From ChatGPT on 8/2/2025.
The debate between Peter and a character traditionally identified with Paul appears primarily in the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions and Homilies, two related early Christian novels (likely from the 3rd or 4th century CE). The debate itself is not explicitly between “Peter” and “Paul” by name, but between Peter and a character referred to as Simon Magus, who many scholars argue is a veiled representation of Paul.
Main sources:
- Pseudo-Clementine Homilies
- Homilies 16–19 contain extended debates between Peter and Simon Magus.
- These debates revolve around issues such as:
- Whether Jesus could be known apart from the Law and Prophets.
- Visions and revelations vs. eyewitness testimony.
- The validity of Gentile inclusion apart from the Law.
- Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions
- Recognitions Book 2 and Book 3 also depict debates between Peter and Simon Magus, although less theologically detailed than in the Homilies.
- The Recognitions emphasize Peter’s role as the interpreter of the true teachings of Jesus and depict Simon as a false teacher who twists revelation.
Scholarly interpretation:
- Many critical scholars (e.g., F.C. Baur, Bart Ehrman, Robert E. Van Voorst) view Simon Magus in the Pseudo-Clementines as a literary stand-in for Paul:
- Both are portrayed as having had a vision of Jesus independent of the original apostles.
- Both emphasize a gospel for the Gentiles.
- The author sides with Peter as the authority and representative of the original Jerusalem church.
Conclusion:
The debate between Peter and the Pauline figure occurs primarily in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies 16–19, with earlier material in the Recognitions 2–3. The Simon Magus figure serves as a thinly veiled critique of Paul’s theology, as viewed from a Jewish-Christian (Ebionite-like) perspective.
Below are Pseudo-Clementine Homilies extracted from here that link to pages with the Homilies that follow and are also copied below.
Chapter 15 — Christ Not God, but the Son of God.
When Simon heard this, he said: “Since you say that we ought not to believe even the prophet that gives signs and wonders if he say that there is another god, and that you know that he even incurs the penalty of death, therefore your teacher also was with reason cut off for having given signs and wonders.” And Peter answered: “Our Lord neither asserted that there were gods except the Creator of all, nor did He proclaim Himself to be God, but He with reason pronounced blessed him who called Him the Son of that God who has arranged the universe.” And Simon answered: “Does it not seem to you, then, that he who comes from God is God?”[1] And Peter said: “Tell us how this is possible; for we cannot affirm this, because we did not hear it from Him.
Homily 16 — The Unbegotten and the Begotten Necessarily Different from Each Other.
“In addition to this, it is the peculiarity of the Father not to have been begotten, but of the Son to have been begotten; but what is begotten cannot be compared with that which is unbegotten or self-begotten.” And Simon said: “Is it not the same on account of its origin?”[1] And Peter said: “He who is not the same in all respects as someone, cannot have all the same appellations applied to him as that person.” And Simon said: “This is to assert, not to prove.” And Peter said: “Why, do you not see that if[2] the one happens to be self-begotten or unbegotten, they cannot be called the same; nor can it be asserted of him who has been begotten that he is of the same substance as he is who has begotten him?[3] Learn this also: The bodies of men have immortal souls, which have been clothed with the breath of God; and having come forth from God, they are of the same substance, but they are not gods. But if they are gods, then in this way the souls of all men, both those who have died, and those who are alive, and those who shall come into being, are gods. But if in a spirit of controversy you maintain that these also are gods, what great matter is it, then, for Christ to be called God? for He has only what all have.
Homily 17 — The Nature of God.
“We call Him God whose peculiar attributes cannot belong to the nature of any other; for, as He is called the Unbounded because He is boundless on every side, it must of necessity be the case that it is no other one’s peculiar attribute to be called unbounded, as another cannot in like manner be boundless. But if anyone says that it is possible, he is wrong; for two things boundless on every side cannot co-exist, for the one is bounded by the other. Thus, it is in the nature of things that the unbegotten is one. But if he possesses a figure, even in this case, the figure is one and incomparable. Wherefore He is called the Most High, because, being higher than all, He has the universe subject to Him.”
Homily 18 —The Name of God.
And Simon said: “Is this word ‘God’ His ineffable name, which all use, because you maintain so strongly in regard to a name that it cannot be given to another?” And Peter said: “I know that this is not His ineffable name, but one which is given by agreement among men; but if you give it to another, you will also assign to this other that which is not used; and that, too, deliberately.[1] The name which is used is the forerunner of that which is not used. In this way, insolence is attributed even to that which has not yet been spoken, just as honour paid to that which is known is handed on to that which has not yet been known.”
Homily 19 — The Shape of God in Man.
And Simon said: “I should like to know, Peter, if you really believe that the shape of man has been moulded after the shape of God.”[1] And Peter said: “I am really quite certain, Simon, that this is the case.” And Simon said: “How can death dissolve the body, impressed as it has thus been with the greatest seal?” And Peter said: “It is the shape of the just God. When, then, the body begins to act unjustly, the form which is in it takes to flight, and thus the body is dissolved, by the shape disappearing, in order that an unjust body may not have the shape of the just God. The dissolution, however, does not take place in regard to the seal, but in regard to the sealed body. But that which is sealed is not dissolved without Him who sealed it. And thus it is not permitted to die without judgment.” And Simon said: “What necessity was there to give the shape of such a being to man, who was raised from the earth?” And Peter said: “This was done because of the love of God, who made man. For while, as far as substance is concerned, all things are superior to the flesh of man,—I mean the ether, the sun, the moon, the stars, the air, the water, the fire—in a word, all the other things which have been made for the service of man,—yet, though superior in substance, they willingly endure to serve the inferior in substance, because of the shape of the superior. For as they who honour the clay image of a king have paid honour to the king himself, whose shape the clay happens to have, so the whole creation with joy serves man, who is made from earth, looking to the honour thus paid to God.
Homily 20 — The Character of God.
“Behold, then, the character of that God to whom you, Simon, wish to persuade us to be ungrateful, and the earth continues to bear you, perhaps wishing to see who will venture to entertain similar opinions to yours. For you were the first to dare what no other dared: you were the first to utter what we first heard. We first and alone have seen the boundless long-suffering of God in bearing with such great impiety as yours, and that God no other than the Creator of the world, against whom you have dared to act impiously. And yet openings of the earth took not place, and fire was not sent down from heaven and went not forth to burn up men, and rain was not poured out,[1] and a multitude of beasts was not sent from the thickets, and upon us ourselves the destructive wrath of God did not begin to show itself, on account of one who sinned the sin, as it were, of spiritual adultery, which is worse than the carnal. For it is not God the Creator of heaven and earth that in former times punished sins, since now, when He is blasphemed in the highest degree, He would inflict the severest punishment.[2] But, on the contrary, He is long-suffering, calls to repentance, having the arrows which end in the destruction of the impious laid up in His treasures, which He will discharge like living animals when He shall sit down to give judgment to those that are His.[3] Wherefore let us fear the just God, whose shape the body of man bears for honour.”
Homily 21 — Simon Promises to Appeal to the Teaching of Christ. Peter Dismisses the Multitudes.
When Peter said this, Simon answered: “Since I see you skilfully hinting that what is written in the books[1] against the framer[2] of the world does not happen to be true, to-morrow I shall show, from the discourses of your teacher, that he asserted that the framer of the world was not the highest God.” And when Simon said this, he went out. But Peter said to the assembled multitudes: “If Simon can do no other injury to us in regard to God, he at least prevents you from listening to the words that can purify the soul.” On Peter saying this, much whispering arose amongst the crowds, saying, “What necessity is there for permitting him to come in here, and utter his blasphemies against God?” And Peter heard, and said, “Would that the doctrines against God which are intended to try men[3] went no further than Simon! For there will be, as the Lord said, false apostles, false prophets,[4] heresies, desires for supremacy, who, as I conjecture, finding their beginning in Simon, who blasphemes God, will work together in the assertion of the same opinions against God as those of Simon.” And saying this with tears, he summoned the multitudes to him by his hand; and when they came, he laid his hands upon them and prayed, and then dismissed them, telling them to come at an earlier hour next day. Saying this, and groaning, he entered and went to sleep, without taking food.
Critical Bible scholars do not generally agree on whether Peter or Paul “wins” the debate as depicted in the Pseudo-Clementines—because the answer depends on the context:
1. Within the Pseudo-Clementines themselves: Peter clearly “wins”
- The authors of the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions and Homilies were Jewish-Christian writers (often associated with Ebionite or related groups) who strongly opposed Paul’s message.
- They portray Peter as the authoritative interpreter of Jesus’ teachings and Simon Magus (a veiled figure for Paul) as a deceiver who relies on private visions and teaches against the Torah.
- In this fictionalized theological novel, Peter consistently refutes Simon Magus using scripture, logic, and appeals to Jesus’ teachings.
- The author’s theology is pro-Torah, pro-apostolic authority (Peter), and anti-Pauline.
Example:
- Homilies 17–19 show Peter condemning private revelations and insisting that true doctrine comes through public, verifiable tradition—clearly aimed at Paul’s claim to have received the gospel by revelation (cf. Galatians 1:12).
So within the narrative, Peter wins.
2. From a historical-critical perspective: Paul “wins” in the long-term church
Many modern scholars acknowledge that:
- Although Jewish-Christian groups like those behind the Pseudo-Clementines promoted Peter as the guardian of the true gospel, it was Paul’s theology that became dominant in mainstream Christianity.
- The early church, particularly after the second century, canonized Paul’s letters, embedded his theology deeply in Christian doctrine, and marginalized the Jewish-Christian movement.
- Peter’s portrayal in the New Testament becomes more Pauline over time (e.g., Acts and 2 Peter), suggesting a literary harmonization to reconcile factions.
Scholars who discuss this include:
- F.C. Baur – saw early Christianity as a conflict between the “Petrine” (Jewish-Christian) and “Pauline” (Gentile-Christian) camps.
- Bart Ehrman – argues that proto-orthodox Christianity suppressed Jewish-Christian views and elevated Paul.
- James D. Tabor – sees the Pseudo-Clementines as a window into the suppressed Jewish-Christian tradition that resisted Paul’s innovations.
Summary
| Perspective | Who “Wins”? | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Inside the Pseudo-Clementines | Peter | Presented as the true apostle opposing heresy (i.e., Paul/Simon) |
| Historical/Critical scholarship | Paul (long term) | His theology shaped Christian orthodoxy, while Jewish-Christians faded |
| Modern scholarly interest | Mixed | Renewed interest in Peter’s side shows growing recognition of early diversity |
Here’s a breakdown of how major critical Bible scholars interpret the Peter vs. Paul conflict as reflected in the Pseudo-Clementines, and who they see as “winning” the debate—both within the texts and in historical Christianity:
1. F.C. Baur (1792–1860)
Founder of the Tübingen School of historical criticism.
- View: Baur argued that early Christianity was defined by conflict between two factions:
- The Jewish-Christian faction led by Peter, James, and John.
- The Gentile-Christian faction led by Paul.
- He believed the Pseudo-Clementines reflect the Petrine side, attacking Paul under the name of Simon Magus.
- Peter wins in the text, but Paul wins historically, as the Church ultimately embraced Paul’s theology.
- Key works: Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ (1845).
2. Bart D. Ehrman
New Testament scholar focused on early Christian diversity and orthodoxy formation.
- View: Ehrman agrees with Baur’s basic framework but emphasizes that many “heretical” Jewish-Christian groups resisted Paul into the 2nd and 3rd centuries.
- He treats the Pseudo-Clementines as valuable evidence of a suppressed version of early Christianity—a Jewish Christianity that saw Paul as a false teacher.
- In Ehrman’s view, Peter “wins” in the Pseudo-Clementines, but Paul “wins” in Church history, because the Gentile, Pauline version of Christianity became dominant.
- Key works:
- Lost Christianities (2003)
- Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (1993)
- Forged (2011)
3. James D. Tabor
Scholar of Christian origins with a focus on Jewish-Christian continuity.
- View: Tabor argues that the earliest followers of Jesus were Torah-observant Jewish Christians, whose memory survives in the Ebionites and the Pseudo-Clementines.
- He sees the Pseudo-Clementines as preserving an authentic critique of Paul, with Peter defending fidelity to Jesus’ Jewish message.
- For Tabor, Peter wins the theological argument from a Jesus-centered Jewish point of view, but Paul wins ecclesiastical power.
- Tabor also highlights that the Church rewrote history, blending Peter and Paul into a single harmonious tradition, which masked the original conflict.
- Key works:
- Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity (2012)
- Restoring Abrahamic Faith (1993/2008)
4. Robert E. Van Voorst
Specialist in non-canonical Christian texts.
- View: Van Voorst acknowledges that the Pseudo-Clementines attack Paul via the Simon Magus character.
- He focuses more on the literary and theological function of the texts than on “who wins,” but he agrees that they reflect an anti-Pauline and Jewish-Christian tradition.
- Notes that the Pseudo-Clementines help reconstruct what alternative Christianities looked like before proto-orthodoxy took hold.
- Key work: Anthology of Ancient Christian Literature (2004)
5. Walter Bauer (1877–1960)
Pioneer of the idea that “heresy” preceded orthodoxy.
- View: Although not writing extensively about the Pseudo-Clementines, Bauer’s theory supports the idea that early Christianity was not monolithic, and that groups like those behind the Pseudo-Clementines were part of mainstream Christianity before being declared heretical.
- His framework supports the idea that Peter’s view could have been the earlier one, and that Pauline Christianity “won” by marginalizing rivals.
- Key work: Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (1934)
Summary Table
| Scholar | View on Peter vs. Paul in Pseudo-Clementines | Who Wins in the Text? | Who Wins in History? |
|---|---|---|---|
| F.C. Baur | Theological battle between Jewish-Christian Peter and Gentile-Paul | Peter | Paul |
| Bart Ehrman | Reflects suppressed Jewish-Christian tradition | Peter | Paul |
| James D. Tabor | Peter defends the original Torah-faithful message | Peter | Paul (institutionally) |
| Robert Van Voorst | Reflects early anti-Pauline theology | Peter | Paul |
| Walter Bauer | No monopoly on orthodoxy early on; Pauline view rose later | Peter (likely) | Paul (through Church) |
This image is made available by the Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons. Artist,
Pompeo Batoni – The Fall of Simon Magus – 1983.217 – Cleveland Museum of Art
