Jewish-Christian Interpretation of the Pentateuch in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies:

2. The Rejection of Allegorism

2 The Rejection of Allegorism 2.1. INTRODUCTION TO THE EXEGETICAL THEORY IN THE PSEUDO-CLEMENTINE HOMILIES HOMILIES The Pseudo-Clementine Homilies (in twenty discourses) and Recognitions (in ten books) present a life of Clement of Rome (fl. 96 ce). The overarching narrative framework tells of Clement’s quest to be reunited with his estranged family. Within this narrative, and at the outset of the tale, Clement happens to meet up with the apostle Peter, who quickly becomes Clement’s beloved mentor. Clement accompanies Peter in his travels, following him closely as Peter engages in a series of heated debates with a certain Simon Magus.1 “Their conflict becomes the vehicle for debating philosophy and the interpretation of Scripture.”2 The Pseudo-Clementines purport to be Clement’s personal account of these debates. In order to furnish proof for their respective positions, both Peter and Simon Magus appeal to the Scriptures (in Greek form), the “correct interpretation” of which is itself a matter of central importance for the Homilist.3 Just how, exactly, is one to arrive at a “correct interpretation”? What sort of criteria determine the proper interpretation of Scripture? This chapter 1. Irenaeus (Haer. 1.23–27) was the first to identify Simon as the source of all heresies. In the Homilies, Simon appears to be a cipher mainly for Marcion. Some, detecting in the Hom. a strain of anti-Paulism as well, believe Simon represents Paul. For example, see Georg Strecker, Das Judenchristentum in den Pseudoklementinen, 2nd ed., TUGAL (Berlin: Akademie, 1981), 187–96. For other relevant studies on Simon Magus, see Alberto Ferreiro “Simon Magus: The Patristic–Medieval Traditions and Historiography,” Apocrypha 7 (1996): 147–65; Wayne A. Meeks, “Simon Magus in Recent Research,” RelSRev 3 (1977): 137–41; A. Salles, “Simon le Magicien ou Marcion?,” VC 12 (1958): 197–224. 2. R. F. Stoops Jr., “Simon,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1992), 6:30 (italics mine). 3. For specific examples, see Hom. 3.2.2; 7.12.3. While recognizing the fact that the PseudoClementines have undergone several stages of editorial revision, simply for sake of convenience I shall henceforth speak of the “Homilist” (or, where appropriate, the “Recognitionist”). 13 will address such questions by identifying underlying exegetical principles at work in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, whereby a “correct interpretation” of the Pentateuch is to be achieved. At the outset, a word is in order concerning the rationale for my isolation of the Pentateuch in the present study. Two sets of circumstances warrant this procedure. First, we know that within the broader Judeo-Hellenistic exegetical milieu, the Pentateuch received far greater attention than did other Jewish Scriptures.4 The Pentateuch was the most important part of the Jewish Scriptures and the first to be translated by Jews into another language. This point is readily apparent from the famous Letter of Aristeas. During the first century ce, Philo, the primary representative of Judeo-Hellenistic exegesis, bends nearly all of his exegetical energy toward the Greek Pentateuch alone. Not only in the Diaspora, but even within Palestine itself, some groups of Jews (Samaritans, for example) had as their Scripture a “limited” canon consisting only of the Pentateuch. From Josephus we learn that the Sadducees rejected the oral traditions of their Pharisaic contemporaries on the grounds that those traditions were not found written in the Mosaic legislation.5 Thus, during the Hellenistic period in Alexandria, and extending through the end of the Second Temple period in Palestine, for many Jewish exegetes it was the Pentateuch that received the greatest amount of attention. In addition to the centrality of the Pentateuch within Judeo-Hellenistic traditions, a second circumstance emerges from the witness of the texts of the Pseudo-Clementines themselves, thus warranting the isolation of the Pentateuch for the present study.6 The following three examples demonstrate how this is so. First, we may begin with the Letter of Peter to James (hereafter ep. Petr.). In ep. Petr., Peter charges James to transmit Peter’s books only in a manner that emulates the way in which Moses delivered the Torah to the Seventy who succeeded to his chair. I will discuss this passage in greater detail later. For now, it will suffice to recognize the emphasis placed on the oral tradition in the Homilies in connection with Moses’ oral transmission of the Torah. Indeed, 4. See Folker Siegert, “Early Jewish Interpretation in a Hellenistic Style,” in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The...