Sacha M. said…

We must always remember that Paul did not in fact teach ‘dissolution of the Law’ as Galatians clearly points out. Also, if Simon Magus can be considered a consistent cipher for Paul, the numerous confrontations found in Petrine literature indicates that Peter’s (and his school’s) attitude was much more hostile than Paul’s (whose only reference is concerning table habits in Galatians).

5:50 PM
Laura said…

I agree with Sacha in that I find Peter to be more of stickler than Paul (even though i’ve probably read much less of these guys than he has!). The debates between him and Simon we’re great, but just to prove my point, I often found myself rooting for Simon! ha ha =)
I think it’s because i’ve started to dislike Peter… especially due to his apparant hatred of females.
I guess i’m biased now.

8:28 PM
Phil Harland
Phil Harland said…

Sacha correctly observes that the _historical_ Paul did not teach dissolution of the law, only a modification of what aspects of the law applied to Gentiles specifically (see Galatians and ROmans).

To put things briefly on the time after Paul, Gentile Christianity began to have its own life and own interpretation of Paul thereafter — let’s call him the “legendary Paul” for the moment– which was likely to be less nuanced, let’s say, with the view of Jewish law (mainly rejecting it more fully). Alongside this situation, later perceptions of Paul among those who did continue to practice Jewish law would not likely be responding to the _historical_ Paul as much as the legendary Paul with their own “legends” attached to him as well. And in the Pseudo-Clementines there is considerable freedom taken by the author in providing a caricature of a “lawless” enemy (with Paul in mind). The author feels free to attribute a variety of opinions to the enemy that Paul himself never held.

Also, to engage with Sacha’s other comment: as Pauline, Gentile-focussed Christianity gained the upper hand (and gradually moved towards the dominant, “proto-orthodox” position, so to speak), there would be less need for stories of Paul refuting Peter from the other side of the “battle”. Instead, the tendency might be to envelop Peter within the Gentile-focussed Christianity, thereby marginalizing Jewish Christians who claimed Peter as their founder (who then countered by reclaiming him overagainst Paul, on this theory). These are just some musings on the possibilities rather than detailed arguments here. But perhaps they engage with some of your comments. Phil

9:10 PM
Angela said…

While I think it is right to suggest as Sasha does that Peter’s school is more hostile than Paul’s, perhaps we should ask why. I am not trying to take Peter’s side, but I could understand why he might be hostile to individuals or movements he thought were “corrupting” or “distorting” his line of Christianity. He certainyl would have thought that abandoning the Jewish Law was out of the question and played a role in Christianity. We also need to remember that at times, other non-Jewish early Christian movements were hostile as well (this isn’t only a Peter thing)!

8:08 AM
glaserildiko said…

Just to play the Devil Advocate (I seem to be doing that alot!), let’s take a look at Peter. There’s a reason why Simon was renamed Peter. Throughout Christian literature, whether it be canonical or non, Peter was known to be hotheaded, stubborn, argumentative and bullish; hence the name “Rock” (Cephas/ Petro). He would undoubtedbly be conservative, and perhaps even fearful about abandonning his faith. Jesus was Jewish, and if he preached to be more like Jesus, then logic would follow that the followers would have to be Jewish. Maybe I’m over simplifying, but it seems to me that Simon Magus would have represented those who were impressed with the stories of the Jesus movement and wanted to buy salvation and power, as oppose to a type of roman a clef for the conflict between Peter and Paul. (It’s also interesting that Simon Magus is a source of the Faustian legends!)

1:59 PM
Phil Harland
Phil Harland said…

Simon Magus was many things to many people, as were these other figures Paul and Peter. We have to keep very clear in our minds a separation between the actual historical figure (Simon Magus, Peter, Paul, or what have you) and the ways in which these figures were subsequently (usually after their deaths) represented by a particular author or group with a specific purpose in mind (who in turn may themselves be claiming to represent Peter or some figure). And in Simon Magus’ case, we basically know nothing of the actual historical figure; instead, we have plenty people using him as the stereotypical “heretic” (or even father of all heretics) with different characteristics given to this figure depending on who was doing the stereotyping and what “battles” they were fighting. In the Pseudo-Clementine case, Paul (and/or Marcion) are among the “heretics” and are therefore cast as Simon Magus (from the perspective of Jewish followers of Jesus who continued to practice the Jewish law). Phil

5:12 PM
Turriff said…

Isn’t interesting that despite the importance given to the Apostles in the early Church and later that Paul still comes out ahead? One would think that the question of Peter vs. Paul would have been settled on that point alone. But Ildy’s point about conservatism/Peter may point to one of the reasons that Paul comes out ahead. When the group formally known as “orthodox” came into the lead, the bulk of them were already gentiles, and firmly in the camp of the Pauline view of things. I’m sure they were in no mood to shift the argument because of Apostolic issues alone.

6:27 PM