The student will at once perceive that though the Simon of the Acts and the Simon of the fathers both retain the two features of the possession of magical power and of collision with Peter, the tone of the narratives is entirely different.  Though the apostles are naturally shown as rejecting with indignation the pecuniary offer of the thaumaturge, they display no hate for his personality, whereas the fathers depict him as the vilest of impostors and charlatans and hold him up to universal execration.  The incident of Simon’s offering money to Peter is admittedly taken by the fathers from this account, and therefore their repetition in no way corroborates the story.  Hence its authenticity rests entirely with the writer of the Acts, for Justin, who was a native of Samaria, does not mention it.  As the Acts are not quoted from prior to A.D. 177, and their writer is only traditionally claimed to be Luke, we may safely consider ourselves in the domain of legend and not of history.

The same may be said of all the incidents of Simon’s career; they pertain to the region of fable and probably owe their creation to the Patristic and Simonian controversies of later ages.

The Simon of Justin gives us the birthplace of Simon as at Gitta, and the rest of the fathers follow suit with variation of the name.  Gitta, Gittha, Gittoi, Gitthoi, Gitto, Gitton, Gitteh, so run the variants.  This, however, is a matter of no great importance, and the little burg is said to-day to be called Gitthoi.[78]

The statement of Justin as to the statue of Simon at Rome with the inscription “SIMONI DEO SANCTO” has been called in question by every scholar since the discovery in 1574 of a large marble fragment in the island of the Tiber bearing the inscription “SEMONI SANCO DEO FIDIO,” a Sabine God.  A few, however, think that Justin could not have made so glaring a mistake in writing to the Romans, and that if it were a mistake Irenaeus would not have copied it.  The coincidence, however, is too striking to bear any other interpretation than that perhaps some ignorant controversialist had endeavoured to give the legend a historical appearance, and that Justin had lent a too ready ear to him.  It is also to be noticed that Justin tells us that nearly all the Samaritans were Simonians.

We next come to the Simon of Irenaeus which, owing to many similarities, is supposed by scholars to have been taken from Justin’s account, if not from the Apology, at any rate from Justin’s lost work on heresies which he speaks of in the Apology.  Or it may be that both borrowed from some common source now lost to us.

The story of Helen is here for the first time given.  Whether or not there was a Helen we shall probably never know.  The “lost sheep” was a necessity of every Gnostic system, which taught the descent of the soul into matter.  By whatever name called, whether Sophia, Acamoth, Prunicus, Barbelo, the glyph of the Magdalene, out of whom seven devils are cast, has yet to be understood, and the mystery of the Christ and the seven aeons, churches or assemblies (ecclesiae), in every man will not be without significance to every student of Theosophy.  These data are common to all Gnostic aeonology.