Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T00:39:02.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Acts of the Apostles and the Beginnings of Simonian Gnosis*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Gerd Lüdemann
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The person of Simon encountered in Acts 8 has been a controversial figure ever since the rise of historical criticism. The range of opinions in the history of research varies from denying his existence to regarding him as the instigator of the gnostic movement that threatened the nascent early church in the second century. These contradictory results reflect the particular difficulty of the Simon question, which consists not least in the span of time that lies between the two oldest sources (Acts and Justin). Furthermore, an orderly report of Simon's gnostic teaching is encountered first in Irenaeus. In modern research, Simon Magus has been treated more or less as a test case for the larger question about gnostic backgrounds of the NT or about the existence of a first century Gnosis. With conscious or unconscious reference to this first century Gnosis, the majority of investigators (especially of German origin) has affirmed the existence of a first-century Gnostic Simon, and has neglected the above mentioned chronological problem. Only recently has the following judgement begun to gain dominance: ‘All attempts so far made have failed to bridge the gap between the Simon of Acts and the Simon of the heresiologists.’ This statement points to the lack of Simon's companion Helen (= ἔννοια) in Acts 8 and to the fact that the expression ‘great power (of God)’ (Acts 8. 10b) is not gnostic as such.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , July 1987 , pp. 420 - 426
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

[1] Cf. Lüdemann, G., Untersuchungen zur simonianischen Gnosis (GTA 1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975) 9–29.Google Scholar In the forthcoming enlarged second edition of that work, I shall discuss research on Simon since 1975. The most recent contributions are Koch, D.-A., ‘Geistbesitz, Geistverleihung und Wundermacht. Erwägungen zur Tradition und zur lukanischen Redaktion in Act 8, 5–25’, ZNW 77 (1986) 64–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar (s. below n. 12 and the criticism in my new book Das frühe Christentum nach den Traditionen der Apostelgeschichte. Ein Kommentar [Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987] 104 f.) and Bergmeier, R., ‘Die Gestalt des Simon Magus in Act 8 und in der simonianischen Gnosis – Aporien einer Gesamtdeutung’, ZNW 77 (1986) 267–75 (a polemical review-article of my Untersuchungen in defence of Beyschlag, Simon Magus [ s. below n. 3]).Google Scholar

[2] Wilson, R. McL., ‘Simon and Gnostic Origins’, Les Actes des Apôtres (BETh 48; ed. Kremer, J.; Gembloux-Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979) 485–91, 490.Google Scholar

[3] Cf. Beyschlag, K., Simon Magus und die christliche Gnosis (WUNT 16; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1974) 106–20 (s. my review ZKG 87 [1976], 346–51)Google Scholar; Lüdemann, , Untersuchungen, 42–9.Google Scholar

[4] Differently Grant, R. M., Gnosticism & Early Christianity (Rev. ed., New York: Harper & Row 1966) 75:Google Scholar ‘while Justin apparently identifies the Simonian Simon with the magician of Acts, it is by no means certain that we should follow his example’.

[5] Cf. only Unnik, W. C. v., ‘Die Apostelgeschichte und die Häresien’, ZNW 58 (1967) 240–6, 242.Google Scholar

[6] Grant, Gnosticism, 74.

[7] For details s. Lüdemann, Untersuchungen, 35 f. (lit.). It should be noted that the part on Carpocrates, Cerinth, Ebionites and Nicolaitans does not stem from Justin's syntagma but from its redactor.

[8] In my Untersuchungen, 63–65 and ZKG 87 (1976) 349 n.3 I have laid too much stress on the difference between ἔννοια and έπίνοια in the Simonian mythGoogle Scholar; cf. the lucid criticism of my Untersuchungen by Frickel, J., ThLZ 102 (1977) 731–5, esp. 733 f.Google Scholar However, I am still not convinced that the Apophasis megale (Hippolytus Ref VI 9.3–1 8.7) which has έπίνοια as the σύζυγος of νοūς (both stem from the άπέραντος δύναμις) belongs to an early stage of Simonian gnosis.

[9] On ἕννοια in gnostic texts cf. Lüdemann, , Untersuchungen, 65–9Google Scholar; on ὲπίνοια cf. n. 8; Apocryphon of John (Papyrus Berolinensis 8502) 53 f., 57, 59 f., 71 f.; The Thunder, Perfect Mind (Nag Hammadi Codex VI) 1410 f.; The Concept of our Great Power (Nag Hammadi Codex VI) 36. 18–9.

[10] Bianchi, U. (ed.), Le Origini dello Gnosticismo (Studies in the History of Religions [Suppl. to Numen] 12; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967) XXVI–XXIX (English text).Google Scholar

[11] Hengel, M., Between Jesus and Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983) 207 n. 133.Google Scholar

[12] Cf. e.g. Koch, ‘Geistbesitz’, 72.

[13] Haenchen, E., Die Apostelgeschichte (KEK III; 16th ed., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977) 298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar To be sure, Haenchen points out that Simon did not belong to the Philip-story from the beginning, i.e. the information about Simon is a tradition in itself.

[14] I am aware that the majority of Acts specialists has reached the opposite result.

[15] On μάγος cf. Barrett, C. K., ‘Light on the Holy Spirit from Simon Magus (Acts 8, 4–25)’, Les Actes des Apôtres (BETh 48; ed. Kremer, J.; Gembloux-Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979) 281–95, 286–8 (lit.).Google Scholar

[16] Cf., inversely, the defamation of Jesus and Peter as magicians in the Pseudo-Clementines.

[17] On miracles as the distinguishing marks of a μάγος cf. Smith, M., Jesus the Magician (New York: Harper & Row, 1978) 81–93.Google Scholar

[18] Cf. Lüdemann, , Untersuchungen, 81–97.Google Scholar

[19] Cf. abeady Schmithals, W., Die Apostelgeschichte des Lukas (ZBK 3, 2; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1982) 82; id.Google Scholar; Neues Testament und Gnosis (EdF 208; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1984) 132.Google Scholar

[20] I have benefitted from discussions with Jürgen Wehnert (Göttingen) concerning Acts 13.