Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

It would also seem to me that if the original context of the 'history' in Homilies derived from a 'Dosithean' community that the epithet of Simon - i.e. that he was a 'Samaritan' - seems to be an anachronism. Yes Acts says that he was a 'Samaritan' but it doesn't make much sense if the entire Christian community derived from a Samaritan sect. That John (the Baptist) was seen through a Samaritan lens is already suggested by the Gospel of John which locates the baptisms in Aenon. But let's consider the most difficult part of the Dosithean narrative - viz. the idea that Dositheus was a contemporary with Simon and earliest Christianity. We read:

John being killed, Dositheus desiring the leadership, falsely gave out that Simon was dead, and succeeded to the seat. But Simon, returning not long after, and strenuously holding by the place as his own, when he met with Dositheus did not demand the place, knowing that a man who has attained power beyond his expectations cannot be removed from it. Wherefore with pretended friendship he gives himself for a while to the second place, under Dositheus. But taking his place after a few days among the thirty fellow-disciples, he began to malign Dositheus as not delivering the instructions correctly. And this he said that he did, not through unwillingness to deliver them correctly, but through ignorance. And on one occasion, Dositheus, perceiving that this artful accusation of Simon was dissipating the opinion of him with respect to many, so that they did not think that he was the Standing One, came in a rage to the usual place of meeting, and finding Simon, struck him with a staff. But it seemed to pass through the body of Simon as if he had been smoke. Thereupon Dositheus, being confounded, said to him, 'If you are the Standing One, I also will worship you.' Then Simon said that he was; and Dositheus, knowing that he himself was not the Standing One, fell down and worshipped; and associating himself with the twenty-nine chiefs, he raised Simon to his own place of repute; and thus, not many days after, Dositheus himself, while he (Simon) stood, fell down and died.

There is something wrong about this narrative. It resolves of course how Simon emerged from the Dosithean community and that he was recognized among the Dositheans as the awaited 'standing one' without actually explaining that the term derives from Deuteronomy 18:18. This serves the purposes of avoiding a conflict when Jesus himself is identified as the same figure later in the next book.

Moreover throughout the Homilies Simon is distanced from Jesus to the point that he doesn't even recognize his authority or power. This is surely a later editorial effort. All of which brings into focus the conflict which exists between Peter identifying Jesus as the True Prophet and Simon's claims to be the Standing One (both titles deriving from Deuteronomy 18:18). It is clear from the Recognitions that this is THE difference between Simon and Simon (Peter). Peter never identifies himself as THE prophet or even a prophet which is very strange because it seems to lead us to a very heretical - even Samaritan position for the entire document.

According to Peter there are only a few people who ever had the Holy Spirit:

1. Adam
2. Moses (by implication)
3. Jesus the true Prophet

Even though I am sure someone can demonstrate that the text cites Isaiah or some other prophet somewhere I don't remember any. This would dovetail well with the Dosithean character of the tradition. In other words, Moses announced the coming of one other and only one another prophet.

Clearly Simon claimed to be that Prophet. But Peter emerges to defend the Prophet of Truth who is Jesus. This would mean that Jesus was the one to whom Moses referred. Peter excludes himself as a prophet on several occasions in the Clementines. He identifies himself as 'the apostle of the prophet' or 'the apostle of the true prophet' but this itself is problematic the apostle is clearly another title of the one like Moses who is to come.

How is all of this to be resolved?

The Dosithean character of the document is clearly pronounced. The Dositheans pointed to a single figure announced by the Pentateuch who is both Apostle and Prophet. This is demonstrated by Abu'l Fath's reference to the Dositheans calling themselves "the sons and daughters of Dositheos" or "the children of the Apostle." To this end it is difficult to believe that Peter could have called himself "the apostle of the (true) Prophet' if he was not the true Prophet.

Why the silence then regarding Peter's status as the apostle, the prophet of Deuteronomy 18:18?

It is difficult to figure out. The Acts of the Apostles derives from this tradition. It implies that there were Twelve Apostles. But again if the community derived from the Dositheans this can't be true. There could only be one apostle who was at one the returning Moses, the true prophet.

On the 'Samaritan' origins of the Clementine Literature consider this statement " from William Sanday that aside from Homilies Books 16 and 17 all references are from the Pentateuch (2 out of 20).

A clear use of Daniel in Recognitions

Then, however, a priest or a prophet, being anointed with the compounded ointment, putting fire to the altar of God, was held illustrious in all the world. But after Aaron, who was a priest, another is taken out of the waters. I do not speak of Moses, but of Him who, in the waters of baptism, was called by God His Son. Matthew 3:17 For it is Jesus who has put out, by the grace of baptism, that fire which the priest kindled for sins; for, from the time when He appeared, the chrism has ceased, by which the priesthood or the prophetic or the kingly office was conferred. (Recognitions 1.49)

This identification of Jesus 'appearing' with 'seven sevens' remaining reminds me of the forty-nine year period between 21 CE (the dating in the Acts of Pilate and elsewhere) and 70 CE. The choice of 'chrism' follows Aquila's translation.

Another interesting thing in Recognitions is that John is clearly John Hyrcanus. How could the author really assume that the Sadducees dated only from John the Baptist?

The first schism, therefore, was that of those who were called Sadducees, which took their rise almost in the time of John. These, as more righteous than others, began to separate themselves from the assembly of the people, and to deny the resurrection of the dead, Matthew 22:23 and to assert that by an argument of infidelity, saying that it was unworthy that God should be worshipped, as it were, under the promise of a reward. The first author of this opinion was Dositheus; the second was Simon. Another schism is that of the Samaritans; for they deny the resurrection of the dead, and assert that God is not to be worshipped in Jerusalem, but on Mount Gerizim. They indeed rightly, from the predictions of Moses, expect the one true Prophet; but by the wickedness of Dositheus they were hindered from believing that Jesus is He whom they were expecting. (1.59)

It would seem the Samaritans were a sect of the Sadducees which is not entirely ludicrous. Saul becoming Paul is alluded to in the later sections of Recognitions but no names are used.

The back history to Simon is similar. The same source for his parents, the village of his birth, but there is a consistent effort to obscure why he is called the 'Standing One.' Recognitions says "he is called the Standing One, as though he cannot fall by any corruption." And this doctrine - misguided as it is - takes over the narrative. He is a god first and foremost here. 'Helena' has become 'Luna' in Rufinus's text and all trace of an association with Helen of Troy has been removed. In the narrative Dositheus attacks Simon out of a challenge to his own status as the 'Standing One' cf. "But Dositheus, when he perceived that Simon was depreciating him, fearing lest his reputation among men might be obscured (for he himself was supposed to be the Standing One)." His attack with the rod which passes through Simon again proves him to be the Standing One. Again Dositheus dies immediately after accepting Simon. Here in Recognitions Simon "goes about, as you see, deceiving multitudes, and asserting that he himself is a certain power which is above God the Creator, while Luna, who is with him, has been brought down from the higher heavens, and that she is Wisdom, the mother of all things, for whom, says he, the Greeks and barbarians contending, were able in some measure to see an image of her; but of herself, as she is, as the dweller with the first and only God, they were wholly ignorant. Propounding these and other things of the same sort, he has deceived many. But I ought also to state this, which I remember that I myself saw. Once, when this Luna of his was in a certain tower, a great multitude had assembled to see her, and were standing around the tower on all sides; but she was seen by all the people to lean forward, and to look out through all the windows of that tower. Many other wonderful things he did and does; so that men, being astonished at them, think that he himself is the great God."

Some more examples of the manipulation of an underlying text. In Recognitions the debate begins with a lengthy discussion of Jesus's sayings. After praying Peter:

went forth to the court of the house, in which a great multitude of people were assembled; and when he saw them all looking intently on him in profound silence, and Simon the Magician standing in the midst of them like a standard-bearer, he began in manner following "Peace be to all of you who are prepared to give your right hands to truth: for whosoever are obedient to it seem indeed themselves to confer some favour upon God ..."

Recognitions goes on to have Simon object to 'peace' and Jesus's message arguing instead for the value of war which culminates in a debate over the passage from Matthew:

In like manner, also, during the last period of His teaching, He wages war against the scribes and Pharisees, charging them with evil deeds and unsound doctrine, and with hiding the key of knowledge which they had handed down to them from Moses, by which the gate of the heavenly kingdom might be opened. But when our Master sent us forth to preach, He commanded us, that into whatsoever city or house we should enter, we should say, 'Peace be to this house.' 'And if,' said He, 'a son of peace be there, your peace shall come upon him; but if there be not, your peace shall return to you.' Also that, going out from that house or city, we should shake off upon them the very dust which adhered to our feet. 'But it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment than for that city or house.' This indeed He commanded to be done at length, if first the word of truth be preached in the city or house, whereby they who receive the faith of the truth may become sons of peace and sons of God; and those who will not receive it may be convicted as enemies of peace and of God. (Recog. 1:30)

In Homilies which is closer to the original we see that Peter reused the passage in his opening salutation with no reference whatsoever to the added section of Jesus sayings:

Therefore, standing and seeing all the people gazing upon him in profound silence, and Simon the magician standing in the midst [as a warrior], he began to speak thus: Peace be to all you who are in readiness to give your right hands to the truth of God, which, being His great and incomparable gift in the present world, He who sent us, being an infallible Prophet of that which is supremely profitable, gave us in charge, by way of salutation before our words of instruction, to announce to you, in order that if there be any son of peace among you, peace may take hold of him through our teaching; but if any of you will not receive it, then we, shaking off for a testimony the road-dust of our feet, which we have borne through our toils, and brought to you that you may be saved, will go to the abodes and the cities of others. And we tell you truly, it shall be more tolerable in the day of judgment to dwell in the land of Sodom and Gomorrah, than in the place of unbelief. In the first place, because you have not preserved of yourselves what is reasonable; in the second place, because, hearing the things concerning us, you have not come to us; and in the third place, because you have disbelieved us when we have come to you. Wherefore, being concerned for you, we pray of our own accord that our peace may come upon you. (Hom. 3:30 - 31)

The antitheses section which follows after Peter's preamble in Homilies has been similarly reworked in Recognitions to make Simon now an enemy of the 'Jewish Scriptures' and Peter its defender - something we know isn't exactly accurate from the Homilies. Peter seems to acknowledge that the whole opening is fake arguing that the 'long-preamble' is all Simon's fault and that he should now get to the point which he does. The text now mirrors Homilies:

Then Simon said: I say that there are many gods; but that there is one incomprehensible and unknown to all, and that He is the God of all these gods. Then Peter answered: This God whom you assert to be incomprehensible and unknown to all, can you prove His existence from the Scriptures of the Jews, which are held to be of authority, or from some others of which we are all ignorant, or from the Greek authors, or from your own writings? Certainly you are at liberty to speak from whatever writings you please, yet so that you first show that they are prophetic; for so their authority will be held without question.

Then Simon said: I shall make use of assertions from the law of the Jews only. For it is manifest to all who take interest in religion, that this law is of universal authority, yet that every one receives the understanding of this law according to his own judgment. For it has so been written by Him who created the world, that the faith of things is made to depend upon it. Whence, whether any one wishes to bring forward truth, or any one to bring forward falsehood, no assertion will be received without this law. Inasmuch, therefore, as my knowledge is most fully in accordance with the law, I rightly declared that there are many gods, of whom one is more eminent than the rest, and incomprehensible, even He who is God of gods. But that there are many gods, the law itself informs me. For, in the first place, it says this in the passage where one in the figure of a serpent speaks to Eve, the first woman, 'On the day you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall be as gods,' Genesis 3:5 that is, as those who made man; and after they have tasted of the tree, God Himself testifies, saying to the rest of the gods, 'Behold, Adam has become as one of us;' Genesis 3:22 thus, therefore, it is manifest that there were many gods engaged in the making of man. Also, whereas at the first God said to the other gods, 'Let us make man after our image and likeness;' Genesis 1:26 also His saying, 'Let us drive him out;' Genesis 3:22 and again, 'Come, let us go down, and confound their language;' Genesis 11:7 all these things indicate that there are many gods. But this also is written, 'You shall not curse the gods, nor curse the chief of your people;' Exodus 22:28 and again this writing, 'God alone led them, and there was no strange god with them,' Deuteronomy 32:12 shows that there are many gods. There are also many other testimonies which might be adduced from the law, not only obscure, but plain, by which it is taught that there are many gods. One of these was chosen by lot, that he might be the god of the Jews. But it is not of him that I speak, but of that God who is also his God, whom even the Jews themselves did not know. For he is not their God, but the God of those who know him.

It should be noted that Simon is by now the enemy of Jesus in the Recognitions. This is wholly ridiculous but again underscores the central question - if Simon claimed to be the prophet from Deuteronomy 18:18 Jesus had to be something else for him. The only possibility in my mind is that Jesus was a god for Simon. This raises the question whether it was Dositheus who through a fit of rage swung a staff through Simon or - as I suspect - that Simon somehow demonstrated a rod passing through Jesus proving that he was a phantom. Dositheus was long dead by the time of these events.

Notice also that the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman, Berenice, is a witness in Homilies. But both texts mention that a woman walked with Simon (but does not appear in the text interestingly). Paul is said by Jerome to have sent a woman to walk before him in Rome. But more importantly "Luna" is said to have stood in a 'tower' in Recognitions with the significance of this standing in a tower unclear in the narrative. 'Magdala' likely comes from migdol (= מגדּול) or tower.

Let's go back to our original list of antitheses from Homilies and see how many of them appear in Recognitions:

1. There is more than one god in the Pentateuch - Recogn. 1.39
2. The god of the Pentateuch (and the god of Peter) is not the Supreme God - cf ibid 1.60
3. The god of the Pentateuch has mental and personality defects (and thus there must be another god who is the Supreme god) -
4. Adam was originally made after the (perfect?) likeness but was made deficient by the Jewish god out of jealousy -
5. The god of the Pentateuch is blind -
6. The god of the Pentateuch is ignorant -
7. The god of the Pentateuch changes his mind. This shows God was inferior, ignorant and lacked foresight -
8. The god of the Pentateuch desires animal food/sacrifices (and thus has an animal soul)-
9. The god of the Pentateuch tempts people -

Peter's Response Preserves Other (Now Lost) Antitheses of Simon (Hom. 3.40 -)

10. Simon understands the god of the Pentateuch to ultimately be liable to an accusation of the sinfulness according to his own commandments
11. the God of the Pentateuch swears by a higher god than himself -
12. there is no resurrection -
13. Simon says God tempted Adam -
R1. Then Simon said: I say that there are many gods; but that there is one incomprehensible and unknown to all, and that He is the God of all these gods. (2.38)
R2. Then Simon said: I shall make use of assertions from the law of the Jews only. For it is manifest to all who take interest in religion, that this law is of universal authority, yet that every one receives the understanding of this law according to his own judgment. For it has so been written by Him who created the world, that the faith of things is made to depend upon it. Whence, whether any one wishes to bring forward truth, or any one to bring forward falsehood, no assertion will be received without this law. Inasmuch, therefore, as my knowledge is most fully in accordance with the law, I rightly declared that there are many gods, of whom one is more eminent than the rest, and incomprehensible, even He who is God of gods. But that there are many gods, the law itself informs me. For, in the first place, it says this in the passage where one in the figure of a serpent speaks to Eve, the first woman, 'On the day you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall be as gods,' Genesis 3:5 that is, as those who made man; and after they have tasted of the tree, God Himself testifies, saying to the rest of the gods, 'Behold, Adam has become as one of us;' Genesis 3:22 thus, therefore, it is manifest that there were many gods engaged in the making of man. Also, whereas at the first God said to the other gods, 'Let us make man after our image and likeness;' Genesis 1:26 also His saying, 'Let us drive him out;' Genesis 3:22 and again, 'Come, let us go down, and confound their language;' Genesis 11:7 all these things indicate that there are many gods. But this also is written, 'You shall not curse the gods, nor curse the chief of your people;' Exodus 22:28 and again this writing, 'God alone led them, and there was no strange god with them,' Deuteronomy 32:12 shows that there are many gods. There are also many other testimonies which might be adduced from the law, not only obscure, but plain, by which it is taught that there are many gods. One of these was chosen by lot, that he might be the god of the Jews. But it is not of him that I speak, but of that God who is also his God, whom even the Jews themselves did not know. For he is not their God, but the God of those who know him." (2.39)
R3. (in response to Peter saying: If, then, I shall show you that none is superior to Him, but that He Himself is above all, you will confess that your error is above all.) Then Simon said: Why, indeed, though I should be unwilling to confess it, would not the hearers who stand by charge me with unwillingness to profess the things that are true? (2.41)
R4. To this Simon replied: From the words of your master I shall refute you, because even he introduces to all men a certain God who was known. For although both Adam knew the God who was his creator, and the maker of the world; and Enoch knew him, inasmuch as he was translated by him; and Noah, since he was ordered by him to construct the ark; and although Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and Moses, and all, even every people and all nations, know the maker of the world, and confess him to be a God, yet your Jesus, who appeared long after the patriarchs, says: 'No one knows the Son, but the Father; neither knows any one the Father, but the Son, and he to whom the Son has been pleased to reveal Him.' Thus, therefore, even your Jesus confesses that there is another God, incomprehensible and unknown to all. (2.47)
R5. Then Simon said: Remember that you said that God has a son, which is doing Him wrong; for how can He have a son, unless He is subject to passions, like men or animals? But on these points there is not time now to show your profound folly, for I hasten to make a statement concerning the immensity of the supreme light; and so now listen. My opinion is, that there is a certain power of immense and ineffable light, whose greatness may be held to be incomprehensible, of which power even the maker of the world is ignorant, and Moses the lawgiver, and Jesus your master. (2.49)
R6. (in response to Peter declaring "But be sure of this, that until you find some new sense which is beyond those five which we all enjoy, you cannot assert the existence of a new God.") Then Simon answered: Since all things that exist are in accordance with those five senses, that power which is more excellent than all cannot add anything new. (2.51)
R7. (in response to Peter saying: "Then Peter said: It is false; for there is also a sixth sense, namely that of foreknowledge: for those five senses are capable of knowledge, but the sixth is that of foreknowledge: and this the prophets possessed. How, then, can you know a God who is unknown to all, who do not know the prophetic sense, which is that of prescience?") Then Simon began to say: This power of which I speak, incomprehensible and more excellent than all, ay, even than that God who made the world, neither any of the angels has known, nor of the demons, nor of the Jews, nay, nor any creature which subsists by means of God the creator. How, then, could that creator's law teach me that which the creator himself did not know, since neither did the law itself know it, that it might teach it? (ibid)
R8. (in response to Peter saying that he has learned things from the Law that the Law does not teach) Then Simon, seeing Peter and all the people laughing, said: Do you laugh, Peter, while so great and lofty matters are under discussion? (2.52)
R9. (in response to Peter saying "Yet, at all events, disclose to us the meaning of this saying, how from the law you have learned of a God whom the law itself does not know, and of whom He who gave the law is ignorant.") Then Simon said: If you have done laughing, I shall prove it by clear assertions. (ibid)
R10. Then says Simon: Listen: it is manifest to all, and ascertained in a manner of which no account can be given, that there is one God, who is better than all, from whom all that is took its beginning; whence also of necessity, all things that are after him are subject to him, as the chief and most excellent of all. When, therefore, I had ascertained that the God who created the world, according to what the law teaches, is in many respects weak, whereas weakness is utterly incompatible with a perfect God, and I saw that he is not perfect, I necessarily concluded that there is another God who is perfect. For this God, as I have said, according to what the writing of the law teaches, is shown to be weak in many things. In the first place, because the man whom he formed was not able to remain such as he had intended him to be; and because he cannot be good who gave a law to the first man, that he should eat of all the trees of paradise, but that he should not touch the tree of knowledge; and if he should eat of it, he should die. For why should he forbid him to eat, and to know what is good and what evil, that, knowing, he might shun the evil and choose the good? But this he did not permit; and because he ate in violation of the commandment, and discovered what is good, and learned for the sake of honour to cover his nakedness (for he perceived it to be unseemly to stand naked before his Creator), he condemns to death him who had learned to do honour to God, and curses the serpent who had shown him these things. But truly, if man was to be injured by this means, why did he place the cause of injury in paradise at all? But if that which he placed in paradise was good, it is not the part of one that is good to restrain another from good. Thus then, since he who made man and the world is, according to what the law relates, imperfect, we are given to understand, without doubt, that there is another who is perfect. For it is of necessity that there be one most excellent of all, on whose account also every creature keeps its rank. Whence also I, knowing that it is every way necessary that there be some one more benignant and more powerful than that imperfect God who gave the law, understanding what is perfect from comparison of the imperfect, understood even from the Scripture that God who is not mentioned there. And in this way I was able, O Peter, to learn from the law what the law did not know. But even if the law had not given indications from which it might be gathered that the God who made the world is imperfect, it was still possible for me to infer from those evils which are done in this world, and are not corrected, either that its creator is powerless, if he cannot correct what is done amiss; or else, if he does not wish to remove the evils, that he is himself evil; but if he neither can nor will, that he is neither powerful nor good. And from this it cannot but be concluded that there is another God more excellent and more powerful than all. If you have anything to say to this, say on. (2.53, 54)
R11. Then Simon: Do you so far err, Peter, as not to know that our souls were made by that good God, the most excellent of all, but they have been brought down as captives into this world? (2.57)
R12. Then Simon said: He (the Good God) sent God the creator to make the world; and he, when he had made it, gave out that himself was God. (ibid)
R13. Then Simon said: He (the Good God) receives those who will come to him, and does them good. (2.58)
R14. Then Simon: But the good God bestows salvation if he is only acknowledged; but the creator of the world demands also that the law be fulfilled. (ibid)
R15. Then Simon: It is truly very difficult for man to know him, as long as he is in the flesh; for blacker than all darkness, and heavier than all clay, is this body with which the soul is surrounded. (ibid)
R16. Then Simon: It is not impious for the sake of greater profit and advantage to flee to him who is of richer glory. (ibid)
R17. Then Simon said: But what if souls are from him, and do not know him, and he is truly their father? (ibid)
R18. Then said Simon: A time will come when you shall be sorry that you did not understand me speaking of the ineffable power. (2.60)
R19. To this Simon answered: Apply your mind to those things which I am going to say, and cause it, walking in peaceable paths, to attain to those things which I shall demonstrate. Listen now, therefore. Did you never in thought reach forth your mind into regions or islands situated far away, and remain so fixed in them, that you could not even see the people that were before you, or know where yourself were sitting, by reason of the delightfulness of those things on which you were gazing? (2.61)
R20. Then Simon said: In this way now reach forth your sense into heaven, yea above the heaven, and behold that there must be some place beyond the world, or outside the world, in which there is neither heaven nor earth, and where no shadow of these things produces darkness; and consequently, since there are neither bodies in it, nor darkness occasioned by bodies, there must of necessity be immense light; and consider of what sort that light must be, which is never succeeded by darkness. For if the light of this sun fills this whole world, how great do you suppose that bodiless and infinite light to be? So great, doubtless, that this light of the sun would seem to be darkness and not light, in comparison. (ibid)
R21. To this Simon replied: O you who has woven a web of many frivolities, listen now. It is impossible that anything which comes into a man's thoughts should not also subsist in truth and reality. For things that do not subsist, have no appearances; but things that have no appearances, cannot present themselves to our thoughts. (2.66)
R22. Then said Simon: Let pass for the present what I have said; and tell us what you suppose to be above the heavens. (ibid)
R23. To this Simon answered: It seems to me to be better to believe simply that God is, and that that heaven which we see is the only heaven in the whole universe. But Peter said: Not so; but it is proper to confess one God who truly is; but that there are heavens, which were made by Him, as also the law says, of which one is the higher, in which also is contained the visible firmament; and that that higher heaven is perpetual and eternal, with those who dwell in it; but that this visible heaven is to be dissolved and to pass away at the end of the world, in order that that heaven which is older and higher may appear after the judgment to the holy and the worthy. To this Simon answered: That these things are so, as you say, may appear to those who believe them; but to him who seeks for reasons of these things, it is impossible that they can be produced from the law, and especially concerning the immensity of light. (2.68)
R24. To this Simon replied: It is a great thing which you promise, that the eternity of boundless light can be shown from the law. And when Peter said, I shall show it whenever you please, Simon answered: Since now it is a late hour, I shall stand by you and oppose you tomorrow; and if you can prove that this world was created, and that souls are immortal, you shall have me to assist you in your preaching. (2.70)
R25. But when Simon perceived that the people rejoiced at the sight of Peter, and were moved to love him, he said in confusion: I wonder at the folly of men, who call me a magician, and love Peter; whereas, having knowledge of me of old, they ought to love me rather. And therefore from this sign those who have sense may understand that Peter may rather seem to be the magician, since affection is not borne to me, to whom it is almost due from acquaintance, but is abundantly expended upon him, to whom it is not due by any familiarity. (3.12)
R26. Simon answered: I will not have you detain me with long speeches, Peter; I claim from you what you promised yesterday. You then said that you could show that the law teaches concerning the immensity of the eternal light, and that there are only two heavens, and these created, and that the higher is the abode of that light, in which the ineffable Father dwells alone for ever; but that after the pattern of that heaven is made this visible heaven, which you asserted is to pass away. You said, therefore, that the Father of all is one, because there cannot be two infinites; else neither of them would be infinite, because in that in which the one subsists, he makes a limit of the subsistence of the other. Since then you not only promised this, but are able to show it from the law, leave off other matters and set about this. (3.14)
R27. Then said Simon: You seem to me to be angry; but if it be so, it is not necessary to enter into the conflict. (3.15)
R28. Then Simon: I shall enforce myself to bear patiently your unskilfulness, that I may show that you indeed wish to seduce the people, but that I teach the truth. But now I refrain from a discussion concerning that boundless light. Answer me, therefore, what I ask of you. Since God, as you say, made all things, whence comes evil? (ibid)
R29. To this Simon answered: This is a good joke: behold a fellow who offers to teach me! Nevertheless I shall suffer you, and bear with your ignorance and your arrogance. I confess, then, I do wish to learn; let us see how you can teach me. (ibid)
R30. To this Simon answered: Oh you most unskilful and unlearned, is there any man who does not confess that there is evil in this life? Whence I also, thinking that you had even the common sense of all men, asked, whence evil is; not as wishing to learn, since I know all things, least of all from you, who know nothing, but that I might show you to be ignorant of all things. And that you may not suppose that it is because I am angry that I speak somewhat sternly, know that I am moved with compassion for those who are present, whom you are attempting to deceive. (3.16)
R31. Then Simon, interrupting his discourse, said: They do rightly who say that there is no evil. (3.17)
R32. To this Simon answered: Pardon me; I was in error concerning the first question; but suppose that I now ask first, whether evil is or not? (ibid)
R33. Then Simon said: Does it not seem to you to be absurd that an unskilled people should sit in judgment upon our sayings? (3.19)
R34. Then Simon: On what subject do you wish the discussion to be held? Tell me, that I also may define what I think, and so the inquiry may begin. (3.20)
R35. Then Simon said: Since these things are commanded to Hebrews, as having a right knowledge of God, and being of opinion that every one has it in his power to do these things concerning which he is to be judged,— but my opinion differs from theirs,— where do you wish me to begin? (ibid)
R36. (in response to Peter saying: I advise that the first inquiry be, whether it be in our power to know whence we are to be judged) But Simon said: Not so; but concerning God, about whom all who are present are desirous to hear. (3.21)
R37. (in response to Peter saying You admit, then, that something is in the power of the will: only confess this, if it is so, and let us inquire, as you say, concerning God) To this Simon answered: By no means. (ibid)
R38. (in response to Peter saying: If, then, nothing is in our power, it is useless for us to inquire anything concerning God, since it is not in the power of those who seek to find; hence I said well, that this should be the first inquiry, whether anything is in the power of the will). Then said Simon: We cannot even understand this that you say, if there is anything in the power of the will. (ibid)
R39. (in response to Peter saying: How then do you know that it is not in the power of man to know anything, since this very thing at least you know?) Then Simon said: I know not whether I know even this; for every one, according as it is decreed to him by fate, either does, or understands, or suffers. (3.22)
R40. (in response to Peter saying: I say, therefore, that man is under his own control.) Then said Simon: What is the meaning of being under his own control? Tell us. To this Peter: If nothing can be learned, why do you wish to hear? And Simon said: You have nothing to answer to this. (ibid)
R41. (in response to Peter saying: I shall speak, not as under compulsion from you, but at the request of the hearers. The power of choice is the sense of the soul, possessing a quality by which it can be inclined towards what acts it wills.) Then Simon, applauding Peter for what he had spoken, said: Truly you have expounded it magnificently and incomparably, for it is my duty to bear testimony to your speaking well. Now if you will explain to me this which I now ask you, in all things else I shall submit to you. What I wish to learn, then, is this: if what God wishes to be, is; and what He does not wish to be, is not. Answer me this. Then Peter: If you do not know that you are asking an absurd and incompetent question, I shall pardon you and explain; but if you are aware that you are asking inconsequently, you do not well. Then Simon said: I swear by the Supreme Divinity, whatsoever that may be, which judges and punishes those who sin, that I know not what I have said inconsequently, or what absurdity there is in my words, that is, in those that I have just uttered. (3.23)
R42. To this Simon answered: Was not He able to make us all such that we should be good, and that we should not have it in our power to be otherwise? (3.26)
R43. But Simon, perceiving that Peter was clearly assigning a reason from the head of prophecy, from which the whole question is settled, declined that the discourse should take this turn; and thus answered: Give me an answer to the questions that I put, and tell me, if that visible heaven is, as you say, to be dissolved, why was it made at first? (3.27)
R44. Then Simon said: If the Creator is good, and the world is good, how shall He who is good ever destroy that which is good? But if He shall destroy that which is good, how shall He Himself be thought to be good? But if He shall dissolve and destroy it as evil, how shall He not appear to be evil, who has made that which is evil? (ibid)
R45. Then Simon: It does not seem to me that the heaven, which has been made by God, can be dissolved. For things made by the Eternal One are eternal, while things made by a corruptible one are temporary and decaying. (3.29)
R46. Then Simon answered: I call you back to the first question. You said now that God is visible to no one; but when that heaven shall be dissolved, and that superior condition of the heavenly kingdom shall shine forth, then those who are pure in heart Matthew 5:8 shall see God; which statement is contrary to the law, for there it is written that God said, 'None shall see my face and live.' (ibid)
R47. After these and many similar sayings, Simon began to assert with many oaths, saying: Concerning one thing only render me a reason, whether the soul is immortal, and I shall submit to your will in all things. But let it be tomorrow, for today it is late. (3.30)
R48. To this Simon replied: Then truth is not the property of all, but of those only who know the art of disputation, which is absurd; for it cannot be, since He is equally the God of all, that all should not be equally able to know His will. (3.35)
R49. (in response to Peter saying: Who does not know that the things which any one learns, he was ignorant of before he learned them?) Then Simon said You say truly. Then Peter said, If then in those arts which are in common use, one first learns and then teaches, how much more ought those who profess to be the educators of souls, first to learn, and so to teach, that they may not expose themselves to ridicule, if they promise to afford knowledge to others, when they themselves are unskilful? Then Simon: This is true in respect of those arts which are in common use; but in the word of knowledge, as soon as any one has heard, he has learned. (ibid)
R50. (in response to Peter saying: For this is exactly what we see in the case of some who, abandoning the trades which they learned in their youth, betake themselves to other performances, and by way of excusing their own sloth, begin to find fault with the trade as unprofitable). Then Simon: Ought all who hear to believe that whatever they hear is true? (3.36)
R51. Then said Simon: Inform us, therefore, what he who desires to know the truth must first learn. (3.37)
R52. Then Simon: How can one and the same being be both good and righteous? (3.38)
R53. Then said Simon: The one point on which I should wish to be satisfied is, whether the soul is immortal; for I cannot take up the burden of righteousness unless I know first concerning the immortality of the soul; for indeed if it is not immortal, the profession of your preaching cannot stand. (3.39)
R54. (in response to Peter saying: Let us first inquire whether God is just; for if this were ascertained, the perfect order of religion would straight-way be established.) Then Simon: With all your boasting of your knowledge of the order of discussion, you seem to me now to have answered contrary to order; for when I ask you to show whether the soul is immortal, you say that we must first inquire whether God is just. Then said Peter: That is perfectly right and regular. Simon: I should wish to learn how. (ibid)
R55. (in response to Peter saying: Where, then, is the justice of God, if there be no immortal soul to suffer punishment in the future for impious deeds, or enjoy rewards for piety and rectitude?) Then Simon said: It is this indeed that makes me incredulous, because many well-doers perish miserably, and again many evil-doers finish long lives in happiness. (3.40)
R56. (in response to Peter saying: But if all men were now receiving according to their deserts, we should truly seem to be deceivers when we say that there is a judgment to come; and therefore this very fact, that in the present life a return is not made to every one according to his deeds, affords, to those who know that God is just, an indubitable proof that there shall be a judgment) Then said Simon: Why, then, am I not persuaded of it? (ibid)
R57. (in response to Peter saying: Peter: Because you have not heard the true Prophet saying, 'Seek first His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.' Matthew 6:33) Then said Simon: Pardon me if I am unwilling to seek righteousness, before I know if the soul is immortal. Then Peter: You also pardon me this one thing, because I cannot do otherwise than the Prophet of truth has instructed me. (ibid)
R58. Then said Simon: It is certain that you cannot assert that the soul is immortal, and therefore you cavil, knowing that if it be proved to be mortal, the whole profession of that religion which you are attempting to propagate will be plucked up by the roots. And therefore, indeed, I commend your prudence, while I do not approve your persuasiveness; for you persuade many to embrace your religion, and to submit to the restraint of pleasure, in hope of future good things; to whom it happens that they lose the enjoyment of things present, and are deceived with hopes of things future. For as soon as they die, their soul shall at the same time be extinguished. (ibid)
R59. Then says Simon: If you are angry, I shall neither ask you any questions, nor do I wish to hear you. (3.43)
R60. Then Simon, who had thought that he had got, from the anger of Peter, a pretext for departing, stopped on account of the remarkable promise that was made to him, and said: Ask me then, and I shall answer you what all know, that I may hear in a single sentence, as you have promised, how the soul is immortal. (ibid)
R61. (in response to Peter saying: I shall speak so that it may be proved to you before all the rest. Answer me, therefore, which of the two can better persuade an incredulous man, seeing or hearing?) Then Simon said: Seeing. Then Peter: Why then do you wish to learn from me by words, what is proved to you by the thing itself and by sight? Then Simon: I know not what you mean. Then Peter: If you do not know, go now to your house, and entering the inner bed-chamber you will see an image placed, containing the figure of a murdered boy clothed in purple; ask him, and he will inform you either by hearing or seeing. For what need is there to hear from him if the soul is immortal, when you see it standing before you? For if it were not in being, it assuredly could not be seen. But if you know not what image I speak of, let us straightway go to your house, with ten other men, of those who are here present. But Simon hearing this, and being smitten by his conscience, changed colour and became bloodless; for he was afraid, if he denied it, that his house would be searched, or that Peter in his indignation would betray him more openly, and so all would learn what he was. Thus he answered: I beseech you, Peter, by that good God who is in you, to overcome the wickedness that is in me. Receive me to repentance, and you shall have me as an assistant in your preaching. For now I have learned in very deed that you are a prophet of the true God, and therefore you alone know the secret and hidden things of men." (3.44 - 45)
R62. (in response to Peter denying that he was a prophet) But when Simon heard this, he assailed Peter with curses and reproaches, saying: Oh most wicked and most deceitful of men, to whom fortune, not truth, has given the victory. But I sought repentance not for defect of knowledge, but in order that you, thinking that by repentance I should become your disciple, might entrust to me all the secrets of your profession, and so at length, knowing them all, I might confute you. But as you cunningly understood for what reason I had pretended penitence, and acquiesced as if you did not understand my stratagem, that you might first expose me in presence of the people as unskilful, then foreseeing that being thus exposed to the people, I must of necessity be indignant, and confess that I was not truly penitent, you anticipated me, that you might say, that I should, after my penitence, again return to my infidelity, that you might seem to have conquered on all sides, both if I continued in the penitence which I had professed, and if I did not continue; and so you should be believed to be wise, because you had foreseen these things, while I should seem to be deceived, because I did not foresee your trick. But you foreseeing mine, have used subtlety and circumvented me. But, as I said, your victory is the result of fortune, not of truth: yet I know why I did not foresee this; because I stood by you and spoke with you in my goodness, and bore patiently with you. But now I shall show you the power of my divinity, so that you shall quickly fall down and worship me. I am the first power, who am always, and without beginning. But having entered the womb of Rachel, I was born of her as a man, that I might be visible to men. I have flown through the air; I have been mixed with fire, and been made one body with it; I have made statues to move; I have animated lifeless things; I have made stones bread; I have flown from mountain to mountain; I have moved from place to place, upheld by angels' hands, and have lighted on the earth. Not only have I done these things; but even now I am able to do them, that by facts I may prove to all, that I am the Son of God, enduring to eternity, and that I can make those who believe in me endure in like manner for ever. But your words are all vain; nor can you perform any real works such as I have now mentioned, as he also who sent you is a magician, who yet could not deliver himself from the suffering of the cross.(3.46 - 47) end of the debate
R63. But in those days a letter was received from the brethren who had gone before, in which were detailed the crimes of Simon, how going from city to city he was deceiving multitudes, and everywhere maligning Peter, so that, when he should come, no one might afford him a hearing. For he asserted that Peter was a magician, a godless man, injurious, cunning, ignorant, and professing impossible things. For, says he, he asserts that the dead shall rise again, which is impossible. But if any one attempts to confute him, he is cut off by secret snares by him, through means of his attendants. Wherefore, I also, says he, when I had vanquished him and triumphed over him, fled for fear of his snares, lest he should destroy me by incantations, or compass my death by plots. (3.73)
No more statements of Simon
H1. (recollection of Nicetas who says to Simon 'We, O Simon, remembering our friendship towards you from our childhood, and out of affection for you, give you good counsel. Desist from this attempt. You cannot be a God. Fear Him who is really God. Know that you are a man, and that the time of your life is short; and though you should get great riches, or even become a king, few things accrue to the short time of your life for enjoyment, and things wickedly gotten soon flee away, and procure everlasting punishment for the adventurer. Wherefore we counsel you to fear God, by whom the soul of every one must be judged for the deeds that he has done here.' When he heard this he laughed; and when we asked him why he laughed at us for giving him good counsel, he answered: 'I laugh at your foolish supposition, because you believe that the soul of man is immortal.' (2.28 - 29)
H2.(recollection of Nicetas who says: Tell me, O Simon, even if no one else has been fully convinced that the soul is immortal, at all events you and we ought to be so: you as having separated one from a human body, and conversed with it, and laid your commands upon it; and we as having been present, and heard your commands, and clearly witnessed the performance of what was ordered.') Then said Simon: 'I know what you mean; but you know nothing of the matters concerning which you reason.' (2.29)
H3. (recollection of Nicetas) Then Simon said: 'I am aware that you know that I separated a soul from a human body; but I know that you are ignorant that it is not the soul of the dead person that ministers to me, for it does not exist; but a certain demon works, pretending to be the soul.' (2.30)
H4. (recollection of Aquila) Nicetas having thus spoken, Aquila himself in turn said: This only should I wish to learn of you, Simon, whether it is the soul or whether it is a demon that is conjured: what is it afraid of, that it does not despise the conjuration? Then Simon said: 'It knows that it should suffer punishment if it were disobedient.' (2.31)
H5. When Peter had thus spoken, Simon, at the outside of the crowd, cried aloud: Why would you lie, and deceive the unlearned multitude standing around you, persuading them that it is unlawful to think that there are gods, and to call them so, when the books that are current among the Jews say that there are many gods? And now I wish, in the presence of all, to discuss with you from these books on the necessity of thinking that there are gods; first showing respecting him whom you call God, that he is not the supreme and omnipotent Being, inasmuch as he is without foreknowledge, imperfect, needy, not good, and underlying many and innumerable grievous passions. Wherefore, when this has been shown from the Scriptures, as I say, it follows that there is another, not written of, foreknowing, perfect, without want, good, removed from all grievous passions. But he whom you call the Creator is subject to the opposite evils. Therefore also Adam, being made at first after his likeness, is created blind, and is said not to have knowledge of good or evil, and is found a transgressor, and is driven out of paradise, and is punished with death. In like manner also, he who made him, because he sees not in all places, says with reference to the overthrow of Sodom, 'Come, and let us go down, and see whether they do according to their cry which comes to me; or if not, that I may know.' Thus he shows himself ignorant. And in his saying respecting Adam, 'Let us drive him out, lest he put forth his hand and touch the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever;' in saying Lest he is ignorant; and in driving him out lest he should eat and live for ever, he is also envious. And whereas it is written that 'God repented that he had made man,' this implies both repentance and ignorance. For this reflection is a view by which one, through ignorance, wishes to inquire into the result of the things which he wills, or it is the act of one repenting on account of the event not being according to his expectation. And whereas it is written, 'And the Lord smelled a scent of sweetness,' it is the part of one in need; and his being pleased with the fat of flesh is the part of one who is not good. But his tempting, as it is written, 'And God did tempt Abraham,' is the part of one who is wicked, and who is ignorant of the issue of the experiment." In like manner Simon, by taking many passages from the Scriptures, seemed to show that God is subject to every infirmity. (3.38 - 40)
H6. (in response to Peter declaring "Does he who is evil, and wholly wicked, love to accuse himself in the things in which he sins? Answer me this. Then said Simon: He does not. (3.40)
H7 (in response to Peter saying) How, then, can God be evil and wicked, seeing that those evil things which have been commonly written regarding Him, have been added by His own will! Then said Simon: It may be that the charge against Him is written by another power, and not according to His choice. Then said Peter: Let us then, in the first place, inquire into this. If, indeed, He has of His own will accused Himself, as you formerly acknowledged, then He is not wicked; but if it is done by another power, it must be inquired and investigated with all energy who has subjected to all evils Him who alone is good. (ibid)
H8. Then said Simon: You are manifestly avoiding the hearing of the charge from the Scriptures against your God. (3.41)
H9. Then Simon: First confess that if the things written against the Creator are true, he is not above all, since, according to the Scriptures, he is subject to all evil; then afterwards we shall inquire as to the writer. Then said Peter: That I may not seem to speak against your want of order through unwillingness to enter upon the investigation, I answer you. I say that if the things written against God are true, they do not show that God is wicked. Then said Simon: How can you maintain that? (ibid)
H10. (in response to Peter saying "Because things are written opposite to those sayings which speak evil of him; wherefore neither the one nor the other can be confirmed"). Then Simon: How, then, is the truth to be ascertained, of those Scriptures that say he is evil, or of those that say he is good? Then Peter: Whatever sayings of the Scriptures are in harmony with the creation that was made by Him are true, but whatever are contrary to it are false. (3.42)
H11. Then Simon said: How can you show that the Scriptures contradict themselves? And Peter said: You say that Adam was created blind, which was not so; for He would not have pointed out the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to a blind man, and commanded him not to taste of it. Then said Simon: He meant that his mind was blind. Then Peter: How could he be blind in respect of his mind, who, before tasting of the tree, in harmony with Him who made him, imposed appropriate names on all the animals? (ibid)
12. Then Simon: If Adam had foreknowledge, how did he not foreknow that the serpent would deceive his wife? (ibid)
H13. (in response to Peter saying "Thus the sayings accusatory of the God who made the heaven are both rendered void by the opposite sayings which are alongside of them, and are refuted by the creation. For they were not written by a prophetic hand. Wherefore also they appear opposite to the hand of God, who made all things.") Then said Simon: How can you show this? (3.46)
H14. Then said Simon: Since, as you say, we must understand the things concerning God by comparing them with the creation, how is it possible to recognise the other things in the law which are from the tradition of Moses, and are true, and are mixed up with these falsehoods? Then Peter said: A certain verse has been recorded without controversy in the written law, according to the providence of God, so as to show clearly which of the things written are true and which are false. Then said Simon: Which is that? Show it us. Then Peter said: I shall tell you immediately. It is written in the first book of the law, towards the end: 'A ruler shall not fail from Judah, nor a leader from his thighs, until He come whose it is; and He is the expectation of the nations.' (3.48 - 49)
H15. Then said Simon: I understand that you speak of your Jesus as Him who was prophesied of by the scripture. Therefore let it be granted that it is so. Tell us, then, how he taught you to discriminate the Scriptures. (3.49) Simon flees
H16. Then Simon ventured, along with Appion and Anubion and Athenodorus, and the rest of his companions, to cry out to the people against Peter in public: Flee, friends, from this man! He is a magician; trust us, he it was who caused this earthquake: he sent us these diseases to terrify us, as if he were God Himself. (7.9) Simon flees
H17. Just as the deacon said this, lo! Simon himself entered, accompanied by Athenodorus and some other friends. And before Peter spoke at all, he took the first word, and said:— I heard that you promised yesterday to Faustus to prove this day, giving out your arguments in regular order, and beginning with Him who is Lord of the universe, that we ought to say that He alone is God, and that we ought neither to say nor to think that there are other gods, because he that acts contrary to this will be punished eternally. But, above all, I am truly amazed at your madness in hoping to convert a wise man, and one far advanced in years, to your state of mind. But you will not succeed in your designs; and all the more that I am present, and can thoroughly refute your false arguments. For perhaps, if I had not been present, the wise old man might have been led astray, because he has no critical acquaintance with the books publicly believed in amongst the Jews. At present I shall omit much, in order that I may the more speedily refute that which you have promised to prove. Wherefore begin to speak what you promised to say before us, who know the Scriptures. But if, fearing our refutation, you are unwilling to fulfil your promise in our presence, this of itself will be sufficient proof that you are wrong, because you did venture to speak in the presence of those who know the Scriptures. And now, why should I wait till you tell me, when I have a most satisfactory witness of your promise in the old man who is present? And, saying this, he looked to my father, and said: Tell me, most excellent of all men, is not this the man who promised to prove to you today that God is one, and that we ought not to say or think that there is any other god, and that he who acts contrary to this will be punished eternally, as committing the most heinous sin? Do you, then, refuse to reply to me? (16.3)
H18. (responding to Faustus who declared: Let each of you give an exposition of his own opinion, and let the right of speech pass from the one to the other. For if Peter alone should wish to expound his thought, but you should be silent as to yours, it is possible that some argument adduced by you might crush both your and his opinion; and both of you, though defeated by this argument, would not appear defeated, but only the one who expounded his opinion; while he who did not expound his, though equally defeated, would not appear defeated, but would even be thought to have conquered). And Simon answered: I will do as you say; but I am afraid lest you do not turn out a truth-loving judge, as you have been already prejudiced by his arguments. (ibid)
H19. (responding to Faustus who declares Do not compel me to agree with you without any exercise of my judgment in order that I may seem to be a truth-loving judge; but if you wish me to tell you the truth, my prepossessions are rather the side of your opinions). And Simon said: How is this the case, when you do not know what my opinions are? (16.4)
H20. And Simon said: But I maintain that the Scriptures believed in amongst the Jews say that there are many gods, and that God is not angry at this, because He has Himself spoken of many gods in His Scriptures. For instance, in the very first words of the law, He evidently speaks of them as being like even unto Himself. For thus it is written, that, when the first man received a commandment from God to eat of every tree that was in the garden, but not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the serpent having persuaded them by means of the woman, through the promise that they would become gods, made them look up; and then, when they had thus looked up, God said, 'Behold, Adam has become as one of us.' When, then, the serpent said, 'You shall be as gods,' he plainly speaks in the belief that gods exist; all the more as God also added His testimony, saying, 'Behold, Adam has become as one of us.' The serpent, then, who said that there are many gods, did not speak falsely. Again, the scripture, 'You shall not revile the gods, nor curse the rulers of your people,' points out many gods whom it does not wish even to be cursed. But it is also somewhere else written, 'Did another god dare to enter and take him a nation from the midst of another nation, as did I the Lord God?' When He says, 'Did another God dare?' He speaks on the supposition that other gods exist. And elsewhere: 'Let the gods that have not made the heavens and the earth perish;' as if those who had made them were not to perish. And in another place, when it says, 'Take heed to yourself lest you go and serve other gods whom your fathers knew not,' it speaks as if other gods existed whom they were not to follow. And again: 'The names of other gods shall not ascend upon your lips.' Here it mentions many gods whose names it does not wish to be uttered. And again it is written, 'Your God is the Lord, He is God of gods.' And again: 'Who is like unto You, O Lord, among the Gods?' And again: 'God is Lord of gods.' And again: 'God stood in the assembly of gods: He judges among the gods.' Wherefore I wonder how, when there are so many passages in writing which testify that there are many gods, you have asserted that we ought neither to say nor to think that there are many. Finally, if you have anything to say against what has been spoken so distinctly, say it in the presence of all. (16.5 - 6)
H21. And Simon said: My original stipulation with you was that I should prove from the Scriptures that you were wrong in maintaining that we ought not to speak of many gods. Accordingly I adduced many written passages to show that the divine Scriptures themselves speak of many gods. (16.7)
H22. And Simon said: Do you, Peter, listen to what I have to say. You seem to me to sin in speaking against them, when the Scripture says, 'You shall not revile the gods, nor curse the rulers of your people.' (16.8)
H23. And Simon said: I adduced clear passages from the Scriptures to prove that there are many gods; and you, in reply, brought forward as many or more from the same Scriptures, showing that God is one, and He the God of the Jews. And when I said that we ought not to revile gods, you proceeded to show that He who created is one, because those who did not create will perish. And in reply to my assertion that we ought to maintain that there are gods, because the Scriptures also say so, you showed that we ought not to utter their names, because the same Scripture tells us not to utter the names of other gods. Since, then, these very Scriptures say at one time that there are many gods, and at another that there is only one; and sometimes that they ought not to be reviled, and at other times that they ought; what conclusion ought we to come to in consequence of this, but that the Scriptures themselves lead us astray? (16.9)
H24. (in response to Peter who declares I do not accept of any other god but Him alone who created me.) And Simon said: Since I see that you frequently speak of the God who created you, learn from me how you are impious even to him. For there are evidently two who created, as the Scripture says: 'And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.' Now 'let us make,' implies two or more; certainly not one only. (16.11)
H25. (in response to Peter who says "One is He who said to His Wisdom, 'Let us make a man.' But His Wisdom was that with which He Himself always rejoiced as with His own spirit. It is united as soul to God, but it is extended by Him, as hand, fashioning the universe. On this account, also, one man was made, and from him went forth also the female. And being a unity generically, it is yet a duality, for by expansion and contraction the unity is thought to be a duality. So that I act rightly in offering up all the honour to one God as to parents). And Simon said: What then? Even if the Scriptures say that there are other gods, will you not accept the opinion? (16.12)
H26. When Simon heard this, he said: Since you say that we ought not to believe even the prophet that gives signs and wonders if he say that there is another god, and that you know that he even incurs the penalty of death, therefore your teacher also was with reason cut off for having given signs and wonders. And Peter answered: Our Lord neither asserted that there were gods except the Creator of all, nor did He proclaim Himself to be God, but He with reason pronounced blessed him who called Him the Son of that God who has arranged the universe. And Simon answered: Does it not seem to you, then, that he who comes from God is God?"(16.15)
H27. (in response to Peter saying "it is the peculiarity of the Father not to have been begotten, but of the Son to have been begotten; but what is begotten cannot be compared with that which is unbegotten or self-begotten"). And Simon said: Is it not the same on account of its origin? And Peter said: He who is not the same in all respects as some one, cannot have all the same appellations applied to him as that person. And Simon said: This is to assert, not to prove. (16.16)
H28. (in response to Peter declaring "Wherefore He is called the Most High, because, being higher than all, He has the universe subject to Him"). And Simon said: Is this word 'God' His ineffable name, which all use, because you maintain so strongly in regard to a name that it cannot be given to another? (16.17 - 18)
H29. And Simon said: I should like to know, Peter, if you really believe that the shape of man has been moulded after the shape of God. (16.19)
H30. And Simon said: How can death dissolve the body, impressed as it has thus been with the greatest seal? (ibid)
H31. And Simon said: What necessity was there to give the shape of such a being to man, who was raised from the earth? (ibid)
H32. When Peter said this, Simon answered: Since I see you skilfully hinting that what is written in the books against the framer of the world does not happen to be true, tomorrow I shall show, from the discourses of your teacher, that he asserted that the framer of the world was not the highest God. (16.21)
H33. (begins with the statement "Simon is seated without, discoursing with about thirty of his own special followers." and then is followed by a summary of Simon's statement where he appeals to Jesus's words in the gospel) He accuses you, Peter, of being the servant of wickedness, of having great power in magic, and as charming the souls of men in a way worse than idolatry. To prove that you are a magician, he seemed to me to adduce the following evidence, saying: 'I am conscious of this, that when I come to hold a discussion with him, I do not remember a single word of what I have been meditating on by myself. For while he is discoursing, and my mind is engaged in recollecting what it is that I thought of saying on coming to a conference with him, I do not hear anything whatsoever of what he is saying. Now, since I do not experience this in the presence of any other than in his alone, is it not plain that I am under the influence of his magic? And as to his doctrines being worse than those of idolatry, I can make that quite clear to any one who has understanding. For there is no other benefit than this, that the soul should be freed from images of every kind. For when the soul brings an image before its eye, it is bound by fear, and it pines away through anxiety lest it should suffer some calamity; and being altered, it falls under the influence of a demon; and being under his influence, it seems to the mass to be wise. Peter does this to you while promising to make you wise. For, under the pretext of proclaiming one God, he seems to free you from many lifeless images, which do not at all injure those who worship them, because they are seen by the eyes themselves to be made of stone, or brass, or gold, or of some other lifeless material. Wherefore the soul, because it knows that what is seen is nothing, cannot be spell-bound by fear in an equal degree by means of what is visible. But looking to a terrible God through the influence of deceptive teaching, it has all its natural foundations overturned. And I say this, not because I exhort you to worship images, but because Peter, seeming to free your souls from terrible images, drives mad the mind of each one of you by a more terrible image, introducing God in a shape, and that, too, a God extremely just,—an image which is accompanied by what is terrible and awful to the contemplative soul, by that which can entirely destroy the energy of a sound mind. For the mind, when in the midst of such a storm, is like the depth stirred by a violent wind, perturbed and darkened. Wherefore, if he comes to benefit you, let him not, while seeming to dissolve your fears which gently proceed from lifeless shapes, introduce in their stead the terrible shape of God. But has God a shape? If He has, He possesses a figure. And if He has a figure, how is He not limited? And if limited, He is in space. But if He is in space, He is less than the space which encloses Him. And if less than anything, how is He greater than all, or superior to all, or the highest of all? This, then, is the state of the case. And that he does not really believe even the doctrines proclaimed by his teacher is evident, for he proclaims doctrines opposite to his. For he said to some one, as I learn, Call me not good, for the good is one. Now in speaking of the good one, he no longer speaks of that just one, whom the Scriptures proclaim, who kills and makes alive,—kills those who sin, and makes alive those who live according to His will. But that he did not really call Him who is the framer of the world good, is plain to any one who can reflect. For the framer of the world was known to Adam whom He had made, and to Enoch who pleased Him, and to Noah who was seen to be just by Him; likewise to Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; also to Moses, and the people, and the whole world. But Jesus, the teacher of Peter himself, came and said, No one knew the Father except the Son, as no one knows even the Son except the Father, and those to whom the Son may wish to reveal Him. If, then, it was the Son himself who was present, it was from the time of his appearance that he began to reveal to those to whom he wished, Him who was unknown to all. And thus the Father was unknown to all who lived before him, and could not thus be He who was known to all. In saying this, Jesus is consistent not even with himself. For sometimes by other utterances, taken from the Scriptures, he presents God as being terrible and just, saying, Fear not him who kills the body, but can do nothing to the soul; but fear Him who is able to cast both body and soul into the Gehenna of fire. Yea, I say unto you, fear Him. But that he asserted that He is really to be feared as being a just God, to whom he says those who receive injustice cry, is shown in a parable of which he gives the interpretation, saying: If, then, the unjust judge did so, because he was continually entreated, how much more will the Father avenge those who cry to Him day and night? Or do you think that, because He bears long with them, He will not do it? Yea, I say to you, He will do it, and that speedily. Now he who speaks of God as an avenging and rewarding God, presents Him as naturally just, and not as good. Moreover he gives thanks to the Lord of heaven and earth. But if He is Lord of heaven and earth, He is acknowledged to be the framer of the world, and if framer, then He is just. When, therefore, he sometimes calls Him good and sometimes just, he is not consistent with himself in this point. But his wise disciple maintained yesterday a third point, that real sight is more satisfactory than vision, not knowing that real sight can be human, but that vision confessedly proceeds from divinity. These and such like were the statements, Peter, which Simon addressed to the multitudes while he stood outside; and he seems to me to be disturbing the minds of the greater number. Wherefore go forth immediately, and by the power of truth break down his false statements. (17.3 - 6)
H34. (response to a long speech from Peter) Simon, on hearing this, interrupted him, and said: I know against whom you are making these remarks; but in order that I may not spend any time in discussing subjects which I do not wish to discuss, repeating the same statements to refute you, reply to that which is concisely stated by us. You professed that you had well understood the doctrines and deeds of your teacher because you saw them before you with your own eyes, and heard them with your own ears, and that it is not possible for any other to have anything similar by vision or apparition. But I shall show that this is false. He who hears any one with his own ears, is not altogether fully assured of the truth of what is said; for his mind has to consider whether he is wrong or not, inasmuch as he is a man as far as appearance goes. But apparition not merely presents an object to view, but inspires him who sees it with confidence, for it comes from God. Now reply first to this. (17.13)
H35. And Simon said: If you maintain that apparitions do not always reveal the truth, yet for all that, visions and dreams, being God-sent, do not speak falsely in regard to those matters which they wish to tell. And Peter said: You were right in saying that, being God-sent, they do not speak falsely. But it is uncertain if he who sees has seen a God-sent dream. (17.14)
H36. And Simon said: If he who has had the vision is just, he has seen a true vision. And Peter said: You were right. But who is just, if he stands in need of a vision that he may learn what he ought to learn, and do what he ought to do? And Simon said: Grant me this, that the just man alone can see a true vision, and I shall then reply to that other point. For I have come to the conclusion that an impious man does not see a true dream. And Peter said: This is false; and I can prove it both apart from Scripture and by Scripture; but I do not undertake to persuade you. For the man who is inclined to fall in love with a bad woman, does not change his mind so as to care for a lawful union with another woman in every respect good; but sometimes they love the worse woman through prepossessions, though they are conscious that there is another who is more excellent. And you are ignorant, in consequence of some such state of mind. And Simon said: Dismiss this subject, and discuss the matter on which you promised to speak. For it seems to me impossible that impious men should receive dreams from God in any way whatever. (ibid)

H37. (Peter's famous accusation that Simon is Paul which ends with the words "But if, indeed, you really wish to work in the cause of truth, learn first of all from us what we have learned from Him, and, becoming a disciple of the truth, become a fellow-worker with us.") When Simon heard this, he said: Far be it from me to become his or your disciple. For I am not ignorant of what I ought to know; but the inquiries which I made as a learner were made that I may see if you can prove that actual sight is more distinct than apparition. But you spoke according to your own pleasure; you did not prove. And now, tomorrow I shall come to your opinions in regard to God, whom you affirmed to be the framer of the world; and in my discussion with you, I shall show that he is not the highest, nor good, and that your teacher made the same statements as I now do; and I shall prove that you have not understood him. On saying this he went away, not wishing to listen to what might be said to the propositions which he had laid down. (17.20)
H38. At break of day, when Peter went forth to discourse, Simon anticipated him, and said: When I went away yesterday, I promised to you to return today, and in a discussion show that he who framed the world is not the highest God, but that the highest God is another who alone is good, and who has remained unknown up to this time. At once, then, state to me whether you maintain that the framer of the world is the same as the lawgiver or not? If, then, he is the lawgiver, he is just; but if he is just, he is not good. But if he is not good, then it was another that Jesus proclaimed, when he said, 'Do not call me good; for one is good, the Father who is in the heavens.' Now a lawgiver cannot be both just and good, for these qualities do not harmonize." And Peter said: First tell us what are the actions which in your opinion constitute a person good, and what are those which constitute him just, in order that thus we may address our words to the same mark. And Simon said: Do you state first what in your opinion is goodness, and what justice. (18.1)
39. (in response to Peter who declares "I then affirm that the man who bestows goods is good, just as I see the Framer of the world doing when He gives the sun to the good, and the rain to the just and unjust"). And Simon said: It is most unjust that he should give the same things to the just and the unjust. And Peter said: Do you, then, in your turn state to us what course of conduct would constitute Him good. And Simon said: It is you that must state this. (18.2)
H40. (in response to Peter who declares "But judging at last, and giving to each one what he deserves, He is just. If, then, this is right, confess it; but if it appears to you not to be right, refute it." And Simon said: I said once for all, 'Every lawgiver, looking to justice, is just.' (18.2 - 3)
H41. And Simon said: Prove to me from the utterances of your teacher that it is within the power of the same man to be good and just; for to me it seems impossible that the lawgiver who is good should also be just. (18.3)
H42. And Simon said: How, then, if the framer of the world, who also fashioned Adam, was known, and known too by those who were just according to the law, and moreover by the just and unjust, and the whole world, does your teacher, coming after all these, say, 'No one has known the Father but the Son, even as no one knows the Son but the Father, and those to whom the Son may wish to reveal Him?' But he would not have made this statement, had he not proclaimed a Father who was still unrevealed, whom the law speaks of as the highest, and who has not given any utterance either good or bad (as Jeremiah testifies in the Lamentations ); who also, limiting the nations to seventy languages, according to the number of the sons of Israel who entered Egypt, and according to the boundaries of these nations, gave to his own Son, who is also called Lord, and who brought into order the heaven and the earth, the Hebrews as his portion, and defined him to be God of gods, that is, of the gods who received the other nations as their portions. Laws, therefore, proceeded from all the so-called gods to their own divisions, which consist of the other nations. In like manner also from the Son of the Lord of all came forth the law which is established among the Hebrews. And this state of matters was determined on, that if any one should seek refuge in the law of any one, he should belong to the division of him whose law he undertook to obey. No one knew the highest Father, who was unrevealed, just as they did not know that his Son was his Son. Accordingly at this moment you yourself, in assigning the special attributes of the unrevealed Most High to the Son, do not know that he is the Son, being the Father of Jesus, who with you is called the Christ. When Simon had made these statements, Peter said to him: Can you call to witness that these are your beliefs that being Himself,—I do not mean Him whom you speak of now as being unrevealed, but Him in whom you believe, though you do not confess Him? For you are talking nonsense when you define one thing in stead of another. Wherefore, if you call Him to witness that you believe what you say, I shall answer you. But if you continue discussing with me what you do not believe, you compel me to strike the empty air. And Simon said: It is from some of your own disciples that I have heard that this is the truth. And Peter said: Do not bear false witness? And Simon said: Do not rebuke me, most insolent man. And Peter said: So long as you do not tell who it was who said so, I affirm that you are a liar. And Simon said: Suppose that I myself have got up these doctrines, or that I heard them from some other, give me your answer to them. For if they cannot be overturned, then I have learned that this is the truth. And Peter said: If it is a human invention, I will not reply to it; but if you are held fast by the supposition that it is the truth, acknowledge to me that this is the case, and I can then myself say something in regard to the matter. And Simon said: Once for all, then, these doctrines seem to me to be true. Give me your reply, if you have anything to say against them. (18.4 - 5)
H43. And Peter said: If this is the case, you are acting most impiously. For if it belongs to the Son, who arranged heaven and earth, to reveal His unrevealed Father to whomsoever He wishes, you are, as I said, acting most impiously in revealing Him to those to whom He has not revealed Him. And Simon said: But he himself wishes me to reveal him. (18.6)
H44. And Peter said: You do not understand what I mean, Simon. But listen and understand. When it is said that the Son will reveal Him to whom He wishes, it is meant that such an one is to learn of Him not by instruction, but by revelation only. For it is revelation when that which lies secretly veiled in all the hearts of men is revealed unveiled by His God's own will without any utterance. And thus knowledge comes to one, not because he has been instructed, but because he has understood. And yet the person who understands it cannot demonstrate it to another, since he did not himself receive it by instruction; nor can he reveal it, since he is not himself the Son, unless he maintains that he is himself the Son. But you are not the standing Son. For if you were the Son, assuredly you would know those who are worthy of such a revelation. But you do not know them. For if you knew them, you would do as they do who know. And Simon said: I confess I have not understood what you mean by the expression, 'You would do as they do who know.' And Peter said: If you have not understood it, then you cannot know the mind of every one; and if you are ignorant of this, then you do not know those who are worthy of the revelation. You are not the Son, for the Son knows. Wherefore He reveals Him to whomsoever He wishes, because they are worthy. (18.6 - 7)
H45. And Simon said: Be not deceived. I know those who are worthy, and I am not the Son. And yet I have not understood what meaning you attach to the words, 'He reveals Him to whomsoever He wishes.' But I said that I did not understand it, not because I did not know it, but because I knew that those who were present did not understand it, in order that you may state it more distinctly, so that they may perceive what are the reasons why we are carrying on this discussion. And Peter said: I cannot state the matter more clearly: explain what meaning you have attached to the words. And Simon said: There is no necessity why I should state your opinions. And Peter said: You evidently, Simon, do not understand it, and yet you do not wish to confess, that you may not be detected in your ignorance, and thus be proved not to be the standing Son. For you hint this, though you do not wish to state it plainly; and, indeed, I who am not a prophet, but a disciple of the true Prophet, know well from the hints you have given what your wishes are. For you, though you do not understand even what is distinctly said, wish to call yourself son in opposition to us. And Simon said: I will remove every pretext from you. I confess I do not understand what can be the meaning of the statement, 'The Son reveals Him to whomsoever He wishes.' State therefore what is its meaning more distinctly. (ibid)
H46. And Peter said: Since, at least in appearance, you have confessed that you do not understand it, reply to the question I put to you, and you will learn the meaning of the statement. Tell me, do you maintain that the Son, whoever he be, is just, or that he is not just? And Simon said: I maintain that he is most just. And Peter said: Seeing He is just, why does He not make the revelation to all, but only to those to whom He wishes? And Simon said: Because, being just, he wishes to make the revelation only to the worthy. And Peter said: Must He not therefore know the mind of each one, in order that He may make the revelation to the worthy? And Simon said: Of course he must. And Peter said: With reason, therefore, has the work of giving the revelation been confined to Him alone, for He alone knows the mind of every one; and it has not been given to you, who are not able to understand even that which is stated by us. When Peter said this, the multitudes applauded. (18.8)
H47.But Simon, being thus exposed, blushed through shame, and rubbing his forehead, said: Well, then, do they declare that I, a magician, yea, even I who syllogize, am conquered by Peter? It is not so. But if one should syllogize, though carried away and conquered, he still retains the truth that is in him. For the weakness in the defender is not identical with the truth in the conquered man. But I assure you that I have judged all those who are bystanders worthy to know the unrevealed Father. Wherefore, because I publicly reveal him to them, you yourself, through envy, are angry with me who wish to confer a benefit on them. (18.9)
H48. And Simon said: It contributes much to victory, if the man who wars uses his own weapons; for what one loves he can in real earnest defend, and that which is defended with genuine earnestness has no ordinary power in it. Wherefore in future I shall lay before you my real opinions. I maintain that there is some unrevealed power, unknown to all, even to the Creator himself, as Jesus himself has also declared, though he did not know what he said. For when one talks a great deal he sometimes hits the truth, not knowing what he is saying. I am referring to the statement which he uttered, 'No one knows the Father.' And Peter said: Do not any longer profess that you know His doctrines. And Simon said: I do not profess to believe his doctrines; but I am discussing points in which he was by accident right. (18.11)
H49. (in response to Peter saying "We, Simon, do not assert that from the great power, which is also called the dominant power, two angels were sent forth, the one to create the world, the other to give the law; nor that each one when he came proclaimed himself, on account of what he had done, as the sole creator; nor that there is one who stands, will stand, and is opposed. Learn how you disbelieve even in respect to this subject. If you say that there is an unrevealed power, that power is full of ignorance. For it did not foreknow the ingratitude of the angels who were sent by it"). And Simon became exceedingly angry with Peter for saying this, and interrupted his discourse, saying: What nonsense is this you speak, you daring and most impudent of men, revealing plainly before the multitudes the secret doctrines, so that they can be easily learned? And Peter said: Why do you grudge that the present audience should receive benefit? And Simon said: Do you then allow that such knowledge is a benefit? And Peter said: I allow it: for the knowledge of a false doctrine is beneficial, inasmuch as you do not fall into it because of ignorance. And Simon said: You are evidently not able to reply to the propositions I laid before you. I maintain that even your teacher affirms that there is some Father unrevealed. (18.12 - 13)
H50. And Simon, being vexed at this, said: Blame your own teacher, who said, 'I thank You, Lord of heaven and earth, that what was concealed from the wise, You have revealed to suckling babes.' (18.15)
H51. [Peter says] Wherefore every man who wishes to be saved must become, as the Teacher said, a judge of the books written to try us. For thus He spoke: 'Become experienced bankers.' Now the need of bankers arises from the circumstance that the spurious is mixed up with the genuine. When Peter said this, Simon pretended to be utterly astonished at what was said in regard to the Scriptures; and as if in great agitation, he said: Far be it from me, and those who love me, to listen to your discourses. And, indeed, as long as I did not know that you held these opinions in regard to the Scriptures, I endured you, and discussed with you; but now I retire. Indeed, I ought at the first to have withdrawn, because I heard you say, 'I, for my part, believe no one who says anything against Him who created the world, neither angels, nor prophets, nor Scriptures, nor priests, nor teachers, nor any one else, even though one should work signs and miracles, even though he should lighten brilliantly in the air, or should make a revelation through visions or through dreams.' Who, then, can succeed in changing your mind, whether well or ill, so as that you should hold opinions different from what you have determined on, seeing that you abide so persistently and immoveably in your own decision? (18.20 - 21)
H52. (in response to Peter who declares "And thus, Simon, you are not aware that you are the servant of wickedness"). And Simon answered: Whence, then, has evil arisen? Tell us. And Peter said: Since today you were the first to go out, and you declared that you would not in future listen to me as being a blasphemer, come tomorrow, if indeed you wish to learn, and I shall explain the matter to you, and I will permit you to ask me any questions you like, without any dispute. And Simon said: I shall do as shall seem good to me. And saying this, he went away. (18.23)
H53. And thus, Simon, you are not aware that you are the servant of wickedness. And Simon answered: Whence, then, has evil arisen? Tell us. And Peter said: Since today you were the first to go out, and you declared that you would not in future listen to me as being a blasphemer, come tomorrow, if indeed you wish to learn, and I shall explain the matter to you, and I will permit you to ask me any questions you like, without any dispute. And Simon said: I shall do as shall seem good to me. And saying this, he went away. (19.1 - 2)
H54. And Simon said: Since, then, you have honestly confessed, on the testimony of the Scriptures, that the evil one exists, state to us how he has come into existence, if indeed he has come into existence, and by whom, and why. And Peter said: Pardon me, Simon, if I do not dare to affirm what has not been written. But if you say that it has been written, prove it. But if, since it has not been written, you cannot prove it, why should we run risk in stating our opinions in regard to what has not been written? For if we discourse too daringly in regard to God, it is either because we do not believe that we shall be judged, or that we shall be judged only in respect to that which we do, but not also in regard to what we believe and speak. But Simon, understanding that Peter referred to his own madness, said: Permit me to run the risk; but do not you make what you assert to be blasphemy a pretext for retiring. For I perceive that you wish to withdraw, in order that you may escape refutation before the masses, sometimes as if you were afraid to listen to blasphemies, and at other times by maintaining that, as nothing has been written as to how, and by whom, and why the evil one came into existence, we ought not to dare to assert more than the Scripture. Wherefore also as a pious man you affirm this only, that he exists. But by these contrivances you deceive yourself, not knowing that, if it is blasphemy to inquire accurately regarding the evil one, the blame rests with me, the accuser, and not with you, the defender of God. And if the subject inquired into is not in Scripture, and on this account you do not wish to inquire into it, there are some satisfactory methods which can prove to you what is sought not less effectively than the Scriptures. For instance, must it not be the case that the evil one, who you assert exists, is either originated or unoriginated? (19.3)
H55. And Peter said: It must be so. And Simon: Therefore, if he is originated, he has been made by that very God who made all things, being either born as an animal, or sent forth substantially, and resulting from an external mixture of elements. For either the matter, being living or lifeless, from which he was made was outside of Him, or he came into being through God Himself, or through his own self, or he resulted from things non-existent, or he is a mere relative thing, or he always existed. Having thus, as I think, clearly, pointed out all the possible ways by which we may find him, in going along some one of these we must find him. We must therefore go along each one of these in search of his origin; and when we find him who is his author, we must perceive that he is to blame. Or how does the matter seem to you? (19.4)
H56. And Simon said: When you have discussed all the subjects which I have laid before you, I shall show you the cause of evil. Then I shall also reply to what you have now said, and prove that that God whom you affirm to be blameless is blameable. And Peter said: Since I perceive from what you say at the commencement that you are striving after nothing else than to subject God, as being the author of evil, to blame, I have resolved to go along with you all the ways you like, and to prove that God is entirely free from blame. And Simon said: You say this as loving God, whom you suppose you know; but you are not right. And Peter said: But you, as being wicked, and hating God whom you have not known, utter blasphemous words. And Simon said: Remember that you have likened me to the author of evil. (19.6)
H57. And Simon said: He who seeks the truth ought not to gratify any one in any respect contrary to what is really true. For why does he make the inquiry at all? Why, I ask? For I am not also able, laying aside the accurate investigation of things, to spend all my time in the praise of that God whom I do not know. (ibid)
H58. And Simon said: Do not imagine that you will frighten me into not investigating the truth of your examples. For I am so eager for the truth, that for its sake I will not shrink from undergoing danger. If, then, you have anything to say in regard to the propositions made by me at the commencement, say it now. (19.7)
H59. And Simon said: Well have you distinguished all the methods of accounting for his existence in a summary manner. Now it is my part to examine these various ideas, and to show that the Creator is blameable. But it is your business to prove, as you promised, that he is free from all blame. But I wonder if you will be able. For, first, if the devil has been begotten from God as an animal, the vice which is his is accordingly the same as that of him who sends him forth. And Peter said: Not at all. For we see many men who are good the fathers of wicked children, and others who are wicked the fathers of good children, and others again who are wicked producing both good and wicked children, and others who are good having both wicked and good children. For instance, the first man who was created produced the unrighteous Cain and the righteous Abel. To this Simon said: You are acting foolishly, in using human examples when discoursing about God. (19.9)
H60. And Simon, hearing this, said: You will not force me through shame to remain silent in regard to His substance, and to inquire into His will alone. For it is possible both to think and to speak of His substance. I mean from the good attributes that belong to man. For instance, life and death are attributes of man; but death is not an attribute of God, but life, and eternal life. Furthermore, men may be both evil and good; but God can be only incomparably good. And, not to prolong the subject too much, the better attributes of man are eternal attributes of God. And Peter said: Tell me, Simon, is it an attribute of man to beget evil and good, and to do evil and good? And Simon said: It is. (19.11)
H61. And Simon said: If, then, God is the cause only of what is good, what else can we think than that some other principle begot the evil one; or is evil unbegotten? (19.12)
H62. And Simon said: God being able to mingle the elements, and to make His mixtures so as to produce any dispositions that He may wish, why did He not make the composition of each such as that it would prefer what is good? (ibid)
H63. And Simon said: But what if matter, being coeval with Him, and possessing equal power, produces as His foe leaders who hinder His wishes? (19.14)
H64. And Simon said: But what if, being lifeless, it possesses a nature capable of producing what is evil and what is good? (19.15)
H65. And Simon said: What! If God Himself gave it life, is not He, then, the cause of the evils which it produces? (ibid)
H66. And Simon said to this: I have one thing more to say in regard to the wicked one. Assuredly, since God made him out of nothing, he is in this respect wicked, especially since he was able to make him good, by giving him at his creation a nature in no way capable of selecting wickedness. (19.16)
H67. And Simon said: If he made the angels also voluntary agents, and the wicked one departed from a state of righteousness, why has he been honoured with a post of command? Is it not plain that he who thus honoured him takes pleasure in the wicked, in that he has thus honoured him? (ibid)
H68. And Simon said: If, then, he exists for ever, is not the fact of the sole government of God thus destroyed, since there is another power, namely, that concerned with matter, which rules along with Him? (19.17)
H69. And Simon said: What then? Did the wicked one make himself? And was God good in such a way, that, knowing he would be the cause of evil, he yet did not destroy him at his origination, when he could have been destroyed, as not yet being perfectly made? For if he came into being suddenly and complete, then on that account he is at war with the Creator, as having come suddenly into being, possessed of equal power with him. (ibid)
H70. And Simon said: Is he then a mere relation, and in this way wicked? —being injurious, as water is injurious to fire, but good for the seasonably thirsty land; as iron is good for the cultivation of the land, but bad for murders; and lust is not evil in respect of marriage, but bad in respect of adultery; as murder is an evil, but good for the murderer so far as his purpose is concerned; and cheating is an evil, but pleasant to the man who cheats; and other things of a like character are good and bad in like manner. In this way, neither is evil, nor good; for the one produces the other. For does not that which seems to be done injuriously rejoice the doer, but punish the sufferer? And though it seems unjust that a man should, out of self-love, gratify himself by every means in his power, to whom, on the other hand, does it not seem unjust that a man should suffer severe punishments at the hand of a just judge for having loved himself? (19.18)
H71. And Simon said: Is it the case, then, that there is nothing either bad or good by nature, but the difference arises through law and custom? For is it not the habit of the Persians to marry their own mothers, sisters and daughters, while marriage with other women is prohibited as most barbarous? Wherefore, if it is not settled what things are evil, it is not possible for all to look forward to the judgment of God. (19.19
H72 (in response to Peter saying "Thus, then we ought not to form our judgments with a perception which through habit has been perverted from its natural action. For to be murdered is an evil, even if all were to deny it; for no one wishes to suffer it himself, and in the case of theft no one rejoices at his own punishment. If, then, no one were at all ever to confess that these are sins, it is right even then to look forward of necessity to a judgment in regard to sins). When Peter said this, Simon answered: Does this, then, seem to you to be the truth in regard to the wicked one? Tell me. (ibid)
H73. (in response to Peter declaring "We remember that our Lord and Teacher, commanding us, said, 'Keep the mysteries for me and the sons of my house.' Wherefore also He explained to His disciples privately the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. But to you who do battle with us, and examine into nothing else but our statements, whether they be true or false, it would be impious to state the hidden truths. But that none of the bystanders may imagine that I am contriving excuses, because I am unable to reply to the assertions made by you, I shall answer you by first putting the question, If there had been a state of painlessness, what is the meaning of the statement, 'The evil one was?' ) And Simon said: The words have no meaning. (19.20)
H74. And Peter: Is then evil the same as pain and death? And Simon: It seems so. And Peter said: Evil, then, does not exist always, yea, it cannot even exist at all substantially (ibid)
H75. And Simon said: You were right in saying this; but in the present world does not man seem to you to be capable of every kind of affection,—as, for instance, of lust, anger, grief, and the like? (19.21)
H76. And Simon: Why is it, then, that some die prematurely, and periodical diseases arise; and that there are, moreover, attacks of demons, and of madness, and all other kinds of afflictions which can greatly punish? (i9.22)
H77. And Simon said: Let me grant that this is the case: does not the inequality of lot amongst men seem to you most unjust? For one is in penury, another is rich; one is sick, another is in good health: and there are innumerable differences of a like character in human life. (19.23)
H78. And Simon said: Are not those in humble circumstances unfortunate? For they are subjected to distress, that others may be made righteous. And Peter said: If their humiliation were eternal, their misfortune would be very great. But the humiliations and exaltations of men take place according to lot; and he who is not pleased with his lot can appeal, and by trying his case according to law, he can exchange his mode of life for another. And Simon said: What do you mean by this lot and this appeal? (ibid)
H79. And Simon hearing this, said: Do not imagine that, when I, while questioning you, agreed with you in each topic, I went to the next, as being fully assured of the truth of the previous; but I appeared to yield to your ignorance, that you might go on to the next topic, in order that, becoming acquainted with the whole range of your ignorance, I might condemn you, not through mere conjecture, but from full knowledge. Allow me now to retire for three days, and I shall come back and show that you know nothing. When Simon said this, and was on the point of going out (19.24)
H80. And Simon hearing this, gnashed his teeth for rage, and went away in silence. But Peter (for a considerable portion of the day still remained) laid his hands on the large multitude to heal them; and having dismissed them, went into the house with his more intimate friends, and sat down (19.25)