Acts 8:9

Σίμων : very few of the most advanced critics now dismiss Simon as an unhistorical character, or deny that the account before us contains at least some historical data; see McGiffert's note, Apostolic Age, p. 100. Hilgenfeld and Lipsius may be reckoned amongst those who once refused to admit that Simon Magus was an historical personage, but who afterwards retracted their opinion. But it still remains almost unaccountable that so many critics should have more or less endorsed, or developed, the theory first advocated by Baur that the Simon Magus of the Clementine Homilies is none other than the Apostle Paul. It is sufficient to refer for an exposition of the absurdity of this identification to Dr. Salmon “Clementine Literature” (Dict. of Christ. Biog., iii., pp. 575, 576; see also Ritschl's note, Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche, p. 228 (second edition)). This ingenuity outdid itself in asking us to see in Simon's request to buy the power of conferring the Holy Ghost a travesty of the rejection of Paul's apostolic claims by the older Apostles, in spite of the gift of money which he had collected for the poor Saints in Jerusalem (Overbeck). No wonder that Spitta should describe such an explanation as “a perfect absurdity” (Apostelgeschichte, p. 149). Before we can believe that the author of the Acts would make any use of the pseudo-Clementine literature in his account of Simon, we must account for the extraordinary fact that an author who so prominently represents his hero as triumphing over the powers of magic, Acts 13:6-12; Acts 19:11-19, should have recourse to a tradition in which this same hero is identified with a magician (see Spitta, u. s., p. 151; Salmon, “The Simon of Modern Criticism,” Dict. of Christian Biog., iv., p. 687; Zöckler, Apostelgeschichte, p. 212, and Wendt's note, p. 201). In Acts 21:8 we read that St. Luke spent several days in the house of Philip the Evangelist, and if we bear in mind that this same Philip is so prominent in chap. 8, there is nothing impossible in the belief that St. Luke should have received his narrative from St. Philip's lips, and included it in his history as an early and remarkable instance of the triumph of the Gospel we need not search for anymore occult reason on the part of the historian (see Salmon, u. s., p. 688). Simon then is an historical personage, and it is not too much to say that to all the stories which have gathered round his name the narrative of Acts always stands in a relation of priority the two facts mentioned in Acts, that Simon was a magician, and that he came into personal antagonism with St. Peter, always recur elsewhere but Acts tells us nothing of the details of Simon's heretical preaching, and it draws the veil entirely over his subsequent history. But “the hero of the romance of heresy” comes into prominence under the name of Simon in Justin Martyr, Apol., i., 26, Irenæus, i., 23 (who speaks of Simon the Samaritan, from whom all heresies had their being), and in the Clementine literature. But there is good reason for thinking that St. Irenæus, whilst he gives us a fuller account, is still giving us an account dependent on Justin, and there is every reason to believe that the Clementine writers also followed the same authority; see further, Salmon, “Simon Magus,” u. s., 4, p. 681 ff., and for a summary of the legends which gathered round the name of the Samaritan magician Plumptre's note, in loco, may be consulted. To the vexed question as to the identification of the Simon of Justin with the Simon of the Acts Dr. Salmon returns a decided negative answer, u. s., p. 683, and certainly the Simon described by Justin seems to note rather the inheritor and teacher of a Gnostic system already developed than to have been in his own person the father of Gnosticism. Simon, however, was no uncommon name, e.g., Josephus, Ant., xx., 7, 2, speaks of a Simon of Cyprus, whom there is no valid reason to identify with the Simon of the Acts (although famous critical authorities may be quoted in favour of such an identification). On the mistake made by Justin with reference to the statue on the Tiberine island with the words Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio inscribed (cf. the account of the marble fragment, apparently the base of a statue, dug up in 1574, marked with a similar inscription, in Lanciani's Pagan and Christian Rome) in referring it to Simon Magus, Apol., i, 26, 56, Tertullian, Apol., c. xiii., and Irenæus, i., 23, whilst in reality it referred to a Sabine god, Semo Sancus, the Sabine Hercules, see further, Salmon, u. s., p. 682, Rendall, Acts, p. 220. (Van Manen, followed by Feine, claims to discover two representations of Simon in Acts one as an ordinary magician, Acts 8:9; Acts 8:11, the other as a supposed incarnation of the deity, Acts 8:10 so too Jüngst, who refers the words from μαγεύων to Σαμαρίας to his Redactor; but on the other hand Hilgenfeld and Spitta see no contradiction, and regard the narrative as a complete whole.) μαγεύων : only here in N.T., not found in LXX (but cf. μάγος in Daniel 1:20; Daniel 2:2), though used in classical Greek. The word μάγος was used frequently by Herodotus of the priests and wise men in Persia who interpreted dreams, and hence the word came to denote any enchanter or wizard, and in a bad sense, a juggler, a quack like γόης (see instances in Wetstein). Here (cf. Acts 13:6) it is used of the evil exercise of magic and sorcery by Simon, who practised the charms and incantations so extensively employed at the time in the East by quacks claiming supernatural powers (Baur, Paulus, i, p. 107; Neander, Geschichte der Pflan zung, cf. i., 84, 85 (fifth edit.); Wendt, Apostelgeschichte, p. 202; Blass, in loco; Deissmann, Bibelstudien, p. 19, and see below on Acts 13:6. ἐξιστῶν, from ἐξιστάω (ἐξίστημι); so ἐξιστάνων, W. H. from ἐξιστάνω (hellenistic), see Blass, Grammatik, pp. 48, 49, transitive in present, future, first aorist active, cf. Luke 24:22 so ἐξεστακέναι, Acts 8:11, perfect active, hellenistic form, also transitive; see Blass, u. s. (also Winer-Schmiedel, p. 118, and Grimm-Thayer, sub v.) (in 3Ma 1:25 ἐξιστάνειν also occurs). ἵσταμαι, intransitive, Acts 8:13, Blass, u. s., p. 49 the revisers have consistently rendered the verb by the same English word in the three Acts 8:9; Acts 8:11; Acts 8:13, thus giving point and force to the narrative, see on Acts 8:13. λέγων κ. τ. λ., cf. Acts 5:36 Blass, Grammatik, p. 174, regards μέγαν as an interpolation, and it is not found in the similar phrase in Acts 5:36 (so too Winer-Schmiedel, p. 243), cf. Galatians 2:6; Galatians 6:3, and the use of the Latin aliquis, Cicero, Att., iii., 15, so too vii. 3, etc. It may be that Simon set himself up for a Messiah (see Ritschl's note, p. 228, Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche, second edition), or a Prophet, Jos., Ant., xviii., 4, 1, but Acts 8:14 points to a definite title, and it is likely enough that the people would repeat what Simon had told them of himself. His later followers went further and made him say, “Ego sum sermo Dei, ego sum speciosus, ego paraclitus, ego omnipotens, ego omnia Dei” Jerome, Commentar. in Matt., c. Acts 20:24 (Neander, Geschichte der Pflan zung, cf. i., 85, note). ἑαυτὸν : contrast Philip's attitude; he preached Christ, not himself (cf. Revelation 2:20).