SIMON

of the future fortune of the tribe. Jg !'• " makes Simeon join with Judah, at the latter's request, in malting the first attaclc upon the Canaanites, over whom they won a decisive victory at Bezels:. Judah in return was to aid Simeon in gaining his possession. Together they attacked and defeated the inhabitants of Zephath-hormah. Hormah is connected with Arad (Nu 21'-*) about 17 miles to the S.E. of Hebron. Hormah in Jos IS*" is assigned to the tribe of Judah, but re-appears in 19' as a city of eimeon. We are not told in Judges of the settlement of Simeon, but it is implied in the Dinah story (Gn 34) that both he and Levi secured a temporary foothold about Shechem, On account of their treachery, however, they were dispossessed and well-nigh annihilated by the revenge taken upon them by the Canaanites. Levi was permanently shattered; Simeon, however, managed to recover sufficiently to establish itself on the southern border of Judah. There, however; they came into contact with nomad tribes of Edomites and Arabs — a circumstance which doubtless contrib-uted to their failure to rehabilitate themselves and win a permanent abode among the original occupants of the land. They are not mentioned in the Song of Deborah (Jg 5), but this may be accounted for by their position. ?udah also had no part in that important struggle, and is passed over in silence. In historical times nothing is heard of them, and the conclusion is justified that they eventually became merged with the neighbouring tribes, and were later, with them, absorbed by Judah, as Reuben was afterwards by Gad. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the cities which are assigned to Simeon in the list given in Jos 19'-' re-appear elsewhere as cities of Judah (cf. Jos l5»-»2. « l K 19», Neh IIM-m, 1 S 27' 30'°). In connexion with David's ventures to win over the Edomites and other tribes to the south, the name of Simeon does not appear, as might have been expected if the tribe had preserved its solidarity. According to 1 Ch 4"«'-, Simeouites advanced against Gedor and Mt. Seir, in the time of Hezekiah apparently, and there secured permanent possessions. Instead of Gedor, the LXX reads Gerar, the name of the Philistine city of Abimelech. It must be admitted that our sources are too uncertain and^too indefinite to enable us to speak decisively on almost any point of interest in connexion with this tribe. On the one hand, too much credence is given to statements of late writers, as though they furnished indubitable evidence; on the other hand, far-reaching conclusions are often drawn from fragmentary and isolated expressions, both Biblical and extra-Biblical, which are little warranted. See also Tribes of Ishael.

2. The great-grandfather of Judas MaocabseusCl Mao2'). 3. The 'righteous and devout' (dikaios kai euldbis) man who took the infant Jesus in his arms and blessed Him, on the occasion of the presentation in the Temple (Lk 2^™) . The notion that this Simeon is to be identified with a Rabbi who was the son of Hillel and the father of Gamaliel i. is very precarious. James A. Chaiq.

SIMON (a Greek form of Simeon). — 1. Simon Chosa-meus, who was found to have a 'strange' wife (1 Es 9'' =Ezr 10" Simeon). 2. The subject of the encomium in Sir SO'"-, 'son of Onias, the great (or high) priest.' It is doubtful if Simon I. or Simon II . (both 3rd cent. B.C.) is meant. 3. The Maccabaean high priest and ethnarch, son of Mattathias, slain by his son-in-law Ptolemy, b.c. 135 (1 Mac 16"; see Maccabees, 4). 4. A Benjamite, guardian of the Temple in the time of Onias III., who suggested to ApoUonius, the governor, to plunder it (2 Mac 3'). 5. See Peter. 6. See Simon Magus. 7. Simon the Canansan, one of the Twelve (Mt 10', Mk 3"). The surname is an Aramaic equivalent of •Zealot' (Lk 6«, Ac 1"). 8. See Brethren op the Lord. 9. Simon the Leper, our Lord's host at Bethany (Mt 26', Mk 14'; cf. Jn 12^), possibly husband or father of Martha, doubtless cured of his leprosy at some time

SIMON MAGUS

before the anointing by Mary (cf. Mart, 2). 10. The Pharisee who was our Lord's host when the sinful woman anointed Him (Lk 7"). The contradictions between these two stories are so great that it is difl[icult to suppose that they relate the same event in different versions. Two such incidents may well have happened, and one may have suggested the other (cf . Mary, 2) . 11 . Father, or brother, of Judas Iscariot, himself surnamed Iscariot (Jn 6" 13M 'Judas of Simon Iscariot,' 13^ 'Judas Iscariot of Simon'). 12. The Cyrenian who bore our Lord's cross (Mt 27'^, Mk 15^', Lk 23"); see Alexander and RuFus. The followers of Basilides in the 2nd cent, said that Simon was crucified instead of Jesus. 13. The tanner, Peter's host at Joppa (Ac 9").

A. J. Maclean

SmON MAGUS.— Mentioned in Ac 8'-«, and de-scribed as using sorcery in Samaria and thereby amazing the people. He claimed to be 'some great one,' and wis regarded by all as 'that power of God which is called Great.' When Philip reached Samaria, and, preaching the gospel, gathered many into the Church, Simon also fell under the influence of his message. We are told that he 'believed,' which cannot mean less than that he recognized that the Evangelist exerted, in the name of Jesus Christ, powers the reality of which he could not deny, and the efficacy of which 'amazed' him. He therefore sought baptism, and, being baptized, continued with Philip. The Apostles Peter and John came down to Samaria to establish the work begun by Philip, and by the laying on of their hands gave the Holy Ghost to the converts. This was no doubt evidenced by the miraculous gifts which were vouchsafed by God to His Church during its early years. The shallowness of Simon's belief was now shown, for he offered to buy from the Apostles the power of conferring the Holy Ghost. Peter rebuked him in language of such sternness as to lead him to beg of the Apostle to pray that the judgment of God might not fall upon him for his sin.

Simon holds the unenviable position of being the one outstanding heretic in the NT: and from then until now his character has been held in particular odium. Ignatius, the earliest of the Fathers, calls him 'the first-born- of Satan': Irenseus marks him out as the first of all heretics: and later centuries have shown their sense of the greatness of his sin by using the word simony to indicate the crime of procuring a spiritual office by purchase. Justin Martyr mentions three times in his Apology, and once in his Dialogue, a Simon as a leader of an heretical sect. He states that Gitta, a village in Samaria, was his birthplace, and speaks of him as visiting Rome, and being so successful in his magical impostures as to have secured worship for himself as God, and to have been honoured with a statue, which bore the inscription Simoni Deo Sancto ('to Simon the Holy God'). He further mentions that 'almost all the Samaritans, and even a few of other nations,' worshipped him as "first God' (cf. Ac 8" 'this man is that power of God which is called Great'). He also adds that Helena, a fallen woman who accompanied him, was 'the first idea generated by him.' Justin does not specifically identify this Simon with the Simon of the Acts, but there can be no reasonable doubt that he held them to be one and the same.

There was discovered in Rome in 1574 the base of astatue bearing the inscription ' Semoni Sanco Deo fidio sacrum Sex. Pompejtia . . . donum dedit.' It is therefore ^generally assumedj and no doubt correctly, that Justin, being shown by the Simonians at Rome tiiis statue of the Sabine deity Semo Sancus, was led to believe erroneously that it had been erected in honour of Simon. But this error of his regarding what liad occurred in Rome need not invalidate his state-ments regarding Simon himself in Samaria and the progress and tenets of his sect, for he himself was a Samaritan and thus cognizant of the facts. Ireneeus deals more fully with Simon and his followers, though there is good reason for assuming that he is really indebted to a lost work of Justin for his

855