A Clementine Tradition: Peter after Paul

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

A Clementine Tradition: Peter after Paul

Post by Irish1975 »

How to explain the depiction of Peter in the Clementine Homilies as a post-70 Johnny-come-lately to the preaching of Paul ("Simon")? This narrative opposes itself to the story of Acts, in which Peter unequivocally receives the Holy Spirit and the apostolate to the gentiles before Paul's conversion. Likewise, canonical Romans implies that Peter had already preached to the gentiles in Rome when Paul wrote to them (although the ending of Acts suggests otherwise). I suppose we could just bracket this tradition as entirely "heretical," and thus antithetical to the NT narrative. But it seems odd that at so late a date such a wildly different narrative would be presupposed.

The context for what follows (Clementine Homily 2.15 & 16) is a theory of revelation, in which God always "permutes the appearing of the pairs of opposites." Just as Cain precedes Abel, Ishmael precedes Isaac, and Esau precedes Jacob, so also ignorance precedes knowledge, the worldly precedes the eternal, etc. Having established this pattern, this "conformity of the syzygies with law," Peter then complains that if only people had known and understood this pattern, they would not have been taken in by "Simon, my forerunner," but would have recognized his fraud and the falsity of his gospel.

Clementine Homily 2.17--
ταύτῃ τῇ τάξει ἀκολουθοῦντα δυνατὸν ἦν νοεῖν τίνος ἐστὶν Σίμων, ὁ πρὸ ἐμοῦ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη πρῶτος ἐλθών, καὶ τίνος ὢν τυγχάνω, ὁ μετ’ ἐκεῖνον ἐληλυθὼς καὶ ἐπελθὼν ὡς σκότῳ φῶς, ὡς ἀγνοίᾳ γνῶσις, ὡς νόσῳ ἴασις. οὕτως δή, ὡς ὁ ἀληθὴς ἡμῖν προφήτης εἴρηκεν, πρῶτον ψευδὲς δεῖ ἐλθεῖν εὐαγγέλιον ὑπὸ πλάνου τινὸς καὶ εἶθ’ οὕτως μετὰ καθαίρεσιν τοῦ ἁγίου τόπου εὐαγγέλιον ἀληθὲς κρύφα διαπεμφθῆναι εἰς ἐπανόρθωσιν τῶν ἐσομένων αἱρέσεων· καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα πρὸς τῷ τέλει πάλιν πρῶτον ἀντίχριστον ἐλθεῖν δεῖ καὶ τότε τὸν ὄντως Χριστὸν ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν ἀναφανῆναι καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο αἰωνίου φωτὸς ἀνατείλαντος πάντα τὰ τοῦ σκότους ἀφανῆ γενέσθαι. Following up this disposition it would be possible to recognize where Simon belongs, who as first and before me went to the gentiles, and where I belong, I who came after him and followed him as the light follow darkness, knowledge ignorance, and healing sickness. Thus then, as the true prophet has said, a false gospel must first come from an impostor and only then, after the destruction of the holy place, can a true gospel be sent forth for the correction of the sects ["heresies"] that are to come. And thereafter in the end Antichrist must first come again and only afterwards must Jesus, our actual Christ, appear and then, with the rising of eternal light, everything that belongs to darkness must disappear.

1. The words and only then, after the destruction of the holy place can only mean that Peter is represented as starting his ministry to the gentiles after 70. The fact that the fisherman Peter of the Gospels would have been too old to go on tour at this late date seems to go unnoticed.

2. We might ask whether the author is only speaking of a ministry to the gentiles. The words who as first and before me went to the gentiles are ambiguous, in that they could mean either that Paul's gospel was first only in respect of the gentiles; or they could mean that Paul's gospel, false as it was, was the first gospel of any sort, and also happened to be an apostolate to the gentiles. In other words, "Peter" may or may not be implying that he himself had a gospel to the Jews before Paul ever had any sort of gospel. But what evidence is there? All he says is that only then, after the destruction of the holy place, can a true gospel be sent forth for the correction of the sects that are to come. I don't see anything in this text, for either "Simon" or Peter, about an apostolate to the Jews. The author is only concerned with a ministry to "the God-fearing," i.e. potential gentile converts to either a Jewish/Ebionite or a Pauline Christianity. This is the topic of concern.

3. It is interesting that the story of Acts is either unknown or subverted, while at the same time the author makes a clear allusion to Jesus' prophecy in Mark 13 that false messiahs and false prophets would come before the end times, and follows this with a reference to the Antichrist (1 and 2 John) and an allusion to the eschatological scheme of 2 Thessalonians. But these NT references only serve to highlight the strangeness of his chronology about Paul/Simon and Peter.

To answer my original question, it could be that the author was enamored of the "syzygy" interpretation taken over from Genesis, and (heedless of tradition or orthodoxy) sought only to impose it on the Ebionite/Pauline polemics of the 3rd/4th centuries. But that would be a strained interpretation. It seems hard to deny that this author from a late generation in the early church, who purports to be arguing against Paulinism, was willing to concede the historical priority of Paul because that was the tradition that he knew. Given the prestige accorded to the apostles who knew Jesus in early Christianity, it is unintelligible why he would make that concession unless the priority of Paul/Simon was an already established tradition in his time. Again, we could argue about whether a prior ministry to Jews in accordance with the Gospels is implied, or at least compatible. But that ministry is hardly more than mythical even in the NT. Christianity proper begins with the preaching to the gentiles, and this is all that the Clementine author cares about.
Last edited by Irish1975 on Thu Oct 07, 2021 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: A Clementine Tradition: Peter after Paul

Post by Irish1975 »

This author doesn't care about "Jewish Christianity," or Christianity, or Judaism, but only a morality of good works:

Homily 8.5-6
Neither Moses nor Jesus would have needed to come if of themselves people had been willing to perceive the way of discretion. And there is no salvation in believing in teachers and calling them lords. Therefore is Jesus concealed from the Hebrews who have received Moses as their teacher, and Moses hidden from those who believe Jesus. For since through both one and the same teaching becomes known, God accepts those who believe in one of them. But belief in a teacher has as its aim the doing of what God has ordered," etc.
Interesting that it would be so difficult to accept both Moses and Jesus. Believing in Moses "conceals" Jesus. But notice also that he does not condemn those who believe in Jesus and are ignorant of Moses. It isn't the Law that this author wants to impose on gentiles, in place of Pauline Christianity, but a salvation through deeds as opposed to a salvation by faith alone (as in the letter of James).
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: A Clementine Tradition: Peter after Paul

Post by John2 »

I've never seen this before and maybe I'm missing something now or not understanding you correctly, but it looks to me like the Simon in Hom. 2.17 is Simon Magus and not Peter.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: A Clementine Tradition: Peter after Paul

Post by Irish1975 »

John2 wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 2:53 pm I've never seen this before and maybe I'm missing something now or not understanding you correctly, but it looks to me like the Simon in Hom. 2.17 is Simon Magus and not Peter.
I was presupposing the view—which perhaps ought to be considered in detail—that “Simon” in the Clementines refers to Paul.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: A Clementine Tradition: Peter after Paul

Post by John2 »

Irish1975 wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 3:07 pm
John2 wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 2:53 pm I've never seen this before and maybe I'm missing something now or not understanding you correctly, but it looks to me like the Simon in Hom. 2.17 is Simon Magus and not Peter.
I was presupposing the view—which perhaps ought to be considered in detail—that “Simon” in the Clementines refers to Paul.

I see. Thanks.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: A Clementine Tradition: Peter after Paul

Post by neilgodfrey »

Irish1975 wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 11:38 amIt seems hard to deny that this author from a late generation in the early church, who purports to be arguing against Paulinism, was willing to concede the historical priority of Paul because that was the tradition that he knew. Given the prestige accorded to the apostles who knew Jesus in early Christianity, it is unintelligible why he would make that concession unless the priority of Paul/Simon was an already established tradition in his time. Again, we could argue about whether a prior ministry to Jews in accordance with the Gospels is implied, or at least compatible. But that ministry is hardly more than mythical even in the NT. Christianity proper begins with the preaching to the gentiles, and this is all that the Clementine author cares about.
Aristides, 120-130 CE,
This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness. And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they are become famous.
Justin 150-160 CE, likewise, First Apology 39
And when the Spirit of prophecy speaks as predicting things that are to come to pass, He speaks in this way: "For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." And that it did so come to pass, we can convince you. For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking: but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God;
But there were false teachings -- those we read of in Paul's epistles -- out there: Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, 35
And Trypho said, "I believe, however, that many of those who say that they confess Jesus, and are called Christians, eat meats offered to idols, and declare that they are by no means injured in consequence." And I replied,. . . . For he said, 'Many shall come in My name, clothed outwardly in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." And, 'There shall be schisms and heresies.' And, 'Beware of false prophets, who shall come to you clothed outwardly in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.' And, 'Many false Christs and false apostles shall arise, and shall deceive many of the faithful.' There are, therefore, and there were many, my friends, who, coming forward in the name of Jesus, taught both to speak and act impious and blasphemous things; and these are called by us after the name of the men from whom each doctrine and opinion had its origin. (For some in one way, others in another, teach to blaspheme the Maker of all things, and Christ, who was foretold by Him as coming, and the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, with whom we have nothing in common, since we know them to be atheists, impious, unrighteous, and sinful, and confessors of Jesus in name only, instead of worshippers of Him. Yet they style themselves Christians, just as certain among the Gentiles inscribe the name of God upon the works of their own hands, and partake in nefarious and impious rites.) Some are called Marcians, and some Valentinians, and some Basilidians, and some Saturnilians, and others by other names; ...
Then along comes who sets out a case for Justin being the instigator of the time-frames we now work with. He conflated the events of 70 CE with those of the Hadrian destruction and used both events to demonstrate the fulfilment of the OT prophecies. From then on, 70 came to be seen as the watershed date. (Compare others like Clement of Alexandria getting confused as a consequence and saying that the armies flooded in to destroy Jerusalem the day after Jesus went back to heaven.)

So we have:

Marcionites etc teaching Paul as the apostle of the gentiles.

Either before Marcion or in response to Marcion we have a "catholic" view, first seen in Aristides, that Christianity began when Jesus sent out the twelve apostles after his resurrection (note no Judas -- gospel narrative as we have it was an unknown) -- all in line with the good Jewish god's prophecies.

Conflict intensifies with Marcion and that's when the polemical literature is produced:

Paul's epistles are a battleground. So is Marcion's gospel.

Acts of the Apostles are produced to reconcile the sending out of twelve with Paul by insisting the twelve came first and so did Peter.

Canonical gospels are produced around this period. They prophesy of all the false teachings of the Marcionites et al. out there and the destruction of Jerusalem by drawing on details from both 70 and 135 CE. Lots of other raw material from other "writings of the Christians" (Aristides mentions them and Justin appears to refer at least to one lot of these as the Memoirs of the Apostles)

And some of the plotline ideas were drawn from Josephus: (e.g. Jesus ben Ananias, Jesus ben Saphat) and maybe even some character names, too (Simon, John). Other details were inspired by Paul's letters (redacted) and others by Marcion's gospel. Some from other writings like Memoirs of Apostles that also inspired Infancy Gospel, Gospel of Peter, etc.

Clementine Homilies also on the anti-Marcionite side but not with the "catholics": a different reconciliation, one that relies more heavily on the Gospel of Matthew, and one that has Peter doing his thing, following Paul/Simon everywhere to expose him and undo his damage.

No doubt there is something I've overlooked in the above scenario that will bring the whole edifice crumbling down.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: A Clementine Tradition: Peter after Paul

Post by Irish1975 »

neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 2:36 am Clementine Homilies also on the anti-Marcionite side but not with the "catholics": a different reconciliation, one that relies more heavily on the Gospel of Matthew, and one that has Peter doing his thing, following Paul/Simon everywhere to expose him and undo his damage.
But why wouldn’t this author affirm the premiss of Acts that Peter preceded Paul, had he known of it? And if he didn’t know it, can we draw any conclusions about relative chronology? I have no idea about a historical context for the Clementine author, but as suggested above I don’t think being anti-Marcionite is his primary concern. He evinces a practical concern for upholding the basic Jewish morality of Jesus and James and gMatthew, and seems to eschew debate about theology.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: A Clementine Tradition: Peter after Paul

Post by andrewcriddle »

Irish1975 wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 11:38 am How to explain the depiction of Peter in the Clementine Homilies as a post-70 Johnny-come-lately to the preaching of Paul ("Simon")? This narrative opposes itself to the story of Acts, in which Peter unequivocally receives the Holy Spirit and the apostolate to the gentiles before Paul's conversion. Likewise, canonical Romans implies that Peter had already preached to the gentiles in Rome when Paul wrote to them (although the ending of Acts suggests otherwise). I suppose we could just bracket this tradition as entirely "heretical," and thus antithetical to the NT narrative. But it seems odd that at so late a date such a wildly different narrative would be presupposed.

The context for what follows (Clementine Homily 2.15 & 16) is a theory of revelation, in which God always "permutes the appearing of the pairs of opposites." Just as Cain precedes Abel, Ishmael precedes Isaac, and Esau precedes Jacob, so also ignorance precedes knowledge, the worldly precedes the eternal, etc. Having established this pattern, this "conformity of the syzygies with law," Peter then complains that if only people had known and understood this pattern, they would not have been taken in by "Simon, my forerunner," but would have recognized his fraud and the falsity of his gospel.

Clementine Homily 2.17--
ταύτῃ τῇ τάξει ἀκολουθοῦντα δυνατὸν ἦν νοεῖν τίνος ἐστὶν Σίμων, ὁ πρὸ ἐμοῦ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη πρῶτος ἐλθών, καὶ τίνος ὢν τυγχάνω, ὁ μετ’ ἐκεῖνον ἐληλυθὼς καὶ ἐπελθὼν ὡς σκότῳ φῶς, ὡς ἀγνοίᾳ γνῶσις, ὡς νόσῳ ἴασις. οὕτως δή, ὡς ὁ ἀληθὴς ἡμῖν προφήτης εἴρηκεν, πρῶτον ψευδὲς δεῖ ἐλθεῖν εὐαγγέλιον ὑπὸ πλάνου τινὸς καὶ εἶθ’ οὕτως μετὰ καθαίρεσιν τοῦ ἁγίου τόπου εὐαγγέλιον ἀληθὲς κρύφα διαπεμφθῆναι εἰς ἐπανόρθωσιν τῶν ἐσομένων αἱρέσεων· καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα πρὸς τῷ τέλει πάλιν πρῶτον ἀντίχριστον ἐλθεῖν δεῖ καὶ τότε τὸν ὄντως Χριστὸν ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν ἀναφανῆναι καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο αἰωνίου φωτὸς ἀνατείλαντος πάντα τὰ τοῦ σκότους ἀφανῆ γενέσθαι. Following up this disposition it would be possible to recognize where Simon belongs, who as first and before me went to the gentiles, and where I belong, I who came after him and followed him as the light follow darkness, knowledge ignorance, and healing sickness. Thus then, as the true prophet has said, a false gospel must first come from an impostor and only then, after the destruction of the holy place, can a true gospel be sent forth for the correction of the sects ["heresies"] that are to come. And thereafter in the end Antichrist must first come again and only afterwards must Jesus, our actual Christ, appear and then, with the rising of eternal light, everything that belongs to darkness must disappear.

1. The words and only then, after the destruction of the holy place can only mean that Peter is represented as starting his ministry to the gentiles after 70. The fact that the fisherman Peter of the Gospels would have been too old to go on tour at this late date seems to go unnoticed.

2. We might ask whether the author is only speaking of a ministry to the gentiles. The words who as first and before me went to the gentiles are ambiguous, in that they could mean either that Paul's gospel was first only in respect of the gentiles; or they could mean that Paul's gospel, false as it was, was the first gospel of any sort, and also happened to be an apostolate to the gentiles. In other words, "Peter" may or may not be implying that he himself had a gospel to the Jews before Paul ever had any sort of gospel. But what evidence is there? All he says is that only then, after the destruction of the holy place, can a true gospel be sent forth for the correction of the sects that are to come. I don't see anything in this text, for either "Simon" or Peter, about an apostolate to the Jews. The author is only concerned with a ministry to "the God-fearing," i.e. potential gentile converts to either a Jewish/Ebionite or a Pauline Christianity. This is the topic of concern.

3. It is interesting that the story of Acts is either unknown or subverted, while at the same time the author makes a clear allusion to Jesus' prophecy in Mark 13 that false messiahs and false prophets would come before the end times, and follows this with a reference to the Antichrist (1 and 2 John) and an allusion to the eschatological scheme of 2 Thessalonians. But these NT references only serve to highlight the strangeness of his chronology about Paul/Simon and Peter.

To answer my original question, it could be that the author was enamored of the "syzygy" interpretation taken over from Genesis, and (heedless of tradition or orthodoxy) sought only to impose it on the Ebionite/Pauline polemics of the 3rd/4th centuries. But that would be a strained interpretation. It seems hard to deny that this author from a late generation in the early church, who purports to be arguing against Paulinism, was willing to concede the historical priority of Paul because that was the tradition that he knew. Given the prestige accorded to the apostles who knew Jesus in early Christianity, it is unintelligible why he would make that concession unless the priority of Paul/Simon was an already established tradition in his time. Again, we could argue about whether a prior ministry to Jews in accordance with the Gospels is implied, or at least compatible. But that ministry is hardly more than mythical even in the NT. Christianity proper begins with the preaching to the gentiles, and this is all that the Clementine author cares about.
Baur suggests in Paul the Apostle that the destruction of the holy place refers to the desecration of the temple by the blasphemous teachings and actions of Simon (Paul) see Acts 21:28
...This is the man who teaches everyone everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple and defiled this holy place
i.e. we are not chronologically post 70 CE.

Andrew Criddle
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: A Clementine Tradition: Peter after Paul

Post by John2 »

andrewcriddle wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 11:00 am

Baur suggests in Paul the Apostle that the destruction of the holy place refers to the desecration of the temple by the blasphemous teachings and actions of Simon (Paul) see Acts 21:28
...This is the man who teaches everyone everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple and defiled this holy place
i.e. we are not chronologically post 70 CE.

That idea makes sense to me, since I view those making this accusation against Paul in Acts as being proto-Ebionites from which came the post 70 CE group that the orthodox called Ebionites who produced the anti-Pauline writings that were later incorporated into the Clementines.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: A Clementine Tradition: Peter after Paul

Post by Irish1975 »

andrewcriddle wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 11:00 am Baur suggests in Paul the Apostle that the destruction of the holy place refers to the desecration of the temple by the blasphemous teachings and actions of Simon (Paul) see Acts 21:28
...This is the man who teaches everyone everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple and defiled this holy place
i.e. we are not chronologically post 70 CE.

Andrew Criddle
Several problems with that interpretation--

1. It fails to address the conundrum of the "first Paul, then Peter" narrative. The problem is even worse if the Clementine author knew Acts, was alluding to an episode it, and was contradicting its most essential storyline (first Peter, then Paul). The Peter of CH2.17 cannot be referring to an episode in Acts, taken either as real history or as narrative, that takes place after, not before, the "true gospel is sent forth" through Peter.
a false gospel must first come from an impostor and only then, after the destruction of the holy place, can a true gospel be sent forth for the correction of the sects ["heresies"] that are to come
2. The complaint in CH is entirely about the gospel to the gentiles, whereas the episode in Acts to which Baur refers is about the perception by the local Judeans that Paul is attacking "our people, our law, and this place." An altogether different topic.

3. The Clementine Peter does not say or imply that the καθαίρεσιν τοῦ ἁγίου τόπου was Paul's doing.

4. The author of Acts tells the reader in 21:28 that the Judeans had seen Paul earlier with a certain Greek, Trophimus, and supposed (wrongly) that Paul had brought him into the Temple. If the Clementine author knew the account in Acts, he would have to have regarded this episode as an event that never happened.

5. Even if this non-event had occurred, even if Paul had brought a Greek into the Temple, such a "desecration" is not a καθαίρεσις, a "tearing down" or "destruction." Baur's characterization of this incident in Acts as "a prelude to the destruction by the Romans" is preposterous both as a reading of CH 2.17 and of Acts. (Honestly I am amazed that he would write this.)
Post Reply