Finding Jesus (= אישו) at the Beginning of Genesis

[stephan happy huller]

The word for 'man' and 'fire' were once the same. This is well recognized by Hebrew scholars from the earliest period. Tractate Sotah expresses it as follows:

Said Raba: “And the [fire of the woman] is even greater than that of the man, because the woman's name (Esha) originally consists of the word fire, (Esh) while in that of the husband (Ish) there is a letter (Yud) which intervenes between the word fire. [fol. 17]

There are many variations on this story.

[stephan happy huller]

Here is another important passage in Paul, preserved in Clement of Alexandria, undoubtedly in the heretical form (= in a patchwork form identified in Irenaeus i.e. where, to the orthodox idea, the heretics had taken individuals passages and scattered them into a new mosaic). The passage begins:

Ἐπειδὴ γέγονα, φησίν, ἀνήρ, πάλιν ὁ Παῦλος λέγει, κατήργηκα τὰ τοῦ νηπίου. [Clement Instructor 1.6.33.4]

When I became a man," again Paul says, "I put away childish things."

Ἐπειδὴ γέγονα ἀνήρ κατήργηκα τὰ τοῦ νηπίου

The implication is clearly that Paul was Jesus (= Man) having been reformed according to the sacred mysteries. Clement continues citing the order of the passage as they appeared in the heretical canon:

Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; but is under tutors and governors, till the time appointed by the father. So also we, when we were children, were in bondage under the rudiments of the world: but when the fulness of the time was came, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons by Him

This material appears in a separate letter (= Galatians) in our canon. But in the heretical canon it all makes sense. The idea of God 'sending forth' (ἐξαποστέλλω) his Son is a reference to Paul not Jesus. Jesus is Man, Paul the Son of Man. Notice the use of the verb ἐξαποστέλλω explains the title 'the apostle' - he is the one 'sent forth' by God to be the incarnate Christ.

Notice that the context is believers being made sons. Paul is holding himself up as the prototype of this process. And then again in what immediately follows:

For thou art no more a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.

and again finally:

"When I was a child," may be elegantly expounded thus: that is, when I was a Jew (for he was a Hebrew by extraction) I thought as a child, when I followed the law; but after becoming man, I no longer entertain the sentiments of a child, that is, of the law, but of man, that is, of Christ, whom alone the Scripture calls man, as we have said before. "I put away childish things." But the childhood which is in Christ is maturity, as compared with the law. Having reached this point, we must defend our childhood. And we have still to explain what is said by the apostle: "I have fed you with milk as children in Christ, not with meat; for ye were not able, neither yet are ye now able."

The critical passage is:

Τί οὖν ἐνδεῖ τῷ υἱῷ μετὰ τὴν κληρονομίαν; Χάριεν τοίνυν οὕτως ἐξηγήσασθαι τὸ ὅτε ἤμην νήπιος, τουτέστιν ὅτε ἤμην Ἰουδαῖος, Ἑβραῖος γὰρ ἄνωθεν ἦν, ὡς νήπιος ἐφρόνουν, ἐπειδὴ εἱπόμην τῷ νόμῳ· ἐπὶ δὲ γέγονα ἀνήρ, οὐκέτι τὰ τοῦ νηπίου, τουτέστι τὰ τοῦ νόμου, ἀλλὰ τὰ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς φρονῶ, τουτέστι τὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὃν μόνον ἄνδρα ἡ γραφή, καθὼς προειρήκαμεν, καλεῖ, κατήργηκα τὰ τοῦ νηπίου.

In no uncertain terms Clement has jumped back from what we would call 'Galatians chapter 4' back to what we would call "1 Corinthians 13:11" even though for him the passages are clearly connected.

The point here that for Paul, his becoming 'man' is for us, in our theological language - becoming Jesus. As such 'man' and Jesus is one and the same. The fact that someone came along and broke up the original argument by means of the canon - into two separate letters is very significant. It shows that a conscious effort was made to distort the original understanding of Jesus away from אישו

So again, he completes the original cited section:

When I was a child I thought as a child, but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

But then goes on to the next statement in the order of the material in the canon:

I have fed you with milk as children in Christ, not with meat; for ye were not able, neither yet are ye now able.

So the whole original section read:

When I was a child I thought as a child, when I followed the law; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; but is under tutors and governors, till the time appointed by the father. So also we, when we were children, were in bondage under the rudiments of the world: but when the fulness of the time was came, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons by him. I have fed you with milk as children in Christ, not with meat; for ye were not able, neither yet are ye now able

The point of course is that the material has a completely different meaning in its original context. We see (a) that Paul baptized i.e. milk was given to the baptized (b) Paul looks a lot more like Simon Magus and other similar heretical figures i.e. he claimed to be Christ and (c) the material seems Marcionite. I think it also shows a vegetarian interest (= in the greater context of 1 Corinthians 10).

For those interested in the macroscopic look at this section:

1 Corinthians 14, 20 Paedagogus 1 33 § 1
1 Corinthians 13, 11 Paedagogus 1 33 § 2
1 Corinthians 13, 11 Paedagogus 1 33 § 3
Galatians 3, 29 Paedagogus 1 33 § 4
Galatians 4, 1 Paedagogus 1 33 § 4
Galatians 4, 5 Paedagogus 1 33 § 4
Galatians 4, 7 Paedagogus 1 34 § 1
1 Corinthians 13, 11 Paedagogus 1 34 § 2
1 Corinthians 3, 1 Paedagogus 1 34 § 3
1 Corinthians 3, 2 Paedagogus 1 34 § 3
1 Corinthians 3, 1 Paedagogus 1 35 § 2
1 Corinthians 3, 2 Paedagogus 1 35 § 2
1 Corinthians 10, 3 Paedagogus 1 35 § 3
1 Corinthians 3, 1 Paedagogus 1 36 § 2
1 Corinthians 3, 3 Paedagogus 1 36 § 3
1 Corinthians 3, 2 Paedagogus 1 36 § 4
1 Corinthians 3, 2 Paedagogus 1 36 § 6
1 Corinthians 3, 3 Paedagogus 1 36 § 6
1 Corinthians 13, 12 Paedagogus 1 36 § 6
1 Corinthians 13, 12 Paedagogus 1 36 § 6
1 Corinthians 2, 9 Paedagogus 1 37 § 1
2 Corinthians 12, 2 Paedagogus 1 37 § 1
2 Corinthians 12, 4 Paedagogus 1 37 § 1
1 Corinthians 1, 31 Paedagogus 1 37 § 2
1 Thessalonians 4, 9 Paedagogus 1 37 § 2
1 Corinthians 3, 2 Paedagogus 1 37 § 3
1 Corinthians 9, 7 Paedagogus 1 37 § 3
1 Corinthians 3, 2 Paedagogus 1 39 § 1
1 Corinthians 10, 3 Paedagogus 1 41 § 3
1 Peter 2, 1 Paedagogus 1 44 § 1
1 Peter 2, 3 Paedagogus 1 44 § 1
Galatians 4, 26 Paedagogus 1 45 § 1
1 Corinthians 3, 2 Paedagogus 1 45 § 2
1 Corinthians 6, 13 Paedagogus 1 45 § 2
1 Corinthians 3, 2 Paedagogus 1 49 § 2

[stephan happy huller]

To spin, (if you are still reading this nonsense)

I noted that after reading Hurtado's 1998 article you said - His position is illogical to me. It flaunts the notions of lectio facilior and difficilior. Since Hurtado argued for the primacy of IH in that article and IH follows the expected convention as an abbreviation, were you arguing in fact that IC was the more difficult reading and thus - in fact - against Hurtado's assumptions about the primacy of IH? I just caught sight of this argument.

[stephan happy huller]

From Wayne Meeks study of the Samaritan tradition http://books.google.com/books?id=F5Y3AA ... an&f=false It is interesting to note that Moses as 'god's man' (= His Man) is identified specifically as being vested with the name Elohim and 'the second [god]' in a manner roughly akin to Metatron. Moses is identified over and over again in Samaritan sources as Elohim. Clearly Moses is the model for Christ here and elsewhere.

[stephan happy huller]

I was reading some of the commentary of the tenth century Karaite Yefet ben Ali. Interestingly he reports that an anonymous tradition before him interpreted the naaseh in Genesis 1:26 as a third person masculine singular past nifal rather than a first person plural future kal.

The implication is clearly that another man created ex nihilo was created on the sixth day who was different from the man created on the eighth day.

[stephan happy huller]

The Qumran community clearly understood that Genesis chapter 2 already knew of a male-female pairing in heaven between the ish and the ishah in chapter 1:

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the Adam (הָאָדָם), and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the place with flesh instead thereof. And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from the Adam (הָאָדָם), made He a woman (לְאִשָּׁה), and brought her unto the Adam (הָאָדָם). And the Adam (הָאָדָם) said: 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman (אִשָּׁה), because she was taken out of Man (מֵאִישׁ).' Therefore shall a man (אִישׁ) leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife (בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ), and they shall be one flesh.

“She shall be called Woman / lsha, for from Man / Ish she was taken.”

But she was not taken from man, from iysh, since iysh (“man”) did not in fact exist as yet in our text. She was taken from ha'adam, the human, with male and female sides.

The ancient Israelites were not feminists. As noted earlier in the thread the Damascus Document knew Genesis 1:27 to read - איש ואשתו - and the author cites this as a precept against which the current (Pharisaic?) practice of marrying two wives. The same context must have been used in Genesis 2 - i.e. as the Woman is pulled out of Adam's side it is likened to the process of creating the 'image of God' as man and woman in chapter 1.

[ph2ter]

“She shall be called Woman / lsha, for from Man / Ish she was taken.”
But she was not taken from man, from iysh, since iysh (“man”) did not in fact exist as yet in our text. She was taken from ha'adam, the human, with male and female sides.

Now you have discovered in the Jewish tradition what exist in almost all ancient mythologies.
They all tell stories of androgyn archetypal beings. You are on the right track at least in this regard.

[stephan happy huller]

The hermaphrodite idea I think has been 'discovered' by many others before me. What isn't usually acknowledged is the Platonic notions implied by the variant reading of Genesis 1:27. If you think about it for a moment, we have the god who creates Adam. Adam is a being who is neither man or woman (remember in the Qumran text 'man and woman' not 'male and female' appears in Genesis 1:27). Then God 'decides' to take 'the woman' - the same word used in the Qumran text of Genesis 1:27 - and even identifies the being 'ish' who appears in Genesis 1:27 but not in Genesis chapter 2's Adam story up until now.

What are the implications of this story? This is a very good question which I haven't even worked out completely. It is worth noting when you think about it that 'God 1' if you will - i.e. the god of chapter 1 - purposefully makes 'ish and isha.' He says that's his intention right from the start. Our text of Genesis 1 says that 'Adam' was made in God's image and then 'male and female' he created them. But the original text of Qumran says 'man' (we don't know whether it was 'Adam' or 'Ish') and then 'Ish and Isha' he created them.

The reason I mention this is that it is hard to believe that 'Adam' appeared in Genesis 1 because Adam is developed from the word 'earth' - i.e. the material from the second creation - and the first creation is something developed in heaven without physical material from the earth. It's hard to understand why God would have said 'Ish ... ish and isha he created them.' Nevertheless if we look at Paul's discussion of 'man and woman' in 1 Corinthians chapter 7 and the 'male and female' reading in Mark chapter 10, there might be some clue.

As a student of Marcionitism I look at both for signs of possible knowledge of the Qumran text. Our existing text of Mark clearly denies this possibility:

Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied.

4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”

5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

It is worth noting though that an authority no less than Abraham Heschel sees signs that the author of the gospel is connected to the heresies mentioned in the rabbinic literature because it was well established that the idea that Moses wrote on his own authority - and thus that only the Ten Commandments - were from 'heaven' was a heretical position. Did the Marcionites rest the reason why humans can't get divorced on the idea that 'Adam' was created 'male and female' in the beginning or - as I would argue - that the angelic beings i.e. Ish - was created 'ish and isha' in the beginning.

I don't get a strong sense that the Marcionites emphasized their 'maleness' or 'femaleness.' The priests at least didn't have sex and didn't get married. I always think sexuality is the ultimate place where 'maleness' and 'femaleness' demonstrate themselves. The Qumran text just says that man (either 'Adam' or 'Ish' we don't know) was established in the image of God and then in what follows in the image of God Ish and Isha were made and that they were commanded to be 'fruitful' and 'multiply' and 'rule' or 'subjugate' the earth. Is the idea hidden in here that there are two separate creations? First, ish and then the angels created as 'man' and 'woman'? The reason I am attracted to this idea is that the Marcionites would quite naturally have argued that angels were created as 'man and woman' but never specifically identified as having sex or children. While 'fruitful and multiply' has been taken to mean 'sexual relations' and 'lots of kids' does it have to be that way?

I strongly suspect that the discussion about 'male and female' here is corrupt and the discussion here isolate and removed from the other discussion of marriage which appears in the gospel:

Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 19 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. 20 Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. 21 The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. 22 In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. 23 At the resurrection[c] whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”

24 Jesus replied, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? 25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 26 Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’[d]? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!”

I have isolated a passage from the Clementine literature which demonstrates (from memory) that these two passages were once part of an inseparable whole - i.e. that Jesus originally identified not only 'man and woman' rather than 'male and female' as the basis for why humans can't get divorced. They are to be like the angels. The same thing (i.e. splitting up an original passage from the Marcionite gospel - happens with respect to the what follows in Mark chapter 10 regarding the question of eternal life. The gospels now have two separate narratives - one on 'how do I attain life' and 'eternal life' which the Marcionites used to argue were two separate things (i.e. 'life' = Law, 'eternal life' = gospel). Originally the man asks the questions back to back implying that Jesus specifically distinguished between the 'life' of the Law and the 'eternal life' from the gospel.

Getting back to our original point, I think 1 Corinthians chapter 7 knew the Qumran reading of Genesis 1:27 and the variant gospel notion of marriage being like the angels ish and isha:

“It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

Concerning Change of Status

17 Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18 Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. 20 Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.

21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22 For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings. 24 Brothers and sisters, each person, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.

Concerning the Unmarried

25 Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. 26 Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. 27 Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. 28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

29 What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; 30 those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31 those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

36 If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. 37 But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. 38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.[c]

39 A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. 40 In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.

[stephan happy huller]

Of course this implies that 'Paul' knew the gospel of 'Mark.' The Marcionites in fact knew that the same man wrote both (cf. Philosophumena 7:18) so how couldn't he? The only reason this isn't explicit any longer is that the arguments of both Mark 10 and 12 (now separated) and 1 Corinthians 7 have been altered undoubtedly by Irenaeus c. 177 CE. Irenaeus in turn accuses the heresies of having a gospel and an apostolikon which all the stones moved around (i.e. the original sentences and sections) like a mosaic of a king transformed by moving the individual stones into a fox. This is a most important passage in Irenaeus as he demonstrates himself to be very capable of writing cento poems (i.e. taking individual lines from a text and rearranging them as a whole new composition.

[stephan happy huller]

Here is the passage in question which witnesses the heretical gospel originally had Mark 10 and Mark 12 together in one narrative:

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 forthwith. 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.' If, therefore, any one can apprehend Him who came after the failure of ruler and leader from Judah, and who was to be expected by the nations, he will be able by this verse to recognise Him as truly having come; and believing His teaching, he will know what of the Scriptures are true and what are false." 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 I Scriptures."

Then Peter: "As to the mixture of truth with falsehood, I remember that on one occasion He, finding fault with the Sadducees, said, 'Wherefore ye do err, not knowing the true things of the Scriptures; and on this account ye are ignorant of the power of God.' But if He cast up to their that they knew not the true things of the Scriptures, it is manifest that there are false things in them. And also, inasmuch as He said, 'Be ye prudent money-changers,' it is because there are genuine and spurious words. And whereas He said, 'Wherefore do ye not perceive that which is reasonable in the Scriptures?' He makes the understanding of him stronger who voluntarily judges soundly.


"And His sending to the scribes and teachers of the existing Scriptures, as to those who knew the true things of the law that then was, is well known. And also (I.e. in another section in the gospel) that He said, 'I am not come to destroy the law,' and yet that He appeared to be destroying it, is the part of one intimating that the things which He destroyed did not belong to the law. And His saying (same, another section), 'The heaven and the earth shall pass away, but one jot or one tittle shall not pass froth the law,' intimated that the things which pass away before the heaven and the earth do not belong to the law in reality.

"Since, then, while the heaven and the earth still stand, sacrifices have passed away, and kingdoms, and prophecies among those who are born of woman, and such like, as not being ordinances of God; hence therefore He says, 'Every plant which the heavenly Father has not planted shall be rooted up.' Wherefore He, being the true Prophet, said, 'I am the gate of life; he who entereth through me entereth into life,' there being no other teaching able to save. Wherefore also He cried, and said, 'Come unto me, all who labour,' that is, who are seeking the truth, and not finding it; and again, 'My sheep hear my voice;' and elsewhere, 'Seek and find,' since the truth does not lie on the surface.

"But also a witnessing voice was heard from heaven, saying, 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear Him.' And in addition to this, willing to convict more fully of error the prophets from whom they asserted that they had learned, He proclaimed that they died desiring the truth, but not having learned it, saying, 'Many prophets and kings desired to see what ye see, and to hear what you hear; and verily I say to you, they neither saw nor heard.' Still further He said, 'I am he concerning whom Moses prophesied, saying, A Prophet shall the Lord our God raise unto you of your brethren, like unto me: Him hear in all things; and whosoever will not hear that Prophet shall die.'

"Whence it is impossible without His teaching to attain to saving truth, though one seek it for ever where the thing that is sought is not. But it was, and is, in the word of our Jesus. Accordingly, He, knowing the true things of the law, said to the Sadducees, asking on what account Moses permitted to marry seven, "Moses gave you commandments according to your hard-heartedness; for from the beginning it was not so: for He who created man at first, made him male and female.'

"But to those who think, as the Scriptures teach, that God swears, He said, 'Let your yea be yea, and nay, nay; for what is more than these is of the evil one.' And to those who say that Abraham and Isaac and Jacob are dead, He said, 'God is not of the dead, but of the living.' And to those who suppose that God tempts, as the Scriptures say, He said, 'The tempter is the wicked one,' who also tempted Himself. To those who suppose that God does not foreknow, He said, 'For your heavenly Father knoweth that ye need all these things before ye ask Him.' And to those who believe, as the Scriptures say, that He does not see all things, He said, 'Pray in secret, and your Father, who seeth secret things, will reward you.'

"And to those who think that He is not good, as the Scriptures say, He said, 'From which of you shall his son ask bread, and he will give him a stone; or shall ask a fish, and he will give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give good things to those who ask Him, and to those who do His will!' But to those who affirmed that He was in the temple, He said, 'Swear not by heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet.' And to those who supposed that God is pleased with sacrifices, He said, 'God wishes mercy, and not sacrifices'—the knowledge of Himself, and not holocausts.

"But to those who are persuaded that He is evil, as the Scriptures say, He said, 'Call not me good, for One only is good.' And again, 'Be ye good and merciful, as your Father in the heavens, who makes the sun rise on good and evil men, and brings rain upon just and unjust.' But to those who were misled to imagine many gods, as the Scriptures say, He said, 'Hear, O Israel; the Lord your God is one Lord.'"

Therefore Simon, perceiving that Peter was driving him to use the Scriptures as Jesus taught, was unwilling that the discussion should go into the doctrine concerning God, even although Peter had changed the discussion into question and answer, as Simon himself asked. However, the discussion occupied three days. And while the fourth was dawning, he set off darkling as far as Tyre of Phoenicia. And not many days after, some of the precursors came and said to Peter: "Simon is doing great miracles in Tyre, and disturbing many of the people there; and by many slanders he has made you to be hated."

But the original three day debate is preserved more fully in the Clementine Recognitions ii. 20–iii. 48; the account here is confined to one day. Nevertheless the Homilies know of a multiday debate which the Recognitions only preserve corruptly. On the second day then, the same reference to Mark 12 is made but without betraying any sign of it belonging alongside Mark 10. Notice the discussion is immediately curtailed and also the context the statement is made is wholly different:

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 heart686 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.’”

Then Peter answered: “To those who do not read the law according to the tradition of Moses, my speech appears to be contrary to it; but I will show you how it is not contradictory. God is seen by the mind, not by the body; by the spirit, not by the flesh. Whence also angels, who are spirits, see God; and therefore men, as long as they are men, cannot see Him. But after the resurrection of the dead, when they shall have been made like the angels, they shall be able to see God. And thus my statement is not contrary to the law; neither is that which our Master said, ‘Blessed are they of a pure heart, for they shall see God.’ For He showed that a time shall come in which of men shall be made angels, who in the spirit of their mind shall see God.” 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 to-morrow, for to-day it is late.” When therefore Peter began to speak, Simon went out, and with him a very few of his associates; and that for shame. But all the rest, turning to Peter, on bended knees prostrated themselves before him; and some of those who were afflicted with diverse sicknesses, or invaded by demons, were healed by the prayer of Peter, and departed rejoicing, as having obtained at once the doctrine of the true God, and also His mercy. When therefore the crowds had withdrawn, and only we his attendants remained with him, we sat down on couches placed on the ground, each one recognising his accustomed place, and having taken food, and given thanks to God, we went to sleep.

But on the following day, Peter, as usual, rising before dawn, found us already awake and ready to listen; and thus began: "I entreat you, my brethren and fellow-servants, that if any of you is not able to wake, he should not torment himself through respect to my presence, because sudden change is difficult; but if for a long time one gradually accustoms himself, that will not be distressing which comes of use. For we had not all the same training; although in course of time we shall be able to be moulded into one habit, for they say that custom holds the place of a second nature. But I call God to witness that I am not offended, if any one is not able to wake; but rather by this, if, when any one sleeps all through the night, he does not in the course of the day fulfil that which he omitted in the night. For it is necessary to give heed intently and unceasingly, to the study of doctrine, that our mind may be filled with the thought of God only: because in the mind which is filled with the thought of God, no place will be given to the wicked one."

Interestingly Book Two of the Homilies cuts off the discussion in the same way - i.e. with Peter and the person he is engaged going to sleep - but in this case it is Clement asking Peter a question:

When I Clement heard this, I said, “Truly, this is a godliness; truly this is piety.” And again I said: “I would learn, therefore, why the Bible has written anything of this sort? For I remember that you said that it was for the conviction of those who should dare to believe anything that was spoken against God. But since you permit us, we venture to ask, at your command: If any one, most beloved Peter, should choose to say to us, 'The Scriptures are true, although to you the things spoken against God seem to be false,' how should we answer him?”

Then Peter answered: “You speak well in your inquiry; for it will be for your safety. Therefore listen: Since there are many things that are spoken by the Scriptures against God, as time presses on account of the evening, ask with respect to any one matter that you please, and I will explain it, showing that it is false, not only because it is spoken against God, but because it is really false.” Then I answered: “I wish to learn how, when the Scriptures say that God is ignorant, you can show that He knows?”

Then Peter answered: “You have presented us with a matter that can easily be answered. However, listen, how God is ignorant of nothing, but even foreknows. But first answer me what I ask of you. He who wrote the Bible, and told how the world was made, and said that God does not foreknow, was he a man or not?” Then I said: “He was a man.” Then Peter answered: “How, then, was it possible for him, being a man, to know assuredly how the world was made, and that God does not foreknow?”

Then I, already perceiving the explanation, smiled, and said that he was a prophet. And Peter said: “If, then, he was a prophet, being a man, he was ignorant of nothing, by reason of his having received foreknowledge from God; how then, should He, who gave to man the gift of foreknowledge, being God, Himself be ignorant?” And I said: “You have spoken rightly.” Then Peter said: “Come with me one step further. It being acknowledged by us that God foreknows all things, there is every necessity that the scriptures are false which say that He is ignorant, and those are true which say that He knows.” Then said I: “It must needs be so.”

Then Peter said: “If, therefore, some of the Scriptures are true and some false, with good reason said our Master, 'Be ye good money-changers,' inasmuch as in the Scriptures there are some true sayings and some spurious. And to those who err by reason of the false scriptures He fitly showed the cause of their error, saying, 'You therefore err, not knowing the true things of the Scriptures; for this reason you are ignorant also of the power of God.'” Then said I: “ You have spoken very excellently.”

Then Peter answered: “Assuredly, with good reason, I neither believe anything against God, nor against the just men recorded in the law, taking for granted that they are impious imaginations. For, as I am persuaded, neither was Adam a transgressor, who was fashioned by the hands of God; nor was Noah drunken, who was found righteous above all the world; nor did Abraham live with three wives at once, who, on account of his sobriety, was thought worthy of a numerous posterity; nor did Jacob associate with four—of whom two were sisters—who was the father of the twelve tribes, and who intimated the coming of the presence of our Master; nor was Moses a murderer, nor did he learn to judge from an idolatrous priest—he who set forth the law of God to all the world, and for his right judgment has been testified to as a faithful steward.”

“But of these and such like things I shall afford you an explanation in due time. But for the rest, since, as you see, the evening has come upon us, let what has been said be enough for today. But whenever you wish, and about whatever you wish, ask boldly of us, and we shall gladly explain it at once.” Thus having spoken, he rose up. And then, having partaken of food, we turned to sleep, for the night had come upon us.

This in fact captures the original context of the debate with Simon Magus much better - i.e. the idea that errors are contained in the Pentateuch - but it is watered down completely now. Notice also that the 'Be skillful moneychangers' is read as if it belongs in Mark 12 in both accounts.