Simon Magus: Villain or Simply Misunderstood?

Interview Transcript

Shirley Paulson

Sometimes you just run into the right person who can answer the question you want to ask. And I’m so glad I found our guest scholar today, Dr. Benjamin DeVos. I almost got to meet him at the Society of Biblical Literature last November, but I had a conflict with my schedule when he was talking about a topic that I wanted to pursue. So I tracked him down anyway, and I’m delighted that he’s come to talk to us now on a podcast interview.

If you know the book of Acts in the Bible, you may recall that Simon gets caught up in a terrible controversy with Peter. It’s really kind of an odd story, but I’ve always sort of felt like there was more going on in that story than is in the book of Acts. And so indeed, Dr. DeVos has a whole lot more to tell us about this. And that’s what he’s going to shed some light on toda—with Peter and his strange story. So let me introduce Benjamin DeVos to you first.

He’s a researcher and teacher within the Faculty of Arts and Philosophy at Ghent University in Belgium and is affiliated with the University of Regensburg and the Beyond Canon project. His particular research interest is in the figure of Simon Magus, who plays a central role in the Pseudo-Clementines. And this involves Neoplatonic philosophy, concepts of truth, and important forms of communication, such as myth and dialogue—all the things I’m really interested in also. So that’s great. Anyway, so Dr. DeVos is also a prolific writer, and there’s just a whole lot more to say, but let me first just welcome him, and we’ll get into these questions. So I’m glad you’re here with us.

Benjamin M. J. De Vos

Many thanks for having me here. It’s real pleasure.

Shirley

It’s going to be fun to talk about this. So, we are talking about this Simon in the book of Acts, where Peter chastises him for wanting to pay for learning how to heal. So maybe you should start by filling us in a little bit more about that story. Just remind us of some of the details.

Benjamin (

Yeah, so first of all, I’m very happy to be able to speak about this extremely interesting person, Simon Marcus, Simon the Magician. To begin with, he is not called “Simon the Magician” yet in the Acts of the Apostles. Simon first appears, as you mentioned, in the canonical Acts of the Apostles, where he will enter into a kind of confrontation with the Apostle Peter, or to be more precise, he will be confronted by Peter—which is an important nuance, as I want to discuss. First of all, in the Acts of the Apostles, as is so well known, there is a major role for Peter and for Paul for their missionary activities—what is happening after the crucifixion of Jesus? And who will replace Judas as an apostle and so on and so on? But there is a main focus on Peter, and Paul, as is also well-known, first appears in the Acts. There is a role for some other apostles to a lesser extent, but one of those other apostles is Philip.

So Philip—the apostle—appears in chapter 8 of the Acts of the Apostles. This is where we also encounter Simon, “a certain Simon.” Philip is preaching in Samaria, so this is in the region north of Judea, north of Jerusalem. Samaria, by the way, is a Hellenized area, a Hellenized city. And Philip is proclaiming the Messiah there. His message finds receptive audiences. There is a widespread acceptance among the people, particularly due to the signs he is performing and the miracles he is performing: the lame and the crippled are healed, unclean spirits are expelled, and so on. And then in this particular context there is a certain Simon who appears and who is described as practicing magical arts, mageuon. So in the text we read, en te polei mageuon. So in the city he is doing magic. So he’s not called yet the Simon Magus, but someone who is mageuw—who is practicing magic.

And it’s noteworthy that the text also states that he is astonished, or that he astonished the people of Samaria. From the least to the greatest, it says, all refer to him as the great power, or “the power of God the great,” to be precise.

And interestingly, this is a very brief introduction in the Acts of the Apostles with a certain Simon. He has a kind of admiration coming from the people. But he hears Philip preaching. He also witnesses the miracles. He witnesses how Philip is healing the crippled, the lame, and so on. And he converts. He believes he is baptized by Philip in Greek. It said he believes—he’s actually astonished—when witnessing what Philip is doing and, to be honest, it states that he continually accompanies Philip afterwards, indicated that he does not depart from him.

He is really just always together with Philip afterwards. And at this stage, Simon—this certain Simon—appears in his very first narrative role in early Christian literature as someone who converts, as someone who is baptized, as someone who is deeply impressed by the proclamation of the Messiah by Philip and who is captivated by the miracles he witnesses. However, this is not the full story, this is not the whole passage!

The apostles in Jerusalem hear about this, and they learn that the Samaritans have been baptized by Philip, but that they have not yet received the Holy Spirit. And so Peter and John are sent from Jerusalem to Samaria. And through the laying on of hands, the believers receive the Holy Spirit. Simon is observing this. He is again really captivated by this, and he asks Peter to grant him the same power, to be able to lay hand on the sick, to have the gift of the Holy Spirit.

And interestingly, at this moment, it is Peter who rebukes him sharply, who condemns him, as Simon believed that such a gift of the Holy Spirit could be obtained with money. Simon had offered money to obtain this gift, but Peter declares that Simon is in a state of bitterness, while Simon himself displays, I would say, a certain kind of fragility. Here we have a kind of Simon who displays a certain kind of fragility because he asked Peter.

So after Peter has condemned him, he really sharply rebuked him. He cursed him, actually. So Peter expressed several curses towards Simon. Well, Simon asked Peter to pray to the Lord that none of the things that Peter has pronounced against him would befall him. And that’s it.

By the way, this is also well known, I think: It’s in this episode that the term ‘simony’ is based—offering money for an ecclesiastical office. So it goes back to Simon who offered money to Peter, but in this particular passage in the Acts, we have a kind of Simon figure who was seeking conversion, who naively, I think, appears to believe that spiritual power can be acquired through money, who also expresses some kind of remorse in some sense. So he’s a penitent Simon, a repentant Simon, and perhaps a bit of a naive Simon, I would say.

Shirley

Well, so do you think that he was like, really a scumbag, or did he have admiring followers? What can you tell us about Simon himself?

Benjamin

So if you’re referring to the historical Simon, there is, in fact, a lot of discussion going on, and there was already a lot of discussion in earlier scholarship about the Simon figure and the Acts of the Apostles. Is it based on a historical Simon or not?

Shirley

Yeah, let’s start there.

Benjamin

It’s also uncertain what we could meaningfully say about the historical Simon. A remark comes to my mind made by Wayne A. Meeks who, 50 years ago, wrote a contribution called “Simon Magus and Recent Research.” It’s already quite a long time ago, but he wrote that the quest for the historical Simon is even less promising than the quest for the historical

Jesus. There are a lot of discussions going on, but if we just turn briefly to this particular passage in the Acts, what we can say about this particular passage about a possible historical Simon, is that there is a very striking description in the Acts about Simon, which I already briefly mentioned, namely, “from the least to the greatest,” who the people in Samaria who knew Simon, who admired Simon. had a kind of admiration.

They called him “this man is the power of God,” the Great. So according to the Acts, Simon enjoyed a certain degree of admiration among the Samaritans. But beyond this, very little is said, so there’s no more information about this. What became of him is unknown. This is the only passage in which Simon appears in the Acts. Also in the whole New Testament, in the canonical New Testament.

What happens to Simon? Is there a kind of grace? How does Peter further respond to Simon? These questions are left open. Also, what exactly does this expression mean of the power of God that he called him “The Great”? On the basis of the Acts alone, we certainly cannot conclude that Simon is—as you mentioned—a scumbag, nor is he portrayed as an ally of evil, as he will be portrayed in later sources from the second century onwards.

If I just may—which is just a remark—but if you look at the Acts, there are other figures such as Ananias and Sapphira who were condemned to death because of things they did towards the Holy Spirit and so on. Simon Magus is actually not condemned to death. It also seems that his intentions were not that bad. He tried to obtain this particular gift in order to perhaps heal people or to give this gift of the Holy Spirit also to other people. So his intentions are not bad. He doesn’t seem to be an evil scumbag in that sense.

Shirley

Well, that raises an interesting question, then, especially since Peter’s the one who also condemned Ananias and Sapphira. Why do you think Peter’s reaction to Simon is so harsh, even if it’s not to death, it was still pretty harsh What’s going on there?

Benjamin

Yeah, yeah, that’s a very pertinent question, of course. And to be honest, when I first heard this story as a child, I was kind of flabbergasted by this passage. And also nowadays, to be honest. Simon is cursed by Peter. Peter’s reaction is notably severe. So instead of just pointing out that this is wrong according to him, Peter curses him. But I think one of the central issues at stake here in the Acts of the Apostles, also in general in the work of the Acts of the Apostles, as I interpret it— and this is also a specific aspect I want to highlight here, which is the crucial link between the gift of the Holy Spirit and also the act of telling truth. The two are extremely well linked to each other in the whole of the Acts of the Apostles and I think there is something going on here as well so if I just may point this out

In the Acts of the Apostles, a particular word is mentioned a few times, namely parrhesia. Parrhesia is kind of a complex concept, but I’ll briefly define it. This concept is drawn from ancient philosophical and rhetorical traditions. It’s typically understood as a kind of moral and intellectual habitus—posture, I would say—a kind of moral posture of courageous truth-telling, characterized by the willingness to speak freely and openly.

And this is an extremely important concept already in ancient philosophy. Figures such as Socrates, who is well known of course, is recognized as someone with parrhesia, with the ability to speak the truth, to seek the truth, to live the truth. This is all linked to find some kind of moral truth and so on.

But, interestingly, this particular notion of parrhesia—of truth-telling—is also taken over in Jewish-Hellenistic discourse, for example, in the work of Philo of Alexandria, who uses this word parrhesia. He deepens the word through an emphasis on the purity of conscience and obedience and devotion to God. And then you can have the capacity of telling the truth, to live the truth.

And interestingly, in early Christian discourse, this concept is also taken over. Parrhesia occurs several times in the Acts of the Apostles, for example. And there is even a further development there. Parrhesia is no longer merely an act of devotion to God, as we see in Philo of Alexandria, but one enabled by the presence of the Holy Spirit.

And so the two are linked in the whole of the Acts of the Apostles. And in several passages, for example, in Acts 4, Peter is explicitly recognized as someone with parrhesia since he has the gift of the Holy Spirit—which is also reinforced in other passages. The same is also said about James, for example. So the gift of the Holy Spirit is extremely important also in that regard.

Shirley

Yeah, so if I’m understanding this right, we’re saying that this might explain why Peter felt emboldened to act and say the things he’s saying.

Could I also ask you the question about Simon, then, as a magician? You mentioned that. Do you think that’s true that he was actually one of these magicians, or is that an exaggeration? What does that really mean?

Benjamin

Exactly. Okay, so regarding the Magus—or Simon the Magician—Simon is called the Magos, —‘Simon Magos’—for the first time in the work of Justin Martyr,  in the second century, 155, in the Dialogue with Trypho. In this particular case, in the Acts of the Apostles, it says that he is performing a kind of magical art or mageia. So our concept of magic goes back to magus—old Persian via old Greek and Latin. So it’s extremely difficult to define mageia, the old Persian magus. But it is clear that there were Persian Magi, Magoi. So there is the reference, of course, in the Gospel of Matthew to the Persian Magi, which is kind of neutral. They come from Persia.

Shirley

Like “We three kings?” that kind? Those are the three magi?

Benjamin

Yeah, indeed the “three” magi. So this is used in a neutral sense. The very first time that the word magus in old Persian is used—or the oldest evidence we have—goes back to the late 6th  – early 5th century BCE. There is the so-called Behistun Inscription, which is a monumental rock inscription, going back to the power of Darius, the first Persian Achaemenid dynasty. And there is someone called Gaumata, who was called a ‘magus.’ Now, ‘magus’ also refers to someone who is a kind of priest performing some rituals, and who was also present during rituals at the Persian court.

It’s clear that in Greek traditions, for example for Herodotus, the Greek historian, but also in later Greek perspectives, the notion of magi, magus, but also magiae, had some ambiguity to it. So they said, “Okay, there is some kind of power linked to it, but it’s also ambiguous.” It can be dangerous, for example. And there was a kind of development during which magic, magia, magoi, was considered from an outsider position.

And so there is some kind of perspective to it from the outside. And this is morally dangerous. So magus,  mageia always has this ambiguous connotation to it. That’s something I just want to clarify. Because, for example, in this particular case, in the Acts, Simon, who is magus, who is performing kind of magic, this is not just a Persian magus, there is some kind of ambiguous tension here. He is a magician.

In the Acts, we also come across other magicians such as Elymas, for example, who is blinded by Paul. So this is ambiguous. This is a very ambiguous term. So in that respect, there is an ambiguous connotation to Simon’s character in this particular passage. The notion of performing magical rituals or magical performances—that’s not yet the case here in Acts.

We do not see Simon performing anything. It’s only said about Simon. And that particular paradigm of Simon the magician—and also the performance of all kinds of rituals, in fact, as a kind of charlatan—that’s something we see from the end of the second century onwards in other Christian narratives and Christian texts.

Shirley

Wow, you’ve given us a whole lot of new context for this from the magician to the parrhesia. That’s a lot to think about. We’re going to take a quick break right now. And when we come back, we’ll talk about Simon’s connection with ‘Gnostic ‘or ‘gnosticism’ too.

Don’t go away. We’ll be right back.

Okay, now then let’s go back to Simon and any kind of association with ‘gnosticism.’ So he has this reputation, I know, as being the first Gnostic or the one who started the heresy known as ‘gnosticism.’ Where did that come from and why did the idea gain such popularity? What about this?

Benjamin

Yeah, so indeed this is again a very complex concept of course: gnosticism. So I think you have a wonderful podcast with April DeConick on gnosticism. Now ‘gnosticism’—to briefly define it, very briefly. This is a phenomenon of considerable complexity. First of all, there is a discussion about whether we can use the concept ‘gnosticism’, because there is no unified gnostic system.

But just in general, here are a few things. It’s about the notion that the human being is fundamentally alienated from the current material world. The essential human elements—some call it a kind of spark, divine spark,or spinthèr in Greek is understood to originate from a kind of radically different higher spiritual world where the higher unknown God resides.  And this is a very dynamic world, and so actually our true essence is strange to our current material world. So, it’s about how to save it from this current material world, which is in fact a kind of corruption from the higher spiritual reality.

‘Gnosticism’, that’s something we understand in this regard. We see in several texts from the second century onwards, at the end of the second century and also third and fourth century, there are several Christian authors, such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyon, Hippolytus of Rome, and Epiphanius of Salamis. They all refer to Simon as the very first system builder of this so-called ‘gnosticism’, the very first gnostic, out of whom all the other gnostics actually spread out. So he’s understood by them as the very beginning of gnosticism.

We already discussed the Acts of the Apostles. It’s not clear that Simon in the Acts of the Apostles was already kind of ‘Simon the Gnostic’. There is a lot of discussion about this. But it is clear that according to these later Christian authors—such as Justin Martyr—this was the same Simon. And this Simon, who was bitter after his confrontation with Peter, he became the first real heresy in the early church, the one who started with this gnostic idea and who had all these unorthodox ideas.

If I just may refer to this one or this first author, Justin Martyr, this is an extremely interesting witness about Simon Magus because this is the first time we come across Simon again in Christian literature after his presence in the Acts of the Apostles. But this is already the beginning of the second half of the second century, when Justin Martyr wrote apologetical works. In his first apology, for instance, he refers to Simon Magus. And interestingly, Justin Martyr comes from Samaria, specifically from Nablus, which is nowadays the West Bank.

Shirley

No, I forgot about that.

Benjamin M

And Justin Martyr, he describes Simon as a Samaritan born more precisely in Gitta, which is a city, perhaps, we don’t know, but this was not mentioned yet in the Acts of the Apostles. But he also mentions that Simon was active in Rome during the reign of the emperor Claudius, that he was regarded by many, both Samaritans and others, as a god, specifically the first god, the ‘proto-theos’. According to Justin, however, Simon’s activities were enabled by demonic forces! So he is also a kind of charlatan. He uses demonic forces.

He also reports that the people in Rome were, in fact, misled by the Simon. But they also erected a statue for Simon in his honor on the river Tiber bearing the inscription, Simoni deus sancto, to the God, the Holy God Simon. So Justin Martyr is creating this broader story, this more elaborate story on Simon Magus as someone who also pretended to be the highest God or the first God.

So by the way, this image of Simon is then elaborated on by later authors such as Irenaeus of Lyons, where we even find a broader, more elaborated description together with the figure of Helen of Troy, or Helen of Tyre together with Simon. So this is really a fascinating broad system we find in later Christian texts.

Shirley

Wow, so it gets bigger and bigger. This is really fascinating. And you also have written about another kind of duel between Peter and Simon, like more sophisticated rhetorical duel. What was this and when was that written?

Benjamin

So you’re referring to the pseudo-Clementine literature.

Shirley

You’re right, right. Pseudo-Clementine.

Benjamin

Yeah, so that’s indeed a crucial point of focus, or it has been for me during the past couple of years. The pseudo-Clementine literature in brief is a third, fourth century literary corpus, and it exists in several traditions. There is a Greek tradition, there is a Syriac tradition, and there is also a Latin tradition from the beginning of the fifth century.

Some scholars suppose that there is also a kind of basic writing from the third century, out of which these several traditions came forth. But the traditions we have nowadays come from the fourth and fifth century. Now, pseudo-Clementines tell a story. So this is a narrative. This is a Christian narrative about the life of Clement of Rome, who is, according to tradition, one of the first popes.

But this story is not about him becoming a pope or becoming bishop of Rome. Nor does it tell how he died or how he became a martyr. It tells the story about Clement who is a young person, a young guy left alone in Rome. He has lost his family, and he has an existential crisis.

He has also a kind of intellectual crisis because he wants to know the truth about God; he wants to know the truth about the world. Is the world eternal or not? He wants to know the truth about the soul. Is the soul immortal or not? Is there some kind of afterlife or not? Will we be punished for our deeds here in this world, in the afterlife, or not? He is really fascinated by these questions, even to such an extent that he becomes ill. But in the end, he becomes a student of Peter.

Shirley

Okay.

Benjamin

So he had heard in Rome someone talking about a kind of miracle performer in Judea—Jesus—and he decided to go to Judea because he wanted to see it with his own eyes. He wanted to hear it with his own ears, and he thought, okay, perhaps this person has the truth. He had been to philosophical schools, but there was no truth in there. He had even visited magicians, but he didn’t find the truth there, so he wants to go to Judea.

But this is a narrative. This is really a wonderful narrative about Clement not immediately reaching Judea, because he first ends up in Alexandria, and in Caesarea, and so on. So he really is traveling around. And then in the end, Jesus is already dead. He is already crucified, so he (Clement) has not witnessed Jesus. But he becomes a student of Peter, and Peter wants to introduce Clement into the teachings of Jesus, whom he calls the true prophet. And it’s Peter who asks Clement to become his scribe, and also to write down the teachings of the true prophet as taught by Peter, but also together with the life story of Clement.

So this is actually the life story of Clement and how he found the truth in the teachings of the true prophet. But this is also a long narrative. If people want to read this narrative, it’s a couple of hundred pages. But it’s really a fascinating story because it’s also a philosophical narrative about truth.

Shirley

So how does Simon get in there then? What’s going on with Simon?

Benjamin

Simon the magician, in this tradition is—and I’m afraid to tell you—he is an extremely complex figure in this particular literature. If I may refer to, for example, the Greek Clementines—the Greek pseudo-Clementines—which is this tradition in which Simon is enormously complex: Simon is a magician; he performs some magical acts, for example, swapping faces with other people.

But that’s not his main activity in the Clementines. And the Clementines consists of Clement, his life story. But this is also about Clement losing his family members and also finding back his parents and his brothers. There is a kind of recognition story. So this is interesting and perhaps fun to read.

But the biggest part of the whole narrative of these hundreds of pages and recent critical editions consists of discussions, of long, long discussions between Peter and Simon. Simon is the arch opponent in the story. Simon and Peter discuss on all kinds of topics. For example, does God have a form or not? What should this form look like? Does he have, or she or they, does God have a substance? What about the origin of evil?  Also, how should we read the scripture? The original scripture was in an oral fashion, not in a written fashion, so there are several topics discussed. But also what is truth? What is the true value of visions? These are rhetorical philosophical discussions; these are not magical performances or miracles; these are discussions between Peter and Simon.

Shirley

Does Simon do okay?

Benjamin

Simon does okay, yeah, but it should be said that Simon in the pseudo-Clementines is actually a symbolical figure whose character stands for several IDs, or persons that are refuted by the pseudo-Clementines. So for example, Simon is not only a magician, but he is actually also a kind of Marcion—Marcion of Sinope, second century, who said that Jewish identity is different from Christian identity, that the Jewish God in the Old Testament is different from the Christian God in the New Testament.

Simon also says this in the Pseudo-Clementines, and it’s Peter who refutes him. Peter says, “No, there is just one God and the Old Testament and the New Testament God is one and the same. There is no difference between Christian and Jewish identity. For example, what Moses said, what Jesus said, that’s the same message. And those who follow Moses will be saved. Those who follow Jesus will be saved as well.” And so in this case, the Pseudo-Clementines reacts against Marcionism by means of the figure of Simon Marcus. But Simon is more than that. Simon is also presented as a sophist. So perhaps this is well known.

Shirley

Well, I think you need to describe ‘Sophist’ for us to follow what you’re talking about.

Benjamin

Yeah, so for example, a sophist is someone who uses rhetoric in order to claim the truth, but does not necessarily to possess the truth. It’s someone who wants to persuade others of their own point of view, but the truth is not necessarily the main aim of a sophist. ‘Sophist’ was already a negative word in the work of Plato, and it’s clear that in the pseudo-Clementines, Simon is portrayed as a sophist in Platonic fashion. They use Platonic dialogues in the pseudo-Clementines in order to portray Simon as a sophist.

Simon is also portrayed as many other figures or ideas that need to be refuted or that are refuted in the Clementines. But he is a very complex character in this sense. It’s clear that during these long discussions with Peter, Simon has several valid points. And if you really examine the rhetoric and the philosophy of the long debates, these are really exciting discussions, for example, about the form of God.

Simon says that if God has a form, then he is also limited. So how should we think about it? If he has a substantial form then he certainly is limited. These are philosophical discussions. Peter tries to refute Simon, but it’s not always that easy.

I think we need other podcasts to discuss this, but Simon is actually a very complex figure in this respect. By the way, Simon is also a gnostic in the Pseudo-Clementines. So all these traditions come together in this figure of Simon in the Clementines.

Shirley

Wow. Well, so does Simon end up turning out to be exonerated in some way? Do we appreciate him by the end of the story, or does he lose the duel with Peter at this point?

Benjamin

Yeah, so the author, whoever he was of the pseudo-Clementines, we do not know, that’s why we call the pseudo-Clementines—pseudo. He was not neutral, or she was not neutral in any case. Simon is someone who arrives first at a particular scene. That’s how he is presented. He deceives many people. And then Peter comes in order to heal the people who were made ill by Simon, or to give the correct truth in contrast to what Simon was saying about all kinds of things. And then Simon has to flee. That’s always the same pattern in the Clementines.

But it’s clear that Peter is not always that truthful towards Simon. To be honest, Peter is also a kind of ambiguous character in the Clementines. For example, in book seven (there are 20 books in the Greek Clementines), in book seven, Simon arrives in Beirut. So he is really traveling around. He arrives in Beirut, and then Peter arrives at the scene. And there is a confrontation between the two, but just before their confrontation, there is an earthquake.

And Simon says, this earthquake is caused by Peter himself. Peter, moreover, is a magician and is also someone who claims to be God. So Peter accused Simon, in earlier discussions, of being a magician, of pretending to be God. Now it’s Simon who accuses Peter of the same.

Benjamin M. J. De Vos

And now instead of denying this, Peter says, “Yeah, that’s true! I can, God willing, destroy the whole city from top to bottom, if you do not follow me.” And so of course the people are afraid of this. And also Peter says, “Okay, if you do believe me, then you need to drive Simon, out of the city.” And they do this, so Simon has to flee.

And then afterwards Peter says, “Okay, this was just a lie, to be honest. This is not true. I did not cause the earthquake ,and even if I could cause an earthquake, I wouldn’t do it because I do not want to cause harm.”

This is a strange passage. You could wonder why the people—the audience who noticed this; these are pagan people just standing there and witnessing this—they do not react? They just follow Peter and they do not ask questions.

And some scholars said this passage, for example, is a kind of humorous passage. But actually there’s more going on. This is about claiming the public sphere, claiming or using rhetoric against Simon. And in this case, Peter becomes morally ambiguous because he lies.

Shirley

Yeah. So I feel like I’m hearing a bit of irony in the story. In the first appearance of Simon in the Book of Acts, he’s displaying really sincere repentance, but Peter refuses him. And now Peter sounds like he’s morally ambiguous. Is that how you read it? What’s your take on these studies here?

Benjamin

Yeah. Exactly. So you mentioned perfectly the Acts of the Apostles in this respect, because there is a whole inversion going on in the pseudo-Clementines. At the end of the Clementines, in the final book—book 20—there is a whole scene of a last confrontation between Peter and Simon. It’s rather an indirect confrontation.

And Peter, again in an ambiguous way, has the help of Roman authority—of a centurion—in spreading the rumor that magicians need to be driven away. But this is a rumor. This is just a rumor.

Benjamin

But Peter does this on purpose. And Simon Marius, the magician, hears this, and of course he’s afraid. So in a final magical act, he changes, or he swaps, faces with someone—by the way, the father of Clement! So the father of Clement, who is a friend of Simon, now becomes the victim.

Simon swaps faces, and he flees away with the face of Clement’s father. And Clement’s father is left behind with Simon’s face. But he doesn’t know about this; he doesn’t realize it. So he [the father] just comes back to Clement. He also sees Peter. And everyone is astonished, because this is “Simon” who is standing here. Now, instead of healing him,

Peter says, “Okay, I will heal, or I will replace your face later.” But first, since you’re actually carrying Simon’s face, I will send you to Antioch (again, an important city). And there, before the audience—in front of the pagan audience—you need to mention that you (as Simon) are actually wrong. You’re wrong. And I as Peter, I am correct. And now you’ve come to this insight. Then you will repent and proclaim it to the people there in Antioch. Then I will come to Antioch, and I will join you. And the people will be convinced of my truth.

Benjamin

Again, this is a bit ambiguous. Clement’s father succeeds because the people in Antioch really believe him being Simon!—being someone who repents. But he is actually the antagonist, and they drive him out of the city. And then finally, afterwards, Peter replaces his face.

And so, in the Acts of the Apostles, we see a Simon who repents—who actually repents, but Peter refutes him. He curses or he refutes Simon. In this case (Pseudo-Clementines story), he uses a pseudo Simon, a false Simon, who is repenting, or who claims to be repentant.

Actually, it’s just a scheme of Peter, a rhetorical scheme used against Simon. This is a whole inversion of what was happening in the Acts of the Apostles.

There were several scholars who approached the Stoic Clementines as just a story or fun to read, for example. But actually, this is about several discourses of telling truth, claiming truth about rhetoric, about philosophy, about morality and rhetoric. So these Clementine traditions really offer profound reflections on these notions of rhetoric and philosophy. It’s not just fun; it’s also thought-provoking.

Shirley

My goodness, I’m so glad for you to come and talk about this because in this obscure little story that just seems so odd in the book of Acts, you’ve uncovered a great deal of historical importance in terms of actually seeking the truth and motives of the early Jesus followers, including Peter. And it’s quite a complex but important story. So I’m really grateful for you to come in and get us started.

Where would you suggest people read more if they need more details? What should they do to get more of this?

Benjamin

Yeah, so if you want to read, for example, the pseudo-Clementines, there is an outdated English translation from the end of the 19th century. But you can find it online, so you can read it. But be aware it’s outdated. And if you’re interested in further readings or discussions on the pseudo-Clementines, I can refer to good scholars, and if you’re interested, you can also look for publications I wrote in order to introduce you into this fascinating literature because it’s important to read these Clementine traditions.

They not only offer us rhetorical, philosophical reflections and ancient Christianity, but this story was also important in, for example, Arabic contexts in the 9th, 10th, 11th century. There are Arabic traditions, but also in Europe. In Western Europe, it was extremely popular, pseudo-Clementines—the Latin tradition and the Greek tradition. There are more than 190 manuscripts of the Greek tradition, and 150 manuscripts of the Latin tradition. So this was really popular.

But it served also as one of the basic sources of the later Dr. Faust legend, which is an extremely important legend. And also, I regarding Clement and his father—the one who had his face swapped—his name is Faustus.

Shirley

Okay. Wow. Yeah.

Benjamin

It’s not a coincidence. This was extremely influential. I would advise the viewers and the listeners to dig deeper into this material.

Shirley

Yeah. All right. Well, I don’t know. Thank you so much. Just really glad we had a chance to talk about it. Thank you.

Benjamin

Many thanks.