CHAPTER FOUR
SIMON
MAGUS AND MARCION:
TWO
FIGURES OF PAUL
I.
INTRODUCTION
Simon Magus, who was frequently called
‘the father of all heresies,’[1]
lived in the first century, and Marcion lived mostly in the first half of the
second century. But, they were the
targets of attack by the heresiologists who lived in the second half of the
second century and thereafter. I think
that Simon Magus, whom the second century heresiologists attacked, was not the
“historical Simon” who was from a Samaritan village but the Simon who was
gnosticized or mythologized either by the Simonians for the worship purpose or
by the heresiologists or Jewish Christians for the attack purpose against
Gnostics or against “antinomian,” “anti-authority” Paul. As the late second century heresiologists
used to attack the mid first century Simon, the “alleged” founder of
Simonianism, so did they attack Marcion of the first half of the second
century, the master of Marcionism that flourished in the middle and the second
half of the second century. Although
Simon and Marcion had apparently nothing in common, both of them were used by
the Christians who were inclined to the Jewish Law to attack the “law-less (or
law-flexible)” Paul, the self-claimed “Apostle to the Gentiles” even after Paul
was accepted as the apostle of the “orthodox” church.
The historical Paul does not seem to
have anything to do with the Samaritan Simon Magus. But, strangely and interestingly enough, the
Pseudo-Clementines, especially in the Homilies, often attack the ‘Paul-like’
Simon. S. Pétrement notices that “almost
all the ideas attributed to Simon by the heresiologists have links with those
of Paul.”[2] She observes that “in some parts of the
Pseudo-Clementines, Simon represents Paul; in others, he represents Marcion,
who wished to be a disciple of Paul.”[3] Irenaeus connects Paul’s doctrine of
‘salvation by grace of Jesus Christ’ (Eph. 2:8-9) with Simonian’s doctrine of
‘salvation by grace of Simon Magus.’[4] According to Irenaeus, the angels whom Simon
had spoken of were not simply powers dominating the world, they were also the
authors of the Law (cf. Gal. 3:19).[5] This is why Simon’s disciples did not have to
obey the Law, but had to think of themselves as free to do what they
wished. R. M. Grant claims that the meaning
of the salvation provided by Simon (or rather, Simonians) is expressed in
language borrowed from some, at least, of the Pauline epistles.[6] He also points out that “the Simonians
actually were radical Paulinists, at least in some measure, and that at a later
point the Ebionites recognized this fact and attacked Paul through Simon.”[7] The attacks against Paul under the name of
Simon were done not only by the Ebionites (radical and “heretical” Jewish
Christians) but also by the Jewish-Christians in general.
II.
THE ANTI-PAULINE EVIDENCES IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY
Anti-Paulinism started with Paul’s
mission to the Gentiles since the middle of the first century (cf. Acts 15,
21:21-22, James 2:14-26), and continued throughout the second century and thereafter. The Ebionite Peter disputes against Paul in
the KerygmataPt, which were probably written around the middle of
the second century. I think that the
(initial) KerygmataPt would attack Paul directly without using
the name of Simon Magus, as they were written before Paul was accepted as an
“orthodox” apostle by the Roman Catholic church, which was done circa 190
C.E. Thus, from the beginning of the
third century on, it was difficult to directly and naively attack Paul. But, the Ebionites found a way to continue to
attack Paul. The opponents of Paul led
by the Ebionites used the name of Simon Magus, who became the target of attack
by the “orthodox” Roman church, as Simonianism arrived at Rome in the beginning
or middle of the second century. Thus,
being entangled with the attack of Simon Magus by the Roman Catholic church,
the attack of Paul under the name of Simon continued beyond the second century,
even when Simonianism became weak and almost disappeared and thus Simon Magus
(and his Simonianism) was no more the object of fear and the target of attack
by the Catholic church.
A.
Anti-Simonian/Anti-Marcionite and Anti-Pauline Evidences
Although the modern scholars date the
Pseudo-Clementines around 350 C.E., the major anti-Pauline source document, the
KerygmataPt, was probably composed around the middle of the
second century, which was the period when the legitimacy of Paul as an apostle
to the Gentiles and the “canonical” value of Paul’s epistles were at hand. While the “orthodox” Roman church resolved to
support and accept Paul and his epistles fully by 190 C.E., the Jewish
Christian communities located in various areas, who had been against Paul even
during his lifetime, did not loosen their strong opposition to Paul. Before Paul and his epistles gained the acceptance
from the “orthodox” Roman church, the Jewish Christian leaders, whether they
were moderate or extreme, directly and outspokenly opposed Paul. Thus, in the original form of the KerygmataPt
Peter would refute Paul without disguise in the name of Simon. But, after Paul’s legitimacy was proclaimed
by the Roman church, it became difficult to criticize Paul as he was fully
backed up by the Roman church, and so the direct attack on Paul disappeared
from the center stage, i.e., in Rome.
Yet, indirect or disguised attacks by the Ebionites or conservative
Jewish Christians continued not in Rome but probably in Syria. The reason why Clement was used as a pen name
seems to me to protest against the “orthodox” Roman church’s acceptance of Paul
as their apostle and inclusion of Paul’s epistles in their “Canon.”
Jewish Christians who opposed Paul were
not limited to the Ebionite sect. Most
Jewish Christians, if not all, continued to reject or disapprove Paul’s mission
to the Gentiles and his doctrine of salvation by grace of Christ through faith
alone (cf. Eph. 2:8). Their Judaistic background let them not approve of the
Gentile Christians’ salvation by faith alone without observation of the Law and
circumcision (cf. Acts 15:1-5, 21:20-21).
The Ebionite sect was a typical Jewish Christian group, although the
church fathers disparaged and defined them as a “heretic” sect. The Pseudo-Clementines were said to have been
composed by an Ebionite author or authors.
But, the Pseudo-Clementines are not characteristic of Ebionism in
particular but of Jewish Christianity in general.
In the Pseudo-Clementines, the stages of
confrontations between Peter and Simon (that is, Paul in some cases but not in
all cases) were confined to Caesarea (H 3.30-3.58) and Laodicea of Syria
(H 16.-19.) in the Homilies and to Caesarea only (R
2.19-3.48) in the Recognitions.
The vehement and outspoken attacks on Paul in the Homilies were
much reduced and hidden in the Recognitions. Thus, I imagine that the manner, degree and
frequency of attack on Paul had been changed according to the locations and
recognition of Paul by the Roman church since the middle of the second century.
1. The Ebionites and Their Gospels
(1)
The Name of the Ebionites
The name “Ebionite” comes from the Hebrew
word, “Ebionim,”
which means “the poor ones.” The
Ebionites themselves claim that they are the descendants of the poor in spirit
or in material among the Jerusalem saints (Matt. 5:3; Rom. 15:25-27; 1 Cor.
16:1; 2 Cor. 8:4, 14, 9:1; Gal. 2:10).
H.-J. Schoeps describes that Ebionism or “Ebionites” is a rehebraized
ancient title of honor which the remnant of the primitive church adopted,
probably after their flight from Jerusalem, on the basis of Jesus’ beatitudes
concerning the “poor.”[8] The Ebionites continue to appeal to their
voluntary disposition of possessions (following Acts 4:34f.) and associate
their poverty with the ideal of holiness.
But, Ignatius and Eusebius insist that
the Ebionites gained their name not because of their material poverty but
because of their poor and mean understanding concerning Christ.[9] According to the Ebionites, Jesus was born
(as a mere man) of Joseph and Mary, and was justified only because of his
superior virtue.[10]
Origen states that the Jewish believers
“are named from the poverty of their interpretation of the law. The Jews call a poor man “Ebion,” and those
Jews who have accepted Jesus as the Christ are called Ebionites.”[11] Origen seems to be unclear here whether he
connects their name with their poor interpretation of the law or with their
confession of Jesus as the Christ (i.e. Messiah). In De Prin(=On First
Principles) 4.1.22 he, like Ignatius and Eusebius, relates their name to
their poor understanding of Christ.
According to Pseudo-Tertullian in his Haer
3.3, “Ebion” who is Cerinthus’ successor does not agree with Cerinthus in that
he affirms the world to have been made by God, not by angels. Epiphanius even confuses Ebion with Cerinthus
in the famous episode of the apostle John’s bathing-room visit.[12] However, there was no such person named
“Ebion” who served as head of the sect, as Church Fathers (Hippolytus,
Pseudo-Tertullian, Epiphanius, and Filastrius) erroneously asserted.
The Judaic-Christians of Syria were
called “Nazarenes,” whose term also appears in Acts 24:5. According to Duchesne, they possibly called
themselves by this name, and others called them Ebionim (or Ebionites).[15] Although Epiphanius distinguishes these two
names, Jerome regards Ebionites and Nazarenes as the same, employing the term
Nazarenes to denote the Judaic Christians.[16] Some 19th century German scholars
such as A. Schliemann, J. Gieseler, and K. Credner distinguish two groups of
Jewish Christians which existed since the founding of Aelia Capitolina, i.e.,
Nazareans and Ebionites. Or, the
Ebionites themselves were divided into two groups, “popular” and “Gnostic”
Ebionites. Whereas the “popular”
Ebionites, the Nazarenes, were more tolerant Jewish Christians, the “Gnostic”
Ebionites were said to be heretical and anti-Pauline.[17] H.-J. Schoeps also confirms that the two
terms--“Ebionites” and “Nazoreans” (or Nazarenes)--refer to the same group.[18] According to Schoeps, the Elkesaites probably
merged later with the Nazoreans but had
a different origin.
(2)
The Ebionite Christology
Irenaeus states that the opinions of the
Ebionites about Christ are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates.[19] They believe that Jesus was the Son of
Joseph. However, according to Origen,
there are two groups of the Ebionite sect, the one believing that Jesus was
born of a virgin (“Nazarenes”: Eusebius,[20]
EH 3.27.3), and the other insisting that Jesus was not born of a virgin
but, like others, was born naturally of Joseph and Mary, and he was justified
only by his superior virtue (“Adoptionists”:
Eusebius, EH 3.27.2, 5.8.10).[21]
At baptism Jesus became Christ who descended on him. But, the Ebionites as a whole deny that
Christ Jesus is God as they refuse to acknowledge his preexistence as God the
Word and Wisdom (EH 3.27.3; opp. Col. 1:15-17). Both groups emphasized the outward observance
of the Law.
But, later on, if Epiphanius’ witness is
reliable, the Ebionites’ Christology seems to be broadened. Epiphanius states
about their Christology:[22]
For
some of them even say that Adam is Christ--the man who was formed first and
infused with God’s breath. But others
among them say that Christ is from above; that he was created before all
things; that he is a spirit, higher than the angels and ruler of all; that he
is called Christ, and the world there is his portion. But he comes here when he chooses, as he came
in Adam and appeared to the patriarchs with Adam’s body on. And in the last days the same Christ who had
come to Abraham, Issac and Jacob, came and put on Adam’s body, and he appeared
to men, was crucified, rose and ascended.
One interesting thing that we can
notice from Epiphanius’ statement on the Ebionites’ Christology is that his
descriptions are similar to those in the Clementine literature (H
3.19-20; R 1.45, 52). If
Epiphanius knew the Clementine writings, he would regard them as the Ebionite
works. Epiphanius, who has been
inconsistent most of the times, witnesses in other place that “But they(=the
Ebionites) say he(=Christ) is not begotten of God the Father, but was created
as one of the archangels, and that he is ruler both of angels and of all
creatures of <the> Almighty; and he came and instructed us <to abolish
the sacrifices>.”[23]
(3)
The Ebionite Gospels and Acts
According to Irenaeus, the Ebionites
used the Gospel of Matthew only and repudiated Paul, insisting that “he was an
apostate of the Law.”[24] Epiphanius also states that the Ebionites
receive and use the Gospel of Matthew, as do the followers of Cerinthus and
Merinthus, but that they call it the Gospel according to the Hebrews.[25] However, Irenaeus in some other places
witnesses that the Ebionites assert that Jesus was begotten by Joseph, denying
his virgin birth,[26]
which is against the testimony of the Gospel of Matthew (1:23). From this, P. Vielhauer and G. Strecker
suggest that the Gospel used by the Ebionites cannot be the canonical Matthew.[27]
Some people think that the Gospel of
Matthew which Irenaeus refers to is identical to the Gospel of the Hebrews, as
Epiphanius already mentioned. In Trajan’s time (98-117 C.E.) the Greek version
of the Ebionite Gospel was known as the name of the Gospel of the Hebrews in
Egypt.[28] According to P. Vielhauer and G. Strecker,[29]
“the mythological conception of the Holy Spirit as the mother of Jesus” in the
Gospel of the Hebrews, which is quoted by Origen (in John, Vol. 2.12),
distinguishes the Gospel of the Hebrews from the canonical Matthew and from the
Gospel of the Ebionites who assert that Jesus was born of Mary and Joseph.
However, there is a possibility that some Ebionite members,[30]
who believe in the virgin birth of Jesus although they doubt his pre-existence,
use the Gospel of the Hebrews.[31] And, thus those who are outside of Ebionitism
generally identify the Gospel of the Hebrews with the Ebionite Gospel.
There was a sect called the Nazoreans, a
group of the Syrian Jewish-Christians. They had their own Gospel, the Gospel of
the Nazoreans.[32] Epiphanius states that the Nazoreans had the
Gospel of Matthew, which was originally written in Hebrew script.[33] P. Vielhauer and G. Strecker claim that the
Gospel of the Nazoreans must have been an Aramaic version of the Gospel of
Matthew.[34]
The Gospel of the Ebionites, which
sometimes was called the Gospel of the Hebrews and some other times the Gospel
of the Nazoreans or of the Nazareans, was almost certainly a mutilated and/or
modified and redacted version of the Gospel of Matthew. It probably did not include the Jesus
nativity. And the scene of Jesus
baptism, which is quoted by Epiphanius, is peculiar.[35] Observing that the three slightly different
voices from heaven in the canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are all
recorded consequently in the Gospel of the Ebionites, B. Ehrman claims that it
is a kind of harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.[36] According to their Gospel, the Ebionites seem
to abstain from meat, as they state that John the Baptist is described as a
strict vegetarian, eating pancakes and wild honey (cf. Pan
30.13.4-5), and show their hostility toward the animal sacrifices (cf. Pan
30.16.5).[37]
According to Epiphanius, the Ebionites
say that there are other Acts of Apostles, which contain some impious--probably
anti-Pauline--material.[38] They have James, the brother of Jesus, as the
head of the Jewish Christian community in Jerusalem.[39] They apparently use the name of James in
their attack of Paul and other polemic presentation, for instance, refutation
against the temple and sacrifices, and the fire on the altar.[40] H.-J. Schoeps suggests that the portions of
the Ebionite Acts of Apostles “are older than the Jewish Christian parts of the
Pseudo-Clementines which have been called the Kerygmata Petrou(=KerygmataPt).”[41] However, it seems to me that there is no
particular distinction between the Ebionites and the Jewish Christians in
general in the Pseudo-Clementines, as the most Jewish Christians have the
anti-Pauline tendency.
(4)
The Ebionites and the Law
Justin in his Dialogue with Trypho
(chapter 47) speaks of two groups of Christians of Jewish origin: the moderate Jewish Christians who remained
within the church and, especially in the Diaspora congregations, exercised a
Judaizing influence on the formation of Christian doctrine and morality; and
the extreme Jewish Christians who refused to live with the Gentile Christians
who would not incorporate the Jewish law into their faith in Christ.[42] The latter Jewish Christians would be called
the Ebionites. According to Irenaeus,
the Ebionites are characterized by their loyalty to the Mosaic Law and the
circumcision.[43]
Hippolytus states that the Ebionites (or
Ebionaeans) live to the customs of the Jews.
They allege that they are justified according to the Law, and that Jesus
Christ was justified according to the Law.[44]
If any other had fulfilled the commandments in the Law, he would have been that
Christ. The Ebionites assert that Jesus
Christ was a man like anybody else.
(5)
Elkesai and the Ebionites
According to Hippolytus, in the time of Pope
Callistus (217-222 C.E.) a certain Alcibiades, coming from Apamea of Syria,
brought a mysterious book to Rome, which was said to have been given to a man
named Elkesai (or Elchasai or Elxai) about the third year of Trajan’s reign
(100 C.E.) at Seræ, a town of Parthia, from a male angel called the Son of God,
beside whom was a female called the Holy Spirit.[45] The content of the book was a preaching of
repentance, or of purification by baptism.
Elkesai alleges that believers ought to be circumcised and live
according to the Law.[46] And he claims that “Christ was born a man in
the same way as common to all, and that Christ was not for the first time on
earth when born of a virgin, but that both previously and that frequently again
He had been born and would be born.”[47] Christ “would appear and exist among us from
time to time, undergoing alterations of birth, and having his soul transferred
from body to body.”[48] Christ “is transfused into many bodies
frequently, and was now in Jesus.”[49]
The Elkesaites also assert that “at one time Christ was begotten of God, and at
another time became the Spirit, and another time was born of a virgin, and at
another time not so.”[50] Their Jesus was “continually being transfused
into bodies, and was manifested in many (different bodies) at different times.”[51]
Hippolytus states that Elkesai let his
disciples adjure the seven witnesses described in the mysterious book:
Behold,
I call to witness the heaven and the water, and the holy spirits, and the
angels of prayer, and the oil, and the salt, and the earth. I testify by these
seven witnesses that no more shall I sin, nor commit adultery, nor steal, nor
guilty of injustice, nor be covetous, nor be actuated by hatred, nor be
scornful, nor shall I take pleasure in any wicked deeds.[52]
When a person utters these words, the
person is allowed to “be baptized with the entire of his wearing apparel in the
name of the Mighty and Most High God.”
Eusebius in his EH 6.38 quotes
from a published sermon by Origen on Psalm 82, in which the theory of
the Elkesaites is mentioned. The
Elkesaites reject parts of every book of the Bible, though they make use of
passages from every Old Testament book and every Gospel. They reject Paul and his epistles. The Elkesaites teach that to deny the truth
does not matter, and that the sensible man may deny the truth in case of need
(e.g., persecution) with his lips but not in his heart.[53] They made a book, claiming that it fell from heaven,
and that “anyone who hears it read and believes will receive forgiveness for
his sins.”[54]
According to Epiphanius, Elkesai was
originally a Jew with Jewish beliefs, but he did not live by the Law, which is
contradictory to Hippolytus’ witness.[55] He is against celibacy, detests continence,
and insists on matrimony.[56] Epiphanius claims that Elkesai is associated
with some other sects who came later, the Ebionites after Christ, as well as
the Nazoreans.[57] According to Epiphanius, four sects made use
of Elkesai, among which the Ebionites and Nazoreans came after him, and the
Ossaeans and Nasareans before or during his time.[58]
Modern scholars have a consensus that
the book of Elkesai is closely related to the doctrines of the
Pseudo-Clementines. The book of Elkesai
seems to have been much used by the Ebionites.
H.-J. Schoeps suggests that the Ebionites, when they did not win in
their doctrinal competitions with other sects--especially with Paulinism, did
not become part of the Catholic church but “disappeared in the variegated
conglomeration of religions,” and that they were probably combined with the
Elkesaites in their final period.[59] According to F. J. A. Hort, these Elkesaites
were called “Essene Ebionites.”[60]
(6)
The Ebionites’ Attack on Paul/Simon
According to the canonical Acts (15,
21:17-26), the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, who probably include “the poor
saints” (Ebionim), generally oppose Paul’s “liberal” attitude and teaching on
Moses’ law and circumcision for the Gentiles.
The Ebionites’ attack on Paul in the second century is firstly witnessed
by Irenaeus, who states that the Ebionites “reject the Apostle Paul, saying
that he is an apostate from the law.”[61] Origen witnesses that there are some sects
who do not accept the epistles of Paul, such as the two kinds of Ebionites and
the Encratites.[62] The Encratites, which Origen mentions here,
is not the one that Tatian initiated, following Marcion and Saturninus, but the
one which a certain Severus lent his weight to this sect, thus the so-called
Severians after him. The Severians are
Encratites in the broad sense, in that they strictly abstain from meat, wine,
and marriage. But, according to
Eusebius, they(=the modified Encratites or Severians), unlike Tatian and the
initial Encratites, make use of the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospels, and
abuse Paul and reject his epistles and the Acts of the Apostles.[63]
The major Ebionites’ attack on Paul can
be found in the Pseudo-Clementines, but I do not think that it is the sole
purpose of the Pseudo-Clementines.
Rather, the portions of the Ebionites’ attack on Paul (from the KerygmataPt
source or by a later interpolater) seem to have been inserted into this
Pseudo-Clementine romance. Between the Recognitions
and Homilies, we find more direct attacks on Paul in the Homilies
(especially, in H 17.14-19).
What are the most significant reasons
that make the Ebionites opposed bitterly Paul? The first reason is Paul’s
assertion that the observation of the law was not necessary for salvation (for
not only the Gentiles but also the Jews).
This seems to be contrary what Jesus taught in the Gospel of Matthew
5:18-20. The second reason is Paul’s
claim of apostleship (to the Gentiles).
The Ebionites, who insisted that they were the successors of the poor
saints in the early Jerusalem church (cf. Rom. 15:25-26; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor.
8-9; Gal. 2:10), probably thought that Paul’s collection would be mainly to
persuade the original apostles in Jerusalem and to get the apostolic title, as
Simon Magus tried to purchase the power of the Holy Spirit (laying-on-of-hands)
(Acts 8:18-20).[64] I think that this is the most probable reason
why the second century Ebionites or Jewish Christians tried to identify Paul
with Simon Magus (e.g. H 17.19).
The buying motif for the power (of laying-on-of-hands) or the right (of
apostleship) to preach the Gospel is the most common one both for Paul and
Simon. Whether or not Paul really wanted
to earn the apostleship with his money from the Jerusalem apostles does not
matter for the Ebionites who were attacking Paul. They tried only to do harm to Paul and his
reputation because he asserted that the law was not valid any more for
salvation. Although the Ebionites,
according to Ignatius and Eusebius, gained their name because of their poor and
mean understanding concerning Christ, their poor understanding had nothing to
do with their severe attack on Paul.
Reading the Pseudo-Clementines,
especially the Recognitions, we find that many of the Pseudo-Clementine
attacks on Simon have nothing to do with Paul nor with Marcion, but only with
Simon himself. The first possible reason
for this is that the author of the Recognitions (or of the PeriodoiPt)
was a Catholic with a Jewish Christian background. His first target was the
Simonian Gnostics. The second possible
reason is that the author was a Dosithean.
If the claim of some Samaritan sources, which tell that Ebionitism was
initiated by Dositheus, were true, then the Ebionite Pseudo-Clementine attack
on Simon would be quite reasonable. This
was a way (for the Ebionite Pseudo-Clement) to revenge the followers of Simon
who allegedly defeated Dositheus in their hegemony competition for the sect of
John the Baptist (in H 2.23-24) or snatched the leadership from
Dositheus (in R 2.8-9). In other words, the Ebionites, if they
succeeded the teaching of Dositheus in some ways, would have sufficient reasons
to attack not only Paul but also Simon himself.
This perhaps explains the reasons why there are so many refutations
against Simon, which are irrelevant to Paul, in the Pseudo-Clementines,
especially in the Recognitions.
But, I think that the possibility that the Recognitionist was a
Dosithean is very low.
2. The Source Documents of the Pseudo-Clementines
The extant Pseudo-Clementine literature
consists of the Recognitions(=R ), the Homilies(=H),
and the Epistle of Peter to James(=EpPt) and Contestatio(=Cont
or Adjuration: James’ response to the EpPt), and the Epistle
of Clement to James(=EpCl). The Apostolic Constitutions(=AC)
which was once attributed to Clement follows closely the story of R and H
(i.e., the dispute of Simon with Peter in Caesarea) in 6.8,[65]
but Simon’s contest with Peter in Rome (i.e., his flight to sky) in 6.9 is
closely connected to various apocryphal Acts.
Thus, here, I will not include the AC in the Pseudo-Clementine
literature.
The Pseudo-Clementine literature had
been developed over a significant amount of the time period. There were the books of Peter’s preachings (=KerygmataPt),
composed around the middle of the second century. The EpPt and the Cont
were prefaced to the KerygmataPt.
They were Jewish-Christian (or Ebionite) anti-Pauline works. A little bit later, separately from the KerygmataPt,
a Catholic, anti-Gnostic or anti-Simonian book was written, telling Peter’s
dispute with Simon Magus, a representing figure of all heresies. This book may be called the Periodoi
Petrou(=PeriodoiPt:
Circuits or Travels or Journeys of Peter) in which Clement of Rome
accompanied Peter in his journeys. These
two books were combined into one book called the Grundschrift,
early in the third century. Or, the PeriodoiPt itself may be the Grundschrift,
which I prefer to believe. Then, a
letter of Clement to James, EpCl, formed a preface.
The Homilies and Recognitions
were derived from the G or PeriodoiPt with
insertion of some other source materials.
The source documents include the Ascents of James(=AJ: Anabathmoi Iakobou), the
(Ebionite) Acts of Peter (PraxeisPt, or Acts of
Apostles), Bardaisan’s Book of the Laws of the Countries, etc. Some source materials were interpolated in
the Homilies and some other in the Recognitions. Thus, in the Pseudo-Clementines, the
anti-Pauline and the anti-Simonian disputations were delicately and
complicatedly intermingled. When Paul
was proclaimed as an “orthodox” apostle, his name disappeared in these
works. But he was still under attack in
some parts of the books in the name of Simon (the most obvious example is H
17.13-19). At the latest stage of the
development of the Pseudo-Clementine literature in the second half of the
fourth century, the Arian sect seems to have got involved or have taken over
the writings. For instance, R
3.2-11, which includes some Arian doctrines, is omitted in the manuscripts of
best authority, indicating that this was not part of the earlier work.
(1) Kerygmata
Petrou (=KerygmataPt: Preachings of Peter)[66]
Concerning the KerygmataPt,
the EpPt/Cont mention the name, “the books of my (or his)
preachings,” seven times (EpPt 1, 2, 3; Cont 1.1,
1.2, 1.4, 2). The KerygmataPt,
sent by Peter to James, were probably the rule of truth--instructions about
(Ebionite) Jewish Christianity--to be delivered only to those who have been
proved and found worthy. H.-J. Schoeps
suggests that the KerygmataPt were presented as reports, which
Peter, like other apostles, had to submit to James annually “in writing about
his speaking and other activity.”[67] However, it seems to me that the KerygmataPt
were not just reports about his speaking and other activity, but the rule of
truth, to which even James is willing to be obedient. H.-J. Schoeps claims that one of the sources
of the KerygmataPt is an Ebionite Acts of the Apostles which is
mentioned by Epiphanius (cf. Pan 30.16).[68]
S. Pétrement states that the KerygmataPt
were a Jewish-Christian work written in Greek, in the East, perhaps in Syria.[69] She suggests that there is a possibility that
the KerygmataPt were composed by a Greek-speaking Dosithean. H.
Waitz states that the KerygmataPt were written by a Jewish
Christian Gnostic soon after 135.[70]
Although some Gnostic expressions such as syzygies are found in the
Pseudo-Clementines, their doctrinal position is anti-Gnostic. Waitz treats R
1.27-42 as a part of the KerygmataPt’s “Book of the True Prophet”
(following R 3.75).
I think that the KerygmataPt
are basically anti-Pauline, rather than anti-Simonian, concerning Paul’s
apostleship to the Gentiles through vision, his law-less gospel of salvation,
and his conflict with the original apostles. G. Strecker states that the KerygmataPt
have expressed an anti-Paulinism, directly or indirectly, by consequently
proclaiming the true prophet (cf. H 2.15-17; H 11.35.3-6 ~ R
4.34.5-35.2; H 17.13-19).[71]
(2) Anabathmoi
Iakobou (=AJ: Ascents of James)
Epiphanius in his Panarion
mentions some other Ebionite books such as the PeriodoiPt
(Circuits, Travels, Journeys, or Peregrinations of Peter, 30.15.1), other Ebionite
Acts of Apostles (30.16.6), and the AJ(=Ascents of James: Anabathmoi
Iakobou, 30.16.7). F. J. A. Hort, who identifies the AJ as the
earliest source of R 1,[72]
interprets the “ascents (αvαβαθμoι)” as the steps of the temple.[73]
J. B. Lightfoot also states that the αvαβαθμoι describes “the ascents of James
up the temple-stairs,” where he addressed the people.[74]
Most scholars think that Epiphanius’ Pan
30.16.8-9 is the content of the original AJ (although it does not seem
to me to be clear whether he describes the story of the AJ there).[75]
Lightfoot comments that the original work which Epiphanius mentioned was “much
more violent and unscrupulous in its attacks on St. Paul.” After a comparison of R 1.33-71 with
the AJ described by Epiphanius, G. Strecker concludes that differences
between the two indicate that they are not the same document. He designated the
AJ, the archetype, known to Epiphanius (Pan 30.16.6-9) as
“AJ I,” and the source of G or that in R 1 as “AJ
II.”[76] But, I think that Epiphanius in Pan
30.16.8-9 describes the content of other (Ebionite) Acts of the Apostles
(or Acts of Peter), which he mentions in 30.16.6, not that of AJ
in 30.16.7. This confusion seems to be
caused because the Ebionite Acts of the Apostles (or Acts of Peter),
which Epiphanius knew, includes the AJ.
That is, for Epiphanius, the AJ is not a separate book or a
source but a part of the Ebionite Acts of the Apostles (or Acts of
Peter). The author of the (Ebionite)
Acts of the Apostles (and of AJ as well) probably knew the
canonical Acts of the Apostles.
(3) Praxeis
Petrou (=PraxeisPt: Ebionite Acts of Peter)
Epiphanius in his Pan
30.16.6 mentions the existence of other (Ebionite) Acts of apostles. R. A. Lipsius asserts the existence of the PraxeisPt
which formed the oldest literary layer of the Pseudo-Clementines and was
already used as a source by the KerygmataPt and later by the
author of G(=Grundschrift).[77] H. Waitz, on the other hand, asserts that the
author of G used a Catholic, anti-Gnostic source in the PraxeisPt.[78] O. Cullmann thinks the PraxeisPt
as the PeriodoiPt, placing it between the KerygmataPt
and G chronologically. O.
Cullmann and H.-J. Schoeps regard the PraxeisPt as a reworking of
the KerygmataPt.[79]
If the inconsistent Epiphanius is
trustworthy here in that there were other books of Acts of apostles, including
(Ebionite) Acts of Peter (that is, the PraxeisPt), it
seems to me that the PraxeisPt is not a Catholic (yet
anti-Gnostic) source written by a person who knew the canonical Acts of the
Apostles and that it includes the AJ source in R 1.66-71.
(4)
Other Source Documents
There are probably several other source
documents which were included in the Pseudo-Clementines. In his discussion of source documents, F. S.
Jones[80]
includes the Book of the Laws of the Countries (cf. R 9.17,
19-29) by Philippus, a disciple of Bardaisan,[81]
the dispute with Appion (cf. H 4-6; R 10.17-51),[82]
the philosophical source (cf. R 8.10-33, 9.19-28; H 4-6), and the
Greek or other pagan adventure romance.
Thus, the Pseudo-Clementines became more complicated and intermingled,
and are sometimes inconsistent and self-contradictory.
3. The Basic Document (Grundschrift=G)
The basic document, G, is
a Pseudo-Clementine romance, in which Clement of Rome accompanies Peter in his
travel.[83] This G may be identified with
the so-called the PeriodoiPt (=PeriodoiPt: Circuits or Journeys or Travels of Peter).[84] H was probably derived from G
with insertion of some portions of the KerygmataPt. Then, R was composed on the basis of G
and H,[85] cautiously
deleting explicit anti-Pauline descriptions, yet the Recognitionist seems not
to be friendly to Pauline Christianity, either.
J. Langen locates G in
Rome around 135, and H. Waitz initially states that the G is a
mainly Catholic work written in Rome circa 220-230, but later alters his
position to a Syrian, Jewish-Christian provenance.[86] C. Schmidt, who closely follows Waitz,
correctly states that the author of G is a particular kind of
Catholic with Jewish heritage and environment.[87] J. Irmscher and G. Strecker consider G
as the anti-Pauline document.[88] I think that G is a Catholic,
anti-Simonian (rather than anti-Pauline)[89]
work in Syria (rather than in Rome)[90]
in the early third century by a person who had a Jewish-Christian background.[91]
4. The Pseudo-Clementines
As the Pseudo-Clementines contain
several different plots and layers from several different sources, the story as
a whole both in the Homilies and in the Recognitions is not
smooth and sometimes awkward and incoherent.
This section deals with anti-Paulinism in the Homilies, the Recognitions,
the Epistle of Peter to James (=EpPt) and Contestatio
(=Cont), and the Epistle of Clement to James (=EpCl). I think that the EpPt/Cont
were the prefaces of the KerygmataPt, then of the Homilies,
and the EpCl was the preface of the PeriodoiPt (or
of G), then of the Recognitions (although it is prefaced
to the Homilies in the present form),
judging from their tendencies and contents.
(1)
The Homilies
The Homilist, a Jewish Christian or an
Ebionite probably in Syria, introduced peculiar syzygies in H 2.15-17,
the first worse and the second superior:
from Adam there sprang first the unrighteous Cain, and then the
righteous Abel; from Noah two forms of spirits were sent forth, first the black
raven, and then the white dove; from Abraham two different persons sprang,
first Ishmael and then Issac; from Issac first Esau the profane, and then Jacob
the pious; so, first in birth, as the first born in the world, was the high
priest Aaron, then the lawgiver Moses; John the Baptist, the greatest of those
born of woman, came first, and then Christ, the greatest among the sons of men
came second; in like manner Simon came before Peter to the Gentiles, and then
Peter came after him. Simon as a
missionary to the Gentiles is undoubtedly a portrayal of Paul as a competitor
of Peter.
Simon’s Samaritan background, “a
Samaritan by race” (H 2.22), does not seem to be of Paul. Simon’s discipline of the magical arts and
syllogism in Alexandria of Egypt seems to be unrelated to Paul, although there
is a vague suspicion of Paul’s activity in Egypt (cf. Acts 21:38).[92]
Simon is described as one of the thirty
chief disciples of John the Baptist (H 2.23). The Homilist, unlike the Recognitionist who
alienates John the Baptist from Simon (R 2.8), is hostile to John the
Baptist, who is the first worse against the second superior, Christ, in a
syzygy (H 2.17). Is Paul, the
first missionary to the Gentiles before Peter (H 2.17),[93]
related to John the Baptist in any way?
The Homilist regards the sect of John the Baptist which survived beyond
the second century as an inferior rival of the sect of Jesus Christ. In the same way, he considers Pauline
Christianity an inferior competitor of Petrine Christianity for the mission to
the Gentiles.
In H 2.25 Simon is traveling
around in company with Helena. Simon
claims that he has brought down this Helena from the highest heavens to the
world, and that while only an image of Helena was taken by Paris to Troy, the
real Helena was with the supreme God (i.e. Simon). Is there any parallel story for Paul? Only well-known legendary female companion in
connection with Paul’s travel is Thecla in the apocryphal Acts of Paul. However, the role of Thecla for Paul is quite
different from Helen’s for Simon Magus.
Paul never claimed that he brought down Thecla from the highest heavens
to the earth and that she is his wisdom or the mother of all things.
In H 11.35 Peter, while he is
still staying at Tripolis of Phoenicia, warns against false apostles and
prophets, whom the wicked one (Satan) promised to send:
Wherefore, above all, remember to shun apostle or teacher or
prophet who does not accurately compare his preaching with that of James, who
was called the brother of my Lord, and to whom was entrusted to administer the
church of the Hebrews in Jerusalem,--and that even though he come to you with
witnesses; lest the wickedness which disputed forty days with the Lord, and
prevailed nothing, should afterwards, like lightening falling from heaven upon
the earth, send a preacher to your injury, as now he has sent Simon upon us,
preaching under pretence of the truth, in the name of the Lord, and sowing
error. Wherefore He who hath sent us,
said, “Many shall come to me in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are
ravening wolves. By their fruits ye
shall know them.”
Who is this Simon who is preaching the
doctrine which is in contrast with that of James “under pretense of the truth
in the name of the Lord”? Simon here is
quite different from the description of the church fathers. Simon usually claims both in the church
fathers and in the Pseudo-Clementines that he is the supreme God, or the Son of
God, or the Standing One, not that he is an apostle or a prophet of Jesus. Peter’s description of Simon here is far
apart from Simon’s claim about himself.
This is no other than Paul, whose preaching of salvation by faith only
is different from James’ preaching of salvation by works as well as by faith.
Is there any disguised preaching of Simon in the name of the Lord? Later Simonians claim that a man shall be
saved by grace of the supreme Father, Simon.
But this is probably an imitation from Marcion’s Paul (Eph. 2:8). It seems to me that Peter’s refutation of
Simon here indirectly deals with the doctrinal issue of Paul.
In H 17.3-5 and 18.1-3 Simon
distinguishes two Gods, one God, the lawgiver, is just and the other highest
and unknown God is good. However, this
dualistic Gnostic or Marcionite notion of God is not of the first century but
of the second century. The Ebionite
Homilist criticizes the Gnostic, if not Marcionite, dualism of God of the
second century. But a Marcionite (or a
Gnostic) Simon’s assertion here is not characteristic of Paul, as he never
distinguishes the good God from the just God.
The most obvious and significant
anti-Pauline statement in the whole Pseudo-Clementines is found in H
17.13-19. H.-J. Schoeps states that the
passage (H 17.13-20) “is characterized by a marked anti-Paulinism even
after the patristic consensus in favor of Paul.”[94] This is Peter’s refutation against Simon on
the second day of the second disputation at Laodicea of Syria. Simon in elsewhere never claims that he is an
apostle of Jesus through dreams, apparitions, or visions. There is no doubt that Peter here speaks to
Paul (not to Simon) even he is in the guise of Simon:
You
alleged that, on this account, you knew more satisfactorily the doctrines of
Jesus than I do because you heard His words through an apparition. ... But he
who trusts to apparition or vision and dream is insecure (H 17.14); If,
then, our Jesus appeared to you in a vision, made known Himself to you, and
spoke to you, it was as one who is enraged with an adversary; and this is the
reason why it was through visions and dreams, or through revelations that were
from without, that He spoke to you. ... And how are we to believe your word,
when you tell us that He appeared to you?
And how did He appear to you, when you entertain opinions contrary to
his teaching? But if you were seen and
taught by Him, and became His apostle for a single hour, proclaim His
utterances, interpret His sayings, love His apostles, contend not with me who
companied with Him. For in direct
opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church, you now
stand. If you were not opposed to me,
you would not accuse me, and revile the truth proclaimed by me, in order that I
may not be believed when I state what I myself have heard with my own ears from
the Lord, as if I were evidently a person that was condemned and in bad
repute. But if you say that I am
condemned, you bring an accusation against God, who revealed the Christ to me,
and you inveigh against Him who pronounced me blessed on account of
revelation. But if, indeed, you really
wish to work in the cause of truth, learn first of all from us what we have
learned from Him, and, becoming a disciple of the truth, and become a
fellow-worker with us (H 17.19).
This is obviously the Ebionite or Jewish
Christian Peter’s attack on Paul (not on Simon), knowing Pauline epistles and
keeping an incidence between them at Antioch in mind (Gal. 2:11-14). On what ground Peter attacks Simon(=Paul)
that he (=Simon/Paul) alleges that he knows more satisfactorily the doctrines
of Jesus than Peter does? Paul insists
in 2 Corinthians 11:5 that he is “not in the least inferior to these
superlative apostles.” Concerning who
“these superlative apostles” are, some scholars interpret that they are Jesus’
original apostles including Peter, John, and James, some others insist that
they are false apostles or teachers. The
Ebionite Peter (or Homilist) would regard that by “these superlative apostles”
Paul meant Peter, John, and James (the brother of Jesus) (cf. Gal. 1:17,
2:9). How did Peter know that
Simon(=Paul) asserted that he was “seen and taught by Jesus,” and the he
“became His apostle for a single hour”?
The Ebionite Peter (or the author of the KerygmataPt or of
the Homilies) would apparently know the “Luke of Acts” version of Paul’s
(conversion) experience on the way to Damascus in which Paul’s apostleship to
the Gentiles was allegedly given by Christ who appeared to Paul (cf. Acts
9:3-16; 22:6-21, 26:12-18; Gal. 1:1, 12).
Whereas Paul describes his experiences in Christ and his Gospel as
“revelations” (cf. Gal. 1:12), Peter disparages Simon(=Paul)’s experiences as
“apparitions, visions, or dreams” which he uses as negative connotations.[95]
When Peter was rebuked by Paul at
Antioch in Galatians 2:11-14, he was silent or his answer was omitted
there. The Ebionite Peter, who thought
that Paul’s condemnation was insolent, retorts upon Paul here, saying, “Contend
not with me. If you were not opposed to
me, you would not accuse me, and revile the truth proclaimed by me. ... But if
you say that I am condemned, you bring an accusation against God, who revealed
the Christ to me, and you inveigh against Him who proclaimed me blessed on
account of the revelation (cf. Matt. 16:16).”[96] Now, Simon’s answer is interesting: “Far be it from me to become his(=Christ’s)
or your disciple. For I am not ignorant
of what I ought to know; but the inquiries which I made as a learner were made that
I may see if you can prove that actual sight (or activity) is more distinct
than apparition.”[97] Here, Simon is not Paul who claims to have
become a disciple or an apostle of Christ through a revelation according to his
definition (cf. Gal. 1.12) or through a vision or an apparition according to
the Ebionite Peter’s definition (cf. H 17.19).
Simon, who fled from Laodicea to Antioch
when he was defeated by Peter, excited the multitudes there against Peter
calling him “a magician and a murderer, a deceiver and a juggler.”[98] This is Antioch where Peter was rebuked by
Paul. Thus, the Ebionite Peter wants to restore his apostolic authority by
reversing the situation in Paul’s Galatians 2:11-14. In H 20.19 (cf. R
10.61), Peter instructs Faustus (or Faustinianus in R), Clement’s
father, who is leaving for Antioch with the face of Simon,[99]
what to say to the people there. That
is, Peter (not Simon/Paul) is “the true apostle of the true Prophet (i.e.,
Jesus Christ) that was sent by God for the salvation of the world.” We admit that Simon here seems to be Paul as
well as Simon. But, considering the
location, the Homilist looks to show more anti-Paulinism than anti-Simonianism.[100]
Most of the above anti-Pauline
statements are probably from the KerygmataPt which was written
before Paul was formally accepted by the “orthodox” Roman church at the end of
the second century. Anti-Paulinism in
the KerygmataPt might have been more direct and bitterer. However, when the Ebionite Homilist used the KerygmataPt
as a source document, he could not openly attack Paul, who was by then
proclaimed to be an apostle of the “orthodox” church, but covertly under the
name of Simon. Nevertheless Simon in the
Homilies is not always Paul.
Rather, Paul in the guise of Simon is only in part, although we feel
somewhat stronger anti-Paulinism here than in the Recognitions.[101]
(2)
The Recognitions
I think that both the Recognitions
and Homilies are heavily dependent upon G (or the PeriodoiPt),
as the Synoptic Gospels are dependent upon the Q source. Furthermore, it seems to me that R is
dependent upon H as well. The
Recognitionist tried to remove explicit and direct attacks on Paul as many as
possible. However, he, a Catholic with a
Jewish Christian background, left some implicit and indirect attacks on
Paul--e.g., an attack on Saul before Paul’s conversion--on purpose.
In R 1.70, which is alleged to be
a part of the source document, the AJ, a certain hostile man (or a
certain enemy) enters the temple in Jerusalem and shouts before the large
multitude: “What mean ye, O men of
Israel? Why are you so easily hurried
on? Why are ye led headlong by most
miserable men, who are deceived by (Simon) a magician?”[102] Here, “a certain hostile man or enemy” is
evidently Saul, Paul before conversion. The reason why he came in the temple
with his men was to disrupt James and his followers, who went there for the
debate with the Jewish leaders. Who is
(Simon) the magician here whom the hostile enemy accused of the deception of
people? It may be Simon Peter. But, more probably, he is Jesus the miracle
worker. The hostile enemy calls him with
a negative connotation of “the magician.”[103]
In R 1.70.8 the hostile enemy
(i.e., Saul) attacked James, and threw him headlong from the top of the
steps. As he supposed James to be dead,
he was not concerned to beat him further.
As Eusebius reports in his EH the similar stories concerning the
martyrdom of James are also told by Hegesippus and Josephus.[104] They probably share the same tradition or
source, but differently describe it for their own writing purposes. In R 1.71.1-2 the Jewish Christians,
carrying James, returned to the house of James and prayed there. Before daylight about 5,000 men went down to
Jericho. In the mean time, the enemy
(Saul) had received a commission from Caiaphas, the chief priest, that he
should arrest all who believed in Jesus, and should go to Damascus (cf. Acts
9:1-2, 22:4-5). The enemy wanted to go
to Damascus believing that Peter had fled there (R 1.71.4). Although the author of the AJ or of
the Recognitions calls Saul “the enemy,” the story in R 1.70-71
is simply another version of Saul’s persecution of Christians before his
conversion which is also told in Acts (9:1-2 and 22:4-5) and Galatians
(1:13). One shocking aspect of the
story, however, is that Saul was the prime character of the people who plotted
to kill James, the brother of Jesus and the leader of the Jerusalem church. R.
E. Voorst states that “anti-Paulinism is a new and major feature of this
section (R 1.66-71) of the AJ.”[105] But, it does not seem to be a major feature
of anti-Paulinism, as the story neither against Paul a Christian nor Paul’s
mission to the Gentiles without imposition of the Law. The story of the enemy stopped in R
1.71. Simon, a Samaritan magician, who
now stays at Caesarea and asserts that he is the Standing One--the Christ, and
the great power of the high God, is not obviously the enemy, i.e., Saul or Paul
before conversion. The Simon story in R
1.72ff. is a quite separate story from the previous James (and enemy) story
(cf. AJ).
In R 3.61 Peter lists the ten
pairs (syzygies) which have been assigned to this world from the beginning of
time: Cain and Abel; the giants and
Noah; Pharaoh and Abraham; the Philistines and Issac; Esau and Jacob; the
magicians (of Egypt) and Moses the lawgiver; the tempter and the Son of man;
Simon and Peter; all nations and he who shall be sent to sow the word among the
nations; and Antichrist and Christ (cf. H 2.15-17, 33, 3.23). Peter wants to prove that the first ones of
the syzygies are evil (or worse) and the second ones good (or better). However, unlike H 2.17, Peter does not
mention explicitly Simon’s missionary work to the Gentiles. It is unreasonable to conclude that Simon
here, who asserts that he can make statues walk, dogs of brass or stone bark,
mountains dance, etc. (R 3.60), is identified with Paul. Although H.-J. Schoeps states that “Paul was
viewed ... even as the Antichrist (R 3.61),”[106] I think that it is difficult to say that the
inclusion of a pair of Simon and Peter per se is anti-Pauline.
In R 4.35 Peter warns against the
false teacher or apostle, by saying:
Wherefore observe the greatest caution, that you believe no
teacher, unless he bring from Jerusalem the testimonial of James the Lord’s
brother, or of whosoever may come after him.
For no one, unless he has gone up thither, and there has been approved
as a fit and faithful teacher for preaching the word of Christ,--unless, I say,
he brings a testimonial thence, is by any means to be received. But let neither prophet nor apostle be looked
for by you at this time, besides us. For
there is one true Prophet, whose words we twelve apostles preach, for He is the
accepted year of God, having us apostles as His twelve months.
The above may be the most significant
anti-Pauline statement in the whole Recognitions. Peter here probably has Paul in mind,
although it is not so obvious as in H 17.19. Peter’s speech does not address Simon Magus
as he does not preach the word of Christ.
He does not need to get the testimonial of James. The statement that “unless one brings the
testimonial of James from Jerusalem, he and his teaching should not be trusted”
is an Ebionite or a strong Jewish Christian comment (against Paul). If Paul had heard this Peter’s statement, he
would have opposed him strongly (cf. Gal. 1:11-12, 2:6). Paul himself would not think that he needed
James’ permission for his Gentile mission (cf. Gal. 1:1). The reason why Paul went up to Jerusalem as
is in Galatians (1:18 and) 2:1 was not to bring James’ testimonial but to make
sure his role to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:2, 8-9).
Although James and Peter in Galatians seemed to accept to Paul’s
proposal (Gal. 2:9), James in Acts would have some doubt in Paul’s ministry to
the Gentiles. When Paul went in to James
and the elders after arriving in Jerusalem, they asked him to purify himself
and his company so that Paul himself might show that he lived in observance of
the Law (Acts 21:24). And, according to
“Luke of Acts,” Paul and his people purified themselves, accordingly. Luke describes Paul as a secondary apostle
who is subservient to the authority of Jerusalem to be a teacher confirmed by
James or the Jerusalem authority, as Peter suggests in R 4.35 (and H
17.19).
(3) Epistula
Petri (=EpPt: Epistle of Peter to James)
The EpPt and the Cont
by James, the brother of Jesus, survive as the prefaces to the
Pseudo-Clementine Homilies.
However, as several Pseudo-Clementine scholars suggest, they seem to be
originally the prefaces to the KerygmataPt. Yet, Hort claims that the EpPt
may belong to the PeriodoiPt, rather than to the KerygmataPt.[107] In this letter Peter urges James to pass
along the accompanying books of his preachings carefully, and only to those who
are worthy to receive them. In EpPt
1, Peter states:
I beg
and beseech you not to communicate to any one of the Gentiles the books of my
preachings which I sent to you, nor to any one of our own tribe before trial;
but if any one has been proved and found worthy, then to commit them to him,
after the manner in which Moses delivered his books to the Seventy who
succeeded to his chair. ... For, according to the rule delivered to them, they
endeavour to correct the discordances of the Scriptures, if
any one, haply not knowing the
traditions, is confused at the various utterances of the prophets.
The “books of my preachings” may be
identified with the KerygmataPt.
The possibility of previous existence of these hypothetical books, KerygmataPt,
which, of course, were not written by the historical Peter, seems to me to be
relatively high as Pseudo-Clement wanted to have all the necessary books and
prefaces (i.e., EpPt/Cont, and EpCl)
to look his (or their) scenario in perfect harmony (cf. R 3.75). Peter in the EpPt values his
books as high as the books of Moses (i.e., Pentateuch). Peter in the Pseudo-Clementines does not
believe the infallibility of the Scriptures, but he asserts that he has a
discerning power to “know what of the Scriptures are true and what are false” (H
3.49, and also 3.50), correcting the discordances of the Scriptures. Those persons, to whom the rule of monarchy
and polity is delivered, can “correct” the discordances of the Scriptures. In this sense, this Pseudo-Clementine
Jewish-Christian group does not seem to be a normal group of Jewish Christians
but a group of the Ebionites or Elkesaites, who think that only their
interpretation and modified application are appropriate.
In EpPt 2 Peter states:
For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my legal
preaching, attaching themselves to certain lawless and trifling of the man who
is my enemy. And these things some have attempted while I am still alive, to
transform my words by certain various interpretations, in order to the
dissolution of the law; as though I also myself were of such a mind, but did
not freely proclaim it, which God forbid!
The above statement reminds us of the
incidence at Antioch in Galatians 2:11-14, which, however, is not about Peter’s
preaching or about interpretations of his preaching but about his
“hypocritical” attitude at a food table with the Gentile Christians (Gal.
2:13). Nevertheless, the Ebionite Peter blames his enemy, i.e. Paul,[108]
for his own way of interpretation of Peter’s preaching. Peter does not want to permit any other
interpretations which are not based on the law of God.[109]
In EpPt 3 Peter continues:
I have
prayed and besought you not to communicate the books of my preaching which I
have sent you to any one, whether of our own nation or of another nation,
before trial; but if any one, having been tested, has been found worthy, then
to hand them over to him, according to the initiation of Moses, ...; in order
that thus they may keep the faith, and everywhere deliver the rule of truth,
explaining all
things after our tradition; lest being
themselves dragged down by ignorance, being drawn
into error by conjectures after their mind, they bring others into the like pit
of destruction.
Paul is a kind of person who does not
want to be tested or to be taught by men of authority (cf. Gal. 1:1,
11-12). He went up to Jerusalem not to
tested by James (cf. Gal. 1:19) but probably to claim his apostleship to the
Gentiles (cf. Gal. 1:1). From (the
Ebionite) Peter’s point of view, Paul is the person who would draw not only
himself but also others into error and the pit of destruction by conjectures
after his mind.
(4) Contestatio
(=Cont or Adjuration)
James, having read the EpPt
and sent for the elders, and having read it to them, says in the Cont
1.1:
Our Peter has strictly and becomingly charged us concerning the
establishing of the truth, that we should not communicate the books of his
preachings, which have been sent to us, to any one at random, but to one who is
good and religious, and who wishes to teach, and who is circumcised, and
faithful. ... Wherefore let him be proved not less than six years. And then according to the initiation of
Moses, he that is to deliver the books should bring him to a river or a
fountain, which is living water, where the regeneration of the righteous takes
place, and should make him, not to swear ... but to stand by the water and
adjure, as we ourselves, when we were regenerated, were made to do for the sake
of not sinning.
Circumcision is a requirement for those
who wish to be delivered the books of Peter’s preachings. This is against Paul’s thought, who did not
compel Titus to be circumcised (Gal. 2:3).
Furthermore, James in the canonical Acts seems not to ask circumcision
for the Gentiles to be faithful (Acts 15:19-20, 28-29, 21:25). Then, the person who is tested and proved is
to be brought a living water--a river or a fountain--to stand by the water and
adjure for the sake of not sinning.
James continues in Cont
1.2:
And let
him say: “I take to witness heaven,
earth, water, in which all things are comprehended, and in addition to all
these, that air also which pervades all things, and without which I cannot
breathe, that I shall always be obedient to him who gives me the books of the
preachings; and those same books which he may give me, I shall not communicate
to anyone in any way, ... ; unless I shall ascertain one
to be worthy, as I myself have been judged, or
even more so, and that after a probation
of not less than six years; but to one who is religious and good, chosen to
teach, as I have received them, so I will commit them, doing these things
according to the will of my bishop.
The manner and content of adjuration by one
who will receive the books of the preachings is similar to those of adjuration
by Elkesaites at baptism reported in Hippolytus’ Ref 9.10.[110] The three (i.e., heaven, earth, and water)
out of the four witnesses of adjuration in Cont 1.2 (and also
1.4) are included in the seven witnesses of adjuration in Hippolytus’ Ref
9.10. This suggests that the author of
the Cont (and EpPt) was influenced by Elkesaites,
or he himself was an Elkesaite.
James, perceiving that the elders were
greatly afraid, says in Cont 2:
Hear me, brethren and fellow-servants. If we should give the
books to all indiscriminately, and they should be corrupted by any daring men,
or be perverted by interpretations, as you have heard that some have already
done, it will remain even for those who really seek the truth, always to wander
in error.
Who are those who have already
corrupted or perverted Peter’s preachings by interpretations? James here obviously seems to point at Paul
and his followers who claim that men can be saved only through faith not
through works according to the Law of Moses by the grace of Christ (Eph.
2:8).
(5) Epistula
Clementis (=EpCl: Epistle of Clement to James)
The Epistula Clementis (=EpCl)
is a letter which was prefaced to the Homilies. But, as some scholars correctly suggest, I
think that it was originally a preface to the Recognitions (and possibly
to the PeriodoiPt) not to the Homilies (and probably not
to the KerygmataPt, either).
The location of the EpCl
is Rome, which distinguishes this letter from both the Homilies and the Recognitions,
whose location is Syria (Caesarea and Laodicea, and Antioch). So, Clement here apparently describes what
happened to him (and Peter) after the days at Antioch of Syria, where both the Homilies
and the Recognitions end.
The letter contains the imminent
martyrdom of Peter, the ordination and installation of Clement to the office of
bishop of the Church in Rome, duties of presbyters, deacons, and catechists,
and some exhortations. The EpCl,
unlike the EpPt/Cont, is not anti-Pauline, although it
seems to be of Jewish Christian origin.
This suggests that the EpCl was written probably in Rome
or possibly in Syria by a Jewish Christian Catholic after Paul was accepted as
an “orthodox” apostolic figure by the Roman Church as earliest as the late
second century or as latest as the middle of the fourth century. Although it is of Roman provenance, the name
of Paul is not mentioned there, like in other Pseudo-Clementine works and unlike
in other various apocryphal Acts.
Clement states in EpCl 1:
I(=Clement) must tell you(=James),--he(=Peter) himself, by reason
of his immense love towards men, having come as far as Rome, clearly and
publicly testifying, in opposition to the wicked one who withstood him, that
there is to be a good King over all the world, while saving men by his
God-inspired doctrine, himself, by violence, exchanged this present existence
for life.
Who is the wicked one who withstood
Peter in this statement? This is Simon
Magus who confronted Peter both in Caesarea (H 3.30-58; R
2.19-3.48) and in Laodicea (H 16.-19.).
Although Simon is meant to be Paul in some parts of the
Pseudo-Clementines, especially in H 17.19, I think that Clement seems to
point at Simon Magus here.
Clement states in EpCl 19:
Having thus spoken, he(=Peter) laid his hands upon me(=Clement)
in the presence of all, and compelled me to sit in his own chair. And when I was seated, he immediately said to
me: “I entreat you, in the presence of all the brethren here, that whensoever I
depart from this life, as depart I must, you send to James the brother of the
Lord a brief account of your reasonings from your boyhood, and how from the
beginning until now you have journeyed with me, hearing the discourses preached
by me in every city, and seeing my deeds.
And then at the end you will not fail to inform him of the manner of my
death, as I said before. For that event will not grieve him very much, when he
knows that I piously went through what it behoved me to suffer.
Following Peter’s entreaty, Clement
would send a report to James in this Pseudo-Clementine scenario. And the report was probably (called) the PeriodoiPt
or the Pseudo-Clementine romance, where Clement should describe ‘his reasonings
from his boyhood, and how from the beginning until now he has journeyed with
Peter, etc.’ Later, the PeriodoiPt
became the main body of both the Homilies and the Recognitions. However, for some reason, Clement, against
Peter’s strong request, failed to inform James of the manner of Peter’s
martyrdom. That is, we do not find any
report on Peter’s martyrdom in the Pseudo-Clementine literature. According to various apocryphal Acts, Peter was
killed shortly before Nero’s own death (i.e., around 67-68 C.E.), whereas,
according to various traditions (e.g., Hegesippus or Josephus), James was
killed around 62-63 C.E. Did
(Pseudo-)Clement not report Peter’s death to James because he knew some
traditions which informed him that Peter outlived James? Well, we are not sure.
In EpCl 20, Clement closes
his letter with the following statement:
Whence I, my lord James, having promised as I was ordered, have
not failed to write in books by chapters the greater part of his discourses in
every city, which have been already written to you, and sent by himself, as for
a token; and thus I despatched them to you, inscribing them “Clement’s Epitome
of the Popular Sermons of Peter.” However, I shall begin to set them forth, as
I was ordered.
This (Pseudo-)Clement proceeds everything
in an orderly manner as he was ordered by Peter. His books and letters were supposed to have
sent James, the brother of Jesus, although James was certainly not an actual
reader but an intended (or an assumed) reader.[111] The actual readers were probably those who
belonged to the Ebionite sect. The
question whether or not those books and letters that were alleged to have sent
James were real have been much debated.
It seems to me that although there was no real James who survived to read
those books and letters of (Pseudo-)Clement in the second century or
thereafter, Pseudo-Clement (or several Pseudo-Clements) probably produced all
the books and letters including those books in R 3.75.[112]
5.
Some Other Anti-Pauline Evidences
Anti-Pauline evidences are found mostly
in connection with the Ebionites in their Pseudo-Clementine literature, where
they attack Paul in many cases under the name of Simon Magus. Apart from the Pseudo-Clementines, anti-Paulinism
seems to be unrelated to Simon.
(1)
Anti-Paulinism in the First Century
If the reports in the Acts of the
Apostles are reliable anti-Paulinism was there from the beginning of Paul’s
ministry to the Gentiles. Luke states in
Acts 15:1-2:
But
some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, “Unless you are
circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And when
Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and
Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to the Jerusalem to the
apostles and the elders about this question.
According to “Luke of Acts,” this matter
appears to be understandably settled through Peter’s speech (Acts 15:7-11) and
James’ resolution (Acts 15:19-20, 28-29, 21:25). But, in reality, the matter
must have been unresolved. That is why
Paul was unwelcome by the Jewish Christians when he arrived at Jerusalem with
the collection (cf. Acts 21:20-21). Luke
does not even clearly mention how and to whom the collection delivered (cf.
Acts 24:17-18). The Jewish Christians
kept trying to find fault with Paul and attack him. Even Peter and James would not be in favor of
Paul, contrary to Luke’s witness in Acts 15. Rather, they would be hostile to
Paul. In addition to the Ebionite Peter
and James in the Pseudo-Clementines, James in his canonical epistle gives us
this hint. Why and to whom does James
address the question in James 2:14, saying, “What does it profit, my brethren,
if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?” James apparently points at Paul, refuting his
doctrine of salvation only by faith.
Paul himself also witnesses an
anti-Paulinism by Jewish (or Judaistic) Christian teachers and/or apostles in
his epistles (cf. 1 Cor. 1:12, 9:1-24; 2 Cor. 11:4-15, 19-23, 12:11-13; Gal.
1:6-9). Who are the “superlative
apostles” in 2 Corinthians 11:5 and 12:11?[113] Are they false apostles, that is, his rivals
in Corinth or the leaders of the church in Jerusalem, such as Peter, James, and
John? Paul apparently points at James, Peter, and John--the leaders of the
Jerusalem church (cf. Gal. 2:6-9).[114] Paul probably feels great tension and
opposition among his Gentile churches because of the Jewish (or Judaistic)
influences by these superlative apostles on them. James, Peter, and John
themselves would not be so friendly but rather hostile to Paul in his Gentile
ministry because of his law-free Gospel of salvation, which is a little bit
different from Paul’s description in Galatians 2:8-9.
(2)
Anti-Paulinism in Church Fathers
Irenaeus in his AH 1.26.2
testifies that the Ebionites rejects Paul (and his letters) because he is “an
apostate from the law.” The Ebionites,
according to Epiphanius, assert that Paul was a Gentile of Greek parentage (cf.
Acts 21:39).[115] They claim that Paul, the son of a Greek
mother and father, went up to Jerusalem, and wanted to marry a daughter of the
high priest.[116] So, he
became a proselyte of Judaism and was circumcised. But, as he could not marry
her, he wrote against the law and circumcision.[117]
In disputation against Celsus, Origen
states that there are some sects who do not accept the epistles of Paul--the
two kinds of Ebionites and Encratites.[118] The reason why the Encratites, the followers
of Tatian, who, then, followed Marcion and Saturninus, dislike Paul and his
epistles is, according to Hippolytus, because of 1 Timothy 4:1-5 which says:
“... in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful
spirits and doctrines of demons, through the pretensions of liars whose
consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and enjoin abstinence from foods
which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and
know the truth. ...”[119] The Encratites, following Marcion and
Saturninus, taught abstinence from marriage and animal food, and then reject
Marcion’s Paul because he (probably not “Paul” himself) speaks against those
who forbid marriage and abstain from animal food.
Eusebius reports that a certain Severus
and his followers called Severians, who make use of the Law, the Prophets, and
the Gospels, abuse Paul and reject his epistles.[120]
Eusebius states that their original founder was Tatian.[121] These are all anti-Pauline evidences but not
anti-Simonian/anti-Marcionite ones.
Tertullian is a person who shows an
anti-Marcionite/anti-Pauline atmosphere in his reputing Marcion (or
Marcionism), who claims to be a disciple of Paul (cf. AM 1.20,
4.2, 3). He intentionally discredits
Paul, Marcion’s ‘only true apostle,’ to criticize Marcion and his doctrines,
stating that Paul’s rebuke of Peter was from his being “in the rudiments of
grace” (cf. AM 1.20).
B.
Anti-Simonian/Anti-Marcionite but Not Anti-Pauline Evidences
Whereas Eastern (Jewish) Christianity in
Syria around 200 was attacking Paul on his law-free Gospel, Western
Christianity centering at Rome was defending Paul, claiming him and Peter as
the first bishops of the Roman church.
Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians (=PolyPhil) is one of few
letters, written in Asia Minor between 130 and 160, in which we can find
pro-Paulinism and anti-Marcionism.
I think that various apocryphal Acts
including the Acts of Peter(=APt) and the Acts of Peter and
Paul(=APtP) were probably the later products (around or right after
200 C.E.) than the major anti-Pauline source documents, the KerygmataPt
in particular, of the Pseudo-Clementines.
In connection with an anti-Paulinism, one purpose of these writings was
to defend Paul and to alienate him from Simon Magus. From reading the various apocryphal Acts, I
feel that attempts to identify Paul with Simon Magus, a synonym for heresy,
were there when these books emerged and even before the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies
and Recognitions existed.
1. Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians
The PolyPhil is silent about
Simon but is inclined to be anti-Marcion, although it is not a sure thing. Polycarp in person is said to have an
unpleasant experience with Marcion in Asia or in Rome. Irenaeus’ statement about the incidence turns
out to be incorrect. Polycarp’s visit to
Rome in 155 C.E. under the episcopate of Anicetus was probably a historical
fact. By that time, Marcion and his
followers had been prevailing in Asia Minor.[122] One thing for sure, Marcion in 155 did not
need Polycarp’s recognition at all, because, by then, his name is notorious
among the “orthodox” church leaders and he gained enormous number of followers,
and his teachings were wide spread in the whole Asia Minor and even in
Rome. As Marcion almost certainly did
not go to Rome, the place of the incidence, if it really happened, would be
located in Asia Minor, probably in Ephesus around 130 C.E. or before. Polycarp in his letter portrays himself as an
admirer of “the blessed Paul”[123]
whom he never met, and he apparently knows well of Paul’s epistles along with
the letters of Peter whom he never met, either.
2. The Acts of Peter
While Paul was at Rome, he confirmed
many in the faith. Then, having seen the
Lord who told him to “be a physician to the Spaniards,” Paul left for Spain,
after comforting and encouraging the believers in Rome (1-3). After Paul’s departure, Simon the magician
emerged to the surface. Before he came
to Rome, Simon was staying at Aricia, south of Rome, claiming to be “the great
power of God, doing nothing without God” (4).
Although Paul does not reappear on the stage during the remaining
chapters of the book, the author probably starts with the story of Paul’s
departure from Rome to implicitly tell the readers that Paul has nothing to do
with Simon the magician.
When Marcellus said to Peter, he
referred to Paul as Peter’s “fellow-apostle” (10). And, according to APt 23, in his
contest with Simon at the forum of Julius Peter spoke to Simon about the
happening which is recorded in Acts 8:18-24.
But, here, Peter said that the place where it occurred was Jerusalem
instead of Samaria and that his companion was Paul instead of John:
Tell me, Simon, did you not fall at my feet and those of Paul,
when in Jerusalem you saw the miraculous cures which took place by our
hands, and say, “I pray you, take as much money from me as you wish, that I too
by laying on of hands may perform such deeds”? And when we heard this from you
we cursed you: do you think that we try to possess money? (APt 23)
I think that the author of the APt
intentionally changed the place of occurrence and the name of Peter’s companion
(cf. a city in Samaria and John in Acts 8:14-25) in support of Paul, knowing
that the Pseudo-Clementine (or KerygmataPt’s)
anti-Paulinism. Although the modern
scholars have a consensus in their dating of the extant Homilies and Recognitions
around the fourth century, an anti-Paulinism which attacked Paul under the name
of Simon would probably started even before 200 C.E. And the Pseudo-Clementine literature must
have been developed over a long time period.
The author claims that Paul is Peter’s “fellow-apostle” (10) and is
fully approved and supported by the Jerusalem Church. He wants to separate Paul from Simon the
magician as far as possible.
3. The Acts of Peter and Paul
The Acts of Peter and Paul(=APtP)
makes it clear that the contests in the early church were not between Peter and
Paul, but between Peter and Paul on one side and Simon the magician on the
other side. The APtP tries to
eliminate the suspicion if Simon Magus were Paul, by putting Peter and Paul
together to cooperate against Simon. The
APtP employed the same legend that the APt used, but changed it a
little bit. Although Peter was already
in Rome and he would be sufficient to contest against Simon who was also in
Rome, the author of the APtP brought Paul out of the island Gaudomeleta
to Rome.
The APtP emphasizes that Paul is
the dear servant of the Lord Jesus Christ and the “brother of Peter.” Believers
in Rome state: “We have believed, and do
believe, that as God does not separate the two great lights (i.e., Peter and
Paul) which He has made, so He is not to part you from each other, that is,
neither Peter from Paul, nor Paul from Peter.”
Seeing each other in Rome, Peter and Paul “wept for joy; long embracing
each other, they bedewed each other with tears.”
As the disciples of Jesus, Peter and
Paul acknowledge each other’s ministry and teaching. When Peter is asked about what Paul said by
Nero, he answers that all that Paul has said is true. When Simon claims that Christ is not Paul’s
master, Paul answers that Christ taught him through revelation. Unlike the Peter in the Homilies, who
vehemently opposes Simon’s (that is, Paul’s) discipleship of Christ through
dreams and visions, the Peter in the APtP confirms in silence Paul’s
claim of the discipleship of Christ through revelation.
When Simon begins to fly, Paul prays
God, bending down his knees, and Peter commands the angels of Satan to let
Simon go. In refuting Simon, Peter and
Paul show their perfect harmony and cooperation in speech and in action. Thus, they could win over Simon the magician. Furthermore, the APtP would defeat the
Ebionite plot in which Simon was identified with Paul.
4. The Acts of Paul
While Paul was in Philippi, two men
named Simon and Cleobius came to Corinth (AP 8). According to AC 6.8, Cleobius was a
person who joined the sect of Dositheus, along with Simon the magician. And, there seems to have existed a tradition
of Simon together with Cleobius. The
author of the AP separates Paul and his teaching from Simon and Cleobius
and their teaching. Simon and Cleobius claimed:
We must
not use the prophets,[124]
God is not Almighty; there shall be no resurrection of the flesh, but that of
the spirit only; man is not the creation of God; and also concerning the world,
God did not create it, and God knoweth not the world; Christ was not come in
the flesh; he was not born of Mary; nor of the seed of David; Jesus Christ was
not crucified, but it was an appearance (i.e. but only in appearance); the
world is not of God, but of the angels.
They taught these things in Corinth,
deceiving many people as well as themselves.
Their assertions are those of Saturninus or of Marcion. The Corinthians sent a letter by Threptus and
Eutychus to Paul who was in Philippi, asking him to come to them. Instead of
going to Corinth, Paul sent them a letter in which he refuted every item of the
assertions by Simon and Cleobius (cf. 1 Cor. 15).
5. The Apostolic Constitutions
The Apostolic Constitutions(=AC) in 6.7 retells the story of Simon in Acts
8:9-24. Although Simon, as in Acts 8:24,
asked Peter to pray for him to the Lord, he along with Cleobius became a
disciple of Dositheus (cf. R 2.8).[125] The AC does not mention the name of
John the Baptist not to relate this Simon with him. The author, apparently knowing the
Pseudo-Clementines or G,[126]
briefly mentions Peter’s encounter with Simon at Caesarea Stratonis,[127]
which is reminiscent of H 3.30-58 and R 2.19-3.48. Interestingly enough, the author introduces
Clement as the disciple of Paul not of Peter, unlike in the
Pseudo-Clementines. And he calls Paul
“our fellow-apostle and fellow-helper in the Gospel (cf. APt 10).”[128] As the author knows the Pseudo-Clementines’
anti-Pauline atmosphere (especially in the Homilies), he tries to
distinguish Paul from Simon and to appreciate his ministry.
Simon ran away to Rome of Italy, instead
of having gone to Antioch.[129] I think that the author intentionally avoids
Antioch, which reminds the incidence reported in Galatians 2:11-14, although he
follows the Pseudo-Clementine story, not to give an impression that this Simon
might be Paul. So, for him, Paul is
absolutely not Simon. In Rome Simon
disturbed the Church very much, astonishing the Gentiles with his skill in
magic.[130] He was
finally defeated by Peter when he attempted to fly in the air. But, because of Simon’s activities in Rome,
the Simonian sect was established in Rome.
III.
SIMON MAGUS AND PAUL
Irenaeus connects Paul’s doctrine of
salvation by grace of Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:8-9) with Simonian’s doctrine of
salvation by grace of Simon Magus.[131]
According to Irenaeus, the angels whom Simon had spoken of were not simply
powers dominating the world, they were also the authors of the Law (cf. Gal.
3:19).[132] This is why Simon’s disciples did not have to
obey the Law, but thought of themselves as free to do what they wished. S. Pétrement notices that “almost all the
ideas attributed to Simon by the heresiologists have links with those of Paul.”[133] R. M. Grant claims that the meaning of the
salvation provided by Simon (or rather, Simonians) is expressed in language
borrowed from some, at least, of the Pauline epistles.[134] He also points out that “the Simonians
actually were radical Paulinists, at least in some measure, and that at a later
point the Ebionites recognized this fact and attacked Paul through Simon.”[135] However, attacks against Paul in the name of
Simon were done not only by the Ebionites but also by the (moderate)
Jewish-Christian leaders in general.
A.
Important Issues that Tie Simon Magus and Paul
1. Buying Motif: Power of Imparting the Spirit
and Apostleship to the Gentiles
Simon in Acts 8 wanted to buy the power
(or authority) of imparting the Spirit.
I think that those Jewish-Christians who disliked Paul could connect
Paul’s claim of apostleship, or of his equality with the pillar apostles in
Jerusalem with Simon’s buying motif of the power of giving the Holy Spirit (cf.
H 17:19; Acts 8:19; Gal. 1:18, 2:7-10).
Paul claims himself “an (independent) apostle to the Gentiles (of the
Jerusalem authority)”(cf. Gal. 2:9; Acts 22:21). S. Pétrement suggests that the reason why
Simon wanted to purchase the power of the Holy Spirit was that “he wished to be
the head of his church and to be able to put new converts in the way of
receiving the Holy Spirit, without having to refer to Jerusalem every time.”[136] Furthermore, she points out the resemblance
between the accusation of Simon’s having wished to buy the power of giving the
Holy Spirit in Acts 8 and the promise made by Paul to send money to the poor
(“Ebionim”) in Jerusalem leads one to ask if the confusion of Simon with Paul
is not found already in the account of Acts.[137] That is, following Pétrement’s argument, we
might say that Paul would obtain his freedom to organize his churches as he
wished, and his “apostolic” right of laying on of his hands to give the Holy
Spirit (cf. Acts 19:1-6) independently from the Jerusalem authority, which was
different from Philip who had to wait for their endorsement in Samaria mission
(cf. Acts 8:14-15), at the cost of (his promise of) sending money to the poor
in Jerusalem (cf. Gal. 2:10).
Although Paul thought that the Jerusalem
leaders agreed to what he proposed to them, they would never permit him
independent apostleship apart from the Jerusalem authority. Paul’s understanding in Galatians 2:9, that
is, that James and Cephas and John told Paul and Barnabas that they should go
to the Gentiles was partly inaccurate.
The Jerusalem pillars would probably tell Paul and Barnabas to go to the
Gentiles, but they also would tell them to report their mission to be confirmed
by the Jerusalem authority, as Peter did to James in his mission trip to
Caesarea to confront Simon Magus (cf. EpPt). Furthermore, the Jerusalem apostles would
never give him (even conditional) apostleship (to the Gentiles) (cf. Acts
1:21-26 for qualification of apostleship). However, Paul claimed in his most
epistles and exercised it (to the Gentiles).
That’s why Peter attacked Simon who was Paul in disguise in H
17.19: “And how are we to believe your
word, when you tell us that He(=Christ) appeared to you? And how did He appear to you, when you
entertain opinion contrary to His teaching?
But if you were seen and taught by Him, and became His apostle for a
single hour, proclaim His utterances, interpret His sayings, love His apostles,
contend not with me who companied with Him.
For in direct opposition to me (cf. Gal. 2:11-14), who am a firm rock,
the foundation of the Church, you now stand. ...” What Peter attacks on Simon is not what Simon
claims about himself. Heresiologists,
other than the Pseudo-Clementines, do not point out that Simon claims that
Christ appeared to him and he became his apostle, rather that he is the Power
of God, and he is Christ before the Jews.
S. Pétrement points out that Simon (or
rather, Simonianism) was “of a schismatic tendency rather than a heresiarch
properly speaking.”[138] To the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem,
Paulinism would be a sort of schism, in so far as it freed pagan Christians
from the Law, from which they did not intend to separate themselves. So far as breaking the unity was concerned,
Paul could be likened to Simon (that is, Simon in Simonianism).[139] There must have been some conflicts between
Jewish-Christian communities and Pauline Christian communities from the very
beginning of the middle of the first century.
In the second century “Luke of Acts”
would collect some libelous anti-Pauline traditions in Jewish-Christian
communities (cf. pre-Pseudo-Clementine traditions), and would still observe a
kind of hostility among Jewish-Christians against Pauline Christians. He tried to reconcile the conflicts between
them, by putting the blame on Simon without giving any hint of connection
between Simon and Paul and by subordinating Paul to Jerusalem apostles but
giving him “an apostolic authority.”[140] Whereas
the collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem was very important issue
for Paul, who strenuously campaigned throughout the churches in Asia Minor,
Macedonia, and Achaia during his third mission journey, and dealt it in all his
four major epistles (Rom. 15:25-27; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8-9; and Gal.
2:9-10), Luke, who is said to have accompanied Paul throughout his third
journey, is so silent on this issue. He
only slightly mentions it in Acts 24:17 without putting much weight on it, saying,
“Now after some years I (=Paul) came to bring to my nation alms and
offerings.” From Luke’s point of view,
Paul’s collection for the poor in Jerusalem is total failure. Although Paul made so much effort for this,
he did not get what he wanted--recognition for his apostleship to the Gentiles
and independence from the Jerusalem authority.
2. Laying-On-Of-Hands
According to the canonical Acts 8, Simon
was amazed when he saw how the Holy Spirit was given to the people by the
laying of hands. Then he offered money
to purchase this power. Simon was
rebuked by Peter, swallowed the rebuff and asked Peter to pray for his
sin. The laying-on-of-hands could be
performed only by apostles, not even by the faithful, powerful deacon, Philip
(Acts 8:17; cf. 8:9-13). Yet, Paul, who
was not an original apostle, laid his hands on some ‘disciples’ in Ephesus
(Acts 19:6). And the Holy Spirit came on
them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.
3. Confrontation with the Main Body of the
Church
Ever since Paul claimed his apostleship
to the Gentiles, he would be a troublesome fellow to the church in Jerusalem in
the first century. It was because he
taught the law-free, circumcision-free Gospel of salvation--salvation by
faith--to the Gentiles. Although “Luke
of Acts” reports that there was a resolution between James’ (and Peter’s)
Jerusalem church and Paul’s Gentile church (Acts 15:20, 29, 21:25), the reality
would not be so clear-cut and resolvable.
Even if Peter and James acknowledged Paul’s different Gospel and
ministry to the Gentiles as “Luke of Acts” testified, many (if not most) Jewish
Christians must not have accepted James’ proposal of resolution (cf. Acts
21:20-22). Thus, the Jewish Christians
in Jerusalem tried to find chances to attack Paul openly and secretly. Their attack on Paul was not reduced as time
passed by, and continued in the second century and so on even after the center
of the church moved from Jerusalem to Rome and even after Jewish Christianity
was no longer mainstream Christianity.
Jewish Christians could not stay in Jerusalem but moved to Syria and
other areas. As Paul was proclaimed to
be an apostle of the “orthodox” church around 190 C.E., they could no longer
openly attack Paul. However, those
Jewish Christians in Syria who called themselves “Ebionites,” advocating that
they were the poor in spirit (cf. Matt. 5:3), found a way to attack Paul in the
name of Simon Magus, who became a target of attack by the Roman “orthodox”
church.
As Justin Martyr reports the danger of
Simonian Gnosticism in his 1 Apology (26, 56, and 64), 2 Apology
(15), and Dialogue with Trypho (120), Simonian Gnosticism and other
kinds of Gnosticism, along with Marcionism, became prevalent in Rome in the
middle of the second century. Although
Simon never came to Rome, and Simonian Gnosticism[141]
was comparatively weaker than the other sects of Gnosticism, especially
Valentinian Gnosticism, Simon was the person to whom all the Gnostic and
Marcionite heresies were ascribed by heresiologists led by Irenaeus.[142] Thus, Simon became the main target of attack
by the “orthodox” church leaders who were attacking all “heretical” sects and
their activities in Rome from the middle of the second century and thereafter. And, the Jewish Christians in Syria attacked
Paul in the name of Simon.
4. John the Baptist versus the Herodian Family
in Josephus
R. Eisenman claims that both Paul and
Simon would have been in service of the Herodian family. Simon the magician would play a certain role
in arranging the marriage between Felix and Agrippa II’s sister, Druscilla (cf.
Acts 24.24). Thus, the confrontations
between Peter and Simon and between Peter and Paul would be the revival of the
confrontations between John the Baptist and the Herodian family over the issues
of fornication and unlawful marriage.
Eisenman may perhaps be right in that both Paul and Simon were connected
with the Herodian family. But it is
difficult for me to follow his argument that the Pseudo-Clementines attacked
Paul-like Simon over these matters in extension of the previous battles between
John the Baptist and the Herodian family.
Simon in the Pseudo-Clementines is described as a disciple of John the
Baptist (cf. H 2.23) or as a later joiner to the John the Baptist (or
Dositheus) sect (R 2.8).
The debate issues in the
Pseudo-Clementines were, rather, about miracles versus magic, Simon’s dreams
and visions, his apostleship, etc. It
seems to me that the confrontations over the matters of Paul’s apostleship in
the churches of the Gentile nations and the Jerusalem authority to them were
still at stake behind the scenes. Then,
it makes much more sense to understand why the second century “Luke” used Peter
to reject Simon’s (i.e. Paul’s) request for the power of imparting the Spirit
(Acts 8.20) in exchange of his money.
That is, although Paul brought the collection money to Jerusalem, he
could never purchase his authority of apostleship, which would qualify him to
lay-on-of-his hands, with it from the Jerusalem apostles. Yet, Paul (or Simon) exercised the apostolic
power by laying his hands on some disciples at Ephesus (cf. Acts 19.1-7). Thus, the second century Jewish Christian
leaders kept attacking this impertinent Paul under the name of Simon. After the middle of the second century, it became
almost impossible to explicitly reject and accuse Paul of his unauthorized
exercise of his (false) apostleship, as the influences of Paul’s doctrines and
teachings over Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Achaia were so enormous.
B.
Attacks on Paul under the Guise of Simon Magus
The Pseudo-Clementines, of which earlier
works began in the middle of the second century and which kept modifying and
interpolating even beyond the fourth century, attack Paul under the name of
Simon Magus. S. Pétrement states that
“in some parts of the Pseudo-Clementines, Simon represents Paul; in some
others, he represents Marcion, who wished to be a disciple of Paul.”[143] Many scholars, seeing Paul-like Simon in the
Pseudo-Clementines, especially in the Homilies, attempted to solve the
puzzle–the relationship between Simon and Paul. The Tübingen school led by F.
C. Baur (1792-1860) concludes that Simon
is a mere caricature of Paul in the Pseudo-Clementines.
Yet, H. Detering suggests that “for the
writer of this Jewish, anti-Pauline literature, Paul is no one else than
Simon.”[144] Going further from this, he concludes that
not only for the Pseudo-Clementines but also for Marcion Simon is identified
with Paul.[145] That is,
Simon is not the mere caricature of Paul, but he is Paul. And “Simon” and “Paul” are not two different
names, but “Simon Paul(=Simon the Small),” like Simon Peter, is one name for
Simon/Paul.[146] Thus, although Marcion and his followers did
not mention the name “Simon” anywhere, Marcion was a disciple of “Simon
Paul.” Detering further states: “I want
to once again emphasize that the Pauline letters were indeed not written by the
historical Paul(=Simon), but by this person’s later follower Marcion, or
perhaps another Marcionite Christian (Apelles).”[147] Yet, Detering needs Cerdo, following Irenaeus
and other church fathers, to make Marcion a loyal disciple of “Simon the Small”
(via Cerdo) although he rejects most of the church fathers’ witnesses. Thus, if
Marcion did not come to Rome, and so, if Marcion did not become a disciple of
Cerdo, then his logical ground would be weakened very much. As I argued in the previous chapter, Marcion
did not come to Rome. He did not have to
come to Rome to become a disciple of Cerdo.
In
the Homilies we find that Simon is obviously implied to be Paul in
several places. However, Simon is not always Paul in the Homilies let
alone in the Recognitions. In the
Homilies, with few exceptions, it is usually clear whom the Homilist is
talking about even though he only is using one name, Simon. In the Recognitions it is more obvious
who Simon in most places is meant to be.
IV.
MARCION AND PAUL
Marcion claimed that Paul was quite
independent of Jesus’ original disciples, whose “Jewish” apostasy had corrupted
the greater part of the church. He could cite references in Paul’s letters to
“false apostles” and could point to fairly plausible indications that it was
Peter, James, John, and others of the Twelve to whom he was alluding. For the more conservative part of the church,
to take Marcion at his word have meant being forced to repudiate Paul. But, conversely, to accept Paul meant to
affirm with all possible vigor that the apostle to the Gentiles, far from being
independent of the Twelve, had acknowledged their authority, had been gladly
accredited by them, and had word obediently and loyally under their
direction. But the letters of Paul gave
only meager support to this view. A
certain book which, without reducing or disparaging Paul, subordinated him to
the Twelve was obviously required.[148] According to Knox, the canonical Acts, which
admirably fills these needs, was suddenly available to those who were engaged
about 150 in building the New Testament of the church. It begins with an account of Jesus’
authorization of the Twelve as his witnesses not only in Jerusalem and Judea
but “to the uttermost parts of the world” and continues with the story of their
administration of their task as the official heads of the expanding
church. In due time Paul enters upon his
work in association with Barnabas under the church at Antioch and thus
indirectly under the supervision of the Twelve (e.g., Paul’s visit to Jerusalem
in Acts 15). It is they to whom the
question of the circumcision of the Gentiles is referred and they who
authoritatively pass on it, addressing to the churches of Syria and Cilicia
(and indirectly to Galatia) a letter on this issue which Paul and Barnabas are
directed to deliver. The Book of Acts
serves the double purposes of “exalting and idealizing Paul” and at the same
time “definitely subordinating him to the leaders at Jerusalem.”[149] However, D. Doughty suggests the possibility
of the Book of Acts being written prior to Galatians and other Pauline letters.
If this were the case, I think that (the final version of) Acts could not have
been written during the first half of the second century when the orthodox
church leaders had still to make up their mind whether or not to proclaim Paul
as their apostle. Although Paul was
described as a subordinate figure to the Jerusalem leaders, even this would be
permissible if the second century the orthodox church leaders were very
reluctant to cite Paul’s letters in their writings (even if they possessed
Paul’s letters) due to their “heretical” (Gnostic or Marcionite) opponents’
strong association with Paul’s letters.
If Acts were written prior to the “Marcionite” Galatians, it should have
been written in the first century before the Marcionites or Gnostics were not
yet widespread through Asia Minor and Rome.
And if it were true, Marcion might have been motivated to compose or
redact Galatians to disparage or repudiate the author of Acts intended
subordinating Marcion’s only apostle, Paul, to the false apostles in Jerusalem,
by writing Paul’s (auto)biographical letter that contradicts the stories in
Acts about Paul’s relationship with the Jerusalem authority.
Less controversially, the Pastoral
Epistles would have emerged to affirm the “orthodox” church tradition, fixed
church order, and the parallelism of covenants. “Paul in 1 Timothy” strongly
opposes heretics including Gnostics, saying, “O Timothy, guard what has been
entrusted to you. Avoid the godless
chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge” (1 Tim. 6:20;
cf. 1:4, 4:7); “Paul in Titus” warns against heresy, saying, “As for a man who
is factious (α_ρετικ_v),
after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing
that such a person is persevered and sinful; he is self-condemned” (Titus
3:10-11). The Pastoral Epistles had not
been included in Marcion’s Apostolikon.
Marcion might not know the existence of the Pastoral Epistles. Or, the
Pastoral Epistles were written after Marcion’s Apostolikon to tame the
wild Paul of Marcion within the “orthodox” church tradition and order. As Knox
hinted, if the book of Acts and the Pastoral Epistles were the products of the
mid second century by the “orthodox” church who became aware of Marcion’s canon
but wanted to reject him at any expenses, they would naturally declare them as
authentic and genuine. If Knox were
correct, it seems to me that their made-up authenticity could be justified in
the canonization process by apologizing themselves that their efforts were to
defeat and reject the “heretics” who blasphemed for Creator God if not
blasphemed Jesus Christ, his Son.
The “orthodox” church leaders in the
second half of the second century had to decide whether they should claim Paul
as their apostle or discredit him as an apostle of heretics. Church leaders of
the first half of the second century intentionally did not refer to Paul in
their writings.[150]
It seems to me that they did not refer to the name of Paul not because they did
not know him and his works, but because Marcion claimed first Paul as his
‘true’ apostle. According to Knox, this
silence, especially as it seems deliberate, can most naturally be interpreted
to mean that in some churches at least Paul was under suspicion; and one of
these churches must have been the church at Rome. Nevertheless, the “orthodox” church fathers
could not easily throw him and his writings away. Rather, Paul was to be claimed as their apostle,
as his letters were widely spread and circulated among the churches in Asia
Minor and other parts of the world in the middle of the second century. In the Roman community itself, Paul was
remembered as one of its early leaders whose name was often associated with
Peter’s in their tradition. Although
Paul was frequently claimed by Marcion and his followers as their apostle, he
did not apparently deny or disparage the Creator God, continuity between the
Old Testament prophecies and the New Testament accomplishments, justification
and salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
Only if a little modification of and a few additions to his current
letters that, they insisted, were mutilated by the Marcionites (and by other
heretics) were made, then there would be no short in claiming Paul to be their
apostle. To give him up to the “heretics”
would have involved an intolerable sacrifice.
To regard the letters of Paul as heretical would have been tantamount to
regarding more than half of Christendom as heretical.[151]
A.
Important Issues that Tie Marcion and Paul
1. Dualism
In Galatians we can see clearly Paul’s
dualistic idea: the Law and the Gospel, the Law and the faith (3:1-14), the Law
and the promise (3:15-25), the flesh and the spirit (4:21-31; 5:16-26). Marcion thinks that there is a clear
distinction between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Law, flesh, and slavery belong to the Old
Covenant, and the faith, promise, and the spirit belong to the New Covenant.
2. Docetism
Marcion’s docetic Christ suddenly
appeared in the form of man in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (14-37 C.E., cf.
Luke 3:1). That is, Christ was not born
by virgin Mary because human procreation belongs to the Creator God. Marcion
may have found Pauline docetic Christ in Philippians 2:6-8, saying, “... though
he(=Christ) was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to
be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in
the likeness of men.[152] And being found in human form he humbled
himself and became obedient unto death, even death on the cross.”
3. False Apostle(s) Controversy
In Marcion’s mind, Peter, John and James
could not be the true apostles, but only Paul was the true apostle. Marcion attacked the Twelve original
apostles, claiming that they did not understand Jesus’ teaching and
gospel. Paul in 2 Corinthians 11:13
says: “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising
themselves as apostles of Christ”; and Paul in Galatians 1:11-12 (also 1:1)
states: “For I would have you know,
brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from man nor was I
taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ”; then, in
Galatians 2:6: “And from those who were reputed something (what they were makes
no difference to me; God shows no partiality)--those, I say, who were of repute
added nothing to me.” Marcion’s Paul is
quite independent of and somewhat cynical to the Jerusalem authority and the
Twelve, unlike Luke’s Paul in Acts who respects and consults with the Jerusalem
authority and the Twelve.
Peter who was silent in the Pauline
letters refuted Paul-like Simon[153]
in H 17.19:
... And
how did he(=Christ) appear to you, when you entertain opinions contrary to his
teaching? But if you were seen and taught by him, and became his apostle for a
single hour, proclaim his utterances, interpret his sayings, love his apostles,
contend not with me (cf. Gal. 2:11 ff.) who companied with him. For in direct
opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the church, you now
stand. If you were not opposed to me, you would not accuse me, and revile the
truth proclaimed by me, in order that I may not be believed when I state what I
myself have heard with my own ears from the Lord, as if I were evidently a
person that was condemned and in bad repute. ... But if, indeed, you really
wish to work in the cause of truth, learn first of all from us what we have
learned from Him, and, becoming a disciple of the truth, become a fellow worker
with us.
Whereas Luke’s Paul would accept Peter’s
suggestion, Marcion’s Paul would reject it.
4. Confrontation with the Main Body of the
Church
As Paul was a trouble maker to Jewish
Christians in Jerusalem, so was Marcion to the “orthodox” church leaders in
Rome and/or its vicinities. From the
middle of the second century on Marcionism became one of the two most
threatening groups to the church in Rome.
As far as church organization is concerned, Gnosticism led by the
Valentinian sect was less formidable than Marcionism. Marcion’s church surpassed the Roman Catholic
church in its membership for a while. It
attracted many people with its ascetic Christian life, easy-to-follow doctrine
of salvation, and its noticeable distinction from Judaism which disappointed
people very much when Bar Kochba’s war (132-135 C.E.) against the Roman Empire
ended up with failure. Thus, as Jewish
Christians in general or the leaders of the Jerusalem church attacked the
lawless “heretical” Paul in the first century, so the leaders of the Roman
church attacked the lawless “heretical” Marcion in the second century.
B.
Attacks on Paul under the Guise of Marcion
Marcion (and Marcionites) was openly and
vehemently attacked by the second century heresiologists. The “orthodox” church leaders could not bear
with his “heretical” doctrines. But,
sometimes those who were inclined to the Jewish Law, as was in the case of
Simon Magus, attacked Paul implicitly under the name of Marcion (or
Marcionites), who was apparently the opponent of the Jewish Law. This attack on Paul under the name of Marcion
would continue even after the “orthodox” church proclaimed that Paul was “their
apostle.” Tertullian’s bitter attack on
Marcion more often than not connects with his indirect attack on Paul,
Marcion’s only true apostle. The
Pseudo-Clementine attack on Marcion-like Simon, however, seems to me to be
neither against Marcion nor against Paul in particular but against Gnostics in
general.
V.
SIMON MAGUS AND MARCION
As Justin connects Marcion with Simon
Magus in a certain way by placing his name, along with Menander, in the same
section where Simon’s name appears (1 Apol 26), so does Irenaeus connect
Marcion with Simon Magus in his AH 1.27.4: “.. We have
necessarily made mention of him(=Marcion) at present that you might know that
all those who in any adulterate the truth and do injury to the preaching of the
Church are the disciples and successors of Simon, the magician of Samaria. For even though they do not acknowledge the
name of their teacher in order to mislead others, yet it is his doctrine they
teach. ...”[154] Did Marcion teach Simon’s doctrines? What are the doctrines which belonged to
Simon? If we scrutinize Simon and
Marcion, we find two totally different figures.
Whereas Simon practiced magic arts and some wonders, Marcion did not
seem to practice any magical arts and wonders.
Whereas Simon from Gittha, a city of Samaria, traveled around with a
woman named Helen according to heresiologists, Marcion had no woman around him
although he too seemed to have traveled around by ship. Unlike Simonian’s mystic priests, who lived
licentious lives, practiced magic, and made use of exorcisms and incantations,
love potions and philters, and dream-senders,[155]
Marcion and his followers lived ascetic Christian life.
A.
Heresiologists’ Attempts to Tie Simon Magus and Marcion
1.
Marcion as a Simon’s Follower via a Certain Cerdo
Irenaeus makes Cerdo a disciple of
Simon, and then makes Marcion Cerdo’s disciple: “A certain Cerdo also got his
start from the disciples of Simon. ...” (AH 1.27.1); “Cerdo(n),
too, Marcion’s predecessor, himself arrived (at Rome) in the time of Hyginus,
who was the ninth bishop. ... Marcion, then, succeeding him, flourished under
Anicetus, who held the tenth place of the episcopate. ...” (AH
3.4.3). Why did Irenaeus, Hippolytus,
and other church fathers try to make Marcion a disciple of Cerdo, and Cerdo a
disciple of Simon’s disciple? I think
that this is a way to minimize and look down upon his genius and significance
of his doctrines and teachings.
2. Both Simon and Marcion as Imitators of
Empedocles
Empedocles’ philosophy is based on the
assumption of four eternally roots (rhizomata) or elements (stoicheia),
that is, fire, air, water, and earth. In
addition to the four roots or elements, there are two primary moving
factors--Love or Friendship (philia) and Strife or Discord (neikos).[156] One fragment of Empedocles’ extant poems is
as follows:
......
Union
through Love, separation in Strife,
the
One overcoming ignorance to be born
out of
Many, the Many separating out
from
the interval of the One,
neither
sure of time when they come into being
but in
that their interchange is a ceaseless round,
sure
and unmoving in the style of a circle.
......
At
times the solitary One
grows
out of Many, at times
the
Many out of One:
Water,
Fire, Earth
and
the steeps of Air.
Apart
from them: Hate
uniformly dense and destructive
and
among them: Love
stretching
in every dimension
(look
with your mind, don’t sit dazed by vision)
the
same Love conceived as innate
in our
mortal bodies, the source
of
harmony in thought and craft,
called
Delight, as Aphrodite praised.
And
although humankind cannot perceive
her
helical dance through the elements
......
(On Nature, 17)[157]
Fragment 109 also includes Empedocles’
four roots and two principles:
It is
through earth we perceive earth,
water
through water, through aether
bright
aether, consuming fire through fire,
love
through love, and hate through grim hate.
(On Nature, 109)
Empedocles’ poem, On Nature
Fragment 6 contains four deities that correspond the four roots. That is, Zeus corresponds to fire, Hera
earth, Hades air, and Nestis water:[158]
Learn
first the four roots of all that is:
ZEUS
(a white flickering)
life-breathing
HERA
AIDONEUS
(unseen)
and
NESTIS
whose
tears form mortality’s pool
(On Nature, 6)
Empedocles sometimes relates fire (or
sun) to Hephaistos (Fragments 96, 98) instead of Zeus, water to Poseidon
instead of Nestis. Hephaistos
(Hephaestus, Greek) or Vulcanus (Vulcan or Volcanus, Roman), a son of Zeus and
Hera, is the god of fire and of metalworking.
And Poseidon, with Zeus, Hera and Hades, is a son of Cronos (Saturnus or
Saturn, Roman).
Empedocles’ four basic elements are
found not only in the Apophasis Megal_,
which Hippolytus claims to be written by Simon, but also in the Poimandres,
a non-Christian Gnostic work:
From
out of the light a holy Word (i.e., Logos) mounted on Nature, and pure fire
leaped out of the moist Nature upwards to the height. It (i.e., fire) was
light, swift, and active all at once, and the air, being light, followed the
fire, rising up from the earth and the water to the fire, so that it seemed
hang from it (i.e., fire). The earth and the water (, however,) remained
mingled, so that one could not see the earth (apart) from the water. But they
were moved to obedience by the breath-like Word hovering over them.[159]
This seems to me, however, to be a
variation of part of the creation story in Genesis 1, where we find light (v.
3, cf. fire), the firmament (vv. 6-8, cf. air), the waters (vv. 6-9), and the earth
(vv. 10-12).
Hippolytus claims that not only Simon
Magus but also Marcion was directly influenced by a Greek philosopher,
Empedocles, and his dualism, Friendship and Discord. Hippolytus in his Ref 7.18
states:
You(=Marcion)
affirm that the Demiurge of the world is evil--why not hide your countenance in
shame, (as thus) teaching to the Church the doctrines of Empedocles? You say that there is a good Deity who
destroys the works of the Demiurge: then
do not you plainly preach to your pupils, as the good Deity, the Friendship of
Empedocles. You forbid marriage, the
procreation of children, (and) the abstaining from meats which God has created
for participation by the faithful, and those that know the truth. (Thinkest thou, then,) that thou canst escape
detection, (while thus) enjoining the purificatory rites of Empedocles? For in one point of fact you follow in every
respect this (philosopher of paganism), while you instruct your own disciples
to refuse meats, in order not to eat any body (that might be) a remnant of a
soul which has been punished by the Demiurge.
You dissolve marriages that have been cemented by the Deity. And here again you conform to the tenets of
Empedocles, in order that for you the work of Friendship may be perpetuated as
one (and) indivisible. For, according to
Empedocles, matrimony separates unity, and makes (out of it) plurality, as we
have proved it.
Hippolytus asserts that Marcion’s
dualism of good and bad, the prohibition of marriage and abstinence from meats
did not follow Paul’s teaching, but Empedocles’ tenets.
Hippolytus in his Ref 7.19
claims that Marcion has two Gods, one the good God and the other the bad (or
evil) One, instead of the just God.[160]
According to Hippolytus here, the concept of “just” is not of Marcion but of
Prepon, one of his disciples. Prepon
claims that what is just--a third principle--is placed intermediate between
what is good and bad. But, Prepon was also influenced by Empedocles who asserts
that Friendship and Discord are two different principles of good and evil, and
that intermediate between these two principles is “impartial reason”--called
“Musa.”[161] However, when Hippolytus connects Marcion
with Cerdo elsewhere, he conveniently changes his testimony, stating that
(Cerdo’s and) Marcion’s unknown God, the Father of Christ, is good and the
Creator God is just.[162]
3. Both Simon and Marcion as Radical Paulinists
Irenaeus observes that the Simonians’
doctrine of salvation has a Pauline flavor.[163] R. M. Grant also points out the Simonian
expression in Pauline language borrowed from his epistles.[164]
He states that Simon (or rather, the Simonians) would say that “It is no longer
Christ who lives, but I(=Simon) who lived in him (cf. Gal. 2:20)” or that
“Simon was the power of God and Helen was the Wisdom of God (cf. 1 Cor. 1:24).”[165] Thus, Simon was regarded as Pauline
Christ. So, Grant concludes that “the
Simonians actually were radical Paulinists, at least in some measure, and that
at a later point the Ebionites recognized this fact and attacked Paul through
Simon.”[166]
How could Simon--more precisely
speaking, Simonians--be the radical Paulinists?
It is because the second century Simonians like other Gnostic sects
probably employed the “Marcionite” Pauline epistles, teachings and doctrines
including the doctrine of salvation.
B.
Simon/Simonians and Marcion/Marcionites
1. Simon and Apelles
There are some similarities between
Simon Magus in the Pseudo-Clementines and Apelles. Like Simon who went to Alexandria for
education and training of the magic art, Apelles, when he left his master,
Marcion, went to Alexandria of Egypt.
Simon was said to have been trained in the dialectic art and in the
meshes of syllogisms (R 2.5).
Apelles’ nonextant famous book is the Syllogisms. Simon had an association with a woman named
Helena, a disciple of John the Baptist in the Homilies, or Luna, a disciple
of Dositheus in the Recognitions. A certain tradition also claims that
Helen(a) was a prostitute at Tyre.
Apelles had an association with a prophetess named Philum_n_. Tertullian states that she was a virgin when
Apelles met her, but later she became a prostitute.[167]
Furthermore, Simon in R 2.57
claims that human souls were made by the unknown good God, the most excellent
of all, but they have been brought down as captives into this world. This is obviously not of Marcion or of
Marcionism (but of Apelles) as Marcion’s good God has nothing to do with the
creation of a human being, the soul as well as the body.
2.
Marcion and Saturninus
When Irenaeus describes the Encratites
and Tatian in his AH 1.28.1,
he brackets Saturninus with Marcion and states:
... the
so-called Encratites who sprang from Saturninus and Marcion, preached
abstinence from marriage and so made void God’s pristine creation, and
indirectly reprove him who made male and female for generating the human race.
They also introduced abstinence from what is called by them animal food, being
thus ungrateful to the God who made all things. ... A certain Tatian was the
first to introduce this blasphemy. ... Like Marcion and Saturninus, he
declared that marriage was corruption and fornication.[168]
Saturninus and Marcion have similarities
in their asceticism, prohibition of marriage, procreation, and animal food, and
docetism. Saturninus, like Menander and
Marcion, states that there is one Father who is unknown to all, and that the
world and all that is in it was made by seven Angels who were made by the
Father.[169] According to Irenaeus, Saturninus claims that
two kinds of men were formed by the angels, the one good and the other wicked
(evil).[170] Savior came for the destruction of the evil
people and for the salvation of the good.
It seems to me to be parallel to Marcion’s interpretation of Luke
6:43-45, the dualism of a good tree and a bad tree, and of the good man and the
evil man. Furthermore, there is no woman
playing any role both in Saturninus and in Marcion, unlike in Simon.
If we follow R. J. Hoffmann’s early
dating of Marcion (that is, he was born around 70), there is a good probability
that Marcion would encounter Saturninus at Antioch of Syria, where Paul’s
mission headquarter was located. As an
admirer of Paul, Marcion would probably stop by there in pursuit of his
footsteps and encountered Saturninus. It
is not quite certain who would influence whom, as Muhlenberg cautiously states.[171] It seems to me that Saturninus and Marcion
influenced each other. They took
advantage of their exchange of theological opinions to reinforce their
doctrines and thoughts. I think that
Saturninus took asceticism and the dualistic view of salvation from Marcion,
and Marcion, in turn, docetism from Saturninus.
F. M. Braun thinks that Saturninus was directly influenced by Marcionite
ideas.[172]
3.
Marcion and the Simonians
Irenaeus in his AH 1.23.3
reports the Simonian doctrine of salvation:
“For they say that men are saved through his grace, and not through holy
deeds (or works), because deeds (or works) are holy not by nature but by
accident.” This must be the Simonian
employment from Marcionite Paulinism in the second century. The Simonian doctrine of salvation is not of
Simon but of Paul or of Pauline Marcion, who states: “For by grace you have been saved through
faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God--not because of
works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:8-9).
Simon had lived almost a century (or a half century) ahead of
Marcion. However, the later Simonians
whom Irenaeus and Hippolytus observed probably employed their doctrine of
salvation and some other doctrines from Marcion’s Pauline epistles.
4.
Valentinus and the Simonians
There are certain parallels between the
Valentinian and the Simonian Gnostic systems. Both the Simonian system and the
Valentinian system correspond to the lunar calendar. The first syzygy (or pair) of the Valentinian
system, Bythos (Abyss or Depth) and Sig_ (Ennoia or
Thought), is equivalent to the first syzygy of the Simonian system, Father
(Simon) and Ennoia (Helen).
Hippolytus claims that Valentinus derived a starting point from Simon’s
(or Simonian) Gnostic system.[173] Although the Valentinian system is a little
bit more advanced than the Simonian system, I think, it is not because they
derived their doctrines from the Simonians.
It is because they have more intelligent and prominent persons in their
sect.
I
think that Simonianism in Rome--i.e., Western Simonianism--is a second century
phenomenon, which is almost irrelevant to the historical Simon, a Samaritan
magician, who was a contemporary with Paul, Peter, and other apostles. Early
Simonianism--i.e., Eastern Simonianism--seems to have been a local religion
within Samaria. Simon was perhaps
succeeded by a local man, Menander, but probably not by any other Gnostic
leaders, thereafter.
In the beginning of the second century,
Simonianism arrived at Rome, followed by Marcionism and Valentinian
Gnosticism. However, Simonianism in
Rome, if the witnesses of the heresiologists are reliable to a certain extent
(their witnesses are to be trusted only with discretion), did not teach the
doctrines of the historical Simon but the doctrines that were almost certainly
employed from Valentinianism and Marcionism. Seeing that the Simonian doctrines
are logically inconsistent and miscellaneous yet very complicated, we may guess
that they were collected from several different Gnostic and Marcionite sects.
That is, the reason why there are some similarities between Simonianism and
Marcionism, between Simonianism and Barbelo Gnosticism, and between Simonianism
and Valentinian Gnosticism is not because other Gnostic and Marcionite systems
were derived from the Simonian Gnostic system but because the second-rate
Gnostic Simonians in the second century would collect eclectically some
noticeable doctrines and teachings from Marcionism, Valentinianism, and some other
Gnostic sects. Thus, many doctrines and
teachings which were attributed to Simon or Simonianism did not probably belong
to Simon or Simonianism but to Marcionism, Barbelo Gnosticism, and Valentinian
Gnosticism, etc. Then, why
heresiologists asserted that all other heretical sects or persons followed
Simon’s (or Simonians’) doctrines and teachings? It seems to me to be obvious that they want
other sects to be looked as second-class or third-class heretics. So, they are to be disparaged and criticized.
VI.
CONCLUSION
What did the opponents of Paul in the
second century see in Simon Magus and Marcion?
Whereas Paul desired to be called ‘the apostle to the Gentiles,’ Simon
Magus desired to possess the power of the Holy Spirit. Whereas Paulinism confronted with Judaistic
Christianity in Jerusalem in the first century and with Jewish Christianity in
Syria in the second century and onward, Simonianism and Marcionism confronted
with “orthodox” Catholic Christianity in Rome.
As soon as Paul claimed to become an
apostle to the Gentiles, he had to encounter Jewish-Christian opponents and
their attacks. The Jewish Christians in
Jerusalem could not bear with his lawless, circumcision-free Gospel of
salvation for the Gentiles. From the
second century on the Jewish Christians were losing their center of
Christianity and were driven out to Syria, and to some other areas. Yet, their animosity against Paul was not
easily reduced or disappeared.
Around the middle or a little bit
earlier of the second century, the KerygmataPt were produced by a
Jewish-Christian or an Ebionite writer.
The KerygmataPt were a work in which Peter vehemently and
directly attacked Paul’s apostleship through vision and/or dream, his
missionary work to the Gentiles, and his doctrines and teachings. The Ebionite Acts of the Apostles or Acts
of Peter (=PraxeisPt) also emerged to repudiate and defame
Paul and his teachings and activities.
In the mean time, a Clement’s romance probably called PeriodoiPt
(=Travels, Circuits, Peregrinations or Journeys of Peter) appeared out of
necessity to refute Simonian and other Gnostic, and Marcionite sects. This book was composed around 200 C.E. by a
Catholic author perhaps with a moderate Jewish-Christian background. Although Simonian Gnosticism was relatively
weaker than other Gnostic and Marcionite sects, the Catholic author chose Simon
Magus as a target of attack as he was deemed to be the father of all
heretics. The Ebionite circle
experienced difficulty to attack Paul after he was recognized as an apostle of
the Catholic church. Yet, they found a
way to continue to attack Paul indirectly without using his name but under the
guise of Simon who was exposed there without any protection[174]
to be freely attacked.
The Ebionite Pseudo-Clementines
continued to attack Simon/Paul even until the fourth century. As time went on,
however, many other sources and doctrinal systems were added and thus their
theological coherence was almost lost. Between the Homilies and the Recognitions,
the Homilies is more harsh in its anti-Paulinism. The Recognitions
tries not to propagate an explicit anti-Paulinism, but an implicit
anti-Paulinism is still there. In the
Pseudo-Clementines, in some particular cases, Simon is obviously meant to be
Paul the apostle to the Gentiles, and in some other cases, Simon is meant to be
both Simon and Paul, but in most cases, Simon is meant to be “Gnostic” Simon
not Paul.
As the confusion between Paul and Simon
was caused by the early anti-Pauline writings which became the source documents
for the Pseudo-Clementines, the various apocryphal Acts served to separate Paul
from Simon Magus and to claim him to be a “fellow apostle of Peter.” These
apocryphal Acts include the Acts of Peter, Acts of Peter and Paul, Acts of
Paul, etc. Thus, whereas Eastern Christianity in Syria, where once was the
territory for Paul, appeared to be anti-Paulinistic, Western Christianity in
Rome from the end of the second century on appeared to be pro-Paulinistic. Whereas Eastern Christianity in Syria showed
a great schism between Petrine Christianity and Pauline Christianity, Western
Christianity in Rome “apparent” harmony between them.
Paul was regarded not only as an apostle
of the Gentiles in his lifetime but also as an apostle of the “heretics”--the
Marcionites and Gnostics in general--in the second century. The Gnostics as well as the Marcionites were
attracted to him very much as they found their theological grounds and saw an
obvious separation from Judaism and the God of the Mosaic Law in his
epistles. Marcion was the one who
claimed himself to be a disciple of Paul, and Paul was the only true apostle of
Jesus to him. I think that it was thanks
to Marcion that Pauline epistles were eventually given the canonical value and
were included in the Catholic canon. That is, because of Marcion, Paul was
criticized as “an apostle of the heretics.” Yet, because of him, Paul was
proclaimed to be “an apostle of the orthodox” in the end.
The heresiologists attempted to connect
Marcion with Simon via Cerdo, a Syrian Gnostic. They claim that Cerdo was a
disciple of Simon’s disciple, and that Marcion became a disciple of Cerdo in
Rome. However, it turned out to be
untrue, as Marcion did not come to Rome neither to become a disciple of Cerdo
nor to be recognized by the church fathers including Polycarp. If Cerdo were a
historical figure who really came to Rome and propagated the dualistic Gods–one
good and the other just, his ditheism might have been taught by Saturninus or
his disciples who, in turn, were affected by Marcion. That is, there is a good probability that
Marcion and Saturninus exchanged their theological viewpoints as we observe
that they share several common features such as the same kind of docetism,
strict asceticism including prohibition of marriage, procreation, and animal
food, dualistic doctrine of salvation, and the acknowledgment of the unknown
God. It is not implausible that Marcion
would encounter Saturninus or his disciples at Antioch of Syria while he was
traveling about.
Contrary to the church fathers
witnesses, it was not Simon from whom all sorts of heresy came out. But, the second century Simonians employed
various theological doctrines and teachings from prominent “heretical” sects
such as Marcionism, Saturnilian Gnosticism, Valentinian Gnosticism, Barbelo
Gnosticism, etc.
[1]Irenaeus, AH 1.23.2.
[2]S. Pétrement, A Separate God, p. 234.
[3]Ibid., p. 235. However, ‘Marcion-like’ (but not
‘Gnostic’) Simon is scarcely found in the Pseudo-Clementines. ‘Marcion-like’
Simon is usually related to ‘Gnostic’ Simon.
[4]Irenaeus, AH 1.23.3.
[5]R.M. Grant sees that Simonian freedom from slavery to
law-giving angels as in Helen was probably derived from Paul’s Galatians (3:19;
cf. 4:1-10). (Gnosticism and Early Christianity, p. 88).
[6]Ibid., p.
89. Grant states: “Simon could have
said, ‘It is no longer Christ who lives, but I who lived in him (cf. Gal.
2:20).’ Simon was the power of God and Helen was the Wisdom of God (cf. 1 Cor.
1:24).” (p. 199, footnote 48).
[7]Ibid., p. 89.
[8]H.-J. Schoeps, Jewish Christianity, p. 11.
[9]Ignatius, Epistle to the Philadelphians 6 (the
longer recension); Eusebius, EH 3.27.1.
Ignatius states: “If any one says there is one God, and also confess
Christ Jesus, but thinks the Lord to be a mere man, and not the only-begotten
God, and Wisdom, and the Word of God, and deems Him to consist merely of a soul
and body, such an one is a serpent, that preaches deceit and error for the
destruction of men. And such a man is poor in understanding, even as by name he
is an Ebionite.”
[10]Eusebius, EH 3.27.2.
[11]Origen, Contra Celsum 2.1.
[12]The bathing-room episode is famous for John’s
encounter with Cerinthus. However, Epiphanius seems to confuse Ebion with
Cerinthus. Thus, he describes it as follows: “Though his way of life was most
admirable and appropriate to his apostolic rank, and he(=John) never bathed, he
was compelled by the Holy Spirit to go to the bath, ... And the attendant
stationed there to watch the clothes – some people do this for a living in the
gymnasia – told St. John that Ebion was inside. ... John immediately became
disturbed and cried out in anguish; and as a testimony in proof of
uncontaminated teaching he said, in an aside audible to all, “Brothers, let us
get away from here quickly! Or the bath may fall and bury us with Ebion, in the
bathing-room inside, because of his impiety.” (Pan
30.24.1-5).
[13]See S. Pétrement, A Separate God, p. 231.
[14]Ibid., p. 232. S. Pétrement states that the Mandean
Dositheans adopted Gnostic ideas.
[15]M. L. Duchesne, Early History of the Christian
Church, p. 91.
[16]Ibid., p. 91.
[17]See G. Lüdemann, Opposition to Paul in Jewish
Christianity, pp. 3, 217.
[18]H.-J. Schoeps, Jewish Christianity, p. 11.
[19]Irenaeus, AH 1.26.2; Hippolytus, Ref
7.22.
[20]Eusebius calls this the second group of the Ebionite
sect. The Dositheans were also called Nazarenes (Theodore bar Kona_).
[21]See Dominic J. Unger, St. Irenaeus of Lyons:
Against Heresies, end note 7 of Chapter 26,
p.
245.
[22]Epiphanius, Pan 30.3.3-5.
[23]Ibid., 30.16.4.
[24]Irenaeus, AH 1.26.2, 3.11.7; cf. Matt.
5:18-20; Acts 21:20-21.
[25]Epiphanius, Pan 30.3.7.
[26]Irenaeus, AH 3.21.1, 5.1.3.
[27]P. Vielhauer and G. Strecker, “Jewish Christian
Gospels,” in New Testament Apocrypha, Vol. 1, p.136.
[28]M. L. Duchesne, Early History of the Christian
Church, p. 92.
[29]P. Vielhauer and G. Strecker, “Jewish Christian
Gospels,” in New Testament Apocrypha, Vol. 1, p.137.
[30]“Nazarenes.” See Eusebius, EH 3.27.3.
[31]Ibid., p. 137. Two fragments of the Gospel of the
Hebrews assume the pre-existence of Jesus.
[32]H.-J. Schoeps (Jewish Christianity, p.14)
states that modern scholars differentiated between an Aramaic Gospel of the
Nazoreans and a Greek Gospel of the Ebionites , both of which
originated in the first half of the second century, and are greatly dependent
upon the canonical Matthew.
[33]Epiphanius, Pan, 29.9.4.
[34]P. Vielhauer and G. Strecker, “Jewish Christian
Gospels,” in New Testament Apocrypha, Vol. 1, p.140.
[35]Epiphanius, Pan 30.13.7-8: “... And as he came
up out of the water the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit in the
form of a dove which descended and entered into him. And (there came) a voice
from heaven saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased, and
again, This day have I begotten thee. And straightway a great light shone round
about the place. Seeing this, it says, John said unto him, Who art thou, Lord?
And again (there came) a voice to him from heaven, This is my beloved Son, in
whom I am well pleased. (8) And then, it says, John fell down before him and
said, I pray thee, Lord, do thou baptize me. But he forbade him, saying, Suffer
(me), for thus it is meet that all be fulfilled.”
[36]B. Ehrman, After the New Testament, p. 134.
[37]See B. Ehrman, After the New Testament, pp.
134-136, and H.-J. Schoeps, Jewish Christianity, p.14.
[38]Epiphanius, Pan 30.16.6.
[39]The Recognitions 1.43 states that “the church
of the Lord which was constituted in Jerusalem was most plentifully multiplied
and grew, being governed with most righteous ordinances by James, who was
ordained bishop in it by the Lord.”
[40]Epiphanius, Pan 30.16.7ff.
[41]H.-J. Schoeps, Jewish Christianity, P.38.
[42]See H.-J. Schoeps, Jewish Christianity, p. 10.
[43]Irenaeus, AH 1.26.
[44]Hippolytus, Ref 7.22.
[45]Ibid., 9.8 (or 9.13 according to a different
recension).
[46]Ibid., 9.9 (or 9.14).
[47]Ibid., 9.9 (or 9.14).
[48]Ibid., 9.9 (or 9.14).
[49]Ibid., 10.25.
[50]Ibid., 10.25.
[51]Ibid., 10.25.
[52]Ibid., 9.10. Epiphanius also lists seven other
witnesses – salt, water, earth, bread, heaven, aether, and wind (Pan
19.1.6).
[53]Eusebius, EH 6.38. Epiphanius states: “... even
though <one> should happen to worship idols at a time when persecution
threatens, it is not a sin--just so long as he does not worship them in his
conscience and, whatever confession he mat make with his mouth, he does not
make it in his heart.” (Pan 19.1.8).
[54]Ibid., 6.38.
[55]Hippolytus, Ref 9.9; Epiphanius, Pan
19.1.5.
[56]Ibid., 19.1.7.
[57]Ibid., 19.5.4.
[58]Ibid., 19.5.5.
[59]H.-J. Schoeps, Jewish Christianity, p. 37.
[60]F. J. A. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, p. 199.
[61]Irenaeus, AH 1.26.2.
[62]Origen, Contra Celsum 5.65.
[63]Eusebius, EH 4.29.5.
[64]I agree with S. Pétrement in the way she states:
“He(=Simon) offers precisely what Paul will offer to obtain the right to preach
the Gospel (I will say, ‘earn the apostleship’) in his own way to the pagans.
In Gal. 2:10 Paul recalls on what conditions the right was granted to him:
‘Only they would have us remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to
do.’ To think of the poor was to send money to the community at Jerusalem. The
poor (ebionim) were the Jewish Christians, who were later called by the
name of Ebionites.” (A Separate God, pp. 242-243).
[65]Yet, Simon is not the cipher of Paul. Clement is
called the disciple of Paul, “our fellow-apostle and fellow-helper in the
Gospel.”
[66]We will call the KerygmataPt the Preachings
of Peter to distinguish it from the Kerygma Petrou (=Preaching
of Peter) which was quoted by Heracleon and Clement of Alexandria. Some
scholars call the KerygmataPt simply the Kerygma Petrou,
which makes readers confuse.
[67]H.-J. Schoeps, Jewish Christianity, p. 39.
[68]H.-J. Schoeps, Theologie und Geschichte des
Judenchristentums.
[69]S. Pétrement, A Separate God, p. 232.
[70]H. Waitz, Die Pseudoklementinen Homilien und
Rekognitionen: Eine quellenkritische Untersuchung (Leipzig: Hinrichs),
1904. See Van Voorst, AJ, p. 14.
[71]G. Strecker, “The Pseudo-Clementines,” in New
Testament Apocrypha. Vol. 2, p. 490.
[72]F. J. A. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, p. 152;
and also Notes Introductory to the Study of the Clementine Recognitions,
p. 115. Hort thinks that Epiphanius seems to understand the ‘_vαβαθμo_’ as steps in teaching or instructions, but it does
not seem to me to be quite so. Epiphanius simply states: “They(=Ebionites)
prescribe certain degrees and directions in the ‘Ascents (or Degrees) of
James,’ if you please, as though he discoursed against the temple and
sacrifices, and the fire on the altar--and much else that is full of nonsense.”
(Pan 30.16.7).
[73]F. J. A. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, p. 152.
See also p. 201.
[74]J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the
Galatians, p. 330 footnote 2.
[75]Epiphanius continues in Pan 30.16.8
(after he mentions other Acts of Apostles in 30.16.6 and the Ascents
of James in 30.16.7: “Nor are they ashamed to accuse Paul here with certain
false inventions of their false apostles’ villainy and imposture. They say that
he was a Tarsean--which he admits himself and does not deny. ...” It seems to
me that Epiphanius in Pan 30.16.8-9 describes the content of the
other Acts of Apostles, rather than that of the AJ.
[76]G. Strecker, Judenchristentum, pp.
221-254; J. Irmscher and G. Strecker, “The Pseudo-Clementines,” in New
Testament Apocrypha, p. 489.
[77]R. A. Lipsius, Die Quellen der der römischen
Petrus-Sage, 1872, p. 45. See J. Irmscher and G. Strecker, “The
Pseudo-Clementines,” in New Testament Apocrypha, Vol. 2, p. 487; F. S.
Jones, “The Pseudo-Clementines,” The Second Century, 1982, p. 19,
footnote 126.
[78]See J. Irmscher and G. Strecker, “The
Pseudo-Clementines,” in New Testament Apocrypha, p.487.
[79]See F. S. Jones, “The Pseudo-Clementines,” The
Second Century, p. 20.
[80]Ibid., pp. 20-24, 27-33.
[81]Eusebius states: “Bardaisan, a most able man and a
highly skilled disputant in the Syriac language, composed dialogues against the
followers of Marcion and other leaders of various doctrines, and wrote them
down in his own language and script along with many works of his. These
dialogues his pupils, who were very numerous in a view of his powerful defence
of Christian truth, have translated from Syriac into Greek.” (EH 4.30). R
9.17 and 9.19-29 are said to be taken in an altered form from the writing
ascribed to Bardesanes, De Fato (Destiny).
[82]Eusebius in his EH 3.38.5 states: “A year or
two ago other long and wordy treatises were put forward as Clement’s work. They
contain alleged dialogues with Peter and Appion, but there is no mention
whatever of them by early writers, nor do they preserve in its purity the stamp
of apostolic authority.” Whereas the dialogues in H 4-6 are between
Clement and Appion, the dialogues which Eusebius refers to are between Peter
and Appion. It means either that Eusebius’ information is incorrect or that
there were more than one document about the disputes of Appion.
[83]R. A. Lipsius proposes that a story about Clement is
the basic writing, G, which is the basis of both H and R.
“Review of Die Clementinischen Schriften, by Johannes Lehmann,” Protestantische
Kirchenzeitung für das evangelische Deutchland 16 (1869), pp. 477-482.
For general discussion, see F. S. Jones, “The Pseudo-Clementines,” The
Second Century, p. 10.
[84]A. Hilgenfeld states that G is the Kerygma
Petrou (he means, KerygmataPt). Die clementischen
Recognitionen und Homilien, pp. 45ff.
[85]Schliemann thinks that R is a later reworking
of H which is independent of any earlier writings; Hilgenfeld claims
that H is later than R; G. Ulhorn and C. Schmidt conclude that R
is based on H with access to the basic writing, G; H. Waitz, O.
Cullmann, H.-J. Schoeps, and G. Strecker suggest that H and R
derived independently from G. See F. S. Jones for details, “The
Pseudo-Clementines: A History of Research,” The Second Century, pp.
8-14.
[86]J. Langen, Die Klemensromane. Ihre Entstehung
und ihre Tendenzen aufs neue untersucht, pp. 18-89; H.
Waitz, Die Pseudoklementinen: Homilien and Rekognitionen. Eine
quellenkritische Untersuchung, 2ff. Ulhorn also locates G
in Syria.
[87]C. Schmidt, Studien zu den Pseudo-Clementinen,
pp. 286-288.
[88]J. Irmscher and G. Strecker, “The Pseudo-Clementines,”
in New Testament Apocrypha, p. 485.
[89]Both H and R are mostly dealing with the
issues of Simon (or Simonianism) and Gnosticism in general with only a few
issues of anti-Paulinism in H.
[90]Both H and R limit their locations in
Syria (Caesarea--Laodicea--Antioch); Simon’s escape to Rome is mentioned, but
the place of dispute was not extended to Rome both in H and in R.
[91]Whereas C. Bigg concludes that there was a completely
orthodox G around 200 and that G was later
corrupted by the unorthodox H, A. C. Headlam claims that R, the
more orthodox form of the work, eliminates the unorthodox parts of G.
See
C. Bigg, “The Clementine Homilies,” in Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica,
pp. 185ff.; A. C. Headlam, “The Clementine Literature,” JTS 3, pp.
56-57. However, I think that the Ebionite unorthodox parts in H were not
due to G but due to the unorthodox Ebionite KerygmataPt.
[92]R. Eisenman tries to make a connection between Paul
and Simon Magus in this by saying, “The reason why it has been suggested that
‘the Egyptian’, for whom Paul is mistaken by the Roman Chief Captain in Acts,
is a representation of Simon is that Simon was reputed to have learned his
magical arts in Egypt.” (James the Brother of Jesus, p. 535).
[93]As a matter of fact, before Paul was called to be a
missionary to the Gentiles, Peter went to a Gentile, Cornelius and his family
for the mission purpose (Acts 10).
[94]H.-J. Schoeps, Jewish Christianity, p. 47.
[95]Peter uses “dreams, visions, and apparitions” as
negative connotations and “revelation” as a positive connotation: “And
nevertheless, though they(=Abimelech, Pharaoh, and Nebuchadnezzar) saw
apparitions, visions, and dreams, they were impious. Thus, we cannot infer with
absolute certainty that the man who has seen visions, and dreams, and
apparitions, is undoubtedly pious.” (H 17.17); “Thus to me(=Peter) also
was the Son revealed by the Father. Wherefore I know what is the meaning of
revelation, having learned it in my own case (cf. Matt. 16:16). ... But,
He(=Christ) pronouncing me blessed, pointed out to me that it was the Father
who had revealed it to me; and from this time I learned that revelation is
knowledge gained without instruction, and without apparition and dreams. ...
You see how the statements of wrath are made through visions and dreams, but
the statements to a friend are made face to face, in outward appearance, and
not through riddles and visions and dreams, as to an enemy.” (H 17.18).
[99]When some people came to Laodicea in search of Simon,
he was afraid of being killed. Then, he changed Faustus’ face by anointing him
with the juice of some plant so that Faustus may be caught and killed in stead
of him. (H 20.16).
[100]Peter’s instruction to Faustus in H 20.19
includes: “I beseech you, therefore, do not listen to me, even if I myself
should come at another time and attempt to say anything against Peter.”
[103]R. E. Van Voorst also correctly states that the
magician is not Simon (I think that he means Simon Peter not Simon Magus) but
Jesus. (The Ascents of James and Theology of a Jewish-Christian Community,
p. 154).
[104]Concerning the martyrdom of James, Eusebius in his EH
2.23.4-18 reports the testimony of
Hegesippus who wrote his ‘Memoirs (=Hypomnemata)’ in five books:
“Control of the Church passed
to the apostles, together with the Lord’s brother James, whom everyone from the
Lord’s time till our own has called the Righteous, ... .
8
Representatives of the seven popular sects ... asked him(=James) what was meant
by ‘the door of Jesus’, and he replied that Jesus was the Saviour. 9 Some of
them came to believe that Jesus was the Christ. ... 10 Since therefore many
even of the ruling class believed, there was an uproar among the Jews and
Scribes and Pharisees, who said there was a danger that the entire people would
expect Jesus as the Christ. So they collected and said to James: ‘Be good
enough to restrain the people, for they have gone astray after Jesus in the
belief that he is the Christ. Be good enough to make the facts about Jesus
clear to all who come for the Passover Day. We all accept what you say: we can
vouch for it, ... 11 So make it clear to the crowd that they must not go astray
as regards Jesus: the whole people and all of us accept what you say. So take
your stand on the Temple parapet, so that from that height you may be easily
seen, and your words audible to the whole people. For because of the Passover
all the tribes have forgathered, and the Gentiles too.’ 12 So the Scribes and
Pharisees made James stand on the Sanctuary parapet and shouted to him:
‘Righteous one, whose word we are all obliged to accept, the people are going
astray after Jesus who was crucified; so tell us what is meant by “the door of
Jesus”. 13 He replied as loudly as he could: ‘Why do you question me about the
Son of Man? I tell you, He is sitting in heaven at the right hand of the Great
Power, and he will come on the clouds of heaven.’ ... 14 Then again the Scribes
and Pharisees said to each other: ‘We made a bad mistake in affording such
testimony to Jesus. We had better go up and throw him down, so that they will
be frightened and not believe in him.’ ... 16 So they went up and threw down
the Righteous one. Then they said to each other ‘Let us stone James the
Righteous’, and began to stone him, as in spite of his fall he was still alive
(cf. R 1.70). But he turned and knelt, uttering the words: “I beseech
Thee, Lord God and Father, forgive them; they do not know what they are doing
(cf. Acts 7:60).’ 17 While they pelted him with stones, one of the descendants
of Rechab ... called out: ‘Stop! What are you doing? The Righteous one is
praying for you.’ 18 Then one of them, a
fuller, took the club which he used to beat out the clothes, and brought it
down on the head of the Righteous one. Such was his martyrdom. He was buried on
the spot, by the Sanctuary. ...” Eusebius also quotes Josephus from his Anquities
20.9.1, which seems to me to be a later interpolation (EH 2.23.21-24):
“21 Caesar sent Albinus to Judaea as procurator, when he was informed of the
death of Festus. But the younger Ananus ... was headstrong in character and
audacious in the extreme. He belonged to the sect of the Sadducees, who in
judging offenders are cruel beyond any of the Jews, ... . 22 Being a man of
this kind, Ananus thought that he had a convenient opportunity, as Festus was
dead and Albinus still on the way. So he assembled a council of judges and
brought before it James, the brother of Jesus, known as Christ, and several
others, on a charge of breaking the law, and handed them over to be stoned (cf.
Acts 7:58). 23 But those who were considered the most fair-minded people in the
City, and strict in their observance of the Law, were most indignant at this,
and sent secretly to the king imploring him to write to Ananus to stop behaving
in this way: ... Some of them, too, waylaid Albinus on the road from
Alexandria, and explained that it was illegal for Ananus to assemble a council
without his authority. 24 Convinced by their arguments, Albinus wrote an angry
letter to Ananus, threatening to punish him; in consequence King Agrippa
deprived him of the high priesthood, which he had held for three months only,
and appointed Jeshua son of Dammaeus.”
[105]R. E. Voorst, The Ascents of James, p. 161.
[106]H.-J. Schoeps, Jewish Christianity, p.55.
[107]F. J. A. Hort, Notes Introductory to the Study of
the Clementine Recognitions, p. 119.
[108]B. D. Ehrman also points out that the person whom
“Pater calls ‘the man who is my enemy,’ commonly understood to be none other
than Paul.” (After the New Testament, p. 136).
[109]Ehrman states: “Reading the canonical Acts of the
Apostles 15:7-11, it is amazing that how differently you can describe and
interpret a person and/or his preaching or opinion. The author of this letter
(i.e., EpPt) seems to be aware of the canonical Acts.” (After
the New Testament, p. 136.) The
Peter in the canonical Acts is a quite different person from the Peter
in EpPt: “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made
choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the
gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving
them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between
us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you make
trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our
fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved
through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” (15:7-11).
[110]Hippolytus states in Ref 9.10: “To
those, then, that have been orally instructed by him, he dispenses baptism in
this manner, addressing to his dupes some such words as the following: ‘... And
by baptism let him be purified and cleansed, and let him adjure for himself
those seven witnesses that have been described in this book--the heaven, and
the water, and the holy spirits, and the angels of prayer, and the oil, and the
salt, and the earth.’ These constitute the astonishing mysteries of Elchasai
(or Elkesai), those ineffable and potent secrets which he delivers to deserving
disciples. ... Now Elchasai (or Elkesai) uses the following formulary: ‘... in
the same hour let such a one run with all their wearing apparel, and go down to
a river or to a fountain wherever there is a deep spot. ... and let him thus
adjure the seven witnesses describe in this book: “Behold, I call to witness
the heaven and the water, and the holy spirits, and the angels of prayer, and
the oil, and the salt, and the earth. ...’ Having uttered, therefore, these
words, let such a one be baptized with the entire of his wearing apparel in the
name of the Mighty and Most High God.”
[111]Clement states in R 3.74: “But during the whole
three months which he spent at Caesarea, for the sake of instruction, whatever
he discoursed of in the presence of the people in the day-time, he explained
more fully and perfectly in the night, in private to us, as more faithful and
completely approved by him. And at the same time he commanded me, because he
understood that I carefully stored in my memory what I heard, to commit to
writing whatever seemed worthy of record, and to send it to you, my lord James,
as also I did, in obedience to his command.
And
he also says in R 3.75: “Concerning these several subjects, therefore,
whatever Peter discoursed at Caesarea, according to his command, as I have
said, I have sent you written in ten volumes.”
[112]There is a list of 10 books, which Pseudo-Clement
allegedly sent James before he is sending the book of the Recognitions,
in R 3.75: “The first book, ..., contains an account of the true
Prophet, and of the peculiarity of the understanding of the law, ... The second contains an account of the
beginning, and whether there be one beginning or many, and that the law of the
Hebrews knows what immensity is. The third, concerning God, and those
things that have been ordained by Him. The fourth, that though there are
many that are called gods, there is but one true God according to the
testimonies of the Scriptures. The fifth, that there are two heavens,
one of which is that visible firmament which shall pass away, but the other is
eternal and invisible. The sixth, concerning good and evil; ... The seventh,
what are the things which the twelve apostles treated of in the presence of the
people in the temple. The eighth, concerning the words of the Lord which
seem to be contradictory, but are not; ... The ninth, that the law which
has been given by God is righteous and perfect, and that it alone can make
pure. The tenth, concerning the carnal birth of men, and concerning the
generation which is by baptism; ... .”
[113]Paul in 2 Cor 11:5 says: “I think that I am not in the
least inferior to these superlative apostles.”; and in 12:11: “I have been a
fool! You forced me to it, for I ought to have been commended by you. For I was
not at all inferior to these superlative apostles, even though I am nothing.”
[114]See V. P. Furnish, II Corinthians, pp. 502-503.
Chrysostom and F. C. Baur suggest that the superlative apostles were the
leaders of the Jerusalem church.
[115]Epiphanius, Pan 30.16.8. The Ebionites
claims that Paul was a Tarsean, as he himself frankly said, “I am a man of
Tarsus, a citizen of no mean city” (Acts 21:39).
[116]Ibid., 30.16.9.
[117]Ibid., 30.16.9.
[118]Origen, Contra Celsum 5.65.
[119]Hippolytus, Ref 8.13.
[120]Eusebius, EH 4.29.4-5.
[121]Ibid., 4.29.6.
[122]Justin Martyr, 1 Apol 26.
[123]Cf. Polycarp, PolyPhil 3.2, 11.3.
[124]According to Saturninus, some prophecies were uttered
by the Angels who made the world, others by Satan, who is also an Angel and
opposes those (seven Angels) who made the world, especially the God of the
Jews. (Irenaeus, AH 1.24.2).
[126]The Apostolic Constitutions seems to belong to
the Pseudo-Clementine literature, to some extent, but not quite so.
[128]Ibid., 6.8.
[129]In the Recognitions (R 3.63-64 and also
1.74) Simon had a plan to go to Rome of Italy, but the story ends at Antioch.
[131]Irenaeus, AH 1.23.3.
[132]R. M. Grant sees that Simonian freedom from slavery to
law-giving angels as in Helen was probably derived from Paul’s Galatians (3:19;
see also 4:1-10). (Gnosticism and Early Christianity, p. 88).
[133]S. Pétrement, A Separate God, p. 234.
[134]R. M. Grant, Gnosticism and Early Christianity,
p. 89. Grant states: “Simon could have said, ‘It is no longer Christ who lives,
but I who lived in him (cf. Gal. 2:20).’ Simon was the power of God and Helen
was the Wisdom of God (cf. 1 Cor. 1:24).” (p. 199, footnote 48).
[135]Ibid., p. 89.
[136]S. Pétrement, A Separate God, p. 236.
[137]Ibid., p. 237.
[138]Ibid., p. 239.
[139]Ibid., p. 240.
[140]S. Pétrement, thinking that Acts was written around 90
C.E., states that the first century Luke “collected numerous (slanderous)
traditions in Jewish-Christian circles,” and “might have reproduced them
without much care and without always understanding their meaning. He seems to
have had at heart the reconciliation of Paulinism and Jewish Christianity.
Being friendly to both sides, he perhaps did not understand and could not
imagine how one of these sides thought of the other.” (A Separate God,
pp. 237-238). I follow most of Pétrement’s logic of explanation, but it seems
to me that “Luke of Acts” was clever enough to pretend not to know of their
conflicts and intentionally to create friendly relationship between Pauline
Gentile Christians and Jerusalem Jewish Christians.
[141]It was probably true that Some people in Rome
worshiped Simon as Zeus and Helen as Korê or Athena, but Simonian Gnosticism
was never a major threat to “orthodoxy” Christianity in the second century and
thereafter.
[142]Irenaeus claims that all heresies including Marcionism
got their start from Simon (AH 1.23.2).
[143]S. Pétrement, A Separate God, p. 235.
[144]H. Detering, The Falsified Paul, p. 172 (D.
Doughty [trans.], p. 124).
[145]Ibid., p. 172 (D. Doughty, p. 124).
[146]Ibid., p. 172 (D. Doughty, p. 125).
[147]Ibid., p. 202 (D. Doughty, p. 150).
[148]J Knox, Marcion and the New Testament, p. 119.
[149]Ibid., pp. 119-120.
[150]Ibid., p. 115.
[151]Ibid., p. 116.
[152]In Marcion’s Philippians, “being born in the
likeness of men” should be deleted.
[153]This is not what Simon allegedly claimed in other
legends and literature. Here, Pseudo-Clement obviously had Paul in his mind.
[154]In Justin’s 1 Apol 26 the names, Simon, Menander, and Marcion are
listed in that order; in Irenaeus’ AH 1.23-27 Simon, Menander,
Saturninus, Basilides, Carpocrates, Cerinth, Ebionites, Nicolaitans, Cerdo, and
Marcion are listed in sequence. See also
G. Lüdemann’s Heretics, p. 19 and “Acts of the Apostles and Simonian
Gnosis,” p. 421.
[155]Irenaeus, AH 1.23.4.
[156]E. F. Edinger, The Psyche in Antiquity, pp.
46f. See also M. R. Wright, Empedocles, pp. 22f;
C.
Osborne, Rethinking Early Greek
Philosophy, p. 311.
[157]S. Lombardo, Parmenides and Empedocles, pp. 35-37.
Empedocles’ extant poems are Physis (=On Nature) and Katharses
(=Purifications). Empedocles’ four roots appear on various fragments, 6,
9, 17, 21, 22, 27, 37, 38, 39, 54, 62, 71, 73, 76, 78, 84, 85, 96, 98, 100,
109, and 115. (See M. R. Wright, Empedocles, p. 23.)
[158]E. F. Edinger, The Psyche in Antiquity: Book One
Early Greek Philosophy, p. 47. See
also Hippolytus, Refutatio 7.17, where he states: “Jupiter (i.e.,
Zeus) is fire, and life-giving Juno (i.e., Hera) earth, which produces fruits
for the support of existence; and Aidoneus (i.e., Hades) air, because although
through him we behold all things, yet himself alone we do not see. But Nestis
is water, for this is a sole vehicle of (food), and thus becomes a cause of
substance to all those that are being nourished; (but) this of itself is not
able to afford nutriment to those that are being nourished.”
[159]The text (sec. 5) is found in R. A. Segal, The
Poimandres as Myth, p. 16. See also W. Barnstone’s translation in his The
Other Bible, p. 570.
[160]Hippolytus in Ref 7.19, connecting
Marcion with Empedocles, states: “The principal heresy of Marcion, and (the one
of his) which is most free from admixture (with other heresies), is that which
has its system formed out of the theory concerning the good and bad (God). Now,
this, it has been manifested by us, belongs to Empedocles.”
[161]Hippolytus, Ref 7.19.
[162]Ibid., 7.25.
[163]Irenaeus, AH 1.23.3: “For they say that
men are saved through his(=Marcion’s) grace (cf. Eph. 2:8), and not through
holy deeds(or works), because deeds are holy not by nature but by accident.”
[164]R. M. Grant, Gnosticism and Early Christianity,
pp. 88-89.
[165]Ibid., p. 199,
footnote 48.
[166]Ibid., p. 89.
[167]Tertullian, De Praes 30.
[168]Irenaeus, AH 1.28.1. This part is quoted by
Eusebius (EH 4.29).
[169]Ibid., 1.24.1.
[170]Ibid., 1.24.2.
[171]E. Muhlenberg, “Marcion’s Jealous God,” in Disciplina
Nostra, 1979, p. 110. Muhlenberg states: “By virtue of lack of material
and of uncertainty as to precise dates, we are unable to be specific as to who
influenced whom. Suffice it to observe that at least some rudimentary elements
of Marcion’s teachings are not foreign to the general development of
Gnosticism. I am inclined to give priority to those aspects from Simon,
Saturninus, and Basilides.”
[172]F. M. Braun, “Marcion et la gnose simonienne,” Byzantion,
1955-57, pp. 647-648.
[173]Hippolytus, Ref 6.15.
[174]The maximum number of membership for the Simonian sect
was thirty. So, their organizational power was very weak.
No comments:
Post a Comment