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.