The Authentic Peter
The Preaching of Simeon Kefa from the Journal of T. Flavius Clemens (Clement)
THE AUTHENTIC PETER: Ever wonder why Simon Peter only got a couple short letters in our Scriptures? Wouldn’t someone have recorded Peter’s AUTHENTIC acts and preaching? Of course his preaching was recorded! By Clement, an affluent Gentile convert, at the command of James the Just. So why would the “Church Fathers” bury the preaching of their “first pope,” especially since Clement was their "second pope"? Because Peter's teachings are HEBRAIC. This volume is one-of-a-kind, containing teachings on many subjects, including deliverance, healing, true worship, and lost Ebionite doctrines. We dispensed with churchy language in this translation and reintroduced the original Hebraic names of people, places and concepts. Your purchase includes the AUDIO BOOK. To get the AUDIO, go to www.Apostolia.com.
A digest from the Clementia in which the Flavius family reunites;
thus the title of the work - Recognitions.
(edited for length and to correct errors)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The scholarship of this Wiki is poor because such old sources are used. But, overall, it is a good article. If you are interested in greatly updated sources (say 150 years or more), check them at www.apostolia.com.
Clementine literature (also called Clementia, Pseudo-Clementine Writings, The Preaching of Peter - Kerygmata Petrou - etc.) is the name given to the record made by one Clement (whom the narrative identifies as both Pope Clement I, and Domitian's cousin Titus Flavius Clemens) of discourses involving the apostle Peter, together with an account of the circumstances under which Clement came to be Peter's travelling companion, and of other details of Clement's family history. This history has come down to us in two forms: one form is called the Clementine Homilies, which consists of 20 books and exists in the original Greek; the other is called the Clementine Recognitions, for which the original Greek has been lost, but exists in a translation made by Rufinus (died 410). Two later epitomes of the Homilies also exist, and there is a partial Syriac translation, which embraces the Recognitions (books 1-3), and the Homilies (books 10-14), preserved in two British Library manuscripts, one of which was written in the year 411. Some fragments of the Clementines are known in Arabic and in Slavonic.
Large portions of the Homilies (H) and Recognitions (R) are almost word for word the same, and larger portions also correspond in subject and more or less in treatment. However, other parts contained only in one appear to be referred to or presupposed in the other. The two works are roughly of the same length, and contain the same framework of history. H was considered to be the original by Neander, Baur, Schwegler, and others. Lehmann thought the first three books of R to be original, and H for the remainder. Uhlhorn argued that both were recensions of an earlier book, Preachings of Peter (usually referred to by its Greek equivalent - Kerygmata Petrous [sic]), R having best preserved the narrative, H the dogmatic teaching. Whiston, Rosenmüller, Ritschl, Hilgenfeld, and others held R to be the original. It is now almost universally held (after F. J. A. Hort, Harnack, Waitz) that H and R are two versions of an original Clementine history, which was longer than either, and embraced most of the contents of both. Sometimes H, sometimes R, is the more faithful to the archetype.
Ferdinand Believer Baur, the founder of the "Tübingen School" of New Testament criticism, rested his ideas about the New Testament on the Clementines, and his ideas about the Clementines on St. Epiphanius, who found the writings used by an Ebionite sect in the 4th century. This Judeo-Believer sect at that date rejected St. Paul as an apostate. It was assumed that this 4th century opinion represented the Believer ity of the Twelve Apostles; Paulinism was originally a heresy, and a schism from the Jewish Believer ity of James and Peter and the rest; Marcion was a leader of the Pauline sect in its survival in the 2nd century, using only the Pauline Gospel, St. Luke (in its original form), and the Epistles of St. Paul (without the Pastoral Epistles). The Clementine literature had its first origin in the Apostolic Age, and belonged to the original Jewish, Petrine, legal Church. It is directed wholly against St. Paul and his sect. Simon Magus never existed; it is a nickname for St. Paul. The Acts of the Apostles, compiled in the second century, have borrowed their mention of Simon from the earliest form of the Clementines. Catholicism under the presidency of Rome was the result of the adjustment between the Petrine and Pauline sections of the Church in the second half of the second century. The Fourth Gospel is a monument of this reconciliation, in which Rome took a leading part, having invented the fiction that both Peter and Paul were the founders of her Church, both having been martyred at Rome, and on the same day, in perfect union.
Throughout the middle of the 19th century this theory, in many forms, was dominant in Germany. The demonstration, mainly by English scholars, of the impossibility of the late dates ascribed to the New Testament documents (four Epistles of St. Paul and the Apocalypse were the only documents generally admitted as being of early date), and the proofs of the authenticity of the Apostolic Fathers and of the use of St. John's Gospel by Justin, Papias, and Ignatius gradually brought Baur's theories into discredit. Of the original school, Adolf Hilgenfeld may be considered the last survivor (died 1907). He was induced many years ago to admit that Simon Magus was a real personage, though he persists that in the Clementines he is meant for St. Paul. To a priori critics it counts as nothing that Simon holds no Pauline doctrine and that the author shows no signs of being a Judæo-Believer . In 1847 Hilgenfeld dated the original nucleus (Preachings of Peter) soon after the Jewish war of 70; successive revisions of it were anti-Basilidian, anti-Valentinian, and anti-Marcionite respectively. Baur placed the completed form, H, soon after the middle of the 2nd century, and Schliemann (1844) agreed, placing R, as a revision, between 211 and 230. Other writers dated both H and R to between the 2nd and 4th centuries:
R. 2nd or 3rd century: Schröck, Stark, Lumper, Krabbe, Locherer, Gersdorf.
R. 3rd century: Strunzius (on Bardesanes, 1710), Weismann (17l8), Mosheim, Kleuker, Schmidt (Kirchengesch.)
R. 4th century: Corrodi, Lentz (Dogmengesch.).
H. 2nd century (beginning): Credner, Bretschneider, Kern, Rothe.
H. 2nd century: Clericus, Beausobre, Flügge, Münscher, Hoffmann, Döllinger, Hilgers; (middle of 2nd) Hase.
H. end of 2nd century: Schröck, Cölln, Gieseler (3rd ed.), Schenkel, Gfrörer, Lücke.
H. 3rd century: Mill, Mosheim, Gallandi, Gieseler (2nd ed.).
H. 2nd or 3rd century: Neander, Krabbe, Baur, Ritter, Paniel, Dähne.
H. 4th century: Lentz.
Uhlhorn in his valuable monograph (1854) placed the original document, or Grundsrhrift, in East Syria. after 150; H in the same region after 160; R in Rome after 170. Lehmann (1869) put the source (Preaching of Peter) very early, H and R i-ii before 160, the rest of R before 170. In England Salmon set R about 200, H about 218. Dr. Bigg makes H the original, Syrian, first half of 2nd century, R being a recasting in an orthodox sense. H was originally written by a Catholic, and the heretical parts belong to a later recension. A. C. Headlam considers that the original form was rather a collection of works than a single book, yet all products of one design and plan, coming from one writer, of a curious, versatile, unequally developed mind. While accepting the dependence on the Book of Elchasai, Headlam sees no antagonism to St. Paul, and declares that the writer is quite ignorant of Judaism. Under the impression that the original work was known to Origen, he is obliged to date it at the end of the 2nd century or the beginning of the third. In 1883 Bestmann made the Clementines the basis of an unsuccessful theory which, as Harnack puts it. "claimed for Jewish Believer ity the glory of having developed by itself the whole doctrine, worship. and constitution of Catholicism, and of having transmitted it to Gentile Believer ity as a finished product which only required to be divested of a few Jewish husks".
Another popular theory based upon the Clementines has been that it was the Epistle of Clement to James which originated the notion that St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. This has been asserted by no lesser authorities than Lightfoot, Salmon, and Bright, and it has been made an important point in the controversial work of the Rev. F. W. Puller, "Primitive Saints and the Roman See". It is acknowledged that in St. Cyprian's time (c. 250) it was universally believed that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, and that he was looked upon as the type and origin of episcopacy. Modern criticism has long since put the letter of Clement too late to allow this theory to be tenable, and now Waitz places it after 220, and Harnack after 260. We shall presently see that it probably belongs to the 4th century.
The Old Catholic Professor Langen in 1890 elaborated a new theory. Until the destruction of Jerusalem in 135, he says, that city was the centre of the Believer Church. A new pivot was then needed. The Church of the capital made a bold bid for the vacant post of pre-eminence. Shortly after 135 was published the original form of the Clementine history . It was a Roman forgery, claiming for the Church of Peter the succession to a part of the headship of the Church of James. James indeed had been "bishop of bishops", and Peter's successor could not claim to be more than Peter was among the Apostles, primus inter pares. The Roman attempt was eventually successful, but not without a struggle. Caesarea, the metropolis of Palestine. also claimed the succession to Jerusalem. The monument of this claim is H, a recension of the Roman work made at Caesarea before the end of the second century in order to fight Rome with her own weapons. (The intention must be admitted to have been closely veiled.) In the beginning of the third century the metropolis of the Orient, Antioch, produced a new edition, R, claiming for that city the vacant primacy. Langen's view has found no adherents.
Dr. Hort complained that the Clementines have left no traces in the eighty years between Origen and Eusebius, but he felt obliged to date them before Origen, and placed the original c. 200 as the work of a Syrian Heixaïte. Harnack, in his "History of Dogma", saw that they had no influence in the 3rd century; he dated R and H not earlier than the first half of that century, or even a few decades later. All the foregoing writers presupposed that the Clementines were known to Origen. Since this has been shown to be not proven (1903), Waitz's elaborate study has appeared (1904), but his view was evidently formed earlier. His view is that H. is the work of an Aramaean Believer after 325 (for he uses the word homoousios) and earlier than 411 (the Syriac Manuscript). R probably after 350, also in the East. But the Grundschrift, or archetype, was written at Rome, perhaps under the syncretistic system of cult in favour at the court of Alexander Severus, probably between 220 and 250. Harnack, in his "Chronologie" (II), gives 260 or later as the date, but he thinks H and R may he ante-Nicene. Waitz supposes two earlier sources to have been employed in the history , the Preachings of Peter (origin in 1st century, but used in a later anti-Marcionite recension) and the Acts of Peter (written in a Catholic circle at Antioch c. 210). Harnack accepts the existence of these sources, but thinks neither was earlier than about 200. They are carefully to be distinguished from the well-known 2nd century works, the Preaching of Peter and Acts of Peter, of which fragments still exist. These are quoted by many early writers, whereas the supposed sources of the Clementines are otherwise unknown and therefore probably never existed at all. A long passage from Pseudo-Bardesanes De Fato occurs in R ix, 19 sqq. Hilgenfeld, Ritschl, and some earlier critics characteristically held that Bardesanes used the Clementines. Merx, Waitz, and most others hold that R. cites Bardesanes directly. Nau and Harnack are certainly right, that R. has borrowed the citation at second hand from Eusebius.
R is certainly post-Nicene, as Waitz has shown. But we may go further. The curious passage R iii. 2-11, which Rufinus omitted, and in which he seemed to hear Eunomius himself speaking, gives in fact the doctrine of Eunomius so exactly that it frequently almost cites the Apologeticus (c. 362-3) of that heretic word for word. (The Eunomian doctrine is that the essence of Elohim is to be unborn, consequently the Son Who is begotten is not Elohim . He is a creature, the first-born of all creation and the Image of Elohim . The Holy Ghost is the creature of the Son.) The agreement with Eunomius's ekthesis pisteos of 381-3 is less close. As the Eunomian passage was found by Rufinus in both the recensions of Clement known to him, we may suppose that the interpolation was made in the original work by a Eunomian about 365-70, before the abridgment R. was made about 370-80. (The word archiepiscopus used of St. James suggests the end of the 4th century. It occurs in the middle of that century in some Meletian documents cited by Athanasius, and then not till the Council of Ephesus, 431.)
H has also a disquisition on the generation of the Son (xvi, 15-18, and xx, 7-8). The writer calls Elohim autopator and autogennetos, and both Mother and Father of men. His idea of a changeable Elohim and an unchangeable Son projected from the best modification of Elohim has been mentioned above. This ingenious doctrine enables the writer to accept the words of the Nicene definition, while denying their sense. The Son may be called Elohim , for so may men be, but not in the strict sense. He is homoousios to Patri, begotten ek tes ousias, He is not treptos or alloiotos. Apparently He is not ktistos, nor was there a time when He was not, though this is not quite distinctly enunciated. The writer is clearly an Arian who manages to accept the formula of Nicea by an acrobatic feat, in order to save himself. The date is therefore probably within the reign of Constantine (died 337), while the great council was still imposed on all by the emperor, about 330.
But this is not the date of H, but of the original behind both H and R; for it is clear that the Eunomian interpolator of R attacks the doctrine we find in H. He ridicules autopator and autogennetos, he declares Elohim to be unchangeable, and the Son to be created, not begotten from the Father's essence and consubstantial. Elohim is not masculo-femina. It is clear that the interpolator had before him the doctrine of H. in a yet clearer form, and that he substituted his own view for it (R. iii, 2-11). But it is remarkable that he retained one integral part of H's theory, viz., the origin of the Evil One from an accidental mixture of elements, for Rufinus tells us (De Adult. libr. Origenis) that he found this doctrine in R and omitted it. The date of the original is therefore fixed as after Nicea, 325, probably c. 330; that of H may be anywhere in the second half of the 4th century. The Eunomian interpolator is about 365-70, and the compilation of R about 370-80.
The original author shows a detailed knowledge of the towns on the Phoenician coast from Caesarea to Antioch. He was an Arian, and Arianism had its home in the civil diocese of the Orient. He uses the Praep. Evang. of Eusebius of Caesarea (written about 313). In 325 that historian mentions the dialogues of Peter and Appion as just published — presumably in his own region; these were probably the nucleus of the larger work completed by the same hand a few years later. Citations of Pseudo-Clement are by the Palestinian Epiphanius, who found the history among the Ebionites of Palestine; by St. Jerome, who had dwelt in the Syrian desert and settled at Bethlehem; by the travelled Rufinus; by the Apostolical Constitutions, compiled in Syria or Palestine. The work is rendered into Syriac before 411. The Arian author of the Opus imperfectum cited it freely. It was interpolated by a Eunomian about 365-70. All these indications suggest an Arian author before 350 in the East, probably not far front Caesarea.
If you read this far, you can see that this Wiki author has little knowledge (nor did the scholars he sites) of Nazoreanism or Ebionism, and that his scholarship is pre-Dead Sea Scrolls. The doctrines he calls Arian, Catholic, Gnostic etc. are prevalent throughout the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date to as late as 36 AD. (jhs)
The author, though an Arian, probably belonged nominally to the Catholic Church. He wrote for the heathens of his day, and observed the stiff and often merely formal disciplina arcani which the 4th century enforced. Atonement, grace, sacraments are omitted for this cause only. "The true Prophet" is not a name for Messiah used by Believers, but the office of Messiah which the author puts forward towards the pagan world. He shows Peter keeping the evening agape and Eucharist secret from Clement when unbaptized; it was no doubt a Eucharist of bread and vine, not of bread and salt.
The great pagan antagonist of the 3rd century was the neo-Platonic philosopher, Porphyry; but under Constantine his disciple Iamblichus was the chief restorer and defender of the old Elohim s, and his system of defence is that which we find made the official religion by Julian (361-3). Consequently, it is not astonishing to find that Simon and his disciples represent not St. Paul, but Iamblichus. The doctrines and practices repelled are the theurgy and magic, astrology and mantic, absurd miracles and claims to union with the Divinity, which characterized the debased neo-Platonism of 320-30. It is not against Marcion but against Plato that Pseudo-Clement teaches the supremacy of the Creator of all. He defends the Old Testament against the school of Porphyry, and when he declares it to be interpolated, he is using Porphyry's own higher criticism in a clumsy way. The elaborate discussion of ancient history, the ridicule cast on the obscene mythology of the Greeks, and the philosophical explanations of a higher meaning are also against Porphyry. The refutation of the grossest idolatry is against Iamblichus.
It is perhaps mere accident that we hear nothing of the Clementines from 330 till 360. But about 360- 410 they are interpolated, they are revised and abridged in H, yet more revised and abridged in R, translated into Latin, translated into Syriac, and frequently cited. It seems, therefore, that it was the policy of Julian which drew them from obscurity. They were useful weapons against the momentary resurrection of polytheism, mythology, theurgy, and idolatry.
SCHLIEMANN, Die Clementinen (1844);
HILGENFELD, Die Clem. Recogn. und Hom. nach ihrem Ursprung und Inhalt (Jena, 1848); Kritische Untersuchungen über die Evangelien Justins, der Clem. Hom. und Marcions (Halle, 1850);
UHLHORN, Die Hom. und Recogn. des Clemens Romanus (Göttingen, 1854);
LEHMANN, Die clementinischen Schriften (Gotha, 1869)
LIPSIUS, Quellen der römischen Petrussage (1872) and Apokr. Apostelgeschichte (1887), II;
SALMON in Dict. Chr. Biog. (1877);
LANGEN, Die Clemensromane (Gotha, 1890): FUNK in Kirchenlex. (1884);
BIGG, The Clementine Homilies in Studia Biblica (Oxford, 1890), II;
BUSSELL, The Purpose of the World-Process and the Problem of Evil in the Clementine and Lactantian Writings in Studia Biblica (1806), IV;
W. CHAWNER, Index of noteworthy words and phrases found in the Clementine writings in Lightfoot Fund Public. (London, 1893);
HORT, Clementine Recognitions (lectures delivered in 1884; pub. London, 1901);
MEYBOOM De Clemens Roman (1902);
A. C. Headlam, The Clementine Literature in Journ. Theol. Stud. (1903), III, 41;
CHAPMAN, Origer and Pseudo-Clement in Journ. Theol. Stud., III, 436;
HILGENFELD, Origenes und Pseudo-Clemens in Zeitschr. für Wiss. Theol. (1903), XLVI, 342;
PREUSCHEN In HARNACK, Gesch. der altMessiah l. Literatur (1893), I, 212; and II, Chronologie, 518;
WAITZ, Die Pseudoclementinen in Texte und Unters., New Series, X, 4;
CHAPMAN, The Date of the Clementines in Zeitschr. für Neu-Test. Wiss. (1908). An English translation of the Recognitions, by the REV. T. SMITH, D. D., will be found in the Ante-Nicene Library. III, and of the Homilies, ibid., XVII (Edinburgh, 1871-2).
Yahweh bless you as you do everything in your ability to honor him.
Jackson Snyder (801) 850-6901 Vero Beach, FL