8/9/2019 Simon Peter Simri
31/34
SIMON PETER SIMON PETER
3 8 , . 9-11). 'The Simon who is opposed in thesewritings by
Peter was originally the apostle Paul, yetin a form which has been
distorted b y the hostility ofthe authors. Only later were Gnostic
features adde dto him, and thus in his figure the Gnosticism of
thesecond century was controverted. This does not con-cern us here.
The fundamental idea was that Petermust everywhere follow ' Simon '
(who seeks in his travelsto win adherents for himself everywhere)
in order torefute his pernicious doctrines by disputations, and
to
outdo his magical arts by still greater wonders. If notin
writing, yet at all events orally, there was current acoherent,
comprehensive form of this romance inwhich Peter followed ' Simon '
to Rome also.
(6 ) The thesis which has been based on this founda.tion since
the days of Baur is the following. Peterwas never in Rome. It was
merely the idea of theromance- that he had to follow ' Simon '
everywhere-that led to the assertion of his having come to Rome
also. This was, in the end, accepted for a fact inchurchly
circles also, and this all the no r e readilybecause it subserved
churchly interests. For, sincePaul had notoriously been in Rome, it
now becamepossible to appeal to the activity of both these
leadingapostles in the metropolis. Their mutual relation was,of
course, represent ed a s one of the most absoluteagreement. Thus ,
to the assertion that Peter had
withstoodSimon, it ceased to be possible to attach theoriginal
meaning, according to which Simon stood forPaul ; Simon must figure
as a third person, and Paulcould range himself on the side of
Peter. So theCatholic Acts and the Church fathers from
Dionysius
of Corinth (about 170 A .D . ) onwards. Some of themname only
Peter as the opponent of Simon in Rome( 5 39d) ,just as the
pre-Catholic Acts do. This stagein the development of the legend is
now definitely per-ceived to be the earlier.
(c ) The whole development, however, is seen topresent a
perversion of historical truth such as it wouldbe almost impossible
to surpass. and which throws alurid light upon the hostility to
history, as well as uponthe power, of the idea ofa Catholic church.
For some-thing analogous see 24 d. Even although we are notat this
distance of time able to say with certainty howfar the churchmen
who had a hand in this transforma-tion were conscious of the
falsification of history whichwas being brought about by their
action, the effect of
it, at all events, was that the Catholic church, whilegratefully
accepting from sources so questionable asin its view the
Clementines were, the statement of thepresence of Peter
contemporaneously with Paul inRome, at the same time changed the
mutually hostile
attitude of the two apostles into a friendly one, andgained from
a very hostile and embittered exaggerationof the real antagonism
between Peter and Paul the bestfoundation it could show for its
claim to world-widedominion.
(d ) To many students this combination appears fromthe very
outset inadmissible, because they are unableto believe in the
possibility of a falsification so grossand audacious as that of
representing Peter as havingbeen in Rom e if this was really not
the fact. Asagainst this, however, it must be borne in mind t
hatthe statement in question was not at first put forward asthe
assertion of a fact, but merely as an incident in aromance the
authors of which had not th e remotestnotion that strict adherence
to historical fact could be
reasonably demanded of them a nd whose only thoughtwas as to how
they could give fullest utterance to theirhatred of Paul.
It is Justin in particular who shows how this romance cameto he
regardeh asactual history only by slow degrees. Justintook from it
the datum that Simon had actually appeared inRome and in fact he
was able to credit it because it seemed tohim td be attested by the
statue which he found in Rome. Theother datum, that Peter also had
been in Rome and come intoconflict with Simon, he did not accept-in
all probability because
4621
it did not seem to him to be supported by the traditions
withwhich he had become acquainted in Rome itself (cp 0s 30g,31It,
37e, 39Lfl, SIMON MAGUS, 5 IT e , f ) .
How this feature in the romances should on theother hand
afterwards have come to be accepted ashistory is not difficult to
understand, when we reflecthow admirably it subserved the idea of
the Catholicchurch and remember, further, that the Pauline
features
of the figure of Simon had already been greatly dis-guised by
the Gnostic touches that had been added tothem.
(e )Soltau, who does not accept this whole combination never
-theless concedes (p. 35) that the Simon-legend if it did not
giverise to that of Peter's Roman sojourn, at all events favoured
itsspread ;and Harnack (above, $374, who accepts Peter's
Romansojourn as historically true, declares nevertheless that the
Simonlegend had the effect of causing Peter's arrival in Rome to
beassigned along with that of Simon himself to about 42 A.D.That
mere ideas, though historically unfounded, were enoughto produce a
false representation that Peter had come to Romeis assumed by
Soltau and Erbes (above, $S 310,3y)in a processofreasoning which is
not nearly so simple or cogent as that byinference from the
HomiCies and Rerognitiom which is nowunder discussion. Thus we need
not shrink from it. Soltau(p. IO) says further that the Roman
sojourn of Peter is incrediblealso because according to the
apocryphal Acts it is full ofthewildest fables about the conflict
with Simon. The combinationwe are now contending for goes only a
single ste farther andfinds in these fables the foundation and not
merepy the adorn-ments of the unhistorical statement that Peter had
been inRome.
T he only assertion calling for serious atte ntion hereis that
which claims for the tradition as to Peter's
Roman sojourn that it arose independ-(a)irst of all. it is
Dointed out that no41i2izg;.ert l y of the Simon legend.~ ~ ~ ~~~
~~~ ~ ~~.
Church father affirms that Peter and' Paul came to Rome
simultaneously. We shall not insist, in reply, thatDionysius of
Corinth (above, 5 25a) is not very far frommaking this affirmation.
Wha t is more to the point isthat neither also does the
Simon-legend say, or need tosay. that Peter's arrival at all places
was simultaneouswith that of Simon. In fact it rather gives to
Simon ineach case some space of time within which he may winthe
people over to his side, and only after this hashappened does it
bring Peter upon the scene (cp , for the
pre-Catholic Acts, above, 5 33a,6). Moreover, as soonas it is
Peter and Paul who have to be dealt with. therecome into
consideration a variety of historical datawhich cannot be brought
together at one point of time
so easily as would he the case with incidents in a mereromance
(above, 5 374. Besides, for the Catholic usethat is made of this
romanc e, it is no longer a siniul-taneous arrival but merely some
sort of contemporane-ous activity of the two apostles that isof
interest. Thuseven considerable intervals between the arrivals of
thetwo apostles would not of themselves be any evidencethat the
allegation of their having been in Rome together
does not rest upon the Simon romance.(6 ) What would be more
important would be the
existence ofa tradition which spoke only of the presenceof Peter
in Rome, without mentioning that of Panl.Such a tradition seems to
be found in Clement ofAlexandria; but, as has already been shown
(above,5 25d ; i , since Clement in the connection in which hewas
writing had no occasion to mention Paul, it doesnot follow that he
was not a ware of his activity con-
temporaneously with Peter. In the pre-Catholic Acts(above, 5
33a) Paul sets out from Rome before Peter'sarrival there, and is
represented as returning only after
the death of the latter. Here accordingly is a casewhere we
actually find Peter without Paul in Rome.Not, however, without
Simon: and this is the ini-portant thing. In one form or another
Paul in Romeis always by his side, as a foe or as a friend. Ther
eexists no tradition regarding Peter in Rome, whichrested content
with bringing him personally to Rome ;every such tradition connects
with his presence there
some declaration as to his relations with Paul. It is
4622
