Editing Simon Magus (section)

====Anti-Paulinism====
[[Image:Disputat.jpg|thumb|right|The Apostles Paul and Peter confront Simon Magus before Nero, as painted by [[Filippino Lippi]].]]

The Pseudo-Clementine writings were used in the 4th century by members of the [[Ebionite]] sect, one characteristic of which was hostility to Paul, whom they refused to recognize as an apostle.<ref>As the ''Peregrinations of Peter''. Epiphanius, ''Panarion'', 30.15.1. Williams, vol. 1, p. 131.</ref><ref name=WaceBio/> Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792–1860), founder of the Tübingen School, drew attention to the anti-Pauline characteristic in the Pseudo-Clementines, and pointed out that in the disputations between Simon and Peter, some of the claims Simon is represented as making (e.g. that of having seen the Lord, though not in his lifetime, yet subsequently in vision) were really the claims of Paul; and urged that Peter's refutation of Simon was in some places intended as a polemic against Paul.<ref name=WaceBio>{{WaceBio|wstitle=Simon Magus|first=George|last=Salmon|inline=1}}</ref> The enmity between Peter and Simon is clearly shown. Simon's magical powers are juxtaposed with Peter's powers in order to express Peter's authority over Simon through the power of prayer, and in the [[s:Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XVII|17th ''Homily'']], the identification of Paul with Simon Magus is effected. Simon is there made to maintain that he has a better knowledge of the mind of Jesus than the disciples, who had seen and conversed with Jesus in person. His reason for this strange assertion is that visions are superior to waking reality, as divine is superior to human.<ref>[[s:Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XVII/Chapter 5|Clementine ''Homilies'', xvii. 5]]; [[s:Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XVII/Chapter 14|14]].</ref><ref name=EB1911/> Peter has much to say in reply to this, but the passage which mainly concerns us is as follows:<ref name=EB1911/>

{{blockquote|But can any one be educated for teaching by vision? And if you shall say, "It is possible," why did the Teacher remain and converse with waking men for a whole year? And how can we believe you even as to the fact that he appeared to you? And how can he have appeared to you seeing that your sentiments are opposed to his teaching? But if you were seen and taught by him for a single hour, and so became an apostle, then preach his words, expound his meaning, love his apostles, fight not with me who had converse with him. For it is against a solid rock, the foundation-stone of the Church, that you have opposed yourself in opposing me. If you were not an adversary, you would not be slandering me and reviling the preaching that is given through me, in order that, as I heard myself in person from the Lord, when I speak I may not be believed, as though forsooth it were I who was condemned and I who was reprobate. Or, if you call me condemned, you are accusing God who revealed the Christ to me, and are inveighing against Him who called me blessed on the ground of the revelation. But if indeed you truly wish to work along with the truth, learn first from us what we learnt from Him, and when you have become a disciple of truth, become our fellow-workman.<ref name=EB1911/>}}

The anti-Pauline context of the Pseudo-Clementines is recognised, but the association with Simon Magus is surprising, according to Jozef Verheyden, since they have little in common.<ref>"The decision [in the Pseudo-Clementines] to associate Paul with Simon Magus is surprising since they have little in common. It is generally accepted that this association represents a later stage in the development of Ps.-Clem. and was an attempt to do away with or adapt some of the criticisms that had been aimed at Paul." Verheyden, p. 333.</ref> However the majority of scholars accept Baur's identification,<ref>"Baur's view that Simon is Paul has occasionally been questioned&nbsp;..." Bockmuehl, p. 102.</ref> though others, including [[Joseph Barber Lightfoot|Lightfoot]], argued extensively that the "Simon Magus" of the Pseudo-Clementines was not meant to stand for Paul.<ref>"...&nbsp;letters (beginning of the second century AD, which give no evidence of strife between Peter and Paul) were spurious and late&nbsp;... The idea of a revival of Baur's thesis appears to be quite self-conscious and explicit". Pate, p. 439.</ref> More recently, Berlin pastor Hermann Detering (1995) has made the case that the veiled anti-Pauline stance of the Pseudo-Clementines has historical roots, that the Acts 8 encounter between Simon the magician and Peter is itself based on the conflict between Peter and Paul.<ref>[http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/detering.html Hermann Detering], The Dutch Radical Approach to the Pauline Epistles</ref> Detering's belief has not found general support among scholars, but [[Robert M. Price]] argues much the same case in ''The Amazing Colossal Apostle:The Search for the Historical Paul'' (2012).{{sfn|Price|2012}}