Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (84 page)

No one thinks that the actual author of this short letter was Peter himself. But it was certainly someone who wanted his readers to think he was Peter. And the identity of his opponent is no mystery: it is Paul (“the man who is my enemy”) and his followers (“the gentiles”).

The idea that care was needed in passing along important texts was a commonplace in the ancient world, where books copied by hand were open not only to misinterpretation but also to physical alteration. Comparable concerns can be found, for example, in Galen’s
De libris propriis
11: “I ordered that these notes should be shared only with those who would read the books with a teacher.” So too in the Apocryphon of James from Nag Hammadi, a writing also connected with Peter:

You have asked me to send you a secret book revealed to me and Peter by the master, and I could not turn you down, nor could I speak to you, so [I have written] it in Hebrew and have sent it to you, and to you alone. But since you are a minister of the salvation of the saints, do your best to be careful not to communicate to many people this book that the Savior did not want to communicate even to all of us, his twelve disciples. (1.8ff.)
⁵⁶

That Paul is the unnamed “man who is my enemy” is not open to much doubt.
⁵⁷
This is someone who has an enormous effect on “the gentiles” and who preaches a “lawless gospel.” This latter phrase is shorthand for a gospel message that proclaims
a person can be made right with God without keeping the Jewish Law, an apt description of Paul’s message in a book such as Galatians, sent to gentiles and insisting on justification apart from “works of the Law.” It is striking that the author of the Epistula Petri is particularly concerned that this “enemy” proclaims that Peter himself supports his “lawless gospel.” That is precisely Paul’s claim in Galatians, as he indicates that the pillars of the Jerusalem church, James, Cephas, and John, “added nothing to me” and in fact “gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship” (Gal. 2:6, 9). According to Paul, Peter agreed with his law-free gospel. However one construes the precise nuances of the matter—a much-disputed topic—the Antioch incident of Gal. 2:11–14, in Paul’s eyes, was a matter of Peter’s hypocrisy. Whereas Peter had formerly, in Jerusalem, agreed with Paul’s gentile gospel, and acted out this agreement in having table fellowship with gentiles (who obviously were not keeping kosher), he changed his mind and his behavior so as not to give offense, once members of “the circumcision” came to town as representatives of James. In Paul’s eyes, Peter’s offense was that he began to act as if he did not agree with the law-free gospel after he had already, overtly, agreed.

The Epistula Petri may well be referring to the account of the Antioch incident in Galatians when it charges its enemies with maintaining that Peter agreed with “the dissolution of the Law” but that he “did not express it openly”—in other words, that he held to a Pauline view, but did not publicly say so. This is the charge that Paul levels against Peter in the passage of Galatians, before stating baldly: “knowing that a person is not justified by works of the Law, but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the Law, because from the works of the Law will no one be justified” (2:16). This, then, is the “lawless” gospel that Peter opposes in the Epistula Petri, and that his enemies falsely accuse him of affirming.

It is striking that other forgeries of early Christianity do indeed claim that Peter agreed with Paul in his law-free gospel message. As we have seen, that is one of the overarching themes of the book of Acts, a non-pseudepigraphic forgery allegedly by one of Paul’s own companions. In Acts it is not Paul who first learns that the gospel is to come to gentiles apart from the Law, but Peter (Acts 10). And it is not Paul who first converts gentiles to the law-free faith, but, again, Peter (Acts 10–11). Moreover Peter and James—even more than in Paul’s account of Galatians 2—are completely aligned with Paul’s law-free gospel in Acts; at the Jerusalem Conference of Acts 15 everyone sees eye-to-eye: the gentiles are not to keep the Law in order to receive salvation through Jesus. This, for Acts, is the explicit message of Peter, the alleged sender of the Epistula Petri (Acts 15:7–11); James, the alleged recipient of the Epistula (Acts 15:13–21); and Paul, the enemy described in the letter (Acts 15:12).
⁵⁸

A similar message is presented in the forged 1 Peter, which advocates a Pauline gospel in the name of Peter, and yet more obviously in the forged 2 Peter, where the author not only doth protest too much that he really is Peter, but also claims to be on the same theological page as Paul, whose writings he classifies among “the Scriptures” (2 Pet. 3:16). There are in fact interesting and ironic similarities between 2 Peter and the Epistula Petri. In the latter “Peter” expresses his chagrin over those who have twisted his teachings by false interpretation, making him sound as if he supports the lawless gospel message of his enemy (Paul). 2 Peter, on the other hand, complains of alleged followers of Paul who twist Paul’s words away from a Petrine view. And so, in one book it is the writings of Peter that are twisted, in the other it is the writings of Paul. In both instances the twisting involves false and, one might say, unauthorized interpretations. But in the case of 2 Peter, the false interpretations portray Peter and Paul as standing at odds with one another; in the case of the Epistula Petri they portray them as standing in unity.

It is not difficult to imagine that the Epistula Petri arose because of other forgeries, some of them in the name of Peter, that maintained that Peter and Paul agreed on the Pauline understanding of a so-called law-free gospel. If so, then it would be another instance of counterforgery. Its subsequent attachment to the Pseudo-Clementine
Homilies
makes sense, not only because it celebrates the importance of Peter, but also because it does so at the expense of Paul, a theme that recurs at other places in the
Homilies
, as we will see below.

It is interesting, then, to trace the history of Peter and Paul through these various writings. The historical Peter himself may well have held to the ongoing importance of the Law, at least for Jews. That would explain his actions in Antioch, as maligned by Paul in Gal. 2:11–14. Again, on the historical level, this may indeed have led to a falling out between the apostle to the circumcised and the apostle to the uncircumcised. Later, forgeries were produced taking a stand on this conflict. In the not-so-subtle account of the non-pseudepigraphic forgery allegedly produced by one of Paul’s own companions, the book of Acts, the two apostles are portrayed as being in complete and perfect harmony. With greater subtlety the same lesson is conveyed in the forged 1 Peter. Later still all subtlety is once again abandoned, when yet a third Paulinist forged the letter of 2 Peter. On the other side of the equation an anti-Paulinist forged the Epistula Petri in order to counter this (false) opinion that the two apostles saw eye-to-eye, since, for this author, the harmony of the two would necessarily mean that Peter ultimately agreed with Paul. But for the Epistula Petri, the two did not agree, because Paul was the enemy. Moreover, in their dispute, Peter was right and Paul was wrong. And what is more, James of Jerusalem agreed with Peter.

Another forgery that survives as one of the introductory writings to the Pseudo-Clementine
Homilies
is the Epistula Clementis. Although not usually recognized as such, the Epistula is a kind of “church order,” comprising instructions about
different church offices given to Clement, ordained to be the bishop of Rome by the apostle Peter. The key emphasis at the beginning and end of these orders concerns this ordination, as Peter passes along to his unwilling successor the power to bind and to loose. The overarching concern of the book, then, is to show that Clement is the one who carries Peter’s authority in the governance of the church. As W. Ullmann puts it, “What we are here confronted with is the perfectly clear and unambiguous institution of an heir by St. Peter.… Clement was elevated onto the throne, the cathedra, of Peter by the apostle himself.”
⁵⁹

The letter falsely claims to be written by Clement to “James, the lord and bishop of bishops, who governs the holy church of the Hebrews at Jerusalem” (1.1).
⁶⁰
This address functions to establish the authority of James and, by implication, the importance of a Jewish understanding of the faith: James is both the leader of the “church of the Hebrews” and the “bishop of bishops.” More particularly the address stresses the connection of Rome and Jerusalem, the two ultimate seats of power in the early church, whose two leaders are in complete agreement. Of special interest, Clement, bishop of Rome who has all the power of Peter to bind and loose, and so is superior to every convert to the faith, is subordinate not only to Peter but also to James, “who rules … the churches everywhere.” This then is a Jewish-Christian forgery meant to promote a kind of Jewish Christianity. Correspondingly, the letter is written in no small measure to oppose Paul and the kind of Christianity he represents.

It is interesting to note, in this connection, the emphasis placed on Peter, often in implicit contrast to Paul. Peter is the “first fruit of our Lord, the first of the apostles to whom the Father first revealed the Son” (1.3). Here there seems to be a clear contrast with the Paul of the undisputed letters, who gloried in the fact that at his conversion “[God] was pleased to reveal his Son to me” (Gal. 1:16). It was Peter, the Epistula Clementis avers, who was a “table-companion and fellow traveller” with Jesus (1.3). Later in the
Homilies
this long acquaintance with Jesus will be used to set Peter over against Paul, who knew Jesus only from a brief vision (Hom. 17.13–19). Peter was appointed, “as the most capable of all” to “enlighten the darkest part of the world, the West, and was enabled to achieve it” (1.3). For those familiar with other early Christian literature, the contrasting claims of Paul are stark: he himself expressed a wish to preach in Rome (Rom. 1:15) and planned a mission to the far West (Rom. 15:22–29). Moreover, according to the Roman 1 Clem. 5:7, it was precisely Paul who took the gospel to the West.

For the Epistula Clementis it was Peter who proclaimed Christ “to all the world … saving men by his God-willed teaching” (1.5). Later Clement is called “the better first-fruits among the gentiles who are saved through me [Peter]”
(3.4). It is not Paul who was the God-appointed missionary to the gentiles. The letter also speaks of “the evil one [who] has begun a war against His bride” (4.2). This may well be a reference to the devil as “the evil one.” But it is also important to note that the way the evil one works is principally from inside the community, as Peter explicitly states at the end of the letter:

If anyone remains a friend to those with whom he (the bishop) is at enmity, and speaks with those with whom he does not consort, he is himself one of those who wish to destroy the Church. For he who is with you in the body, but in his mind is not with you, he is against you, far more dangerous than the enemies who are visible outside, since with seeming friendship he scatters those within. (18.3–4)

Given the celebration of both Peter and James, and the obvious contrast being made between Peter and Paul—not to mention the context of the letter, coming in its transmitted state after the Epistula Petri and before the
Homilies
—it may well be that Paul is the enemy within.

In an even subtler way, this letter may evidence long-standing tensions between Peter and Paul, specifically with regard to the legitimate leadership of the church of Rome. Here it is Peter—emphatically not Paul—who is the chief apostle of the Roman church; he ordains his successor directly by a public ceremony of laying on of hands. Clement is presented as Peter’s most important gentile convert to the faith and follower, who assumes the mantle of leadership only unwillingly.
⁶¹

This view stands in contrast with the position taken by Irenaeus, who indicates that prior to Clement there were two other bishops, Linus and Anecletus, and that Peter and Paul
together
were responsible for the bishopric of Clement.
⁶²
Irenaeus explicitly states that the church in Rome, which was “very great, very ancient, and universally known” was “founded and organized … by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul” (
Adv. Haer
. 3.3.2) Both apostles committed the church into the care of Linus, who was succeeded by Anecletus, and then Clement. Clement himself knew both apostles and had “the preaching of the apostles still echoing in his ears and their tradition before his eyes” (
Adv. Haer
. 3.3.3). Irenaeus’ concern to stress the unity of Peter and Paul in the subsequent Roman leadership is especially clear in the following claim:

This succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. (
Adv. Haer
. 3.3.3)

It is worth noting in this connection that Linus and Clement, mentioned by Irenaeus, are both associated in the New Testament with Paul (2 Tim. 4:21; Phil. 4:3), but never with Peter.

How different is the view of the Pseudo-Clementines themselves, and of the writings that now introduce them, including the Epistula Clementis, which presses for the superiority of Peter at the expense of Paul, and stresses that it was he alone who chose his successor to sit on his cathedra.

The orthodox concern for a unified Pauline-Petrine front in the leadership of Rome is found in a different way, later, in Eusebius, who indicates (contra Irenaeus) that Linus was called to be the bishop of the church only after Paul and Peter had been martyred (
H.E
. 3.2). Moreover, for Eusebius, Linus was the first bishop after Peter, and Clement the third (no reference to Anecletus;
H.E
. 3.4). Eusebius does not indicate who ordained Linus or Clement, but he does note that Clement was Paul’s companion and co-worker, with reference, again, to Phil. 4:3.