SIMON MAGUS. In the extant documents of the first three centuries we meet with Simon Magus in a threefold aspect:—(1) as Samaritan Messiah attempting by the aid of Christianity to establish a new religion; (2) as founder of a school of Gnostics and as father of heresy; (3) as a caricature of the apostle Paul. The Tubingen critics (Baur, Volkmar, Zeller, Lipsius, and until the year 1878 Hilgenfeld also) have tried to show that the oldest accounts are those in which Simon is represented in the last-named aspect; they have accordingly denied his existence, maintaining that all the features attributed to him in the oldest sources are accounted for by the life and personality of Paul. In particular they would explain Simon's visit to Rome by the apostle's journey thither, and further would have it that the church tradition of Peter's having gone to Rome arose solely out of the supposition that the great apostle who had withstood the Paul-Simon everywhere else must have followed up his victory in the capital of the world also. According to this view, Simon Magus is an invention of the Jewish Christians, a distorted Paul, whom the church at large partly accepted as historical and partly catholicized, adding fresh touches to the picture of Simon, making him the father of all the heresies, the head of all the magi, a pseudo-Messiah, and so forth, but at last destroying the whole point of the story by adding that Peter and Paul had jointly overcome the magian in Rome.

Were this view of the Tubingen critics established, their whole conception of apostolic and post-apostolic times would also be proved; it would have been made out (1) that legends of an anti-Pauline tendency form the basis of the tradition of the church; (2) that the Acts of the Apostles is a compromise, and rests upon Jewish-Christian myths in part no longer understood; (3) that the ecclesiastical tradition about Peter's journeyings had its origin merely in those of Paul; and (4) there would be established an indisputable example of the production of biassed and fabricated history within primitive Christianity so remarkable that upon the ground of it alone we should be justified in simply regarding the greater part of the historical statements of the first two Christian centuries as deliberate inventions.

But on no other point are the proofs of the Tubingen school weaker than in this. Only by inverting the historical order of the original documents, by dint of violent assertion, and by declaring with reference to the most important arguments that they existed in writings which now are lost, has it been possible for them to give even the appearance of stability to their hypothetical structure. The three assertions of the Tubingen critics —(1) that the written sources of the pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions go back to the 1st century, (2) that already in these Paul has become distorted into Simon Magus and Peter is represented as having combated the Simon-Paul in Rome, and (3) that the Acts of the Apostles, Justin, and other church fathers in their statements about Simon and about Peter's stay in Rome depend upon these Jewish-Christian writings—can none of them be proved. On the other hand,—apart from the Acts of the Apostles,—-the existence of a Samaritan magus, Simon, in apostolic times, as well as of a sect of Simonians in the 2d century (in Samaria, and elsewhere in the Roman empire), is quite conclusively attested through Justin Martyr, and also through Celsus, Clement, Hippolytus, and Origen. Even the Tubingen critics themselves could not deny the existence of a sect of Simonians; they have therefore been obliged to advance the desperate theory that the sect arose solely on the basis of the Jewish-Christian romance of Simon.

The oldest account of Simon Magus occurs in the Acts of the Apostles. When Philip the evangelist came to Samaria about 37 A.D. he found a great religious movement going on. One named Simon had given himself out for some great person, and by dint of his extraordinary works had stirred up and gained over the whole population, who took him for the exalted manifestation of the Divine Power itself. Philip converted the majority of Simon's adherents; and Simon himself, amazed at the deeds wrought by Philip, received baptism, and joined the evangelist's society. Peter and John then came to Samaris to impart to the baptized the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands; and Simon offered the apostles money to invest him with a like power of conferring the gift. But Peter sternly rebuked him, exhorting him to repent and beseech God that the evil thought of his heart might be forgiven him. Simon thereupon begged the apostles to pray on his behalf. We have no means of checking this account, since we possess no other independent source. The author of the Acts seems to have known nothing of Simon Magus from other quarters, else he would hardly have closed the narrative as we have it. Simon is not yet viewed as hostile to Christianity. There is no justification for doubt as regards the main points of this account. That in the fourth decade of the 1st century a pseudo-Messiah, named Simon, appeared in Samaria; that he gained a considerable following; that he tried to effect a union with the Christian missionaries, who, however, soon perceived his real character and shook him off,—these facts must be treated as historical. They are vouched for by Justin, whose statement is not borrowed from the Acts. Justin, it is true, makes no direct statement about any relations whatever between Simon and Christianity, but represents him as one who gave himself out for God and as the founder of an entirely new religion; but, since on the other hand he groups him with Menander and Marcion, and thinks of him as the devil-sent father of heretics, it is plain that he knew quite well of some relation between Simon and the Christians.

The conception of Simon as the father of heresy within the church is in no way suggested in the Acts; nor has Justin in the writings which we possess given any hint of a reason why Simon should be viewed in such a light. But the testimony of the Acts (viii. 13) that Simon received baptism, and for a while joined himself to the Christians, enables us at least in some degree to understand how he afterwards got the reputation alluded to. We shall see presently, moreover, that Simon must have introduced certain Christian elements into his teaching.

Justin has a good deal more about Simon that is not to be found in Acts:—(1) he gives his birthplace as Gittha in Samaria ; (2) he states that Simon came to Rome in the reign of Claudius, and there by his magical arts gained some followers, and was taken for a god, and that a statue was erected to him on the Tiber Island with the inscription SIMONI DEO SANCTO ; and (3) he states that the adherents of Simon passed off a woman named Helena,

== ADD TEXT HERE ==

'Also Simon Magus, the Samaritan, wished to gain disciples by his magical arts. His impositions were virtually without result at the time, while at present, in my belief, the number of his adherents throughout the world does not amount to thirty. And perhaps this estimate is too high. At most there are only a few in Palestine, while in the other parts of the world where he desired to make his name illustrious it is quite unknown. Where it is known, the fact is entirely due to the Acts of the Apostles. Christians alone still speak of him." Some would fain find a testimony in Josephus also ; but the Jewish conjurer Simon, of Cyprus, mentioned in Ant., xx.7 has nothing whatever to do with the Samaritan. Renan would recognize Simon Magus in the second beast of Rev. xiii.; but this hypothesis is utterly baseless.

The testimony of Justin derives its great importance from the fact that he was himself a Samaritan ; he says expressly (Apol., ii. 15; see also Dial. t 120), _______. In Apol., i. 26 he makes direct reference to Simon (see also i. 56), and remarks, ______ (quoted in Orig., C. Cels., v. 62) alludes to a sect of Simonians, and says they were also called Helenians; Irenaeus (Adv. Hair., i. 23) is acquainted with the ritual and writings of this sect; Hippolytus (Philosoph., vi. 7-20) gives extracts from a Simonian book _____. Particularly interesting is the testimony of Origen (C. Cels., i. 57; cf. vi. 11):





The same historical certainty cannot be claimed for the meeting of Peter and Simon, because in the Acts (ch. i.-xv.) Peter is throughout pushed to the front, and because the motive assigned for his journey to Samaria is open to some suspicion. Still, the fact that even in the Jewish-Christian Acts of the Apostles Peter and Simon have personal dealings affords presumptive evidence that they did meet.

Unfortunately, Justin's Syntagma against the heretics, in which he dealt at greater length with Simon, is no longer extant; we are therefore limited to the meagre references in his Apology and Dialogue, and the statements of later writers who had read the Syntagma.
Justin repeatedly and emphatically says that Simon pretended to be a god, and was regarded by his adherents as the Supreme God; see Dial., 120.

== ADD TEXT HERE ==

whom he brought to Rome with him, and who had previ-ously been a prostitute in Tyre, as the " first idea " (_____) of Simon.

As regards the first of these statements we may point to a Samaritan village "Git" (_____), not quite 3 miles south-south-west from the town of Samaria. Justin's account in this particular seems trustworthy. On the other hand, the allegation that a statue was erected to Simon in Rome is not authentic, and consequently most critics have regarded the narrative of Simon's journey to Rome as legendary. Some suppose that Justin was led only through the words of the inscription which he has wrongly referred to Simon to believe that Simon himself was in Rome; others (the Tubingen critics) think, on the contrary, that Justin had been already acquainted with the Jewish-Christian Acts of the Apostles, and had thence learned that Simon (Paul) had gone to Rome and that the inscription therefore only confirmed him in the belief of Simon's presence there. But in either case the distinct assertion of Justin that Simon went to Borne in the time of Claudius remains unexplained; for the hypothesis that Justin added the arrival of Simon under Claudius because he already knew and credited the legend of Peter's having lived twenty-five years in Rome deserves no refutation. Consequently we may assume—seeing there is absolutely no trace of any influence of the Jewish-Christian legend upon Justin—that in the Roman community, in the time of that author, a tradition was current that Simon Magus visited Rome in the reign of Claudius. We are no longer in a position to test the trustworthiness of this tradition; but, seeing there is no indication of any tendency out of which it could have arisen, we have no ground for declaring it incredible. The fact attested by Justin, Celsus, and Origen, that there were Simonians also beyond the limits of Samaria (_____), favours the view that Simon had travelled. With reference, lastly, to the statement about Helena, we have to observe that here Justin has reported a doctrine not of Simon but of the Simonians. Simon, we are to understand, came to Rome with a woman named Helena, and his adherents afterwards took her for the aeon mentioned. Justin gave fuller accounts of Helena and the doctrines of the Simonians in his Syntagma; and we know their substance from Hegesippus, Ireneeus, Tertullian, pseudo-Tertullian, Epiphanius, and Philastrius. Simon, it would appear, declared himself to be "the highest power "—the Supreme God Himself; he taught that among the Jews he manifested himself as the Son, in Samaria as the Father, and among other nations as the Holy Spirit. Helena, whom he had purchased in a brothel at Tyre, he gave out to be his _____, the mother of all, by whom he had called the angels and archangels into being. She had proceeded from him, had been initiated into his purposes, had voluntarily come down from heaven and become the mother of the angels and powers who created this world; but after the completion of her work she had been laid under bonds by her own children, the world-creating angels, who desired to be independent, and who knew not the first father Simon; they imprisoned her in a human body, and subjected her to every affront; she had to migrate out of one body into another; she became, e.g., that Helen on whose account the Trojan War was waged; finally she found herself in a brothel, out of which Simon at length rescued her, thereby fulfilling the parable of the lost sheep. The supreme god—Simon—had come down in order to redeem his ______, and to bring salvation to all men through the knowledge of himself. He decided upon this descent on seeing that the angels, from their desire for supremacy, were in conflict with each other and were misgoverning the worlds. He assumed every form necessary for the restoration of lost harmony: to men he appeared as man, without being really a man, and in appearance he suffered in Judaea. Henceforth it was a duty to believe in Simon and Helena, but to disbelieve the prophets, who were inspired by the world-creating angels, and not by Simon. Believers in Simon are at liberty to do what they will, for by the grace of Simon should men be blessed—but not on account of good works. Should a Simonian do anything wicked he is nevertheless undeserving of punishment, for he is not wicked by nature but only of his free-will; the law proceeded from the world-creating angels, who thought thereby to enslave their subjects; Simon, however, will bring the world to nought along with the dominion of those angels, and save all who believe on him. To this it is added that the Simonians live dissolutely, vie with each other in the practice of magic, make use of exorcisms, charms, mystic formulas, &c, and further that they worship images of Simon (as Zeus) and of Helena (as Athene), under the names of "The Lord" and "The Lady."

We may regard this account, which, according to Irenseus, is partly based upon direct statements of the Simonians themselves, as essentially derived from the Syntagma of Justin. That we have here before us, not the genuine teaching of Simon, but the gnosis of the Simonians is very evident; this gnosis, however, is just as much bound up with the person of Simon as is the Christian gnosis with the person of Jesus Christ. Simon is the manifested Deity Himself ; but—and herein lies the Christian, or more properly the anti-Christian element— Simon is at the same time represented as Christ, i.e., is identified with Christ. The fusing together of Simon and Christ, a syncretistic-gnostic conception of the world and its creation, and an ethical antinomianism are the distinctive features of this new universal religion. That we have here an attempt to found a new religion, and that a world-religion, upon the principle of embodying all important articles of the older ones, appears also from the fact that Simon is identified not only with Christ but also with Zeus, and that Greek legends and mythologies are utilized for the system. We have therefore in Simonianism a rival system to Christianity, in which the same advantages are offered, and in which accordingly Christian elements are embodied, even Christ Himself being identified with the Supreme God (Simon). The attempt to establish such a system in that time of religious syncretism has nothing incredible about it; and in view of the religious conditions then prevailing in the locality it can easily be understood that it proceeded from a Samaritan.

This does not come directly from the extant manuscript of Justin's Apology, but from Eusebius's quotations (Euseb., H. E., ii. 13).





A happy accident of the rarest kind has put us in a position to correct Justin's statement. In 1574 a stone which had once served as the base of a statue was dug out upon the Tiber Island. It bore the following inscription : SEMONI SANCO DEO . PIDIO SACRVM (see Orelli, Inscr., vol. i. p. 337 n., 1860). "Semo Saneus" is a Sabine god (Ovid, Fast., vi. 213 sq.; Lactantius, Inst. Div., i. c. 15). The inscription having been found in the very place where, according to Justin, Simon's statue must have stood, most scholars suppose, and rightly, that Justin by mistake confounded "Semo Saneus" with

"Simon Sanctus."

4 This work must also have had something to say about the rela-tions of Simon to other Samaritan pseudo-Messiahs, viz., to Dositheus, Cleobulus, and Menander (see Hegesippus, quoted by Eusebius, H. E., iv. 22); but the nature of its statements can no longer be with cer-tainty ascertained. We are in the dark especially as to the relation between Simon and Dositheus. But the mere fact that in Samaria, in the time of the apostles, so many Messiahs purporting to be founders of religions should have appeared on the scene is extremely interesting. It is a very noteworthy circumstance also that Justin, Hegesippus, and Irenasus knew nothing about Peter having met Simon in Rome, and having withstood him there.

The basis of it was laid by Simon himself, who claimed to be a god and yet derived something from the Christian missionaries ; but the development was due to his followers in the 2d century, who may have borne to the original Simonians exactly the same relation as did the Valentinians to the first Christians. From the circles of these later Simonians, who worshipped Simon especially under the mysterious name of " The Standing," a book was issued bearing the title _____, from which Hippolytus has given us extracts in the Philosophumena. From these it appears—as indeed might have been expected from the statements of Irenaeus (Justin)—that the later Simonianism combined the worship of Simon with a complicated Gnostic system, for which it utilized the Greek mythology, as well as isolated sayings of the Old Testament, of the Gospels, and of the apostolic epistles. In point of form, design, medium, and relationship to Christianity, Simonianism bears a striking resemblance to Manichaeism, which sprang up two centuries later; but Mani did not so bluntly as Simon lay claim to be a god, and the Manichaeans never had the hardihood to proceed to absolute identification of Mani with Christ; as regards their tenets, however, and viewed as attempts to found a universal religion, Simonianism and Manichaeism are widely different.

We can understand, then, how it was that the Christians in the 1st and 2d centuries regarded Simon as the emissary of devils and the father of all heresy; and we can also understand why—apart from Samaria—this effort to establish a new religion bore little fruit. It rests upon falsifications and a wild jumbling of religions, while it is lacking in religious elements of its own.

Until about the year 220 ecclesiastical tradition knows Simon only as a devil-inspired founder of a religion, and as father of heresy; it sees in him a caricature of Christ, not of the apostle Paul, and it knows nothing about Peter having again confuted him after what is narrated in Acts viii. It knows indeed that Simon came to Rome in the time of Claudius, but previous to the 3d century no ecclesiastical writer mentions his having met with Peter there, although all state that Peter went to the capital. The first ecclesiastical author to combine the two traditions was Hippolytus (Philos., vi. 20). Having referred to the events narrated in Acts viii., he proceeds : ''Simon even went to Rome, and there met with the apostles. As he led many astray through his sorceries, Peter frequently withstood him. He came at last . . . and taught sitting under a plane-tree. "When after lengthened reasoning Simon was on the point of being worsted, he declared that if he were to be buried alive he would on the third day rise again. He actually caused a grave to be dug for him by his disciples, and gave orders that he should be buried. The disciples did as they were bid; he remains in the grave, however, unto this day, for he was not Christ." This legend is found only in Hippolytus; it evidently corresponds with the idea that Simon was a false Christ, but has no relation whatever with the notion that he was Paul. Hippolytus, moreover, does not say that in Rome Simon met with Peter only, but with the apostles, i.e., with Paul and Peter. The origin of the legend is very intelligible from what we know of the historical premises. Given that Simon alleged himself to be Christ, that in Samaria he met with Peter, that he as well as Peter afterwards travelled to Rome, then we can very easily explain the origin of a legend which brings Peter once more into personal contact with Simon in Rome, and alleges that Simon became the victim of his nefarious mimicry of Christ.

At the same time the expression ______ makes it seem a probable thing to many that Hippolytus already knew of that legend about Simon in which the Tubingen critics think they have found the key to all traditions about him. In the pseudo-Clementine Recognitions and Homilies, or rather in their documentary sources, Simon plays a very important part. He appeals as the representative of all possible heresies, and as the great antagonist of Peter, who followed him up throughout Samaria and the east coast of the Mediterranean, engaging him in great disputations, and always coming off the victor. Some of the features attributed in these legends to Simon are indisputably borrowed from the apostle Paul, others from Marcion, others from Valentinus and Basilides. These legends therefore arose in strict Jewish-Christian anti-Pauline circles ; we find them, however, in the Recognitions and Homilies already subjected to catholic revision. This revision cannot have taken place before the first half of the 3d century, and probably is of much later date. The age of the documentary sources cannot be exactly determined; they may be very old; but what is of most importance is (1) that their influence upon church tradition cannot be traced before the 3d century, and (2) that in those Jewish-Christian sources, as well as in the Homilies and Recognitions themselves, only disputations between Peter and Simon in Samaria and adjacent countries are narrated, nothing whatever being said of any controversies between Simon and Peter in Rome. Even if, therefore, the Simon of the Jewish-Christians bears unmistakable traces of Paul, it is also true on the other hand that these Jewish-Christians knew nothing of a journey of Simon to Rome. Hence all the combinations of the Tubingen critics as to the origin of the "Peter tradition," and as to the origin of the statement that Simon came to Rome, completely fall to the ground. Hippolytus was the first to combine "Peter in Rome" and "Simon in Rome," without knowing anything whatever of a Simon-Paul legend. Not until after his day, after the Jewish-Christian legends had become naturalized in the catholic church through the medium of the Recognitions and Homilies, did these legends become current within the church, and only there. It now began to be told that Paul and Peter had gone to Rome to withstand Simon. Simon was now represented partly in accordance with those Jewish-Christian legends, the tendency of which was not understood. Much, however, that was new was added, such as that Simon ajjpeared before the emperor, that he miserably perished in attempting to fly, and so on. From the 3d (or rather 4th) century the Simon of church tradition becomes invested with some features of Paul in a distorted form. The Recognitions, as translated by Rufinus, were extensively read in the East, and, along with the Acts of the Apostles, kept fresh the memory of the great magian and his Helena in the Middle Ages. Simon also came to figure in popular literature. "Doctor Faustus" has preserved several traits of the ancient magian. Neither are Pauline characteristics wanting in the legendary Faustus ; they are traceable even in the Faust of Goethe, the "homunculus" of the Simon-Faust being originally a travesty of the "new man" who according to Paul is created through the Gospel. It was not only as the great magian, however, that Simon remained known to the Middle Ages, but also as the first who attempted to purchase spiritual gifts with money, an association made permanent in the word "simony."

Sources.-—Acts viii. 5-24; Justin, Apol., i. 20-56, ii. 14, and Dial. c. Tryph., 120; Hegesippus, ap. Euseb., H. JS., iv. 23; Celsus, ap. Orig., C. Cels., v. 62; Irenams, Adv. Hxr., i. 23, et al.; Tertullian, De IdoloL, 9, Apolog., 13, De Pre-script., 10-33, De Anima, 34-57, De Fuga, 12 ; Clement Alex., Strom., ii. 11, 52, vii. 17,107; Hippolytus, Syntagma (Pseudo-Tertull., Phllastr., 29, Epiph., Hier., 21), Philos., vi. 7-20; Origen, G. Gels., i. 57, vi. 11, and vv. 11.; Eusebius, H.E., ii. 1, 14 sq.; Arnobius, Adv. Gentes, ii. 12 ; Pseudo-Cyprian, De Rebapit., 16,17; Pseudo-Ignatius, Ad. Trail., 11; Homil. Pseudo-Clementis, vv. 11.; Recognit. Pseudo-Clem., vv. II.; Cyril, Catech., vi. 15 ; Jerome, De Vir: JH., 1, Com. in Matth., c.24; Constit. Apost., vi. 809; Ambrose, JJexaem., iv. 8; Sulpicius Severus, Hist., ii. 41; Theo-doret, //. F., i. 1; Acta Petri et Pauli, 49 ; Acta Pseudo-Marcelli, Pseudo-Lint, Pseudo-Abdiie, &c.

Sources for Samaritan Pseudo-Messiahs contemporary with Simon.—(1) For Dositheus: Hegesippus, ap. Euseb.,//. E., iv. 22; Hippolytus, Syntagma (Pseudo-Tertull., Philast., 4, and Epiph., Hier., 13); Recognit. Pseudo-Clementis, i. 54, ii. 8-11; Oiigen, C. Cels., i. 57, vi. 11, De Princip., iv. 17, Comm. in Matth., ser. 32, Horn. 25 in Luc, in Joh., xiii. 27; Co?istit. Apost., vi. 8 ; Eusebius, in Luc, see Mai, Vet. Script. Nova Collect., i. !, p. 155; Opus imperfect, in Matth., horn. 48 ; Maearius Magnus, Apocrit., iii. 4r, iv. 15, 21. (2) For Menander : Justin, Apol. i. 26, 56; Hegesippus, ap. Euseb., H. E., iv. 22; Irenaaus, Adv. Hier., i. 23, iii. 4; Tertullian, De Anima, 30, 50, De Resurr., 5 ; Hippolytus, Syntagma, &c. (3) For Cleobulus (Clcobius): Hegesippus. ap. Euseb., JJ. E., iv. 22 ; Constit. Apost., vi. 8, 16; Pseudo-Chrysostom, Horn. U8 in Matth., opp. vi. p. excix; Pseudo-Ignat., Ep. ad Trail., ii.; Epiphanius, User. 51, 6; Theodoret, F., 1. i. praaf., l.ii. praaf.; Ep. Apocr. J*auli ad Cor., &c.

Literature.—Baur, " Die Christusparthei in Korinth," in the Tübinger Zeitschrift, 1831, part 4, p. 116 sq.; Baur, Paulus, 1st ed. (1845), p. 85 sq.,'218 sq., 2d ed., p. 85 sq.', Baur, Das Christenthum der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, 2d ed., p. 85 sq.; Simson, " Leben und Lehre des Simons des Magiers," in the Zeitschrift f. Hist. Theol., 1841, part 3; Schlurick, De Simonis M. fatis romanis. Meissen, 1S44; Hilgenfeld, Die Clementinischen Recognitionen und Homilien, 1848, p. 317 sq.; Zeller, Apostel- geschichte, 1854, p. 158 sq.; Uhlhorn, Die Homilien und Recognitionen des Clemens Romanus, 1S54, p. SO sq., 281 sq.; Grimm, DieSamaritaner, 1854, p. 151 sq.; Volk- mar, "Ueberden Simon Magus der Apostelgeschichte," in the Tabing. Theol. Jahrb., lS56,p. 279 sq.; Noack, " Simon der Magier," in Psyche, I860, p. 257 sq.; F. K., "Ueber das Denkmal des Magiers Simon zu Rom," in the Jlistorisch-Polit. Blätter, vol. xlvii., 1861, p. 530 sq.; Ginzel, in the Oestr. Viertel Jahr sehr. f. Kathol. Theol., vol. vi. 1867, p. 455 sq.; see also Iiis Kirchenhist. Schriften, Vienna, 1872, vol. i. p. 76 sq.; Renan, Les Apötres and L'Ajitechrist; Hilgenfeld, " Der Magier Simon," in the Zeitschr.f. wiss. Theol.., 1868, p. 357 sq., 1874, p. 294 sq., 1878, p. 32 sq., 1881, p. 16; Huelsen, Simonis Magi vita doctrinaque, Berlin, 1868; Lipsius, Die Quellen der römischen Petrus-Sage, 1872; Harnack, Zur Quellenkritik der Geschichte des Gnosticismus, 1873; Joh. Delitzsch, " Zur Quellenkritik der ältesten Berichte über Simon Petrus und Simon Magus," in Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1874, part 2, p. 213 sq.; Lipsius, " Simon Magus," in Schenkel's Bibel- lexicon, vol. v., 1S75, p. 301 sq.; Ibid., " Petrus in Rom," in the Jahrbb.f. Protest. Theol., 1876, p. 561 sq.; Hilgenfeld, Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristenthums, 1SS4, p. 163sq., 453 sq.; Moeller, " Simon Magus," in Herzog's R. Encykl., 2d ed., vol. xiv. p. 246 sq.', Hase, Kirchengeschichie auf der Grundlage akadem. Vöries., part 1, 1885, p. 156 sq.; also the commentaries to the Acts of the Apostles by Meyer, Overheck, Wendt, and others; the accounts of Gnosticism by Neander, Baur, Möller, Lipsius, Mansel, and others; and the numerous investigations with reference to the sojourn of Peter in Rome. (A. HA.)


Footnotes

" See Acta Pauli et Petri.

See Lipsius, Quellen der rom. Petrissage, p. 34.


The above article was written by: Prof. Adolf Harnack, D.D., Professor of Church History, University of Marburg.