IV
In conclusion, let it be noted that the bearing of the myth of Simon Magus on Christianity is not limited to the explanation of the Samaritan origins and the elucidation of the Paul-and-Peter antagonism. The more the matter is looked into, the more reason is seen for surmising that Samaria played a large part in the beginnings of the Christian system. Samaria seems to have been beyond all other parts of Palestine a crucible in which manifold cult-elements tended to be fused by syncretic ideas; and the extent to which Samaria figures in the fourth gospel is a phenomenon not yet adequately explained. The fact that Jesus is there said to have been called a Samaritan reminds us that among the movements of the “false Christs” so often alluded to in the Gospels[48] a Samaritan cult of the mystic Christ may have counted for much. The fourth gospel itself would come under the anti-Pauline ban, inasmuch as, while Simon Magus is said to have sought to substitute Mount Gerizim for Jerusalem, Jesus here[49] is made to set aside both the Samaritan mountain and Jerusalem. The very fact that the Samaritan woman professedly expects the coming of Messiah, is a hint that the story of the well and the living water may be of Samaritan Messianic origin. Nay more, since we know that the Samaritans in particular laid stress on the Messiah Ben Joseph rather than on the Messiah Ben David, they regarding themselves as of Josephite descent, it is probable that the very legend of Jesus being the putative son of one Joseph, which we know was absent from the Ebionite version of Matthew, was framed to meet the Samaritan view. These matters are still far from having been exhaustively considered.
[2] If we could but trust the assertion of Origen in the next century (Against Celsus, vi, 11) that there were then no Simonians left, the presumption would be that they had been absorbed by another cult. [↑]
[3] Ovid, Fasti, vi, 213; Livy, viii, 20. [↑]
[4] Cory’s Ancient Fragments, ed. 1876, p. 92; Lenormant’s Chaldean Magic, Eng. tr., p. 131. [↑]
[5] Sanchoniathon, in Cory, as cited, p. 5. [↑]
[6] Eratosthenes’ Canon of Theban Kings, in Cory as cited, pp. 139–141. [↑]
[7] Diodorus Siculus, ii, 4. [↑]
[8] Bible Folk Lore, 1884, p. 45; cp. Steinthal on Samson, Eng. tr., with Goldziher, p. 408. [↑]
[9] Movers, Die Phönizier, i, 558. [↑]
[10] Goldziher, Hebrew Mythology, Eng. tr., p. 132; cp. Buttmann, Mythologus, 1828, i, 221, and Sanchoniathon, as above. [↑]
[11] Volkmar, Die Religion Jesu, 1857, p. 281. [↑]
[12] Meyer, Geschichte des Alterthums, 1884, i, 214 n. [↑]
[13] McClintock and Strong’s Bib. Cycl. s. v. [↑]
[14] Chaldean Magic, Eng. tr., p. 44. [↑]
[15] Against Celsus, v, 45. [↑]
[16] See it in McClintock and Strong’s Cycl. s. v.; cp. Schürer, Jewish Nation in Time of Christ, Eng. tr., Div. ii, Vol. ii, p. 83, where the prayer is given as the Shemoneh Esreh. [↑]
[18] McClintock and Strong’s Bib. Cycl. s. v. [↑]
[19] [1 Samuel xxviii, 13]. [↑]
[21] Die Religion Jesu, as cited. [↑]
[23] G. L. Bauer, Theol. of the Old Test., Eng. tr., 1837, p. 5; Etheridge, The Targums on the Pentateuch, i (1862), introd., pp. 5, 14, 17. [↑]
[24] Bauer and Etheridge, as cited. [↑]
[25] Gieseler, Comp. of Ec. Hist., Eng. tr., i, 48. [↑]
[27] Die Phönizier, i, 417, 634. [↑]
[28] Lenormant, as cited, p. 129. [↑]
[29] Justin, Apol. i, 26; Irenæus, i, 23, § 2; Tertullian, De Anima, 34. [↑]
[30] Die christliche Gnosis, 1835, p. 309. [↑]
[33] Lenormant, as cited, p. 117. [↑]
[36] Reland, Dissertat. Miscellan., Pars i, 1706, p. 147; cp. Enc. Bib. art. Samaritans, 4a. The dove was everywhere regarded in Syria as sacred, in connection with the myth of Semiramis (Diodorus, ii, 4), which bears so closely on the name Samaria. [↑]
[38] Mem. the aged Simeon of [Luke ii], who blessed the child Jesus. “The Holy Spirit was upon him” ([v. 25]). With him is associated Anna the Prophetess. Cp. Hannah, mother of Samuel. [↑]
[39] Professor Smith, who accepts the historicity of Simon (Ecce Deus, pp. 11, 103) does so without noting that it has been challenged. It would be interesting to have his grounds for discriminating between the God and the man. [↑]
[40] McClintock and Strong’s Bib. Cyc. [↑]
[41] Kuenen, Religion of Israel, Eng. tr., iii, 314. [↑]
[42] [1 Cor. xv, 10]; [2 Cor. xi, 13], [23]; [Gal. i, 7]; [ii, 11]. [↑]
[43] [1 Cor. xv, 9]; [2 Cor. xii, 4]; [Gal. i, 12]. [↑]
[44] Even a late copyist or reader of one of the Clementine MSS. confusedly recognised a hostility to Paul as underlying his text. See Anti-Nicene Lib. trans., Recog. i, 70. [↑]
[45] [Acts iii, 1–12], etc.; [xiv, 8–15], etc. [↑]
[47] See the whole data discussed in Baur, Ch. Hist. of the First Three Cent., Eng. tr., i, 91–98, etc.; Paul, Eng. tr., i, 88, 95, etc.; Zeller, Contents and Origin of the Acts, Eng. tr., i, 250 sq.; Volkmar, Die Religion Jesu; Schmiedel, art. Simon Magus in Encyc. Bib. [↑]
[48] Cp. [2 Cor. xi, 4]. [↑]