A Samaritan magician offers money for the power of the Holy Spirit. A former persecutor of Christians claims to have seen the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. Both men shaped the first century of the Christian movement, but only one became a saint. Simon Magus and Paul are two figures whose lives and teachings run parallel in surprising ways, yet diverge sharply in how history remembers them. Both claimed direct revelation from Christ, both preached to Gentiles, and both were accused of teaching a lawless gospel. But where Paul’s authority was canonized, Simon’s was condemned as heresy.
Explore the parallels and differences between Simon Magus and Paul, two figures who shaped early Christian and Gnostic traditions through their competing claims of apostolic authority.
What the Sources Actually Say
The earliest account of Simon Magus appears in the Acts of the Apostles (8:9–24), written around 80–90 CE. Luke describes him as a Samaritan who “practiced magic” and amazed the people, claiming to be “the Great Power of God.” When Philip the evangelist baptizes Samaritans, Simon offers money to the apostles for the ability to confer the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands. Peter rebukes him: “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money.” That single episode gave the church the word simony.
Paul enters the same book in a different way. Acts 9 records his conversion on the Damascus road: a blinding light, a voice, and a commission to carry the gospel to the Gentiles. Before that, Paul — then Saul — had been a zealous Pharisee who “persecuted the church of God violently” (Galatians 1:13). After his conversion he became the most prolific writer of the New Testament and the architect of Christian theology.
The patristic sources fill in Simon’s story. Justin Martyr, writing around 150 CE, claims Simon came from the Samaritan village of Gitta and that nearly all Samaritans honored him as the first god (First Apology 26). Irenaeus of Lyons, in Against Heresies (c. 180 CE), calls Simon “the father of all heretics” and describes his system: Simon claimed to be the Supreme Power, and his consort Helen was the first Thought (Ennoia) of God, trapped in matter. Hippolytus of Rome, in the Refutation of All Heresies (early third century), preserves fragments of Simon’s own work, The Great Declaration, which presents a cosmology of fire and emanations.
Paul’s letters are firsthand. They date from the 50s to the early 60s CE. He writes of visions, of being “caught up to the third heaven” (2 Corinthians 12:2–4), and of a “thorn in the flesh” that kept him humble. He never mentions Simon Magus.
The Parallels That Troubled the Early Church
The similarities between Simon and Paul are not accidental. They reflect a shared historical context: both were Jewish or Samaritan missionaries to the Gentile world, both claimed direct revelation from the risen Christ, and both taught a gospel that seemed to bypass the authority of the Jerusalem apostles.
Paul’s opponents accused him of teaching antinomianism — that grace made the law irrelevant. Simon’s followers were accused of the same. The Pseudo-Clementine literature, a fourth-century novelistic cycle, stages a debate between Simon Magus and the apostle Peter. Many scholars argue that the Simon of these texts is a stand-in for Paul. The real target of the Pseudo-Clementine polemic is not the historical Simon but the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith alone, which the Jewish-Christian authors saw as a dangerous innovation.
Both figures also had female companions who played central roles. Paul traveled with Priscilla and other women, though his letters also contain restrictions on women’s roles. Simon’s Helen was not merely a companion but a cosmic figure: the fallen Ennoia, redeemed by Simon’s descent into matter. In the Simonian myth, Helen had been reincarnated as Helen of Troy and later as a prostitute in Tyre. Simon’s mission was to free her and thereby liberate the sparks of divine thought trapped in the material world.
Both men experienced a dramatic turning point. Paul’s conversion is the most famous in Christian history. Simon’s transformation is less clear, but the Acts account implies he was baptized and believed, only to fall into sin. Later Gnostic traditions recast Simon not as a repentant magician but as a revealer of hidden knowledge, a figure parallel to Christ or even superior.
Where They Diverge: Authority and Afterlife
The crucial difference lies in how the early church received them. Paul’s letters were collected and canonized. His authority was recognized by the proto-orthodox church, despite ongoing opposition. Simon’s writings were destroyed, his followers suppressed. We know his teachings only through the refutations of his enemies.
Paul’s conversion was from persecutor to apostle. Simon’s was from magician to heretic. The label “magician” stuck to Simon, while Paul’s miraculous experiences were classified as genuine visions. The line between magic and miracle was drawn by institutional power.
Simon’s followers, the Simonians, persisted into the second and third centuries. Irenaeus reports that they practiced a form of libertinism, believing that since salvation came through knowledge (gnosis) rather than works, moral laws were irrelevant. This echoes the accusation leveled against Paul’s teaching of grace. But while Paul’s “all things are lawful” (1 Corinthians 6:12) came with a caveat, “but not all things are helpful”, Simon’s followers allegedly took it as a license.
In Gnostic traditions, Simon is rehabilitated. The Acts of Peter and Paul, an apocryphal text from the late second century, pits Peter against Simon in a contest of miracles. Simon flies through the air; Peter prays, and Simon falls. The story is meant to show the superiority of apostolic power over magic, but it also preserves the memory of Simon as a formidable opponent.
How Esoteric Traditions Reinterpret Both Figures
Modern occult and Gnostic revivals have reclaimed Simon Magus as a positive figure. In the Hermetic and Theosophical traditions, he is seen as a bearer of pre-Christian wisdom, a teacher of the divine feminine, and a martyr to orthodox suppression. The Simonian system, with its emphasis on the fall and redemption of Ennoia, resonates with later Gnostic myths of Sophia.
Paul, by contrast, is often viewed ambivalently in esoteric circles. Some see him as a mystic who received secret teachings (the “third heaven” ascent) but whose letters were later edited to suppress the Gnostic elements. Others regard him as the architect of a patriarchal, anti-mystical Christianity. The Nag Hammadi library contains a Prayer of the Apostle Paul and a Revelation of Paul, suggesting that some Gnostic communities claimed him as their own.
The parallels between Simon and Paul are not merely historical curiosities. They reveal the contested nature of authority in early Christianity. Both men claimed to have seen the risen Lord. Both taught a gospel that transcended ethnic boundaries. Both were accused of corrupting the faith. The difference was political: Paul’s version won, Simon’s lost.
Common Misconceptions
Simon Magus was not the founder of Gnosticism. He was one of several figures later labeled as such. The term “Gnosticism” is a modern category, and Simon’s system differs from Valentinian or Sethian Gnosticism in significant ways.
Simon and Paul never met. There is no historical evidence for a direct encounter. The Pseudo-Clementine debates are fictional.
Simony is not just buying church offices. The original sin was attempting to purchase spiritual power. The term later broadened to cover any sale of ecclesiastical positions.
Paul was not a Gnostic. His letters contain mystical elements, but his theology is centered on faith in Christ’s death and resurrection, not on a cosmic fall and redemption through knowledge.
FAQ
Did Simon Magus and Paul ever meet? No historical source records a meeting. The Pseudo-Clementine literature pits Simon against Peter, not Paul, though some scholars see Paul as the hidden target.
What is the Gnostic view of Simon Magus? Gnostic traditions often honor Simon as a revealer of hidden knowledge, a teacher of the divine feminine, and a victim of orthodox suppression.
How is Paul portrayed in Gnostic texts? Ambivalently. Some Gnostic writings claim Paul as a mystic who received secret revelations; others see him as a corruptor of the original teachings.
Why is Simon Magus considered the first heretic? Irenaeus and later heresiologists called him the “father of all heretics” because his system predated other Gnostic schools and because the Acts story provided a biblical basis for condemning him.
The parallels between Simon Magus and Paul force us to ask how authority is established and how memory is shaped. One man’s vision became canon; the other’s became heresy. The difference was not in the content of their revelations but in the communities that preserved them. For those who study the Gnostic tradition, Simon remains a figure of fascination, a magician who claimed the same power as an apostle and was punished for it. To understand him is to understand the fault lines that run through the history of Christian esotericism.
For deeper exploration, see our guide to Gnosticism and its founders, the glossary entry on Simon Magus, and our analysis of Paul’s mystical theology.