l
Syrian tradition, perhaps as already embodied in written _Acts of Peter_
(so Waitz and Harnack), but differing from the Western type, e.g. in
bringing Peter to Rome long before Nero's reign. As for the allusions,
more or less indirect, to St Paul behind the figure of Simon, as the
arch-enemy of the truth--allusions which first directed attention to the
Clementines in the last century--there can be no doubt as to their
presence, but only as to their origin and the degree to which they are
so meant in _Homilies_ and _Recognitions_. There is certainly "an
application to Simon of words used by or of St Paul, or of claims made
by or in behalf of St Paul" (Hort), especially in _Homilies_ (ii. 17 f.,
xi. 35, xvii. 19), where a consciousness also of the double reference
must still be present, though this does not seem to be the case in
_Recognitions_ (in Rufinus's Latin.) Such covert reference to Paul must
designedly have formed part of the _Periodoi_, yet as adopted from its
more bitterly anti-Pauline basis, the "Preachings of Peter" (cf.
_Homilies_, ii. 17 f. with _Ep. Pet. ad Jac. 2_), which probably shared
most of the features of Ebionite Essenism as described by Epiphanius
xxx. 15 f. (including the qualified dualism of the two kingdoms--the
present one of the devil, and the future one of the angelic
Christ--which appears also in the _Periodoi_, cf. _Ep. Clem. ad Jac. 1
fin._).

(b) That the _Periodoi_ was a longer work than either our _Homilies_ or
_Recognitions_ is practically certain; and its mere bulk may well, as
Hort suggests (p. 88), have been a chief cause of the changes of form.
Yet _Homilies_ and _Recognitions_ are abridgments made on different
principles and convey rather different impressions to their readers.
"The _Homilies_ care most for doctrine," especially philosophical
doctrine, "and seem to transpose very freely for doctrinal purposes"
(e.g. matter in xvi.-xix. is placed at the end for effect, while xx.
1-10 gives additional emphasis to the _Homilies_' theory of evil,
perhaps over against Manichaeism). "The _Recognitions_ care most for the
story," as a means of religious edification, "and have preserved the
general framework much more nearly." They arose in different circles:
indeed, save the compiler of the text represented by the Syriac MS. of
411 A.D., "not a single ancient writer shows a knowledge of both books
in any form." But Hort is hardly right in suggesting that, while
_Homilies_ arose in Syr