Part II
Paul, the book of Acts and the Clementine Cover-up
By James M. West.
Copyright © October 6, revised
E-mail:
ogdood@yahoo.com
The book of Acts represents one
particular view of the history of the early church. Another tradition is reflected
in the so-called Clementine
literature (also referred to as “pseudo-Clementines”). The Clementines are
divided into two parts known as the Homilies
and Recognitions. Scholars have
theories as to where these two parts came from and the relationship between
them [1]. The Clementines are believed to have been written during the second
century and reflect the Jewish/Ebionite Christian tradition of the early church
and its history. The texts are attributed to one of the Apostolic Fathers,
Clement of Rome (c. 30–100). According to this account Clement knew Peter
personally and he kept a record of Peter’s ministry and doctrine. One notable
theme is Peter’s ongoing conflict with Simon Magus and the theological issues
they discuss. Also of note is that some of these issues of conflict actually
resemble conflicts that are recorded in Paul’s letters, and are actually
relevant to Paul, not Simon. This has led some historians to propose the theory
that “Simon” in the Clementines is really a code name for Paul; and that the
Clementines are actually a record of the conflict between Peter and Paul as
seen from the Jewish Christian point of view [2]. (The Catholic Fathers
reported that the Ebionite Christians regarded Paul as an Apostate who wrongly
preached against the Law; e.g. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.26.2;
Eusebius, Church History, 3.27.)
It cannot be known for sure if the
Clementines actually originate from something that Clement wrote. What is apparent
is that the Clementines reflect an early Jewish Christian tradition that places
priority on Peter and the Law, and attacks certain teachings of Paul which are
presented under the name of Simon. In some respects the Clementines provide
alternative insights on the history of the Apostles and their doctrine, and may
in turn fill in the blanks and answer why the accounts of Paul and Acts do not
match (see part I of this series).
There are five main issues in the
Clementines that correspond to certain issues between Paul and Acts. 1) The
role of the Law of Moses in early Christian life; 2) Paul’s relationship to
Peter and the early Church/Apostolate; 3) The issue of conflicting systems of
theology and hermeneutics; 4) The criteria by which one is defined as an
Apostle; and 5) The counter-ministry against Paul.
If the Clementines really are a veiled
attack on Paul, as they appear to be, then Paul is accused of the following
offenses corresponding to the five points above: i) Paul overturned the Law of
Moses in his ministry. ii) Paul was an adversary against Peter and the early
Apostolic establishment. iii) Paul construed a theology from the scriptures
that was wholly at odds with the original Apostolic standard as established by
Peter and James—according to the Clementines. iv) Paul laid claim to Apostolic
authority on the basis of a criteria that was not sanctioned by the Apostles
before him. v) Paul was spreading heretical and blasphemous doctrines among the
gentiles and otherwise misrepresenting the Church at
Let us begin by first looking for
evidence in the Clementines where certain attacks on Simon, or his teaching,
are actually applicable to Paul. Our first piece of evidence is a letter that
is attributed to Peter and was addressed to James, the brother of Jesus and
head of the Church at
“For some from among the Gentiles have
rejected my legal preaching, attaching themselves to certain lawless and
trifling preaching 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!
For such a thing were to act in opposition to the Law of God which was spoken
by Moses, and was borne witness to by our Lord in respect of its eternal
continuance…” [3]
Who is the enemy of Peter in the above
passage? Simon? Paul? We have noticed elsewhere that Paul’s writings contain
ample evidence of a man who preached against the Law among the Gentiles. And in
Galatians 2 Paul opposed Peter (and James) at
Of note is that Acts does mention an
altercation at
Getting back to the subject at hand,
Paul does fall within the lines of the accusations made by “Peter” in the
letter quoted above, i.e. Paul preached against the Law among the gentiles, and
that he opposed Peter. Paul’s letters provide supporting evidence that such
conflicts could have existed. Paul also made numerous statements against the
Law. For example, in Galatians
“For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a
curse…”
And in
“Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law…”
And also in Galatians 5:4,
“Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you
are justified by the Law; you are fallen from grace.”
And again in Romans
“By the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be
justified…”
And in 2 Corinthians 3:6–7 the Law of
Moses is referred to as the “ministry of death.”
And finally there is this proclamation
against the Law of Moses as made by Paul in Philippians 3:5–8:
“Circumcised
the eighth day, of the stock of
Clearly Paul painted a negative picture
of the Law among the gentiles. And Paul’s statements are applicable to Jews as
well. Paul believed that
The Philippians passage above is also
relevant to point number 3 and the notion that Paul’s doctrine on the Law was
based on some other system of theology in conflict with the 12. As this
concerns the Philippians passage, it seems implausible that Paul can refer to
the Law of God as rubbish if he truly believed that the Law of Moses was the Law
of God. There is no way that Paul can write this statement about the Law and
still pass himself off as a worshipper of YHWH: who gave the Law to Moses. This
may in turn be an example of where Paul’s theology, and impiety, can be
compared with the impious teachings of Simon as described in the Clementines.
Simon taught that there was a higher God above the Creator, and that the
Lawgiver was an inferior, lesser god (Rec.
On the other hand, there are no passages
in Paul that have any direct resemblance to the plain theological language as
attributed to “Simon” in the Clementines. Simon’s statements in the latter
resemble the later ideas that the Catholic Fathers attributed to Marcion and
the Gnostic teachers of the second century. Two of the most obvious examples
are where Simon claims that the Creator is not the highest God; and that the
Creator is just, but not good (ibid.). These ideas are never clearly stated in
Paul’s letters, and reflect a later debate. The Clementines actually present a
conflicting view of Simon’s doctrine. In some passages Simon claims that he,
himself, is the supreme Being, and in other passages he speaks as a Gnostic
theologian of an unknown God above (ibid., cf. Rec.
If Paul’s theology has any affinity to
the doctrines of Simon (viz. the Clementines) then this can only be deduced
from Paul’s enigmatic statements as they stand in his letters. Paul equates the
Law, and by extension its God, with the authority of angels (Gal.
There is one unique point on which Paul
and Simon share common ground. This involves the peculiar method by which both
of these men interpret the Old Testament. In the Clementines Simon confesses to
interpreting the scriptures in such a way that he discovers a God which is not
found there (Rec.
·
In
Galatians 3 Paul taught that circumcision was ordered by angels, and that
Abraham was accepted by God through his faith alone (Gal. 3:6–9, 19). But this
is not what Genesis 17 says. The latter says that Abraham accepted circumcision
from the Lord as a sign of his faith. As a sign of his faith in God Abraham
circumcised himself and his entire clan as “God” commanded.
·
Another
example is 1 Cor. 2:9 where Paul quotes Isaiah 64:4. Here again Paul has
inverted the passage. In both the Hebrew and Greek texts the Isaiah passage
refers to God’s plan as being known to the world, meaning that ‘neither eye,
nor ear, nor heart’ has known of anything accept what the God of Israel has
proclaimed via the prophets. But Paul quotes this passage so as to refer to a
divine plan that no man has known.
·
Yet
another example is in Romans 10:4–9 where Paul quotes Dt. 30:12–14 as referring
to the grace that comes through Christ, and that righteousness cannot be gained
via the Law. The discerning reader will note that there is in fact no reference
to Christ in the Dt. passage, and that these verses are in fact an injunction
to keep the Law. Once again Paul has forced
OT verses into meaning the opposite of what they actually mean in their
original context.
Undoubtedly Paul projected ideas into
scripture which are not obvious in the original text and are derived from an
inverted interpretation. Of note is that Simon Magus actually professes a
similar method as the source of his own theological ideas. In Recognition
“Thus,
then, since he who made man and the world is, according to what the law
relates, imperfect, we are given to understand, without doubt, that there is
another who is perfect. … Whence also I, knowing that it is every way necessary
that there be some one more benevolent and more powerful than that imperfect
god who gave the law, understanding what is perfect from comparison of the
imperfect, understood even from the Scripture that God who is not mentioned
there. And in this way I was able, O’ Peter, to learn from the law what the law
did not know.” (Rec.,
Is this also the source of Paul’s theology
and system of interpretation? Is it possible that Paul believed scripture, and
the Law, and its God, to be an imperfect shadow or reflection of a higher and
perfect reality? Is this the concept behind Paul’s remark that the fleshly Israelites worship an “idol” at
the Temple Altar–as stated in 1 Cor. 10:18–19? In numerous ways Paul can be
shown to be dualistic, in that he often worked out dichotomies between
spiritual and fleshly realities (e.g. Gal. 4:25–26, 2 Cor. 4:18). The passage
above may be an important insight into the Hellenistic world of ideas from
which Paul developed his own theology and mode of interpretation. This would
explain how Paul arrived at the truth that Abraham was justified by faith
alone, and that the Law was “ordained by angels.” Paul extracted these
interpretations of scripture by looking for the higher spiritual reality that
he believed was behind the overt language and meaning of the passages. I
believe it is possible that this may be the historic truth about Paul, and his theology, that is concealed in
the Clementines.
Paul’s peculiar mode of Bible
interpretation corresponds to point number 3 as outlined above. Paul interpreted
the Bible in such a way so as to deny that the Law was given directly by God,
and to deny that observing the Law was necessary for salvation. Certainly this
is in opposition to the priority that “Peter” placed on the “Law of God” in the
Clementines as we have seen above. Paul’s devaluing of the Law, and of
attributing the Law to angels, in turn corresponds to Simon’s impious opinion
that the Lawgiver is not the supreme Being (Homily, 18:1; see archive article: On
God and Justice).
Our next issue involves point number 4
and the criteria by which Apostolic authority is established. One aspect of
this criteria is the question of whether one knows the teaching of Jesus better
through supernatural visions, or through direct flesh and blood contact. This debate
between Peter and Simon turns into a polemic against Simon that is completely
out of context with his literary character—and only makes sense in the context
of Paul. The first clue to this divergence is evident in Homily 17:14 where
Peter attacks Simon because the latter claimed to have learned the teachings of
Jesus through visions. In fact, Simon nowhere in the Clementines claims to have
learned the teachings of Jesus from a vision; and he is portrayed as a critic
of Jesus. The change in theme may very well be a clue that this polemic was
originally directed against Paul, not Simon.
Paul in fact established his Apostolic
authority on the basis of the claim that he encountered Jesus through
supernatural visions. We have already noticed where in Galatians 1:16 Paul
claims to have received his authority directly from Christ and not from any “flesh
and blood” person—as claimed by the Twelve. In 2 Corinthians
“If,
then, our Jesus appeared to you in a vision, made Himself known 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. But can any one be rendered fit for
instruction through apparitions? And if you will say, ‘It is possible,’ then I
ask, ‘Why did our teacher abide and discourse a whole year to those who were
awake?’ 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 (Mt.
Again, the above speech is completely
out of context with Simon and his activities. Simon is not portrayed in the
Clementines as claiming to be an Apostle and expositor of Christ’s teachings.
Both the Homilies and Recognitions make clear that Simon believes that he,
himself, is God; and it is in this context that he is the adversary of Christ
and the Apostles. The accusations made by Peter above actually apply to Paul:
It was Paul who claimed to have gained his Apostleship through supernatural encounters,
or visions, of Jesus (Gal.
These points are relevant to point
number 4 as outlined above. Paul established himself as an Apostle on the basis
of a criteria that was not approved by the Apostles before him. And, there is
evidence in both Galatians and Matthew to show that Paul used his authority to
preach his own “gospel” and to oppose Peter (and James) at
The natural consequence of Paul’s
self-proclaimed Apostleship (as viewed by his critics) is that the Apostles before
him found it necessary to arrest Paul’s ministry. This is relevant to point
number 5; and there is evidence in the Clementines of a counter-ministry
against Paul. Aside from the fact that Paul’s name is never mentioned in the
Clementines there is the further glaring fact that only the “12” Apostles are
mentioned, and no more. In this context the absence of Paul’s name is
conspicuous. Only the 12 Apostles are allowed, and no more. Paul was never one
of the 12. In light of this let’s consider this passage from the Recognitions:
“Wherefore
observe the greatest caution, that you believe no teacher, unless he bring from
In Recognition
“If any one withdraw from God the Father and Creator of
all…” (Rec.,
And also,
“…to partake of the table of demons, that is, to taste
things sacrificed [to idols].”
Note in Recognition
Moreover Peter’s accusations cannot
refer to Simon Magus because nowhere in the Clementines does Simon profess to
be a follower of Christ or an apostle thereof. Thus Simon could not be
construed to be an apostle, and he is presented as not wanting to be (Homily
Also from Recognition
We know furthermore that Paul inveighed
against the Law overall in many of his letters; as we have noted above.
Next we must note that Recognitions
The evidence above answers to point
number 5 that the Clementines allude to a counter-ministry by the Apostles
against Paul. Paul’s letters reflect a counter-ministry of some sort which
inevitably leads to a discussion of the Apostles by name—and whom Paul declares
his independence from. An important detail in relation to this is that Acts
contains no account or insight on the adversaries that Paul struggled against
while in
The most important implication of the
Clementines is that the early Church was deeply divided; and that Paul and
Peter were the leaders of two primary quarrelling factions. Peter was head of
the faction that emerged later as the Catholic Church (or was laid claim to by
the latter). Paul was head of the faction which later emerged in the form of
the diverse Gnostic movement. In the next section we will look at evidence from
Acts, Paul and the Clementines which shows that the
Why don’t the Clementines
name Paul?
As a final word, I want to propose a
theory as to why the Clementines don’t actually mention Paul by name. This
omission may be due to the implications involved. It may be that the
Clementines originate from a primary source that set forth a history that later
Christians (i.e. Catholics) did not find edifying, and did not conform to
popular but misinformed opinions (as reflected in Acts). I propose the theory
that the source of the Clementines derives from an early Jewish/Ebionite
Christian source that in turn derived from the original Jewish Church. This
source explicitly named both Simon and Paul as enemies of the Church. This
source later passed into the hands of early Catholic scribes. These scribes
recognized the historical veracity of the source, but also felt that the source
would only cause more division in an already deeply divided Christian movement.
The Catholic clergy was insisting that Peter and Paul had no lasting feuds and
were essentially unified. But the Clementine source said something different.
Thus in order to promote the unity of the Christian movement (under Catholic
authority) certain Catholic scribes redrafted this source and expunged Paul’s
name from the text, and merged Paul’s character almost wholly into Simon’s. And
for this reason the extant texts of the Clementines to this day contain poorly
disguised attacks on Paul.
Now some of my readers may scoff at my
propositions and say that there is no way that pious Christians would engage in
the production of such elaborate forgeries. And this affords me the opportunity
to discuss what I believe is one of the best examples of a pious Christian
forgery. I refer to the New Testament book of 2 Peter.
First of all it should be known that in
Roman times 2 Peter was rejected by many in the Catholic Church as a forgery.
The Church historian Eusebius reports that 2 Peter was commonly rejected along
with the Epistles of James, Jude, 2 and 3 John and the Revelation of John. And
to this day these epistles are still omitted from the official lectionaries of
some East Orthodox churches. [5]
Eusebius does not explain why 2 Peter
was doubted or rejected, but a critical reading of the text will yield some
clues. The first of these clues can be seen in chapter 3. Here the writer
obviously alludes to a post-Apostolic situation in which the Apostles and first
generation of Christians have passed away, yet the kingdom has still not
arrived as prophesied (e.g. Mt. 24:34–35). The author writes: “Knowing this
first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers…saying, ‘Where is the
promise of his coming? For since the fathers died all things continue as they
were from the beginning of the creation’.” (2 Peter 3:3–4)
This statement betrays the fact that
this letter was written after the Apostolic age and refers to a crisis among
Christians in that the ‘End’ has not arrived as expected. The phrase “since the
fathers died” clearly refers to the first generation of Apostles, and to the
prophecy attributed to Jesus: “Truly I say unto you, ‘This generation shall not
pass, till all these things be fulfilled” (Mt. 24:34–35). Once the “generation”
had passed an explanation had to be developed in order to answer the
“scoffers.” The author, addressing this crisis in Peter’s name, offers his
solution: “But beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with
the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” (2 Peter 3:8)
The reader is now left with the paradox in that where Jesus actually promised
Peter in Matthew that the end would come within that generation, someone
in Peter’s name now says that “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years.”
Obviously this is not what Jesus promised to Peter according to Matthew. Any
sensible reader will recognize that the author of 2 Peter is using a poorly
disguised stall tactic.
Another clue to the post-Apostolic and
forged nature of 2 Peter can be seen in reference to Paul. The author refers to
the controversial nature of Paul’s letters in which “are some things hard to be
understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also
the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:15–16) The give-away
here is that this writer refers to Paul’s letters as “scripture” (graphas). It is highly unlikely that
Paul’s letters would have been referred to as “scripture” on par with the Law
and the Prophets—in his own lifetime. Certainly Peter would not have referred
to these texts as “scripture.” The above passage also reflects a later
situation that is consistent with the reports of the Catholic Fathers:
sectarian groups were interpreting Paul’s letters in ways that were radically
different from the emerging Catholic consensus. The Catholic Fathers report
that the Gnostics and Marcionites placed an important emphasis on Paul’s
writings, and derived their theologies accordingly. 2 Peter reflects this later
situation in which Marcion and others had in fact elevated Paul’s letters to
the status of “scripture.” The Catholic Fathers followed suit.
One more point to be noted is that the
author refers to Paul, in Peter’s name, as a “brother” (
Scholars in modern times doubt 2 Peter
because of the nature of the Greek text. They believe it is improbable that the
Greek reflects the Hebrew of a simple Jewish fisherman from the back country of
My point is that some early Christians
felt no restraint or shame about picking up the pen, and writing some piece in
an Apostle’s name in order to serve some purpose. More nefarious in my view is
the practice of taking an existing text, written by someone important, and
inserting new ideas into it. The author of the Revelation of John pronounced a
curse on any scribe who added or deleted from the text. Another example can be
seen with the writings attributed to the Apostolic Father Ignatius. His
writings exist today in a most shameful and scandalous state. Someone took his
last farewell letters and rewrote them and added all kinds of material—so that
now there are three categories of the Ignatian letters: 1) the short recensions
which are regarded as mostly authentic (but still doubted by some), and 2)
there are the long recensions which are obviously the corrupted versions; and
3) there are the letters which are regarded by most scholars as complete
forgeries. Anyone who seeks to learn the history of Christianity should look at
the Ignatian Letters so that they can have some idea of what they are up
against. Some early Christians had very loose ideas of integrity; and the
legacy of Christianity is littered with forgeries and corruptions.
Again, I suggest that the Clementines
are another such corruption. The purpose is to obscure a record of history that
the emerging Catholic establishment found to be no longer edifying, or of use.
It was no longer what people wanted to believe, and popular opinion and
ignorance had led to a whole different formulation of history that appeared in
the book of Acts. (And again, the Acts account doesn’t square with Paul; but
Paul’s account can be harmonized with the Clementines.) Rather than suppress
the Clementine record altogether, certain Catholic scribes re-drafted the
source into two conflicting accounts. The purpose was to obscure the source so
that no one would know which draft was correct. And in the process, Paul’s
name, and his conflict with the Church at
Notes
1] A. Roberts, Ante-Nicene
Fathers, vol. 8, pg. 69f. F. Cross, Oxford Dictionary of the Christian
Church, 3rd revised ed., Oxford University Press:
2] Ibid. The
early Baptist historian Albert H. Newman believed that the Clementines were a
Jewish/Christian attack on “Paulinism” (A
Manual of Church History, vol. 1, American Baptist Pub. Society (1904), pg.
177). See also H.J. Schoeps, Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish
Religious History, pg.
82f.
3] Clementine
Homilies: Epistle of Peter to
James, 2. Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 8, pg. 215.
4] That Paul had
no lasting relationship with Peter is demonstrated in 1 Cor. 1:11–12 and 3:4–6.
Here Paul laments that the Christian movement has become divided among numerous
factions; some support Paul, others support Apollos, and others support
“Cephas” or Peter. It is indeed significant that in 1 Cor. 1–3 Paul can make no
appeal in Peter’s name for unity or moral support (cf. 1 Cor. 1:11–12, 3:4–6).
5] Eusebius, Church
History, 3.3.1. (see also fn. 4), W. Kümmel, Introduction to the NT,
pg. 433f. B. Metzger, Canon of the NT., pg. 220. Metzger also documents
the historic dispute over the Catholic Epistles in Roman times; which included
the Epistle of 2 Peter (ibid., pg. 209f.).
6] A. McNeile, An
Introduction to the Study of the NT., 2nd ed., pg. 246. W. Kümmel, Introduction
to the NT, pg. 431f.
7] E.g. Cicero, De
Natura Deorum, 20:21–22. See my archive article Lucifer the light-bearer
for more details.
By James M. West.
Copyright © October 6, revised
Readers
can e-mail their comments, etc., to me at ogdood@yahoo.com