Huntilies and Raozzitions on the one been made worse by the new turn he has given to it, hand and in the Apocryphal Acts on the other that we and in reality has been improved. have here to do. I t can appear to he more questionable if it is unable to find (c) Nor yet are direct indications wholly wanting in support on any written source capable of heing separated out from the Homilies and Recognitions that the conliicts must the writings before us, and if the possibility has to be reckoned be continued in Rome also. with that the Anti-Pauline legend existed for long only in an Thus in Rec. 3 63 f: we read of Simon’s going from Csrsarea to oral form, and was reduced to writing only after the Gnostic Rome saying that ‘there he would please the people so much features had heen combined with it. Nor is this really difficult that he should he reckoned a god and receive divine honours’ to suppose. The mixture of features, and the difficulty felt in (dicens se Komam petere ; ihi enim in tantum placitiirum ut deus keeping them clearly separate, become easily intelligible on the putetur et divinis donetur honorihus); see above, 5 za. With assumption that the writing was done at a late date ; but the this it agrees that Peter makes the request of Clement who is certainty of the existence of a mass of matter that was originally brought to him by Earnahas: ‘travel with us, pnrticipatinm in purely Anti-Pauline is not destroyed by the absence of any hook the words of truth which I am going to speak from city to Piiy in which this had heen committed to writing. The hatred as far as Rome itself’ (ouvd8euuov pesaAap@dvwv 7 ” 76; ; against Paul which still finds expression through the present Mqfklns A6yov, fu r a 6 r r h v r o & d a r &Ahw p + p ~ ‘P&p?s forms of the writing which have been so much worked over, was a h j s : Hon:. 116=Kecog. 113: iter age nohiscum et audi serstrong enough to secure that every one, even without their monem veritatis quem habituri surnus per loca singuia, usyuequo being committed to writing, should know perfectly well what ad ipsam nobis perveniendum sit urhem Romam ; cp 1 7 4 : usquewas the nature of the charges brought against Paul. quo deo favente perveniatur ad ipsam quo iter nostrum diriT h e positive advantage offered by the new form of genduni credimus urhem Romam). So also in the Epistle of the hypothesis of Lipsius is a chronological one. On Clement to James prefixed to the Howziiies (ch. 1) Peter is spoken the supposition of a written source, difficulties can be of as being he ‘who as being fittest of all was commanded to enlighten the darker part of the world namely the West and raised by the question a s to whether it is really older was enabled to set it right’ (6 njs 6du& .rb U K O T W & ~ ~ & ro; than the period of Gnosticism (from about I M A . D . ) , ~ K ~ U ~ O pCpos As rrdvrov ;xav&cpoc U Owrluar rrAauu8ck rai iarfrom which the non-Pauline features of the legend are op8iroar 6vv778cir), and as having died in Rome. derived. In presence of a legend that existed orally T h e value of these passages as evidence beconies only. this difficulty disappears; for such a legend greater in proportion to the fulness of their agreement naturally must have existed since the days of Paul, in with the fundamental idea set forth above, under 6. whose own letters we have already been able to point All the more significant, therefore, is the simple ignorout so many of the features which it presents ( 5 9.). ing of them by Harnack and Clemen who do not accept If originally it was Paul who was attacked under the this idea, and all the bolder the view of Chase (Hastings, guise of Simon alike in the Pseudo-Clementine NorniZies D B 37756) that they ‘ are so incidental in character that and Keco,%ifions and in the Apocryphal they may well be the interpolation of a later editor, the 11. Original Acts (above, 5 4 J ) , the question inwriter, for example, who composed the E$isfle of Clemenf oneness of evitably arises whether this happened t o James. prefixed to the Homilies.’ anti-Pauline in the two groups of writings indepen( d ) Of equal importance is the fact that the Apoelements in dently, or whether bot5 groups have a cryphal Acts which deal only with conflicts in Rome Pa.-Clem. and common origin. Apocr. Acts. ( a i T h e first view is favoured bv the contain references back to earlier conflicts of Simon with Peter (and Paul) in the East. circumstance that ;he pseudo-Clernentine Nomilie; a n d For the pre-Catholic Acts, 17, 23, see S IMON PETER, 5 33 L, 2, R e c o p i f i o n s deal exclusively with encounters in Palestine and for the Catholic Acts see chap. 17 where 5imon says of a n d Syria, the .4pocryphal Acts only with encounters in Peter and Paul : ‘They have turned adde all Judaea from helieving in me’ (6rdu~pe+au Bhqv r j v ’Iou8alau ros p j rrru~ederv Rome. In many instances scholars have contented poi), to which Peter makes answer ‘ Thou hast heen able to imthemselves with establishing this fact and then holding pose upon all, hut upon me never ;’and thosealsowho have heen the question as at once settled. deceived, God has t h r o q h me recalled from their error’ (rrim 6r’ ;rrdCrrcoc +6vnj&s, rpoi 6’ 066Crro~e.rai a & & ai. TOLF (6) T h e idea, however, which underlies this whole ; ~ a r a ~ @ & s a s C O G 6 8sbc & njs ;Slap r A d w L v r r d i o a s o ) . 6r’ polemic against ‘ Simon ’ is most distinctly against this, Simon again holds precisely similar language in chap. 28 where the idea, namely, that Peter has t o follow Simon into he mentions all Palestine and Caesarea as well as Judaea (according to the Recognitions it was in Caesarea that the last every place where the latter has spread his erroneous great disputation between Simon and Peter occurred). With teaching. this it agrees that in the pre-Catholic Acts (ch. 5), in exact That this is Peter’s task is everywhere taken for granted as a parallelism with the pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recogthing of course. Take, for example, Horn. 14 12, where we find nitians,. Peter receives from Christ in a vision the following Peter saying that Simon is in Antioch (with Annuhion); ‘when, instruction : ‘ quem tu ejecisti de Judaea approhatuin magum then, we get there and come upon them, the disputation can Simonem, iterum przeoccupavit vos Roma: . . . crastina die take place’ ; out of a large number of other passages we may proficiscere whereupon Peter says to his Christian brethren point also to 2 17 where Peter speaks of himself as having come in ‘necesse esi me ascendere Romae [for Romam] ad expugnandum upon Simon ‘as light upon darkness as knowledge upon ignorhostern et inimicum domini et fratrum nostrum’ [for ‘nostrorum’] ance, as healing upon disease’( ~ s ~ A d h v UK&C+ +s, As Lyvola As :cp SIMON PETEK, $5 34c, 33 6. ) y v i u r s , ; v6uw r a m s ) . According to 46 none but Peter ca; E T h u s the pseudo -Clementines ancl the Apocryphal cope with Simoh, and his companions complain that he has sent them on this occasion before him. In Recog. 365 Peter says : 4cts d i k e make it plain that both of them ha\,e the ‘Since Simon has gone forth to preoccnpy the ears of the inderlying idea of a controverting of Simon by Peter Gentiles who are called to salvation. it is necessarv that I also n the East as well as in Rome, even although only the follow upon his track so that whatever disputat<on he raises may be corrected by us’(Quia Simon egressus est aures gentilium m e hnlf is developed in the one group of writings and qui ad salutem vocati sunt praevenire, necesse est et me vestigia .he othrr half in the other. ejus insequi ut si quid forte a b ill0 diaputatum fuerit corrigatur this by p oint The attempt has been made to a nohis), anh in 3 6 8 we read that ‘Simon has set o h , wishing , to anticipate our iournev: him we should have followed steg by 1 ing out that church fathers mention the presence of step, that wheresoever he tries to subvert any there he might Simon in Rome while a t the same time not speaking of forthwith he confuted by us’ (Simon praecedere volens iter controversies between him and Peter. This is indeed nostrum profectus est, quem oportuerat e vestigio insequi, ut true of Justin, who knows nothing of any presence of sicubi nliyuos subvertere tentaret, continuo confutaretur a nohis). Peter in Rome at all (above, z ; SIMON P ETER, 5 gog), In view of such passages as these it is not conceivable as also of I r e n z u s (116[23]; about 185 A . D . ) and that the plan of the Hondies and Recognifions became Tertullian (ApoZ. 1 3 ; cp De anima, 34, 5 7 ; about limited to conflicts between ‘ Simon ’ and Peter in the zoo A . D . ) who elsewhere do speak of the appearance East, as soon as it was know1 to the author that Simon of Peter in Rome (see S IMON PETER, §§ 25 6, 26 a , and. had come also to Rome. But this was in point of fact conversely, the mention of Peter and Pan1 without actually known to the author. unless one is prepared to Simon, 41 c). Only, this argument from silence deny that the apostle Paul is meant by ‘ Simon.’ Even





cannot prove that Simon really did make a n appearance in Rome without any conflict with Peter. In the writings of the church fathers the first mention of this conflict occurs in the Philosophumcna, about 235 A . D . (see S IMON P ETER , $ 39 d). Amongst the sources of this work, however, must unquestionably be reckoned the d v r a y p o +r 8rrckar T ~ F a;pimrs of Hippolytus, written about zoo A.D., even if Hippolytus may not be held to have been the author of the Philosophumena itself; and Lipsius has made it probable (fPT, 1876, p. 607) that this crlimaypa of Hippolytus, now no longer extant, already contained the conflict between Peter and Simm. If this be so, it can no longer be asserted that the tradition of the conflict is later than the opposite tradition 01 Tertullian and Ireneus. Moreover, it cannot be maintained that these two authors had any urgent occasion, in the particular connections in which they were writing, to mention this conflict if they had known it. I n the case of Justin such an occasion undeniably did exist: and, moreover, Justin as being the earlier (about 152 A . D . ) is also the most important witness. He, however, as already pointed out, knows nothing of Peter's presence in Rome. T h u s what he says about Simon admits of explanation without any difficulty, even if a tradition was already in existence before his time to the effect that Simon had been controverted by Peter in Rome. One part of this tradition-that about Simon's presence in Rome- he found himself able to accept (in fact he held it t o be confirmed by the statue, which he brought into connection with Simon ; see above, § z a ) , the other- that about Peter's presence in Rome- he was unable t o accept. W h y he could not, is a matter of indifference ; what is certain is that one who, as Justin does, regards all the twelve original apostles as having engaged in missions to the Gentiles, and is completely silent about Paul (MINISTRY, 36a) would have had no difficulty 5 in accepting the presence of Peter in Rome, if he was in possession of credible information to this effect. One must reflect that the circles from which the traditions relating t o the controverting of 'Simon' by Peter emanated enjoyed small repute in the church, and certainly no mistake will have been committed if we suppose that it was Justin's knowledge of the Roman tradition, which he acquired on the spot, that prevented him from believing in the presence of Peter there (cp SIMON E T ER , § 40d). P (g)As soon as the later hypothesis of Lipsius, which a s we have seen (above, 5 I o e ) has most t o recommend it, is adopted-viz., that the entire anti-Pauline polemic existed, in the first instance, in oral tradition- we are all the less in a position to doubt that from the beginning it formed a unity ; and sayings of church-fathers about a presence of Simon in Rome without any conflict with Peter cannot, on the other hand, be regarded as proving anything, if only because they are all of them much later, since the oral tradition just referred to must have come into existence during and shortly after the lifetime of Paul. ( h ) Nor can the fact that in the Homilies and Rzcognzizons only the eastern conflicts are dealt with, and in the Apocryphal Acts only the Roman be held as having force against this conclusion, even if we are not able to explain it. At the same time we may certainly conjecture that the residence and the geoiraphicd horizon of the various authors had a determining influence on the selection of the places which they made thescenes of their romance. Otherwise, the HomiZies and Recopifions would certainly not have confined themselves to Palestine and Syria, but would have included Asia Minor and even Macedonia and Greece as well, where also Paul had exercised his missionary activities. Moreover, neither the Homilies and Recupifions nor yet the Apocryphal Acts (though this does not hold t h e of them in the same degree) exhibit unity of conception in their present form. We cannot tell whether older forms of them would not give us a clearer insight into the original oneness of this whole body of literature. Having now examined the Simon-romance in all its Simon ramifications, our next question must la. be : what element of historical truth simons) (if any) is there attaching to Simon ? historical ? ( a ) Of the four Simon-figures distinguished above S , the caricature of Paul in the )

FZomilies and Recognitions and in the Apocryphal Acts
was interpreted as having its basis in the historical Paul and no other historical person whatsoever by the Tiibingen school, followed by Noldeke (in Lipsius, BrpinaungsheJit, 3 2 3 ) and Liideinann (below, 5 15), as also a t an earlier date by Lipsius. On this interpretation the explanation of the name Simon is that Paul, whose real name of course could not be mentioned, was the opponent of Simon Peter and thus was the false Simon ; he was called a Samaritan, it was held, because he was a Jew, and yet also no Jew since be rejected the law of Moses. On all other features see above, $5 4-7, 9-11. (6) Krenkel (below, § 15). to explain the caricature of Paul, calls in the Cyprian magician Simon, who stood high in favour with Felix because of his services in helping him to win Drusilla (above, § 8 a ) . As Paul also was well treated by Felix when in prison at Casarea (Acts 24 22-26), it was a comparatively easy thing for Jewish-Christian slander to assert that he really was identical with the Cyprian Simon, and that, using this name, in order the more easily to gain followers he gave himself out to be the apostle Simon Peter. This last conjecture is altogether improbable ; but the first also goes somewhat far, although it seems to have some support in Paul's preaching before Felix and Drusilla ' of righteousness and temperance and the judgment to come ' (Acts 2425 ; see BARJESUS,j d ) . Cp above, 5 5 e. B ( c ) Kreyenbiihl (205-214 ; see below, 5 15) goes still further. The accusation against Paul of having brought Drusilla to Felix, he attributes not to the Jewish Christians, but to the Jews who accused him before Felix. According to Kreyenbiihl a Cyprian Simon never existed ; what Josephus relates regardin; him is simply this slander which was current against Paul, having been brought against him under the name of Simon which was given to him. But the question arises : How came non-Christian Jews to give to Paul the name of Simon? Kreyenbiihl's explanation of how it was that at the same time they designated him as a Cyprian by birth, is that Barjesus or Elymas (Acts 136-12) was originally the apostle Paul (see BARJESUS, 46). 5 Both names are, according to Kreyenbuhl, nicknames which were given him by Jews (not Christian Jews), because he was received in a friendly way in Cyprus by Sergius Paulus, and there fully declared his apostasy from Judaism by changing hi: name. Elymas means 'magician,' literally 'man of Elam (IIAKJESUS, e), the classical land of magic ; Barjesus means 0I ' fo!lower of Jesus. Such hypotheses are exceedingly precarious. The historicity of the Cyprian Simon, attested as it is by Josephns, must not be questioned ; b u t it is not to the Paul of the Simon-romance, as Krenkel thinks (above, a), but only to the Paul who is presented under the name of Barjesus that features have been transferred from him (BAKJESUS 4 6 c). 5 Should it so happen that his name was not Simon, dut k t o k s ('Ampor), as Niese reads with the Milan codex and the epitome of Josephus, then one would be tempted to bring this into combination with the Erorpas, which is D's reading for Elymas in Acts 13 8 (so Harris, E@. q o z a,pp. 189.195 ; cp BARJESUS, % 1, 8 a). ( d ) Lipsius, in his latest treatment of the subject ( ApuRr. Ap. -Gesch. ii. 149-56),has recognised a Samaritan y6qs named Simon as historical. By doing so, he holds, we make it easier to understand the bestowal of the name of Simon upon Paul, and Justin's statement that Gitta was the birthplace of Simon, as well as the fact that Simon passes not only for the father of all heresies, but also as the revelation of the supreme God, and thus as a kind of Messiah (above, 2 d ) . If Paul was the only basis for the figure of Simon, then only the first of these two predicates, not the second also, would have been attached to it. Lipsins adds, as a possibility, that this Samaritan Simon may be identical with the Cyprian Simon of Josephus. ( e ) Harnack, in his turn, also maintains the historicity of the Samaritan S i m o n ; not, however, as explaining the caricature of Paul (above, 4 3 ) . but because the Gnostic sect of the Simonians must have had a founder. Lipsius (5 I $ ) adduces this reason for believing in the historicity of Simon only with the reservation that it is not necessary to bring the Simonians into direct historical connection with Simon ; they seem to have marked him out as the representative of their ideas only by an afterthought. K r e y e n b u h l ( ~ g g - z o r )in like manner, postu, lates a founder for the Simonian sect, but places him a t the beginning of the second century, since the Gnostic contents of his 'Arrb@aurs McydXq, which he accepts as genuine (above, 2c), do not fit in with the first century, and Justin himself says that Simon was a pupil of





Menander, and pupils of Menander ‘ a r e alive even now’ ( v E v ; ApoL i. 264), that is to say, about 1 5 2 A.D. Justin, it is true, says in the same chapter, and often, that Simon came to Rome under the emperor Claudius or, it may be (as Kreyenbiihl thinks), under (Claudius) Nero (see SIMON ETER , 5 3 7 4 ; but Kreyenbiihl P supposes him to draw this from another source without regard to chronology. I n truth, the Simon of Acts shows very little if any of the attributes of a Gnostic leader of a sect, and we must be on our guard against holding him for such, on the ground, merely, that tradition names no other. If we assume a Gnostic Simon of Gitta a t the beginning of the second century, then we do not need, as Kreyenbiihl a t the same time does, to deny the historicity of the Samaritan magician named Simon in the first century- a historicity which the reasons adduced by Lipsius make very probable. If, further, we hesitate about identifying the Samaritan with the Cyprian Simon-an identification which has nothing in its favour except that the name and the quality of magician is the same in both caseswe find ourselves in the end accepting three persons named Simon. T h e point, however, is difficult to decide. (f) is certain, however, from all our premises, that It not only Peter, but also the Samaritan Sinion of the apostolic age, never appeared in Rome. It is told of Simon merely because by his figure Paul is intended. T h e only writer who represents Simon as appearing in Rome without Peter-Justin-in view of his fiction about the statue of Simon is not entitled to credence, especially as his statement also, and not merely that of a simultaneous appearance of Simon always with Peter, is quite easily intelligible if it be taken as resting on the romance of Sinion= Paul (5 11e, f). Whether a Gnostic of the second century named Simon appeared in Rome remains an open question; but it is not of decisive importance for our present investigation. T h e acceptance of a Samaritan Simon in the first century does not, however, by any means, ipso facto, . . . 13. Acts 89-24 : carry with it the acknowledgement of = the credibility of Acts 89-24. The features enumerated in a preceding section ( 5 I c, d ) , which are by no means appropriate to a magician, find a satisfactory explanation only when it is recognised that the apostle Paul underlies this figure also. ( u ) Only Paul, not a magician, could have had the wish to be able to impart the gift of the Holy Spirit, and thereby attain equality of rank with the original apostles ; and Simon’s so rapid conversion to Christianity can apply only to Paul, the narrative already presupposing him to be a Christian and interesting itself solely in his desire to be able to impart the gift of the Spirit. I n the samedirection point also the words of Peter (821) ‘ t h o u hast neither part nor lot ( K X ~ ~ P O in) : E the matter’ : for ~hljpos( R V ‘portion,’ RVmS ‘lot ’) is in 1 1 7 ( c p 1 2 5 ) used of the apostolate, the attainment of which by a magician is barred from the outset. ( a ) Equality of rank with the original apostles was refused to Paul also by their party ( I Cor. 92 : ‘if to others I ani not an apostle,’ etc.), for which reason the apostle himself claims it with the emphasis which we see ( 9 I 1 I 2 Cor. 1 I Gal. 1I Rom. 11-6). Now, it is not difficult to discern in Peter’s other expressions also in Acts8zr-23, traces of the polemic which was being carried on against Paul. ‘Thy heart is not r‘ t ih before God’ (7,. 21) has a close similarity to the expression used in 1310 in addressing Barjesus (i.e., Paul): ‘wilt thou not cease to pervert the r& & waysof the Lord?’ At the same time, however, thephraseology recalls also Gal. 2 14 : ‘ they walked not uprightly ( o h bp8orro8oiuw) according to the truth of the gospel.’ So Paul cypresses himself in Antioch against Peter and his fellows. Thus we perceive that ActsS9-24 is the counterpart to the setting down of Peter by Paul at Antioch and we are able to understand 3 23. For this verse does not hean, as in AV RV! ‘thou art in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity. ‘In the ?,ond’mighthe intelligible, but ‘in the gall’not. Thus s k X O X ~ . . . 6 p i rc Bvra is the same familiar Hebraism as we Y find in Mt. 19 5 : ‘ I see tha: thou art bitter gall and an iniquitous

bond.’ Paul must have seemed like bitter gall‘ on account of his opposition to Peter in Antioch, and an ‘ iniquitous restraint’ in so far as he endeavoured to prevent Peter from again withdrawing from table -fellowship with the Gentile Christians. Lastly, Simon’s repentance (6 24) has its parallels (i.e., according to # 9, its foundation) in the Homilies and Kecopiirons (above,

s 46).

(c) But, did Paul really offer the original apostles money in order to obtain from them a recognition of his equality with them? Certainly not. But it was merely the finishing touch to the discovery of the Simon romance when Volkmar (TU6. Zheol. Iahrb6. 1856, pp. 279-286) perceived that Paul, according to JewishChristian scandal, was held to have done so when he carried the great collection to Jerusalem on the occasion of his last journey thither ( I Cor. 161-4 2 Cor. Sf. Rom. 1525-28). On this presupposition, let us now ask what judgment we ought to form as to the literary activity of the ( u ) If the Samaritan 14. Tendency author of Acts. of Acts89-24. Simon was not a historical peison, the author of Acts invented him in order to say that not Paul but a Samaritan magician was the Simon with regard to whom Jewish-Christian stories told that he had wished to purchase equality with the apostles with money, and had been repulsed by Peter. If, on the other hand, a Samaritan Simon really did exist, then also the aiithor of Acts can nevertheless have made use of him simply as a means for attaining the same purpose. I n this event, the representation that the affair had happened before Paul’s conversion, must be regarded as specially effective. ( b ) I n order not to be compelled to attribute this to the author of Acts, Lipsius in his latest treatment (ApoRr. Ap.-Gesch. ii. 1S I $ ) assumed not only that the Samaritan Simon had actually existed, but also that he had an encounter with Peter. At the same time inasmuch as what is said in Acts 8 14-17 as to the prerogative 0; Peter and John in regard to the imparting of the Holy Spirit is quite unhistorical (MINETRV, 3 4 ~ ) ~ $ Lipsius can uphold his view only on the assumption that the encounter between Peter and Simon had another occasion. When this hypothesis is entertained, however, not only has a region of pure conjecture to be entered upon, but the tendency of the author of Acts remains just as,it was before-a tendency to say something unhistorical about Simon in order to blunt the point of the Judaistic allegation that it applied to Paul. (c) Lipsius further propounds it as a possibility that this substitution for Paul of the Samaritan Simon already lay before the author in one of the sources of Acts. This source, accordingly, it was which followed the tendency t o divert from Paul the charge of bribery ; the author of Acts, however, failed to perceive this tendency, but relates the story as referring to the Samaritan Simon in all good faith in its trustworthiness. ( d ) By way of support of some such expedient, it had already been urged before Lipsius that the magician does not wear Pauline features; or at least not exclusively Pauline features, but also Gnostic ones. In this connection, however, 8 g cannot be urged : ‘ giving out that himself was some great one ’ ; for by this expression he is more nearly brought on a level with Thendas (5 36). Even the fact of his being called ‘the power of God that is called Great (6 I O) admits of being carried back to Paul. Paul, indeed, not only calls his gospel a power of God (Rom. 116 I Cor. 1 18q), but also claims himself to possess the power of God ( 2 Cor. 4 7 G7 129 134 I Cor.54). Yet it remains possible that the expression in Acts 6 IO is a Gnostic one, especially in view of the word ~aAovpCvq. We have no more reason for omitting this with HLP sah than we have for deleting TO; Baoi, after Blass ( S t . Kr. p. 462), on the sole ground of the Latin translation of Perpignan (ACTS, col. 50, n. 2). On the other hand, neither also 1s there any occasion for taking pryiAq as the 1 Aramaic participle Pael ( ~ 5 or ~.ilo= ‘ the revealer ’ ; so Klostermann, Pro6kl~zei Aflmosfeltut, 1883, pp. 15-m). In m the pseudo-Clementine Hotniiies ( 2 2 2 ) we read In the dercription of the Gnostic predicates of Simon : ‘he wishes to he accounted a certain supreme power, higher even than the god who created the world’(8CAfr vopi<cudar a v o r i r q n c d v a r Gdvaprs K d airoi, 705 T~)Yrdupov K r ~ U a V r o rBroi [ & v w d p a is perhaps to be supplied] : Kecog. 2 7 : excelsam virtutem quz supra creatorem deum sit ; cp P 3a, and SIMONETER , 8 33 a). P ( e ) Yet, even if the author of Acts has already taken up a Gnostic feature into his presentation of Simon, the



fact remains that he was aware of, and wished to obviate, the reproach that Paul had wished to purchase for himself equality with the original apostles by means of his great collection. Otherwise, he would not have passed the collection over in such complete silence in chap. 21, where we should have expected its delivery to be recorded, whilst yet he has preserved in 2 0 4 from the ' we-source ' (according to a , highly probable conjecture) the list of those who brought it (GALATIA, § 1 2 ) . Not till 2 4 1 7 has been reached does the author allude to it a t all, but here in such a manner that it becomes something quite different-viz., ' alms for my nation,' not for the Christians in Palestine only. For the main purpose of the book- the representation of the harmony subsisting between Paul and the original apostles (A CTS , 3, end)- the mention of the collection would have been serviceable in the highest degree. This may be the reason why a collection brought by Paul to the Christians in Jerusalem is actually mentioned, though at a time at which it is historically impossible (1129f. 1 2 2 5 ; cp C OUNCIL , $ I L Z ) . All these circumstances speak for tendency too clearly to allow us t o shut our eyes to the presence of the same thing in 89-24. (f) h e decision which must be pronounced, that T tendency is at work here, is not weakened, but strengthened, by separating out a source which was not (as with Lipsins; above, c) already a tendencydocument, but rather a s absolutely historical as possible (above, I, b-d) ; for the user of this source has all the more assuredly, in that case, purposely introduced by his interpolations the tendency which the present narrative as a whole exhibits. (g).What we are able to absolve him from, then, is certainly In no case (whether he used sources or not) the deliberate intention of representing the great collection in another light than that which agreed with actual

facts, in order to take away all foundation from evil rumours about Paul which were based on the facts ; the most that one can do is to absolve him from the charge of having deliberately invented statements of fact, if we assume that he actually knew of the existence of the Samaritan Simon which we must recognise as a fact, and in good faith believed that it must have been this Simon who made the attempt to bribe, and that Peter must have withstood him. This view admits of being understood as a result of his general assumption that the party of the original apostles cannot possibly have stood in a relation of such hostility to Paul (cp the similar judgment expressed under BaRJEsuS, $ 4 c). I t still, however, remains impossible to deny that the author has been led by tendency to be silent as to the real history of the collection, just as he has been led to be silent about the dispute between Peter and Paul a t Antioch, and about Titus (see C OUNCIL , §§ 3 end, 7 end), or that he relates matters for which he had n o historical warrant. Baur, Ta6. 2tschr.f: Theol., 1831, d,114-136; Simson, hist. TheoZ. 1841, c, I 5-79 ; Hilgenfeld, Z W T , 1868, 357-396 ; Kefzergesch. 1884 163-186,453-461; Lipsms, 1 . Literature. $?reZen d >bm.'Petmssage, 1872, 13.46 ; 6 . Simon Magus' in BL, 5 , 1875, 301-321; Ajokr. Ap..Gesch. ii. 1 1887 28-69 et$a.ssim (seeErgdnzullgsIte f , 238x1; LiidemaLn, Pr& KZ, r887, 953-961 (on Lipsius); d r n a c k , Simon Magus' in EBM ; Lehrb. d. Dogmengesch.(z),204-2c9, 264-270 ; Dieterlen, L'apbfre Paul et Siinon le magicien Nancy, 1878; Krenkel, Josejhus u. Lucas, 1894. 178.190 ; K;eyenbiihl E71ahg.d. Wahrheit 1, 1900, 174-284. On the pseudo. dementine writings d e Schliemann, Die Clementinen 1844. Hilgenfeld, D e clment. Kccogn. U. i Homilien r&8 ; Uhlhorn, Die HomiZ. u Recop. des Cknrens . Rom. 18;4. Langen, Die CCetnensromane, 1890 : Hort Notes ?nfro>ucfor> to t h Study ofthe C k m . Recog., 1902 ; gig-, in S t u d . Bi6. 2, 1890, 157-193 ; Headlam, JThSf igor J?, 41-58 : Chapman, ibid. 436-441 ;and (in agreement witi him) Harnack, P. w. s. TLZ, IgoZ, 57.3.


I. I N P AUL A N D ACTS. Parallels ($ , in ACES alone ( 9 4). 11. I N SVNOPTISTS. Synoptists as Sources (8 5). Walking on water ($ 6). Other unhistorical narratives (5 7).


2) 4.

Transfiguration Stater ($ 8J). 111. IN FOURTH GOSPEL. ?hr :e doubtful;lenfents~$~p!. , Less, strongly divergent points($ 18). , , iviinor notices wlrn nisrorlcat Kernel (8 11). ueniai (8 19). Jairus' daughter (5 12). Call (5 20). Footwashing (8 21). Call, draught of fishes (5 135). Peter and beloved disciple ($ 22). Denial confession (5 15~5). Designfation as Satan (5 17). Clurracter ofPete7 (5 23). LATER PERZOD ($5 24-48)


( I 24)

1. IN NTAND CHURCH FATHERS(@25.31). 11. Earliest and later witnesses (I z 5 x ) . Ascensio Jesaiae, I Clem. (8 2 7 s ) . IVlutyrdom pnlocated (%9). 2 , " silence on sojourn ana marryraom(s 30). Provisional conclusions (5 31).




111. IN PSEUDO-CLEM. HOM. AND RECOG. ACTS ($8 32-39). Literary (8 32). Inference from pseudo. Clenientine ( 40J). ' Pre-Catholic Acta Petri (BB 33 36). Cathoe Azta Petri et Pauli (&34J1_7Homilies an-d2-ey$ioys (D 40). n o counter resumony (8 41). xrrivai in Kome, m y or aeatn ( 9 37~.1. Conclusions from Apocr. Acts (5 39).



Importance for Roman Church (8 46). Place ofdeafh :ConcZusiorr($ 4 4 s ) . Ba6yLnii a.s$eZd o f acfivi!y (5 42f.'). Later Traditions(S 47). Babylon of I Pet. 5 rg=Rome? (5 42). Where did Peter die? (A 44). Babylonia and adjoining countries as Conclusion as to Peter's later life and Writihgs attributed fo Peter (B 48). SiHiog~a#hy 49). (5 Peter's mission-field (0 43). death ( 45). I only once hi>great prandl;ltlrer(2 I), and the sonof the patriarch Simon, or Symeon (CYMcmN ; so 6 for liLtr$ ; see Jacoh thrice (4 .\lace. 2 19 Judith 6 15 32). E'or the last-named S IMEON . § S), was the original and proper name of the Josephus invariably writes Symeon (or Semeon : I v p c J v , 1 Name. intimate disciple of Jesus who was destined . iar. Z a p d v ) for all other persons he has Simon ( Z l p o v ) except in tdo cases (Ant. xii. 6 r , 8 zbs-for the ancestor f. to be for ever known throughout all the Maccahees-and in B/ iv. 3 9, 5 159 where in each case Christendom by the surname of Peter. P v p d v is found). Soon after the apostdlic age it even came (a)The name Simon is a clarsical one which occurs (for about that the Greek form was taken to underlie the Hebrew example) in Aristophanes Lysias, and Demosthenes. Ever and I'D'! was written instead of j\@ (cp N AMES , P, 86, since the Jews began the bractice qf assuming Greek or Greeksounding names, alongside of their proper Hehrew ones, to be end). (c) In the N T Simon (Plwov) is the current form. employed in intercourse with the outside world (cp BARNABAS Symeon (Pvpcdv), in fact (if we lkave out of account the I I , end, and N AMES, 5 86), Simon was regarded as an apDroprii patriarch mentioned in Rev. 7 7 , the ancestor of Jesus in ate equivalent for Symeon, all the more because in the selection Lk. 3 30 'the aqed prophet of Lk. 225 36, and the prophet of such equivalents similarity of soiind was considered an imand teaher of Antioch in Syria who bore the surname of Niger, portant element. ( G ) The form Simon(Pipov) is that almost Acts 191)occurs but twice ' and in both instances-in 2 Pet. 1I invariably met with in the OT Apocrypha (3 Ezra [ I Esd.] 9 3 2 as well as in Acts 15 1 4 4 ; used with the obvious intention of Ecclus. 50 I : also in I , 2 and 4 Macc.). Only once is the well. giving special solemnity to the designation of the apostle. In known Maccabaean leader called Zupehiv (I Macc. 2 65) ; so too Acts 15 this is all the more unmistakable because Peter is the