Simon Magus: Comprehensive Research Document

40 min read

The father of all heresies — every source from Acts through modern scholarship. Primary texts, the Helena/Ennoia myth, the Samaritan context, and the irony of simony.
Contents 65 sections

Compiled: 28 February 2026 Purpose: Sourced reference material for The Hidden Fire (Book 2, Fires Series) Standard: All claims attributed to primary or scholarly sources. No unattributed speculation.

Table of Contents

  1. The Canonical Account: Acts 8:9-24
  2. Irenaeus, Against Heresies I.23
  3. Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, Book VI
  4. The Pseudo-Clementine Literature
  5. Justin Martyr, First Apology
  6. Helena/Ennoia: The Fallen Divine Feminine
  7. Modern Scholarship
  8. Simony: The Word and Its Irony
  9. The Acts of Peter (Apocryphal)
  10. Epiphanius, Panarion
  11. The Samaritan Context
  12. Master Bibliography

1. The Canonical Account: Acts 8:9-24

The Text (NRSVUE)

8:9 Now a certain man named Simon had previously practiced magic in the city and amazed the people of Samaria, saying that he was someone great.

8:10 All of them, from the least to the greatest, listened to him eagerly, saying, “This man is the power of God that is called Great.”

8:11 And they listened eagerly to him because for a long time he had amazed them with his magic.

8:12 But when they believed Philip, who was proclaiming the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

8:13 Even Simon himself believed. After being baptized, he stayed constantly with Philip and was amazed when he saw the signs and great miracles that took place.

8:14-17 [The apostles Peter and John are sent from Jerusalem. They pray for the Samaritans to receive the Holy Spirit, which had not yet come upon them though they had been baptized in Jesus’s name. Peter and John lay hands on them and they receive the Holy Spirit.]

8:18-19 Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, saying, “Give me also this power so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”

8:20 But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain God’s gift with money!”

8:21 “You have no part or share in this, for your heart is not right before God.”

8:22 “Repent therefore of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you.”

8:23 “For I can see that you are in the gall of bitterness and the chains of wickedness.”

8:24 Simon answered, “Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may happen to me.”

What the Text Establishes

Simon’s claims: He said “he was someone great” (v. 9). The people called him “the power of God that is called Great” (v. 10) – a title with messianic or divine overtones in a Samaritan context.

Simon’s location: Samaria. Not Judea, not the Jewish mainstream.

Simon’s response to Christianity: He believed and was baptized (v. 13), but his belief appears motivated by the signs and miracles rather than the message. When he sees the apostles conferring the Holy Spirit by laying on hands, he tries to buy the power.

Peter’s rebuke: Peter does not merely refuse; he curses Simon (“May your silver perish with you”), diagnoses him as being in “the gall of bitterness and the chains of wickedness” (v. 23), and tells him his heart “is not right before God” (v. 21).

Simon’s response to the rebuke: Ambiguous. He asks Peter to pray for him (v. 24), but we hear nothing more of him in Acts. He neither repents nor defies – he simply exits the narrative.

Scholarly Notes

  • The canonical account says nothing about Helena, nothing about cosmology, nothing about Gnosticism. All of that comes from later sources.
  • The phrase “the power of God that is called Great” (he dunamis tou theou he kaloumene Megale) is a unique title that some scholars connect to Samaritan theology. See Haar (2003), pp. 79-95 for detailed analysis.
  • Lüdemann argues that the author of Acts deliberately “demoted” Simon to magician status, and that the historical Simon may have been a more significant religious figure than Acts allows (Lüdemann, “The Acts of the Apostles and the Beginnings of Simonian Gnosis,” New Testament Studies 33, 1987 (DOI)).

Primary source: Acts of the Apostles 8:9-24, New Testament. Critical edition: Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th ed.

2. Irenaeus, Against Heresies I.23

Date and Context

Written c. 180 AD. Irenaeus was Bishop of Lyons. Adversus Haereses is the earliest systematic anti-heretical catalogue. Book I catalogues the Gnostic sects; Simon opens the list as “father of all heresies.”

What Irenaeus Claims (I.23.1-4)

Simon’s identity: “Simon of Samaria, from whom all sorts of heresies derive their origin.” He came from Gitta, a village of Samaria.

Simon’s self-designation: He claimed to be “the loftiest of all powers, that is, the Being who is the Father over all.” He appeared “among the Jews as the Son, descended in Samaria as the Father, and came to other nations in the character of the Holy Spirit” (I.23.1).

Helena and the Ennoia doctrine (I.23.2):

  • Simon “redeemed from slavery at Tyre, a city of Phoenicia, a certain woman named Helena”
  • He declared her to be “the first conception of his mind, the mother of all, by whom, in the beginning, he conceived in his mind the thought of forming angels and archangels”
  • This Ennoia (First Thought) “leaping forth from him, and comprehending the will of her father, descended to the lower regions of space, and generated angels and powers, by whom also he declared this world was formed”
  • The angels and powers she created then imprisoned her “through motives of jealousy, because they were unwilling to be looked upon as the progeny of any other being”
  • Simon himself was “entirely unknown” to the angels
  • The Ennoia “was detained by those powers and angels who had been produced by her. She suffered all manner of contumely from them, so that she could not return upwards to her father”
  • She was “shut up in a human body, and for ages passed in succession from one female body to another”

The Helen of Troy identification (I.23.2): Helena/Ennoia reincarnated through history, including as Helen of Troy – “she it was that was the Helen on whose account the Trojan war was undertaken.” She passed from body to body, “ever suffering insult” and eventually “stood for hire in a brothel” – the very state in which Simon found her in Tyre.

Simon as redeemer (I.23.3): Simon came down “in order that he might first free her from slavery,” and then “confer salvation upon men, by making himself known to them.” He descended “transfigured and assimilated to powers, principalities, and angels, so that he might appear among men to be a man, while yet he was not a man.”

Soteriology (I.23.3): Salvation comes through grace (Simon’s grace), not through righteous actions. The prophets were inspired by the world-creating angels, not by the true God. The law and ethical precepts were tools of angelic oppression designed to enslave humanity. Simon’s followers “are freed from the power of those who formed the world.”

Antinomianism (I.23.3): “Men are saved through his grace, and not on account of their own righteous actions. For such deeds are not righteous in the nature of things, but by mere accident.” This is a direct license for moral freedom – what the orthodox called libertinism.

Practices of the Simonians (I.23.4):

  • “Mystic priests” who “lead profligate lives”
  • “They practise magical arts and incantations”
  • Love-potions and philtres
  • Dream interpretation, use of “familiar spirits”
  • Worship of images: “a statue of Simon under the figure of Jupiter, and another of Helena under that of Minerva”
  • They worship these images

Scholarly Assessment

Irenaeus is writing approximately 150 years after the events of Acts 8. His information about Simon likely derives from Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD), his own lost heresiological sources, and possibly Simonian communities still extant in the second century.

Key question: How much of this theology actually goes back to the historical Simon, and how much was developed by later Simonians or projected onto Simon by heresiologists? Haar (2003) argues that the developed system Irenaeus describes reflects a later, more Christianized Simonianism rather than anything the historical Simon taught. Rudolph (Gnosis, 1987) treats Simon as a starting point for the development of Gnostic mythology but acknowledges the difficulty of separating the historical figure from the heresiological construct.

Primary source: Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses I.23.1-4. ANF translation available at New Advent. Critical edition: W.W. Harvey, ed., Sancti Irenaei Episcopi Lugdunensis Libros quinque adversus Haereses, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1857).

3. Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, Book VI

Date and Context

Written c. 222-235 AD. Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-235). Also called the Philosophumena. Hippolytus claims to be quoting from or paraphrasing a Simonian text called the Apophasis Megale (“Great Announcement” or “Great Revelation”).

The Apophasis Megale: Contents

Fire as primal principle: Simon grounds his cosmology in fire as the fundamental generative force. He reinterprets Moses’ statement that “God is a burning and consuming fire” to mean that fire is the origin of all things. The manifest portions of fire constitute visible creation; the secret portions remain imperceptible to the senses but cognizable by intellect.

The Six Roots (paired emanations): The cosmology posits six primary roots emanating from an indefinite power, organized as three complementary pairs:

  • Mind and Intelligence (corresponding to Heaven and Earth)
  • Voice and Name (corresponding to Sun and Moon)
  • Ratiocination and Reflection (corresponding to Air and Water)

These six roots contain the entire indefinite power potentially, not actually. A seventh power – the “Self-Existent” – coexists with these six.

The Great Tree metaphor: The indefinite power functions like “a large tree” (referencing Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Daniel 4). The manifest fire constitutes stem, branches, and leaves; the mature fruit represents the principle deposited in God’s storehouse – that which is saved from destruction.

The hermaphroditic divine: The seventh power manifests as hermaphroditic – “mother of itself, father of itself, sister of itself, spouse of itself.” It generates itself through duality emerging from original unity. This single power, divided above and below, sustains all existence through continuous self-perpetuation.

The androgynous Primeval Man: The Apophasis describes an original androgynous being – Male-Female (arsenothelys) – the “mother of itself, father of itself, sister of itself, spouse of itself.” The seventh power is hermaphroditic, generating itself through duality emerging from original unity. The angels divided this being into two sexes, perpetuating separation through desire and multiplication. The Apophasis describes the first principle as corresponding to Orphic Phanes – bisexual, with a hidden masculine aspect and a manifest feminine aspect called Silence (paralleling Orphic Nyx/Night).

Empedoclean parallels: Simon explicitly invokes Empedocles’ principle that “like recognizes like” – earth by earth, water by water, fire by fire. All portions of the fire possess perception and intelligence, making the cosmos a living, sentient system.

Mosaic cosmology reinterpreted: The six days of creation correspond to the six roots; the seventh day represents the self-existent power’s rest and dominion. Through gnosis (knowledge), individuals embody the divine principle and achieve salvation.

Direct Quotations from the Apophasis

Hippolytus preserves what appear to be literal quotations:

“To you, then, I address the things which I speak, and [to you] I write what I write… there are two offshoots from all the Aeons.”

And:

“I and you, one; you, before me; I, that which is after you.”

These fragments, if authentic, suggest a text addressed to initiates and concerned with the unity of divine principles across apparent separation.

Authenticity Debate

The core problem: The Apophasis Megale survives only through Hippolytus’s quotations and paraphrases. We cannot verify what Hippolytus quoted accurately, what he paraphrased, and what he distorted or misunderstood.

Arguments against authenticity:

  • The text contains apparent New Testament quotations, which would place it later than Simon’s lifetime
  • Possible use of the second-century author Galenus has been detected
  • Hippolytus himself attributes the work to “disciples of Simon” rather than to Simon directly in places
  • The sophisticated philosophical system (Aristotelian, Empedoclean, Platonic parallels) may represent later development rather than first-century Samaritan teaching

Arguments for at least partial authenticity:

  • Some scholars hold that a core Simonian teaching tradition is preserved, even if overlaid with later philosophical elaboration
  • The fire imagery and paired-emanation structure are distinctive enough that they may represent a genuine sectarian tradition

Scholarly consensus: Significant uncertainty. Most scholars treat the Apophasis Megale as representing a later, more developed form of Simonianism rather than the teachings of the historical Simon. The original doctrines may have been simpler, closer to the account given by Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Haar 2003, pp. 199-241; Rudolph 1987, pp. 294-298).

Primary source: Hippolytus, Refutatio Omnium Haeresium VI.9-18. ANF translation available at New Advent and Gnosis.org. Critical edition: M. Marcovich, ed., Hippolytus: Refutatio Omnium Haeresium (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1986).

4. The Pseudo-Clementine Literature

Date and Composition

The Pseudo-Clementine literature survives in two recensions:

  • Clementine Homilies: 20 homilies in Greek, extant in a single manuscript
  • Clementine Recognitions: 10 books, surviving complete only in Rufinus’s Latin translation (c. 406 AD)

Both derive from a lost source, sometimes called the Grundschrift or “basic writing,” dated by most scholars to the mid-third century (c. 220-260 AD). The present texts as we have them date to the mid-fourth century, probably originating in Syria. The overlap between the two recensions has been used to produce a provisional reconstruction of a lost text sometimes called the “Circuits of Peter” (Periodoi Petrou).

The Narrative

The works present themselves as the autobiography of Clement of Rome, who encounters Christianity, meets the Apostle Peter, and follows him from city to city as Peter pursues and debates Simon Magus. The story is a didactic novel, not history.

Simon’s role: Simon is Peter’s principal antagonist throughout. He is presented as a Samaritan magician with real but demonic powers, a skilled debater who distorts scripture, and a figure of consummate pride and deception.

The Peter-Simon Debates

The theological debates between Peter and Simon cover:

  • The nature of God and creation
  • The authority of prophets and scripture
  • The validity of visionary experience vs. direct teaching
  • The relationship between the Jewish law and salvation
  • The nature of evil and the origin of the material world

The family romance subplot: Clement’s father is named Faustinianus (or Faustus), his mother Mattidia, and his twin brothers Faustinus and Faustus (who appear in disguise as Nicetas and Aquila). Simon Magus uses magical transformation to assume Faustinianus’ appearance, creating a doppelganger plotline. This narrative is widely considered one of the sources for the Faust legend – the story of a scholar who makes a pact with infernal powers. The name correspondence (Faustus/Faustinianus -> Faust) is likely not coincidental.

Key passage (Homily XVII.13-19): Peter argues against the reliability of visions as a source of religious authority. He states: “If, then, our Yeshua appeared to you in a vision, made himself known to you, and spoke to you, it was as one who is enraged with an adversary.” This is a direct challenge to visionary authority – and, as many scholars note, a thinly veiled attack on Paul’s Damascus road experience.

Peter’s Letter prefacing the Homilies (Epistula Petri 2:2-5): Peter complains that “some from among the Gentiles have rejected my lawful preaching and have preferred a lawless and absurd doctrine of the man who is my enemy” and that certain figures attempted “to distort my words by interpretations of many sorts, as if I taught the dissolution of the law.”

The Simon = Paul Theory (Tübingen School)

F.C. Baur’s thesis (1831): Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792-1860), founder of the Tübingen school of biblical criticism, published “The Christ-party in the Corinthian Church” in 1831, arguing that early Christianity was defined by the conflict between Petrine (Jewish) Christianity and Pauline (Gentile) Christianity. He drew attention to the anti-Pauline character of the Pseudo-Clementines and pointed out that some of Simon’s claims in the debates – such as having seen the Lord “not in his lifetime, yet subsequently in vision” – are precisely the claims Paul makes.

The theory: Simon Magus in the Pseudo-Clementines is a coded literary figure for Paul. The debates between Peter and Simon represent the actual theological conflict between Jewish Christianity and Pauline Christianity, with Simon serving as a mask for Paul because the author could not directly attack an apostle.

Supporting evidence:

  • Simon claims authority through vision, as Paul does (Galatians 1:11-12, 1 Corinthians 9:1, 15:8)
  • Peter accuses Simon of being “lawless” – a term associated with Pauline theology’s stance on the Mosaic law
  • The “enemy” language in Peter’s Letter echoes Ebionite hostility toward Paul
  • Paul himself records conflict with Peter (Galatians 2:11-14)

Arguments against (Markus Bockmuehl and others):

  • Explicit differentiation: In Recognitions 1.70-71, Simon Magus and Saul (Paul) are explicitly named as separate characters. Saul even condemns Simon as a sorcerer. If Simon were simply a cipher for Paul, why would the author also include Paul under his real name in the same narrative?
  • Doctrinal mismatch: Simon’s teachings are “generally Gnostic rather than Pauline” (Bockmuehl). He denies the resurrection, questions the creator God’s goodness, and claims messianic status – positions fundamentally incompatible with known Pauline theology.
  • Simon Magus was already a well-established figure in anti-heretical literature before the Pseudo-Clementines were written – the author inherited, rather than invented, the Simon tradition
  • Simon’s magical powers (levitation, animation of statues, shape-shifting) have no Pauline parallel and draw on the broader “evil magician” topos in ancient literature
  • The identification may be partially correct (some Simonian material reflects anti-Pauline polemic) without being totally correct (Simon is not merely a cipher for Paul)

Scholarly status: The full Tübingen thesis – that Simon is entirely a coded Paul – is rejected by most modern scholars. Even Adolf Hilgenfeld (1823-1907), the last major figure of the original Tübingen school, “admitted that Simon Magus was a real personage, though he persisted that in the Clementines he is meant for St. Paul” (Catholic Encyclopedia, “Simon Magus”). However, the more moderate position – that the Pseudo-Clementine debates partially reflect anti-Pauline polemic, particularly in the Homilies – remains widely accepted.

Primary sources:

  • Clementine Homilies, ed. B. Rehm, Die Pseudoklementinen I: Homilien, GCS 42 (Berlin, 1953; 3rd ed. by G. Strecker, 1992).
  • Clementine Recognitions, ed. B. Rehm, Die Pseudoklementinen II: Rekognitionen, GCS 51 (Berlin, 1965; 2nd ed. by G. Strecker, 1994).
  • English translations in ANF vol. 8 (Roberts-Donaldson).
  • F.C. Baur, “Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde,” Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie (1831).
  • Philip A. Harland, “Peter vs. Simon Magus (alias Paul) in the Pseudo-Clementines” (2005).

5. Justin Martyr, First Apology

Date and Context

Written c. 150 AD, addressed to Emperor Antoninus Pius. Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 AD) is the earliest Christian writer (outside Acts) to mention Simon Magus.

What Justin Claims (First Apology, XXVI)

  • Simon was a Samaritan, from the village of Gitta
  • He came to Rome during the reign of Emperor Claudius (41-54 AD)
  • He performed mighty acts of magic through the art of demons
  • He was considered a god in Rome
  • A statue was erected to him “on the river Tiber, between the two bridges,” bearing the inscription “Simoni Deo Sancto” (“To Simon the Holy God”)
  • He also mentions Helena as Simon’s companion
  • “Almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations, worship him”

The Semo Sancus Error

The archaeological evidence: In 1574, a marble statue base was excavated on the Tiber Island (the island between the two bridges, exactly where Justin said) bearing the inscription:

SEMONI SANCO DEO FIDIO SACRUM

(“Sacred to Semo Sancus, the god of oaths”)

Semo Sancus (also Dius Fidius) was an ancient Sabine/Roman deity associated with oaths, trust, and hospitality. His cult was established in Rome long before Christianity.

The misidentification: The scholarly consensus is that Justin (or his source) saw or heard about this inscription and mistook “SEMONI SANCO” for “SIMONI SANCTO” – an easy error given the interchange of e/i in Latin pronunciation and the similar phonetics. Justin then reported this pagan dedication as evidence of Simon Magus’s divine worship in Rome.

The significance: This is one of the most documented factual errors in patristic literature. It demonstrates that early Christian writers could and did make mistakes when constructing their accounts of heretics. Justin was writing an apology addressed to Rome, “where every person had the means of ascertaining its accuracy” – yet the error apparently went unchallenged, suggesting either that nobody checked, or that the statue was not widely known.

Counter-argument: Some scholars have argued that the coincidence alone is insufficient to reject Justin’s “precise statement” entirely, and that there may have been a separate Simon statue that has not survived. However, this is a minority position. The phonetic similarity, the exact location match, and the absence of any other corroborating evidence for Simon-worship in Rome make the misidentification the simplest explanation.

Primary source: Justin Martyr, First Apology XXVI. Available at CCEL and New Advent. On the inscription: CIL VI.567. See also Haar (2003), pp. 29-34, and the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Simon Magus.

6. Helena/Ennoia: The Fallen Divine Feminine

The Narrative in Full

Assembled from Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. I.23), with supplementary details from Hippolytus and the Catholic Encyclopedia:

  1. Before creation: The supreme God (Simon himself, or the Father-God whom Simon represents) conceives his First Thought (Ennoia, also called Epinoia, also called the Holy Spirit, also called Wisdom/Sophia).

  2. The Ennoia’s creative act: This First Thought leaps forth from the Father and descends to the lower regions of space. There she generates angels and archangels – the beings who will create and govern the material world.

  3. The entrapment: The angels and powers she created refuse to acknowledge their origin. Out of jealousy and ignorance (they do not know the Father exists), they imprison the Ennoia. They will not let her return to her source.

  4. Reincarnation through history: The Ennoia is “shut up in a human body” and passes “in succession from one female body to another,” suffering “all manner of contumely” from the angelic powers in each incarnation. She is like a liquid poured from vessel to vessel.

  5. Helen of Troy: Among her incarnations, she was Helen of Troy – “she it was that was the Helen on whose account the Trojan war was undertaken” (Irenaeus I.23.2). The Trojan War, in this reading, was a cosmic event caused by the angels fighting over the imprisoned divine spark.

  6. The brothel in Tyre: After centuries of degradation, the Ennoia’s final incarnation is as a prostitute in Tyre, Phoenicia. Simon finds her there and “redeems her from slavery.”

  7. Simon as redeemer: Simon recognizes Helena as his own Ennoia and liberates her, just as he intends to liberate all humanity from the tyranny of the world-creating angels. Their relationship is simultaneously a human partnership and a cosmic drama – the reunion of the divine masculine and divine feminine.

Structural Parallel: Valentinian Sophia

The Helena/Ennoia myth maps almost exactly onto the later Valentinian Sophia mythology (developed by Valentinus, c. 130-160 AD, and his followers):

ElementSimonian (Helena)Valentinian (Sophia)
OriginFirst Thought of the FatherYoungest Aeon of the Pleroma
TransgressionDescends and creates angelsActs presumptuously without her consort (or attempts to know the Father directly)
ConsequenceImprisoned by her own creationsExpelled from the Pleroma; her passion generates the Demiurge
DegradationPassed from body to body; ends as a prostituteBecomes Achamoth (lower Sophia); her emotions generate matter
RedeemerSimon himselfChrist/the Savior sent from the Pleroma
ReunionSimon and Helena reunitedSophia restored to the Pleroma

Scholarly assessment: “Scholars insist that Helena (Ennoia) is the same as the Gnostic Sophia” (multiple sources). The parallel is too precise to be coincidental, but the direction of influence is debated:

  • Did the Simonians develop the prototype, which the Valentinians then elaborated?
  • Did later Simonians retroject Valentinian ideas onto their founder?
  • Did both traditions draw independently from a common mythological well (Mesopotamian Inanna/Ishtar descent myths, Jewish Wisdom speculation)?

Pearson and Fossum argue for a Samaritan/Jewish matrix from which both traditions emerged. The Tyndale Bulletin article on “The Descent of Ishtar, the Fall of Sophia, and the Jewish Roots of Gnosticism” traces the mythological precedents through Sumerian and Akkadian descent narratives.

Primary sources: Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I.23.2; Hippolytus, Ref. VI.19; Tertullian, De Anima 34. Secondary: Rudolph, Gnosis (1987), pp. 294-298; Pearson, Ancient Gnosticism (2007), ch. 2.

7. Modern Scholarship

Alberto Ferreiro, Simon Magus in Patristic, Medieval and Early Modern Traditions (2005)

Publisher: Brill (Leiden-Boston). Studies in the History of Christian Traditions, vol. 125. xi + 371 pp.

Scope: Traces the post-New Testament reception of Simon Magus from the Church Fathers (beginning with Justin Martyr, c. 150 AD) through to a seventeenth-century Baroque relief in the Cathedral of Oviedo, Spain.

Sources consulted: Artistic works, theological texts, historical chronicles, sermons, hagiographies, vernacular literatures, biblical commentaries, and heresiologies.

Topics covered:

  • Traditions and historiography
  • Types of Simon Magus in anti-Gnostic sources
  • Comparison of the Acts of Peter with the Passio Petri et Pauli
  • Jerome and Vincent of Lerins on Simon Magus
  • The Nicolaitian heresy connection
  • The Fall of Simon Magus in Church Fathers
  • Simon Magus in Irish and English medieval legends
  • Simon Magus, Nicolas of Antioch, and Muhammad
  • Vincent Ferrer and the canonical/apocryphal Simon Magus
  • Simon Magus in the cathedrals of Leon and Oviedo, Spain
  • Full bibliographical inventory of Simon Magus in artistic expression

Reception: Reviewed positively in The Journal of Ecclesiastical History (Cambridge University Press) as “informative and engaging, scholarly and enjoyable, and serves as a case study of how one particular individual is variously depicted throughout fifteen hundred years of Western history.”

Stephen Haar, Simon Magus: The First Gnostic? (2003)

Publisher: Walter de Gruyter (Berlin). Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, vol. 119.

Origin: Revision of the author’s Ph.D. dissertation under Professor Michael Lattke at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Key contributions:

  1. A departure from traditional exegesis of Acts 8:5-24, examining the text critically rather than through the lens of later patristic elaboration
  2. An overview of Graeco-Roman literature on “magic” and “the Magoi” to determine how these categories shaped perceptions of Simon
  3. Inclusion of social science models and identity theory in analyzing the “phenomenon of Simon”

Central question: Was Simon actually the “first Gnostic,” as Irenaeus claimed? Haar’s answer is nuanced: the developed Gnostic system attributed to Simon by the heresiologists likely reflects later elaboration, but a historical Simon who made significant religious claims in a Samaritan context is plausible.

Reception: Reviewed by Jürgen Zangenberg in Theologische Literaturzeitung (2005) as a “valuable contribution” (“wertvoller Beitrag”) with “careful analyses of the relevant texts.”

Gerd Lüdemann

Key work: “The Acts of the Apostles and the Beginnings of Simonian Gnosis,” New Testament Studies 33 (1987).

Also: Heretics: The Other Side of Early Christianity (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996). ISBN 0-664-22642-6.

Arguments:

  • The author of Acts deliberately demoted Simon to “magician” status
  • The historical Simon was likely a more significant religious figure than the Acts account suggests
  • Early Christianity was not a harmonious unity but was “defined by struggles by various groups for doctrinal authority”
  • Following Walter Bauer’s thesis (Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, 1934), Lüdemann challenges the notion that heresy is “inevitably a rebellion against orthodoxy” – sometimes the “heresy” came first

Kurt Rudolph, Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism (1987)

Publisher: Harper & Row (English edition). Originally published in German as Die Gnosis: Wesen und Geschichte einer spätantiken Religion (1977; 3rd ed. 1990).

On Simon: Rudolph treats Simon as a starting point for the development of Gnostic mythology but acknowledges the difficulty of separating the historical figure from the heresiological construct. He places Simon in the context of Samaritan heterodox movements and notes that “in the second century, under influence of Christianity, Simon was transformed into a Gnostic saviour” – i.e., the early cult may have been syncretistic but not yet fully Gnostic.

Birger A. Pearson

Key works:

  • Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990). ISBN 0-8006-3741-0.
  • Ancient Gnosticism: Traditions and Literature (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007).

Position: Unlike many scholars who see Gnosticism as a Christian heresy, Pearson argued that Gnosticism emerged from Jewish mystics “disaffected with the Jerusalem religious authorities, who were influenced by Platonism and mystery religion.” He was one of the original translators of the Nag Hammadi library.

On Simon: Pearson situates Simon within a broader movement of Samaritan/Jewish heterodox speculation about divine intermediaries, arguing that Gnostic ideas did not originate with Christianity but predated it in Samaritan and Jewish contexts. On the Apophasis Megale specifically, Pearson dismisses Hippolytus’ account as “a description of a much later – very post-Christian – development of Simon’s thought” rather than authentic first-century teaching.

Walter Schmithals

Key work: Gnosticism in Corinth: An Investigation of the Letters to the Corinthians. Trans. John E. Steely. Nashville: Abingdon, 1971. German original: Die Gnosis in Korinth, 1956.

On Simon: Schmithals presents arguments that what Hippolytus depicts in the Apophasis Megale is “very early – pre-Christian – Jewish Gnosticism.” This stands in direct opposition to Pearson’s late-dating position. The debate between Schmithals (early, pre-Christian) and Pearson (late, post-Christian) represents one of the fundamental unresolved questions in Simonian studies.

Additional Scholars

G.R.S. Mead, Simon Magus: An Essay on the Founder of Simonianism Based on the Ancient Sources with a Re-Evaluation of His Philosophy and Teachings (London: Theosophical Publishing Society, 1892). Dated but still cited for its thorough compilation of primary source material and its sympathetic reading of Simonian cosmology. Mead argued for a genuine Simonian philosophical core overlaid with later development.

Jean Doresse, The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics (New York: Viking, 1960). Places Simon within the broader Gnostic tradition as illuminated by the Nag Hammadi finds. Useful for understanding the relationship between the Simonian Helena/Ennoia narrative and the Barbelo-Gnostic texts discovered at Nag Hammadi.

Francis Legge, Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity, from 330 BC to 330 AD (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1915; repr. New Hyde Park: University Books, 1964). A classic study of the religious context in which Simon operated.

John D. Turner – argues that “the Simonians originated as a local Hebrew cult in the first century CE, which centered on a Samaritan holy man. This early cult was syncretistic, but not Gnostic. In the second century, under influence of Christianity, Simon was transformed into a Gnostic saviour.” This is now close to the consensus position.

Aldo Magris – places Simon within Samaritan baptist sects that were an offshoot of John the Baptist’s movement, with Dositheos, Simon, and Menander heading successive branches of this movement.

Jarl Fossum

Key work: The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr/Paul Siebeck, 1985; repr. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2017). Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 36.

Central thesis: The Gnostic demiurge arose from Jewish and especially Samaritan theology. In Samaritan texts, God’s vice-regent is personalized, angelic, demiurgic, and bears God’s name – a unique combination not found in non-Samaritan Jewish texts. This figure provided the template for the Gnostic demiurge: a subordinate creator-god, distinct from and inferior to the true God.

On Simon: Fossum indicates that “gnostic demiurgic concepts, functioning as a buffer between the good transcendent God and the material world, were exemplary for representations of historical saviour figures, such as Jesus and Simon Magus.” Simon’s claim to be “the Great Power of God” fits within Samaritan speculations about the angel of Yahweh as divine intermediary.

8. Simony: The Word and Its Irony

Etymology and Definition

Simony (Latin: simonia): The buying or selling of spiritual things, sacred offices, or ecclesiastical positions. Named directly after Simon Magus’s attempt to purchase the power of conferring the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:18-19).

Canon Law Development

Early period: Simony was “virtually absent during Christianity’s first three centuries” (Britannica). The practice emerged as the Church gained wealth, land, and political power.

Key legislative milestones:

  • Council of Chalcedon (451 AD): The second canon formally prohibits the sale of ordinations – the first explicit anti-simony legislation
  • Council of Orleans (533 AD): Further restrictions
  • Pope Gregory I (590-604 AD): “Popularized the word ‘simony’” by calling such transactions “the simoniac heresy” – thus weaponizing a first-century episode into a permanent legal category
  • Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae II-II, Q.100: Systematic theological treatment of simony as sin

Medieval Proliferation

9th-10th centuries: Simony became endemic. Bishoprics and abbacies were bought and sold as feudal properties. Secular lords sold ecclesiastical offices as a revenue source. Newly appointed church officials repaid their lay patrons for their positions.

The Investiture Controversy (1076-1122):

  • Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085) launched a major reform campaign against simony and lay investiture (the appointment of bishops by secular rulers)
  • In 1074, Gregory renewed prohibitions of simony under heavier penalties, “but encountered at once great opposition from the German bishops and priests”
  • Henry IV of Germany routinely practiced investiture and simony, installing archbishops in Fermo, Milan, and Spoleto in 1075
  • Gregory responded with threats of excommunication, leading to the famous confrontation at Canossa (1077)
  • Concordat of Worms (1122): Compromise between Pope Callixtus II and Emperor Henry V. Simony was “partially checked” but never fully eliminated

Guido, Archbishop of Milan (1059): Publicly lamented “the prevalency of simony in his Church” and promised on behalf of himself and his successors to renounce it – a remarkable admission that the practice was standard operating procedure at the highest levels.

Dante, Inferno XIX: Dante places the simoniacs in the Eighth Circle of Hell (the Malebolge), punished by being placed head-down in holes with their feet on fire. Dante’s anger is directed specifically at popes – he names Nicholas III and predicts the damnation of Boniface VIII and Clement V. The canto is one of the Commedia’s most savage attacks on ecclesiastical corruption.

The Irony

Simon Magus tried once to buy spiritual power and was cursed for it by an apostle. The institutional Church that made his name a byword for sacrilege then spent the better part of a millennium doing exactly what Simon attempted – not once, but systematically, at every level from parish priest to pope. The practice became so pervasive that it required multiple ecumenical councils, a century-long political crisis (the Investiture Controversy), and one of the greatest poems in Western literature (Dante) to even begin to address it.

The word “simony” thus contains its own indictment: the Church named the sin after a man who tried it once, then institutionalized it.

Primary source: Acts 8:18-19. Secondary: Britannica, “Simony”; Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae II-II, Q.100; Dante, Inferno XIX.

9. The Acts of Peter (Apocryphal)

Date and Composition

  • Date of composition: Second half of the 2nd century AD, probably c. 180-190 AD
  • Original language: Koine Greek
  • Probable origin: Asia Minor
  • Surviving text: Mostly in the Latin translation of the Codex Vercellensis (7th century), under the title Actus Petri cum Simone (“Act of Peter with Simon”)
  • Attribution: Traditionally attributed to Leucius Charinus, but this attribution is “widely rejected by modern scholarship.” Stylistic inconsistencies suggest composition or redaction by multiple hands.

The Flying Contest Narrative

The climax of the Acts of Peter is the contest between Peter and Simon Magus in Rome:

  1. Simon claims divinity: Simon performs miracles in Rome, gaining a following, and ultimately claims to be divine.

  2. Peter’s challenge: Peter challenges Simon to prove whose works are from a divine source and whose are trickery.

  3. Simon takes flight: In the Roman Forum, Simon levitates into the air to prove that he is a god.

  4. Peter’s prayer: Peter prays to God: he asks not that Simon be killed but that he be stopped and injured. God answers the prayer.

  5. The fall: Simon stops mid-air and falls into the “Sacra Via” (the Sacred Way), “breaking his legs in three parts.”

  6. Aftermath: Simon survives the fall but dies shortly after from his injuries. (Alternative versions: he is carried away and dies of shame; he undergoes surgery but dies; he is stoned by the crowd.)

The Passio Petri et Pauli (Later Version)

A later text, the Passio Sanctorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli (attributed to Pseudo-Marcellus, probably 5th-6th century), elaborates the narrative:

  • Simon flies from a wooden tower on the Campus Martius before Emperor Nero
  • Peter and Paul pray together against Simon’s demonic flight
  • Simon plummets to his death
  • An enraged Nero, who counted Simon “among his favored courtiers,” orders the execution of Peter and Paul
  • This text provides the narrative link between Simon’s fall and Peter’s martyrdom (crucifixion upside-down)

Alternative Death Traditions

Multiple competing death narratives circulated:

  • Hippolytus (Refutatio VI): Simon instructed his followers to bury him alive, promising he would rise on the third day. “He was buried accordingly; but he remained [in the ground] until now, for he was not Christ.” This version explicitly parodies and inverts the resurrection of Jesus.
  • The Constitutiones Apostolorum (Apostolic Constitutions, c. 375-380 AD): Records a similar burial-alive tradition set in Gitta.
  • The Acts of Peter: The flying contest and fall in Rome, death by surgical complications in Terracina (as described above).
  • The Passio Petri et Pauli: Fall from the tower, death by impact.

The proliferation of incompatible death narratives is itself significant: it demonstrates that no reliable historical tradition about Simon’s death existed, and that each text constructed a death appropriate to its polemical purpose.

Other Notable Elements of the Acts of Peter

  • Quo Vadis: The famous scene where the fleeing Peter meets Christ on the road and asks “Domine, quo vadis?” (“Lord, where are you going?”) originates in this text
  • Peter’s upside-down crucifixion: The first attestation of this tradition
  • Simon’s Roman following: The text presents Simon as having a genuine religious following in Rome, not merely a charlatan

Artistic Legacy

The Fall of Simon Magus became one of the most depicted scenes in medieval Christian art. Ferreiro (2005) provides a full bibliographical inventory of artistic representations, including examples in the cathedrals of Leon and Oviedo, Spain.

Primary source: Actus Petri cum Simone, ed. R.A. Lipsius, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha I (Leipzig, 1891). English translation in E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 2 (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992). NASSCAL entry: Acts of Peter.

10. Epiphanius, Panarion (c. 374-377 AD)

Date and Context

Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 310-403 AD) wrote the Panarion (“Medicine Chest” – i.e., remedies against heretical poisons) in Koine Greek, c. 374-377 AD. The work catalogs 80 heresies from Adam to the late 4th century.

Simonianism is listed as Heresy 21 – the first post-Christian sect in Epiphanius’ schema.

What Epiphanius Adds

Epiphanius draws extensively on Irenaeus and Justin but contributes additional material:

  • He states explicitly that Simon’s relationship with Helena was sexual, not merely symbolic or theological
  • He provides scurrilous details about Simonian ritual practices (the reliability of which is disputed)
  • He claims that followers of Simon still existed in his own time (late 4th century) – an important attestation of sectarian continuity
  • He structures his description in the standard Panarion format: (1) relationship to prior sects; (2) description of beliefs; (3) lengthy scriptural and logical refutation, including reductio ad absurdum of their doctrines; (4) comparison to a repulsive animal, particularly a snake

Reliability

Epiphanius is generally considered the least reliable of the major heresiologists. His accounts are tendentious, frequently polemical beyond what the evidence warrants, and he had a reputation even among contemporaries for credulity and excessive zeal. Jerome, who initially respected him, eventually broke with him over the Origenist controversy.

His value lies in preserving traditions not found in other sources and in attesting the late 4th-century state of Simonian communities. His additions to the Simon narrative beyond what Irenaeus provides must be treated with extreme caution.

Primary source: Epiphanius, Panarion 21 (Pan. 21). English translation: Frank Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1987-1994; 2nd ed. 2009-2013). Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies series.

11. The Samaritan Context

Simon’s Biography (from later sources)

According to the heresiological tradition (synthesized from Justin, Irenaeus, the Pseudo-Clementines, and later accounts): Simon was born in Gitta (or Gittae), a village of Samaria, to parents named Antonius and Rachel. He reportedly received a Greek education in Alexandria – a detail that, if accurate, would explain the Hellenistic philosophical sophistication attributed to his teachings (Platonic, Pythagorean, and Empedoclean elements in the Apophasis Megale).

He succeeded Dositheos as the leader of a Samaritan sectarian group and reportedly taught disciples “beneath a plane tree” before establishing communities along the Palestinian-Syrian coast. His followers organized into churches that persisted, according to Epiphanius, into the late 4th century, primarily in Syria, Phrygia, Egypt, and Rome.

Two schools of Simonianism: Later tradition distinguishes a Syrian school (libertine, magical, with polytheistic associations – Simon as Zeus/Jupiter, Helena as Athena/Minerva, or their equivalents Shamash and Astarte) and an Alexandrian school (philosophical, less magical, through which Simon’s influence passed via Menander to Satornilos/Saturninus and thence to Basilides).

Caution: These biographical details derive from hostile sources written 100-300 years after Simon’s lifetime. The Alexandrian education, the parents’ names, and the teacher-lineage details may reflect later sectarian tradition or heresiological embellishment rather than historical memory.

Simon as Samaritan, Not Jewish

This is a critical distinction. Simon came from Gitta (or Gittae), a village in Samaria. He was a Samaritan – a member of a community that shared the Pentateuch with the Jews but rejected the Jewish temple, the prophets, and the post-Mosaic writings. Samaritan and Jewish heterodoxy operate from different theological baselines.

Samaritan Theology: Key Differences from Judaism

  • Scripture: Samaritans accept only the Pentateuch (Torah/five books of Moses). They reject the Prophets and the Writings.
  • Temple: Samaritans worship at Mount Gerizim, not Jerusalem. The Jewish destruction of the Samaritan temple on Gerizim (128 BC) was a source of permanent enmity.
  • Textual differences: Approximately 6,000 variants distinguish the Samaritan Pentateuch from the Masoretic text. Most of these were inherited from the Proto-Samaritan text, attested among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Samaritan Tenth Commandment concerns the sanctity of Mount Gerizim – a textual difference with enormous theological implications, as it makes Gerizim’s holiness part of the Decalogue itself.
  • Messianic expectation: The Samaritan equivalent is the Taheb (“the Restorer”), a Moses-like figure rather than a Davidic king. This is important: Simon’s claim to be “the Great Power of God” fits Samaritan messianic categories better than Jewish ones.
  • Intermediation theology: As Fossum demonstrates, Samaritan theology developed a unique concept of the Angel of the Lord as a personalized, demiurgic figure bearing the divine Name – a concept that could readily develop into Gnostic speculation about subordinate creator-gods.

Dositheos: Simon’s Predecessor

Sources: Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions and Homilies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementine_literature); Origen, Against Celsus (various passages); Epiphanius, Panarion.

The tradition:

  • Dositheos (Dositheus) was the founder of a Samaritan sect, sometimes described as Gnostic in character
  • He is “reputed to have known John the Baptist” and was “either a teacher or a rival of Simon Magus”
  • According to the Pseudo-Clementines, Dositheos was originally the “Standing One” (hestos) or leader of a sect related to John the Baptist’s movement
  • He either stepped aside in favor of Simon or was displaced by Simon
  • The Recognitions make Simon a disciple of Dositheos, with Dositheos as “clearly the elder”
  • When Dositheos “perceived that Simon was ’the Standing One,’ he fell down and worshipped him, and gave up his own place as chief to Simon” (Pseudo-Clementine tradition)

Origen’s independent testimony: Origen states that “Dositheus the Samaritan, after the time of Jesus, wished to persuade the Samaritans that he himself was the Messiah prophesied by Moses.” Origen had sources independent of the Clementine Recognitions.

The “Standing One” title: Both Dositheos and Simon are associated with this title (hestos or hestws in Greek). Irenaeus reports that Simon claimed to be “the Standing One” (estos). This may be a Samaritan messianic or divine title – “the one who stands” (i.e., endures, is permanent, is self-existent). Its exact theological content is debated.

Samaritan Baptist Sects and the Gnostic Milieu

According to Magris (cited in multiple secondary sources), Samaritan baptist sects were an offshoot of the movement surrounding John the Baptist, with one branch headed successively by Dositheos, Simon Magus, and Menander. It was in this milieu that “the idea emerged that the world was created by ignorant angels” – the foundational Gnostic proposition.

The chain: John the Baptist -> Dositheos -> Simon Magus -> Menander (Simon’s disciple, per Irenaeus)

This chain places Simon not as an isolated charlatan but as a figure within a recognizable sectarian tradition – Samaritan heterodox movements with baptist practices and proto-Gnostic cosmological speculation.

The Question: Was Simon Really the “First Gnostic”?

Irenaeus says yes: Simon is the starting point of all heresies (Adv. Haer. I.23.1).

Modern assessment: Complicated. Rudolph (1987) notes that “in the second century, under influence of Christianity, Simon was transformed into a Gnostic saviour” – meaning the early cult was syncretistic but perhaps not yet Gnostic in the full sense. Haar (2003) treats the question as open, noting that the developed Simonian system described by the heresiologists may reflect later Simonian elaboration rather than Simon’s own teaching. Fossum (1985) argues that the Samaritan theological context provided the raw materials from which Gnostic ideas could develop, whether or not Simon himself articulated them in fully Gnostic form.

The honest answer: We cannot know what the historical Simon actually taught. We have only:

  1. A hostile canonical account (Acts 8) that calls him a magician
  2. Heresiological accounts written 100-200 years later (Irenaeus, Hippolytus) that attribute an elaborate Gnostic system to him
  3. Novelistic fiction (the Pseudo-Clementines) that uses him as a literary antagonist
  4. A possibly authentic but heavily mediated text (the Apophasis Megale) that may or may not reflect his actual teaching

What we can say: Simon was a Samaritan religious figure of the first century who made significant claims about his own divine status, who was remembered as a rival to nascent Christianity, and whose followers developed a mythological system centering on the Ennoia/Helena narrative that became a prototype for later Gnostic Sophia speculation. Whether he was the “first Gnostic” depends entirely on how you define Gnosticism.

12. Master Bibliography

Primary Sources (Ancient Texts)

Modern Scholarship

  • Baur, Ferdinand Christian. “Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, der Gegensatz des petrinischen und paulinischen Christenthums in der ältesten Kirche, der Apostel Petrus in Rom.” Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie, 1831.

  • Ferreiro, Alberto. Simon Magus in Patristic, Medieval and Early Modern Traditions. Studies in the History of Christian Traditions, vol. 125. Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2005. xi + 371 pp. ISBN 90-04-14495-1. (Brill)

  • Fossum, Jarl E. The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 36. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr/Paul Siebeck, 1985. Repr. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2017. ISBN 978-1-4813-0793-2.

  • Haar, Stephen Charles. Simon Magus: The First Gnostic? Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, vol. 119. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003. ISBN 3-11-017689-0. (De Gruyter)

  • Lüdemann, Gerd. “The Acts of the Apostles and the Beginnings of Simonian Gnosis.” New Testament Studies 33 (1987): 420-426. (DOI)

  • Lüdemann, Gerd. Heretics: The Other Side of Early Christianity. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996. ISBN 0-664-22642-6.

  • Pearson, Birger A. Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990. ISBN 0-8006-3741-0.

  • Pearson, Birger A. Ancient Gnosticism: Traditions and Literature. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007.

  • Rudolph, Kurt. Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism. Trans. R.McL. Wilson. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987. ISBN 0-06-067018-5. (German original: Die Gnosis, 1977.)

  • Bauer, Walter. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (1934). English trans. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.

  • Doresse, Jean. The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics. New York: Viking, 1960.

  • Legge, Francis. Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity, from 330 BC to 330 AD. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1915. Repr. New Hyde Park: University Books, 1964.

  • Mead, G.R.S. Simon Magus: An Essay on the Founder of Simonianism Based on the Ancient Sources with a Re-Evaluation of His Philosophy and Teachings. London: Theosophical Publishing Society, 1892.

  • Schmithals, Walter. Gnosticism in Corinth: An Investigation of the Letters to the Corinthians. Trans. John E. Steely. Nashville: Abingdon, 1971. German original: Die Gnosis in Korinth, 1956.

Reference Works

Inscription

  • CIL (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum) VI.567: “SEMONI SANCO DEO FIDIO SACRUM.” Excavated 1574, Tiber Island, Rome.

Notes for Editorial Use

Defamation risk: Zero. Simon Magus died c. first century AD. All persons discussed are historical figures dead for centuries. Claims are attributed to their sources throughout.

Reliability hierarchy:

  1. Acts 8:9-24 – canonical, earliest source, but hostile and minimal
  2. Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD) – earliest patristic, but contains the documented Semo Sancus error
  3. Irenaeus (c. 180 AD) – systematic but writing 150 years after the events
  4. Hippolytus (c. 225 AD) – claims to quote the Apophasis Megale but with uncertain accuracy
  5. Pseudo-Clementines (c. 220-350 AD) – novelistic fiction, not history
  6. Acts of Peter (c. 180-190 AD) – legendary narrative, not history

What we can state with confidence:

  • A historical Simon existed in first-century Samaria who claimed divine or semi-divine status
  • He was baptized by Philip and attempted to buy apostolic power, leading to Peter’s rebuke
  • By the mid-second century (Justin), a Simonian sect existed that worshipped Simon
  • By the late second century (Irenaeus), an elaborate mythology involving Helena/Ennoia was attributed to Simon
  • The Church Fathers unanimously regarded Simon as the origin point of Gnostic heresy
  • The word “simony” derives from his name and became a permanent category in canon law

What remains disputed:

  • Whether the developed Gnostic theology attributed to Simon actually goes back to him
  • Whether the Apophasis Megale is authentically Simonian
  • The exact relationship between Simonianism and later Gnostic systems (Valentinian, Sethian)
  • Whether Simon and Paul were conflated in the Pseudo-Clementine tradition
  • Whether Simon was the “first Gnostic” or merely the first figure onto whom Gnostic ideas were retrospectively projected

Source URLs