SIMPLICITY
information.
He
directly
identifies
him
with
the
Simon
of
Ac
8,
places
him
first
in
his
list
of
heretics,
and
makes
him
the
father
of
Gnosticism.
From
the
account
he
gives
of
the
doctrines
of
the
Simonians,
it
is
clear
that
by
his
time
they
had
developed
into
a
system
of
Gnosticism:
but
it
is
very
doubtful
whether
he
is
right
in
making
the
Simon
of
the
NT
the
first
setter
forth
of
Gnostic
myths.
The
begin-ning
of
Gnosticism
is
very
obscure,
but
we
may
be
fairly
certain
that
it
had
not
arisen
as
early
as
the
scenes
described
in
Ac
8.
The
Simonian
doctrines
as
given
by
Irenffius
are
therefore
doubtless
developmcTiis
of
the
heretical
teaching
of
Simon,
which,
even
from
the
short
account
in
the
Acts,
would
seem
to
have
lent
itself
readily
to
Gnostic
accretions.
As
time
went
on
many
fanciful
additions
were
made
to
his
history,
until
in
the
4th
cent,
the
legend
reached
its
com-pleteness.
Throughout
these
romances
Simon
is
found
travelling
about
from
place
to
place
in
constant
opposition
to
Peter,
uttering
calumnies
against
the
Apostle;
but
being
pursuedby
Peter
he
is
ultimately
vanquished
and
discredited.
The
earlier
forms
of
the
story
lay
the
scene
of
the
travels
chiefiy
in
Asia
Minor,
and
describe
the
final
confiict
as
taking
place
at
Antioch.
The
later
forms,
however,
make
Rome,
in
the
days
of
Nero,
the
ultimate
goal
of
the
journeyings.
Here
Simon
is
said
to
have
met
his
death
through
his
confiict
■with
Peter
or
with
Peter
and
Paul.
By
one
tradition
the
magician,
seeing
his
influence
waning,
desired
his
followers
to
bury
him
in
a
grave,
promising
to
rise
again
the
third
day.
They
obeyed,
and
he
perished,
for,
as
Hippolytus
adds,
'
he
was
not
the
Christ.'
By
another
tradition
Simon
is
depicted
as
deciding
to
give
to
the
Emperor
a
crowning
proof
of
his
magical
powers
by
attempting
to
fly
off
to
God.
He
is
reported
to
have
flown
for
a
certain
distance
over
Rome,
but,
through
Peter's
prayers,
to
have
fallen
and
broken
his
leg,
and
to
have
been
ultimately
stoned
to
death
by
the
populace.
Another
form
of
the
tradition
represented
Paul
as
a
com-panion
of
Peter
in
the
contest,
and
as
praying
while
Peter
adjured
the
demons
that
supported
Simon
in
his
flight,
in
the
name
of
God
and
of
Jesus
Christ,
to
uphold
him
no
longer.
Simon
thereupon
fell
to
the
earth
and
perished.
Renewed
interest
in
the
history
of
Simon
was
aroused
in
modem
times
by
Baur's
maintaining
that
in
the
Clementine
literature,
where
the
most
developed
form
of
the
legend
occurs,
Simon
is
intended
to
represent
not
the
actual
Simon
of
the
Acts,
but
rather
Paul,
whom
he
(Baur)
conceived
to
have
been
fiercely
opposed
theologically
to^Peter.
Full
information
on
this
theory
may
be
found
in
Hastings'
DB
iv.
523f
.,
where
its
unsoundness
is
shown.
It
may
be
said
to
be
now
generally
rejected.
It
should
be
added
that
Hippolytus
ascribes
a
work
entitled
'The
Great
Revelation'
to
Simon,
and
quotes
largely
from
it;
and
that
the
sect
of
the
Simonians
did
not
long
survive,
for
Origen
states
that
he
did
not
believe
that
there
were
in
his
day
thirty
of
them
in
existence.
Chakles
T.
p.
Ghieeson.
SEHPLICITY.-:—
1.
In
the
OT
'simple'
is,
with
one
exception,
the
translation
of
a
word
(ptthi),
whose
root-
idea
is
'openness.'
Openness
of
mind
is
praiseworthy
when
it
implies
willingness
to
receive
instruction;
it
becomes
blameworthy
when
it
connotes
a
disposition
equally
receptive
of
good
and
of
evil,
or
an
incapacity
to
distinguish
between
right
and
wrong.
In
Proverbs
'the
simple'
are
represented
as
needing
'prudence'
(1*
RVm),
and
they
are
exhorted
to
'understand
pru-dence'
(8>
RVm).
In
14"-
'«
'the
prudent'
are
favour-ably
contrasted
with
'the
simple'
who
'believe
every
word,'
and
therefore
'inherit
folly.'
It
is
'the
testi-mony
of
the
Lord'
that
makes
the
simple
wise
(Ps
19';
cf.
IIQ"").
In
2
S
15"
'simplicity'
means
'integrity'
(fBm).
In
the
LXX
theHeb.word
(ydsher)
for
'
straight-ness
'
or
'
uprightness
'
is
translated
by
the
NT
equivalent
of
'simplicity'
(haplotls).
2.
In
the
NT
'simple'
(aieraios
=Lat.
integer)
is
used
twice
(Mt
10"
RVm,
Ro
IB")
to
describe
the
character
in
which
there
is
'no
foreign
admixture';
the
RV
retains
'simplicity'
as
the
rendering
of
haplotls
only
in
2
Co
11',
where
it
denotes
those
in
whose
character
there
are
'no
folds,'
who
are
whole-hearted
in
their
devotion
to
Christ
(Trench,
NT
Synonyms,
§
Ivi.).
The
Christian
ideal
is
'simplicity
toward
Christ'
(2
Co
11').
In
the
life
of
His
loyal
disciples
dove-like
simplicity
is
blended
with
the
wisdom
of
the
serpent
(Mt
10").
Their
'eye'
being
'single'
(haplous),
their
'whole
body'
is
'full
of
light'
(Mt
6^).
Christ
Jesus
being
made
unto
them
'wisdom
from
God'
(1
Co
1»°),
they
SIN
are
no
longer
beguiled
like
Eve,
but
are
'
wise
unto
that
which
is
good,
and
simple
unto
that
which
is
evil'
(Ro
le'i).
J.
G.
Taskek.
SIN.
—
The
teaching
of
the
Bible
with
regard
to
the
doctrine
of
sin
may
be
said
to
involve
a
desire,
on
the
part
of
the
leaders
of
Jewish
thought,
to
give
a
rational
account
of
the
fact,
the
consciousness,
and
the
results
of
human
error.
Whatever
be
the
conclusion
arrived
at
respecting
the
compilation
of
the
early
chapters
of
Genesis,
one
thought,
at
least,
clearly
emerges:
the
narratives
are
saturated
through
and
through
with
religious
conceptions.
Omnipotence,
sovereignty,
con-descending
active
love,
and
perfect
moral
harmony,
all
find
their
place
in
the
narratives
there
preserved,
as
attributes
of
the
Divine
character.
The
sublime
conception
of
human
dignity
and
worth
is
such
that,
in
spite
of
all
temptation
to
the
contrary
belief,
it
remains
to-day
as
a
firmly
rooted,
universally
received
verity,
that
man
is
made
'in
the
image
of
God'
(Gn
1^').
I.
The
Old
Testament.
—
1.
The
early
narratives.
—
It
is
remarkable
that
in
the
story
of
the
Fall
the
writer
(J)
attributes
the
sin
to
a
positive
act
of
conscious
disobedience
to
God,
and
not
only
so,
but
he
regards
it
as
an
entity
standing
over
against
'good'
(2").
This
is
more
clearly
brought
out
in
the
same
writer's
narrative
of
the
murder
of
Abel,
where
sin
is
represented
as
'couching
at
the
door,'
lying
in
wait
for
the
over-throw
of
the
sullen
homicide
(4').
The
profound
psychological
truth
that
the
power
of
sin
grows
in
the
character
of
him
who
yields
to
its
dictates
is
also
noticed
in
this
story.
Falsehood
and
selfishness
and
defiance
of
God
are
heard
in
Cain's
answer
to
the
Divine
voice.
These
stories
are
the
beginning
of
the
history
of
a
long
process
of
development
which
resulted
in
the
Flood.
From
individual
acts
of
wrong-doing
we
are
brought
face
to
face
with
the
condition,
'every
imagination
of
the
thoughts
of
his
heart
was
only
evil
continually'
(6').
Hitherto
God
is
represented
as
commanding,
punishing,
pleading
with
man,
and
even
encouraging
him
with
hopes
of
future
restoration
(3").
The
growth
and
arrogance
of
sin
in
the
human
race
became
so
pro-nounced
and
universal
that
He
is
said
to
have
rejected
man
completely,
and
in
His
wrath
to
have
destroyed
His
creation,
which
was
infected
by
man's
corruption.
He
is
'grieved
at
his
heart,'
and
is
repentant
for
having
'made
man
on
the
earth'
(6"-).
The
same
narrator,
in
giving
the
current
explanation
of
the
diversity
,of
human
language,
notes
another
racial
rebellion
against
God,
which
was
punished
by
the
overthrow
of
Babel
(111-9).
A
change
in
the
Divine
method
of
dealing
with
sinful
man
is
now
noticeable.
The
writers
lead
gradually
up
to
this,
beginning
with
Noah,
whose
righteousness
(walk
with
God,
cf.
6')
stands
in
solitary
contrast
to
the
universal
decadence.
The
educative
elective
principle
enters
into
the
relationships
of
God
and
man.
A
covenant
is
established
by
which
these
relationships
are
defined,
and
by
consequence
human
consciousness
is
gradually
deepened.
As
a
result,
temptation
to
sin
becomes
more
formidable
and
many-sided.
In
individual
cases
outside
the
covenant
we
see,
indeed,
evidences
of
a
higher
standard
of
moral
obligation
than
that
reached
by
the
Patriarchs
(cf.
Gn
12i8'-
20").
At
the
same
time,
the
history
of
Esau
furnishes
us
with
proof
that
already
glimmerings
of
a
more
profound
ethical
basis
upon
which
to
build
human
character,
than
that
recognized
elsewhere,
had
begun
to
obtrude
themselves.
If
in
the
case
of
Abraham
'
faith
was
reckoned
for
righteous-ness'
(Ro
4s),
and
belief
in
the
fidelity
of
God's
promises,
in
the
face
of
the
most
untoward
conditions,
constituted
the
foundation-stone
of
the
patriarch's
noble
characterj
so
in
Esau's
case
it
was
the
lack
of
this
belief,
with
the
consequent
inability
to
appreciate
the
dignity
to
which
he
was
born,
that
lay
at
the
root
of
his
great
and
pathetic
failure.
The
secret
of
Joseph's
power
to
resist
tempta-
