[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 Cæsarea 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 one. This is represented as taking place at Laodicea, and as occupying 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 and 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 origin of evil, reverting to the righteousness of God as proving the immortality of the soul. The defeat of Simon is narrated in a peculiar way. The Cæsarean 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 is 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 revelations, which are attributed to demons. On the third day the question of God the Framer of the world is introduced, 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 these portions footnotes have been added, to indicate the correspondences of thought in the several accounts—R.]