63 A marginal note in one of the manuscripts states that this enemy was Saul. [This is confirmed by chap. 71.-R.]
64 Acts xxii. 5. [There is an evident attempt to cast a slur upon the apostle Paul, but the suppresssion of the name is significant.-R.]
65 [Comp. book ii. 7 and Homily II. 22, 24.-R.]
66 [The visit of Peter to Caesarea narrated in Acts x was for a very different purpose. It is probable that the author of the Recognitions connected the persecution by Saul and the sorceries of Simon because of the similar juxtaposition in Acts viii.-R.]
1 I [With this list compare that in iii. 68, where four others are added (or substituted), and some importance given to the number twelve. See also Homily II. 1 The variety and correspondence point to the use of a common basis.-R.]
2 That is, the lamp which had been lighted in the evening.
3 [In the Homilies the discourse before the discussion with Simon is much fuller.-R.]
6 [The statements of Niceta and Aquila are introduced in the Homilies before the postponement of the discussion with Simon There is a remarkable variety in the minor details respecting Simon as given in the two narratives.-R.]
7 [Comp. i. 54. In Homily II. 23 Simon is said to be a follower of John the Baptist, one of the thirty chief men: so Dositheus. Here Dositheus is represented as the head of a separate sect; so in i. 54.-R.]
8 [Called "Helena" in the Homilies, and identified apparently with Helen, the cause of the Trojan War.-R.]
9 [The statements made in the Recognitions respecting the claims of Simon are more extravagant and blasphemous than those occurring in the Homilies. Comp. the latter, ii, 26-32.-R.]
10 The meaning seems to be, that she was seen at all the windows at once.-TR.
11 [This parody of the miraculous conception is not found in the Homilies:-R.]
12 [In Homily II. 37-53 the discourse of Peter is quite different and far less worthy. In Homily III. 1-28 a similar discourse e is given just before the discussion with Simon, abounding in statements that suggest erroneous views of Scripture, and indicate a Gnostic origin.
14 [Three discussions with Simon Magus are detailed in the pseudo-Clementine literature,-one in the Recognitions, ii. 20-iii. 48; two in the Homilies, iii. 30-58 and xvi.-xix. The differences between these are quite remarkable.
I. External Differences.-That in the Recognitions is assigned to Caesarea and is represented as lasting three days details of each day's discussion being given. The earlier one in the Homilies is given the same place and time but it is very brief. The details of the first day alone are mentioned; and it resembles that in the Recognitions less than does the later vie This is represented as taking place at Laodicea, and as occupy ing four days. The account is the longest of the three. In its historical setting this discussion has no parallel in the Recognitions. Faustus, the father of Clement, is made the umpire; and this discussion before him takes the place of the discussions with him which occupy so large a part of Recognitions, viii-x.
II. Internal differences.-Of course there are many thoughts common to the discussions; but the treatment is so varied as to form one of the most perplexing points in the literary problem. All are somewhat irregular in arrangement hence an analysis is difficult.. The discussion in the Recognitions seems to be more ethical and philosophical than those in the Homilies; the latter contain more theosophical views. Both of them emphasize the falsehoods of Scripture arid abound more in sophistries and verbal sword-play. In the Recognitions against Simon's polytheism and theory of an unknown God, Peter opposes the righteousness of God, emphasizing the freedom of the will, discussing the existence and orgin of evil, reverting to the righteousness of God as proving the immoriality of the soul. The defeat of Simon is narrated in a peculiar way.
The Caesarean discussion in the Homilies is very briefly narrated. After the preliminary parley, Simon attacks the God of the Scriptures attributing defects to Him. Peter's reply, while explaining many passages correctly, is largely taken up with a statement of the view of the Scripture peculiar to the Homilies. This is really the weapon with which Simon is defeated. The discussion, therefore, presents few points of resemblance to that in the recognitions.
The Laodicean discussion in the Homilies, covering four days is of a higher character than the preceding. It is not strictly parallel to that in the Recognitions. The opening argument concerning polytheism. To Peter's monotheism Simon opposes the contradictions of Scripture: these Peter explains including some christological statements which lead to a declaration of the nature, name and character of God. On the second day, after some personal discussion, Simon asserts that Christ's teaching differs from that of Peter: the argument reverts to the shape and figure of God The evidence of the senses is urged against fancied revel ations, which are attrebuted to demons. On the third day the question of God the Framer of the world is in and His moral character. Peter explains the nature of revelation with some sharp personal thrusts at Simon, but soon reverts to the usual explanation of Scripture.
On the fourth day the existence of the evil one becomes the prominent topic: the existence of sin is pressed; and the discussion closes with a justification of the inequalities of human life, and an expression of judgment against Simon by Faustus.
Throughout thse portions footnotes have been added, to indicate the correspondences of thought in the several accounts-R.]