Martes 31 de marzo de 2026, a cargo de Benjamin de Vos (University of Regensburg / Ghent University)
Today, more than ever, we are confronted with reflections on truth-discourses and are bombarded (which is a poignant word in this particular context) with notions such as fake news, yellow journalism, alternative facts (whatever that may even mean!), post-truth, and post-post-truth. But was it really any simpler in the past?
This seminar examines the depiction of the apostle Peter’s confrontations with Simon Magus in the fourth-century Greek Pseudo-Clementines (or Klementia), reframing them not as miracle contests, but as rhetorical and philosophical debates staged in the public sphere for epistemic authority. In this context, public space emerges as a performative arena where truth is not simply declared but enacted, negotiated, and strategically controlled. The Klementia engages in a complex reflection on power, persuasion, and the ethics of apostolic discourse, ultimately suggesting that Peter, rather than Simon, emerges as the more ambiguous figure in the performance of public truth, particularly with regard to modes commonly associated with truth-telling, such as parrhēsia and open confession. While Peter is ostensibly characterized as a parrhēsiastēs, one who boldly proclaims truth, this study demonstrates that his portrayal is underpinned by rhetorical and moral ambiguity. Peter’s speech acts prove to be effective, guiding his pagan audiences to truth. Nevertheless, these acts are shaped by irony, strategic withholding, and staged confession: devices that call into question the presumed transparency and moral purity of apostolic authority and offer original insights into late ancient Christian truth-telling. In other words, more precisely in those of Algernon’s in The Importance of Being Earnest, “The truth is rarely pure and never simple”!