Acts of Paul: The Formation of a Pauline Corpus (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2.Reihe) 9783161527739, 9783161527746, 3161527739

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL) Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg)

352

Glenn E. Snyder

Acts of Paul The Formation of a Pauline Corpus

Mohr Siebeck

Glenn E. Snyder, born 1976; 1998 BA Indiana University (Bloomington); 2002 MAR Yale University; 2005 AM and 2010 PhD Harvard University; in 2013–14, Visiting Lecturer in Religious Studies at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-152774-6 ISBN 978-3-16-152773-9 ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2013 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

For Jenn and Ellie

Preface I am delighted to submit this volume to Mohr Siebeck’s WUNT II series. The original form of my work on Acts of Paul was a Ph.D. dissertation at Harvard University (2010), written under Professor François Bovon with the collaboration of Professors Karen L. King and Dale B. Martin (Yale). My committee recommended that I submit the dissertation immediately to Mohr Siebeck, as did Richard I. Pervo, who subsequently read and commented on that form in Fall 2010. But in order to prepare a volume for the WUNT II series, I decided not to submit the manuscript until I was able to add a chapter on the Ephesus Act, reorder the chapters, develop my comparisons with Acts (of the Apostles), and edit the parts and whole into a more cohesive argument. The summer of 2012 provided such an opportunity, which has resulted in the present work. My research and writing were facilitated by numerous individuals. Thanks are due especially to François, Karen, and Dale, for their collaboration on the original form of my work. To them – and to my preceding advisors Harry Attridge and David Brakke – I owe a debt of gratitude that may only be repaid with a life of work that is historical, critical, ecumenical, and humanistic. Thanks are due also to the staff at Andover-Harvard Theological Library, particularly Renata Kalnins and Gloria Korsman, for acquiring materials that were often rare and obscure; to David L. Eastman and Candida R. Moss, for sharing copies of works then in progress; to the editors of the forthcoming edition of Acta Pauli in the Corpus Christianorum Series Apocryphorum, for providing an advance copy of its Greek text; to my students at Harvard Divinity School and Indiana UniversityPurdue University Indianapolis, particularly Joshua L. Page, for discussing my lectures; to my colleagues at Harvard, the Christian Apocrypha section of the Society of Biblical literature (SBL), and the Women in the Biblical World section of the SBL, for inviting and critically engaging presentations and chapter drafts; to Richard I. Pervo, for reading and commenting on my dissertation in Fall 2010, while preparing his Yale Anchor Bible commentary on Acts of Paul; and to the chairs at IUPUI’s Department of Religious Studies, Tom Davis and Peter Thuesen, who facilitated the completion of this work by allowing me to “teach around” my interests.

VIII

Preface

I am also pleased to thank Dr. Henning Ziebritzki – Editorial Director of Theology – and the editors of the WUNT II series – Markus Bockmuehl, Jörg Frey, James Kelhoffer, Hans-Josef Klauck, and Tobias Nicklas – for the honor and pleasure of publishing with Mohr Siebeck. From the review by Professor Frey through marketing with Kendra Sopper and Katharina Stichling to production with Matthias Spitzner, the publication process with Mohr Siebeck has been professional, collegial, and efficient. The abbreviations used in this work are according to two sources. First and foremost is The SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (ed. Patrick H. Alexander et al.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999). Supplemental abbreviations are based on Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A GreekEnglish Lexicon (9th rev. ed.; ed. Sir Henry Stuart Jones, with Roderick McKenzie; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996). Otherwise, full bibliographic references are provided at the first citation (and in the Bibliography), and subsequent references are by last name and abbreviated title. In April 2010 I dedicated my dissertation to my father Paul, mother Ellen, wife Jennifer, and daughter Elizabeth. Thanks to the continued support of family and friends, I am now able to present this revised and expanded form of my work on the composition and reception of traditions ascribed to “Acts of Paul.” I dedicate this work – a labor of love – to Jenn and to Ellie, my coworkers. 7 July 2013

G.E.S.

Table of Contents Preface ................................................................................................ VII

Introduction ......................................................................................

1

0.1. Prolegomena on Acts and Acts of Paul ......................................... 5 0.1.1. Select Issues and Options in Recent Scholarship ................ 5 0.1.2. On Relating Acts and Acts of Paul ...................................... 13 0.2. Plan of Study ................................................................................ 16

1. Martyrdom of Paul (Acts of Paul 14) ..................................... 23 1.0. Paul as “Martyr”: The Earliest Traditions .................................. 1.0.1. Written Traditions ............................................................... 1.0.2. Archaeological Traditions ................................................... 1.1. Paul among the “Martyrs” ........................................................... 1.2. Paul among the Apostles .............................................................. 1.2.1. Acts of Andrew .................................................................... 1.2.2. Acts of Peter ........................................................................ 1.3. Martyrdom of Paul: Origins and Developments ........................... 1.3.1. Compositional Considerations ............................................ 1.3.1.1. The Patroclus Story as a “Source” ......................... 1.3.1.2. Other “Sources” ..................................................... 1.3.2. Historical-Critical Considerations ....................................... 1.3.3. Further Developments ......................................................... 1.4. Paul in the Martyrdom of Paul .....................................................

24 24 33 36 45 46 49 54 54 54 58 59 63 64

2. Ephesus Act (Acts of Paul 9) ................................................... 66 2.0. Pagination of the Hamburg Manuscript (P. Hamb.) ..................... 66 2.1. P. Hamb. on Ephesus .................................................................... 69 2.2. Papyrus Bodmer 41 on Ephesus ...................................................

76

X

Table of Contents

2.3. Contexts for the Ephesus Act ........................................................ 2.3.1. Form of the Call .................................................................. 2.3.2. Function of the Call ............................................................ 2.3.3. Riot in Ephesus ................................................................... 2.3.4. Other “Parallels” ................................................................. 2.4. Paul in the Ephesus Act ................................................................

81 82 89 90 93 98

3. Acts of Paul and Thekla (Acts of Paul 3–4) .......................... 100 3.0. Thekla ........................................................................................... 101 3.1. Categorizing the Acts of Paul and Thekla: Issues and Options ..... 105 3.2. Comparing the Acts of Paul and Thekla: “Data” from Novels ..... 3.3. A Theory Revised: The Acts of Paul and Thekla as Hagiography .. 3.3.1. Textual Representations ...................................................... 3.3.2. Intertextual Representation ................................................. 3.3.3. Textual Misrepresentation? ................................................. 3.4. Rereading the Acts of Paul and Thekla: Baptism of HMJNUDYWHLD .... 3.5. Paul and Thekla in the Acts of Paul and Thekla ...........................

113 120 126 129 134 137 145

4. Third Corinthians (Acts of Paul 10) .................................. 148 4.0. The Contents of 3 Corinthians ...................................................... 4.1. The “Opposition” of 3 Corinthians .............................................. 4.1.1. Reconstructions of the “Opponents”: A Summary .............. 4.1.2. Reconstructing the Opposition: A Proposal ......................... 4.1.3. Reconstructing 3 Corinthians: Revaluating Its Structure ..... 4.2. The “Orthodoxy” of 3 Corinthians ............................................... 4.2.1. Pseudonymous Letter-Writing ............................................. 4.2.2. Intertexts (“Sources”) and Style .......................................... 4.2.3. Vocabulary and Theology ................................................... 4.2.4. The “Paul” of 3 Corinthians ................................................ 4.3. On Situating the Composition of 3 Corinthians Historically .........

150 155 156 161 166 168 169 172 173 185 186

4.4. Third Corinthians: From Composition to Composition ................ 187

5. Collections of “Acts of Paul” ................................................... 190 5.1. Acts of Paul: According to the Hamburg Manuscript ................... 191 5.1.1. The Absence of Philippi in the Hamburg Manuscript .......... 195 5.1.2. Corinth (Acts of Paul 12) .................................................... 197

Table of Contents

5.1.3. Travel from Corinth to Rome (Acts of Paul 13) .................. 5.1.4. The Martyrdom of Paul (Acts of Paul 14) ........................... 5.1.5. Summary of “Acts of Paul” according to P. Hamb. ............. 5.2. Acts of Paul: According to the Heidelberg Manuscript ................. 5.2.1. Philippi (Acts of Paul 10–11) .............................................. 5.2.2. Other Acts (Antioch, Myra, Sidon, Tyre; etc.) .................... 5.2.3. On Reconstructing the Contents of P. Heid. ........................

XI 202 206 206 207 209 212 215

5.3. The Two Witnesses: A Summary ................................................... 215

6. Remembering “Acts of Paul” ................................................... 217 6.0. Oral Traditions: The Unwritten History of “Acts of Paul” ........... 6.1. Material Attestation for Narrative Strands ................................... 6.1.1. From Martyrdom to Passion Narrative: A Collection ......... 6.1.2. Philippi, including 3 Corinthians: Addition(s)? ................... 6.1.3. The “Lion Cycle”: A Second Collection? ............................ 6.1.3.1. The Ephesus Act ..................................................... 6.1.3.2. The Acts of Paul and Thekla ................................... 6.1.3.3. Additional Lion Material? ...................................... 6.1.4. Antioch–Tyre: A Third Collection ...................................... 6.1.5. Other Acts? ......................................................................... 6.2. Other Witnesses to “Acts of Paul” ............................................... 6.2.1. Third Century ...................................................................... 6.2.2. Fourth Century .................................................................... 6.2.2.1. Eusebius ................................................................. 6.2.2.2. Receptions of Thekla ............................................. 6.2.2.3. Canons and Stichometries ...................................... 6.2.2.4. On Later Canons and Stichometries ....................... 6.2.3. From Manuscripts to “Indirect Witnesses” .......................... 6.3. “Acts of Paul”: Composition and Reception ................................

218 219 219 225 225 226 229 231 232 233 234 234 236 237 240 243 244 247 254

Conclusion ........................................................................................ 257 Appendix .......................................................................................... 261 Bibliography ........................................................................................ 265 Index of Ancient Writings ................................................................... 285 Index of Modern Authors .................................................................... 306

XII

Table of Contents

Index of People and Places .................................................................. 310 Index of Subjects ................................................................................. 313

Introduction Introduction Paul is one of the best known, yet diversely understood, characters of early Christianity. Paul is commonly known through Christian Scripture: thirteen of the twenty-seven texts in the New Testament are letters written in his name, and two-thirds of the canonized Acts of the Apostles describes his travels. But in the early centuries of the common era, various other traditions 1 about Paul were also in circulation, including additional letters and acts, as well as sermons, prayers, and apocalypses. Many of those traditions were marginalized, neglected, and forgotten. But some have been preserved. The purpose of this study is to remember the composition, reception, and development of the traditions preserved in Acts of Paul. The phrase “Acts of Paul,” as it is commonly used, refers to a group of early Christian texts and also to the category that groups those texts. Many scholars work on the presupposition that the texts grouped together as “Acts of Paul” are parts of an early coherent whole: even if some of its parts used to be independent texts, and even if one of its parts was added later (3 Corinthians), Acts of Paul so conceived is an early Christian narrative that was originally composed in Greek by a single author or community in the late second century, probably in Asia Minor. On this presupposition, a large and diverse manuscript tradition is used to abstract multiple, partial witnesses to this hypothetical whole “Acts of Paul,” such that “its” contents are identified and labelled according to their locations in a reconstructed form of “the” text (see Figure 0.1 below, pp. 4–5). “Acts of Paul” is therefore both the idea of a narrative and that text as reconstructed by scholars. For example, several editors and commentators are reconstructing a critical edition of Acts of Paul for the Corpus Christianorum Series Apocryphorum. 2 In order to collect any and all traditions that may have 1 In this study, I use the term “tradition” broadly and in historical retrospect to refer to oral and written materials allegedly by or about Paul. 2 My thanks to the editors of Acta Pauli for providing me with an advance copy of the Greek text of the CCSA edition: I have used the Greek with profit and delight, and I hope to benefit from the notes, apparatus, introduction, commentary, and other materials once the volumes are completed. A penultimate translation for the edition has been published in François Bovon and Pierre Geoltrain, eds., Écrits apocryphes chrétiens (2 vols.; Paris:

2

Introduction

been included in this hypothetical early whole, a preliminary database of materials is abstracted from the two manuscripts that explicitly use a title related to “Acts of Paul”: 3 a fourth-century Greek manuscript at Hamburg (P. Hamb.) titled 35$;(,63$[8/28], “Acts of Paul”; and a late fifth or early sixth-century Coptic manuscript at Heidelberg (P. Heid.) titled P SUD[LVPSDXORVN[DWD] 4SDSRVWRORV, “The Acts of Paul according to the Apostle” (assuming iotacism for PSUD[HLV  Each of these manuscripts narrates several acts, and both end with Paul’s martyrdom. To this database are added manuscripts that witness to the independent circulation of acts that are extant in P. Hamb. or P. Heid.: the Martyrdom of Paul, the Ephesus Act, the Acts of Paul and Thekla, and 3 Corinthians. Finally, to complete its hypothetical reconstruction of “Acts of Paul,” further “evidence” is adduced from other materials, including various versions, rewritings, references, stichometries, other acts, and sermons. In this manner the CCSA edition of Acta Pauli at once assumes and reconstructs Acts of Paul to be a coherent whole, whose abstract parts may be organized and numbered accordingly (see Figure 0.1 below, pp. 4–5). 5 Gallimard, 1997– ) 1:1115–77. Another critical commentary is under contract with the Yale Anchor Bible Commentary Series by Richard I. Pervo. For a helpful list of the most important manuscripts, including recensions and versions, see Maurice Geerard, Clavis apocryphorum Novi Testamenti (Corpus Christianorum; Turnhout: Brepols, 1992) nos. 211–14. Editions of the most important manuscripts are Rodolphe Kasser and Philippe Luisier, “Le Papyrus Bodmer XLI en édition princeps. L’épisode d’Éphèses des Acta Pauli en copte et en traduction,” Le Muséon 117:3 (2004) 281–384; Richard A. Lipsius and Maximilien Bonnet, eds., Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha (2 vols in 3; Lipsiae: H. Mendelssohn, 1891–1903); Willy Rordorf, “Les Actes de Paul sur papyrus: problèmes liés aux P. Michigan inv. 1317 et 3788,” in Proceedings of the XVIII International Congress of Papyrology (1986) (Athens: Greek Papyrological Society, 1988) 453–60; Carl Schmidt, Acta Pauli aus der Heidelberger koptischen Papyrus-handschrift Nr. 1. (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1904; second enlarged edition, 1905); idem, “Ein Berliner Fragment der alten 3UDY[HL3DXYORX,” SBAW (1931) 37–40; Carl Schmidt and Wilhelm Schubart, 35$;(,63$8/28. Acta Pauli nach dem Papyrus der Hamburger staats- und Universitäts-bibliothek unter Mitarbeit von Wilhelm Schubart (Hamburg: J. J. Augustin, 1936); Michel Testuz, Papyrus Bodmer X–XII (Genève: Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, 1959) 6–45; and Léon Vouaux, Les Actes de Paul et ses lettres apocryphes. Introduction, textes, traduction, et commentaire (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1913). Note that a separate “pagan” Acta Pauli (et Antonini) was written shortly after the diasporic rebellion of 115–117 C.E.; see Herbert Musurillo, Acts of the Pagan Martyrs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1954) 49–60 and 179–95. 3 Also explicit is a fourth-century Coptic manuscript (Papyrus Bodmer 41) with the title SUD[LVSDXORX (“An Act of Paul”). But in terms of methodological procedure, its act in Ephesus is (partly) paralleled in P. Hamb. See §2.0 below, pp. 66–68. 4 On the reconstruction NDWD, see §5.2, pp. 207–8 below. 5 For the purposes of this study, I refer to Acts of Paul according to the abstract sections used in the forthcoming CCSA volumes (compare Bovon and Geoltrain, Écrits apocryphes chrétiens, 1:1115–77), since the CCSA edition will function as the standard

Introduction

3

In all of “its” attested and hypothetical forms, none of the stories attributed to Acts of Paul matches a story in Acts of the Apostles; 6 and to the extent that an overall sequence of Acts of Paul can be reconstructed, the structure of its narrative differs as well. Sometimes Paul is said to have visited the same cities in Acts and Acts of Paul (e.g., [Damascus, Jerusalem,] Antioch, Iconium, Ephesus, Philippi, Corinth, and Rome), sometimes similar traditions are preserved (e.g., in the Martyrdom of Paul and in Acts 20:7–12, a youth falls from a window and is restored to life), and sometimes the “parallels” even use identical phrases. 7 But the events, the sequences of events, and the emphases – all of these differ. So why are there different stories about Paul’s life? – How do Acts and Acts of Paul relate to each other literarily, theologically, politically, historically, and otherwise? Not surprisingly, a variety of answers have been proposed; and as prolegomena to my study on Acts of Paul, I will provide a selective history of scholarship on the relations between Acts and Acts of Paul (§0.1.1) and critique the presuppositions and methods used in such scholarship (§0.1.2). For, it is all too common to privilege Acts over – or to the exclusion of – Acts of Paul. After proposing a method for comparing the traditions in Acts and Acts of Paul more critically, I will explain my plan of study on the composition, reception, and development of the traditions abstractly attributed to “Acts of Paul” (§0.2).

reference for subsequent scholarship. Another abstraction was popularized by HenneckeSchneemelcher and continues to be used by most scholars (see n. 8, p. 4 below). See also Figure A.1 below, p. 262, where a more comprehensive analysis is offered, including parallels to Acts. 6 Manuscripts of Acts include the titles 35$;(,6 in a, 1175; 35$;(,6$32672/:1 (“Acts of Apostles”) is broadly and early attested in P74 (as desinit, with singular or iotacism: 35$;,6), B, D, ULQ) Paul pointed the way to the prize for endurance. Seven times he bore chains; he was sent into exile and stoned; he served as a herald in both the East and the West; and he received the noble reputation for his faith. He taught righteousness to the whole world, and came to the limits of the West (NDLHMSLWRWHYUPDWK GXYVHZ HMOTZQ), bearing his witness before the rulers (NDLPDUWXUKYVDHMSLWZ QK-JRXPHYQZQ).

7 Against this reading, note “Paul’s” hope for “Timothy” visiting (2 Tim 1:3–4; 4:9, 13, 21). 8 For two proto-catholic traditions about “Clement” as an early bishop of Rome, see Irenaeus and Tertullian on pp. 29–31 below. 9 For a useful discussion of endurance (X- SRPRQKY, patientia) in martyrdom ideology, see Brent D. Shaw, “Body/Power/Identity: Passions of the Martyrs,” JECS 4 (1996) 269– 312. 10 Tajra (Martyrdom, 168) understands the author to attribute the jealousy and envy in question to “the Roman Jewish community.” But a broader analysis of the rhetoric indicates that it is common to homonoia discourses in general; see Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1991) 97 and references ad loc. Indeed, to the extent that a social group may be blamed for the “jealousy” or “zeal” in question, it appears to be local or Roman authorities.

26

Chapter 1. Martyrdom of Paul And so he was set free from this world and transported up to the holy place, having become the greatest example of endurance. (1 Clem. 5:1–7) 11

The author continues, explaining that the example of “the apostles” was used as a pattern of imitation for a great multitude of the elect, including women who suffered unspeakable indignities (1 Clem. 6). The point of 1 Clement’s reference is to admonish the Corinthians and to remind them of the “same contest” and “same arena” in which Paul competed (1 Clem. 7:1). Whatever else may be inferred, 12 we learn that within a generation of his death, Paul was well remembered in Rome. Shortly thereafter, perhaps around the Diaspora rebellion (115–117 C.E.), Ignatius of Antioch (Syria) used Paul’s death as an example of imitatio Christi. 13 In his letter to the Ephesians, Ignatius calls upon Paul not only as a holy martyr but as a forerunner: I know who I am and to whom I am writing. I am condemned, you have been shown mercy; I am in danger, you are secure. You are a passageway for those slain for God; you are fellow initiates with Paul, the holy one (WRX K-JLDVPHYQRX) who received a testimony (WRX  PHPDUWXUKPHYQRX) 14 and proved worthy of all fortune. When I attain to 11

Translations of 1 Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp are according to Bart D. Ehrman, ed. and trans., The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1 (LCL 24; Cambridge, Mass.; Harvard University Press, 2003). For an interesting discussion of this passage, which implicitly critiques Ehrman’s later translation, see Jan Willem van Henten, “The Martyrs as Heroes of the Christian People: Some Remarks on the Continuity between Jewish and Christian Martyrology, with Pagan Analogies,” in Martyrium in Multidisciplinary Perspective: Memorial Louis Reekmans (ed. M. Lamberigts and P. van Deun; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1995) 303–22, where it is argued that Peter and Paul function as foundational heroes for the Christian people. 12 It is interesting to compare the summary of Paul’s life in 1 Clement to the canonized letters and to Acts: the author seems to know traditions similar to the ones in Acts, drawing also on 2 Corinthians and Romans. Tajra (Martyrdom, 169) notes that the author’s uses of RLMK-JRXPHYQRL (translated by Ehrman as “the rulers”) in 1 Clem. 32 and 51 imply reference to subordinate officials, and thus in 1 Clem. 5 perhaps the kind of officials who would have conducted a legal trial of Paul. Regarding the text’s reference to “the limits of the west,” it is debated whether 1 Clement is the earliest reference to a Pauline missionary journey to Spain or whether its geographic mapping, following Acts for example, might refer instead to Rome. For what it is worth, both clauses (“having come to the end of the west” and “having witnessed to the leaders”) are coordinate participial phrases that modify Paul’s teaching of justice (GLNDLRVXYQK) to the whole ordered realm (NRYVPR) and transition to the adverbial (consecutive) clause. 13 For a recent study of the theme of imitatio Christi among the martyrs, see Candida R. Moss, The Other Christs: Imitating Jesus in Ancient Christian Ideologies of Martyrdom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), esp. chs. 1–3; Moss’s monograph is a revised form of her 2009 Ph.D. dissertation at Yale University. My thanks to Candida for providing a PDF of the page proofs in advance of publication. 14 Lindemann (Paulus in ältesten Christentum, 84) has noted the participial form of D-JLDY]Z was often used in the plural, and thus Ignatius’s discussion of Paul as sanctified

1.0. Paul as a “Martyr”

27

God, may I be found in his footsteps, this one who mentions you in every epistle in Christ Jesus. (Ign. Eph. 12:1–2)

In Ignatius’s letter to the Romans, following a passage often cited for his zeal for martyrdom, we find that Ignatius’s desire was less for a future bodily resurrection than for an immediate and individual disembodiment and attainment to God: 15 I am writing all the churches and giving instruction to all, that I am willingly dying for God, unless you hinder me. I urge you, do not become an untimely kindness to me. Allow me to be bread for the wild beasts; through them I am able to attain to God. I am the wheat of God and am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found to be the pure bread of Christ. Rather, coax the wild beasts, that they may become a tomb for me and leave no part of my body behind, that I may burden no one once I have died. Then I will truly be a disciple of Jesus Christ, when the world does not see even my body. Petition Christ on my behalf, that I may be found a sacrifice through these instruments of God. I am not enjoining you as Peter and Paul did. They were apostles, I am condemned; they were free, until now I have been a slave. But if I suffer, I will become a freed person who belongs to Jesus Christ, and I will rise up, free, in him. In the meantime I am learning to desire nothing while in chains. (Ign. Rom. 4:1–3)

Ignatius therefore knows of Paul’s letter to the Romans, and he understands his own imminent death ad bestias to follow the lead of Paul, paired with Peter. 16 through death is noteworthy. The perfect passive participle of PDUWXUHYZ is also remarkable: Paul has been seen/witnessed. Uses of PDUW- terminology such as this may imply that it was the martyr’s being viewed that was significant. Recent monographs that emphasize this theme include Christopher A. Frilingos, Spectacles of Empire: Monsters, Martyrs, and the Book of Revelation (Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004); and Gail P. C. Streete, Redeemed Bodies: Women Martyrs in Early Christianity (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009). 15 See the discussion in Elizabeth Castelli, Martyrdom and Memory: Early Christian Culture Making (Gender, Theory, and Religion; New York: Columbia University Press, 2004) 78–85. Ignatius’s emphasis, however, is “that I may burden no one once I have died.” Whether Ignatius refers to common post-mortem practices (e.g., burial) or to more developed cultic practice (e.g., veneration of relics) is unclear. But it is worth considering whether the text implies early forms of cultic veneration for martyrs – as for example does Mart. Poly. 17–18. Particularly interesting in this regard, and comparable for our purposes, is the veneration of Stephen. See for example the useful discussions by François Bovon, “Beyond the Book of Acts: Stephen, the First Christian Martyr, in Traditions outside the New Testament Canon of Scripture,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 32 (2005) 93–107; and idem, “The Dossier on Stephen, the First Martyr,” HTR 96 (2003) 279–315. More generally, see Willy Rordorf, “Aux origenes du culte des martyrs,” Irénikon 45 (1972) 315–31; and the works of Peter Brown, nn. 85 and 98 in ch. 3. 16 Ignatius’s contrasts between Paul and Peter and himself (apostles/condemned, free/servant) do not cohere with the story in the later-canonized Acts of the Apostles, where Paul travelled to Rome under Roman guard (Acts 27:1 et passim). Did Ignatius know a different narrative of Paul’s journey to Rome? One option is that Ignatius may

28

Chapter 1. Martyrdom of Paul

Continuing in the trajectory of Ignatius is Polycarp of Smyrna (Asia Minor). In his only surviving letter(s), to the Philippians (ca. 140s C.E.), Polycarp calls upon the memory of Paul as well as local and more recent martyrs: Therefore I urge all of you to obey the word of righteousness and to practice all endurance, which you also observed with your own eyes not only in the most fortunate Ignatius, Zosimus, and Rufus, but also in others who lived among you, and in Paul himself and the other apostles. You should be convinced that none of them acted in vain [cp. Phil 2:16], but in faith and righteousness, and that they are in the place they deserved [cp. 1 Clem. 5:4], with the Lord, with whom they also suffered. For they did not love the present age [cp. 2 Tim 4:10]; they loved the one who died for us and who was raised by God for our sakes. (Pol. Phil. 9:1–2)

Therefore, by the middle of the second century, from Rome in the west to Antioch in the east, with Smyrna in between, Paul’s death was being remembered as an example of endurance in faith and as a forerunner of those who would follow his lead. Such memories of Paul as a martyr were often associated with Paul as a teacher (e.g., 2 Tim; 2 Pet; Pol. Phil. 3:1–2), 17 an idea that was inherited and developed – among others – by the “proto-catholic.” 18 By the late second century, an ideology of episcopal succession had developed in which it was understood – over and against competing claims of succession – that the Christians aligned with Rome had received the one true and accurate teaching through a genealogy of doctrine: 19 from God, Christ had have known an oral or written form of Paul’s martyrdom similar to the Martyrdom of Paul studied in this chapter. 17 Pol. Phil. 3:1–2: “I am writing these things about righteousness, brothers, not on my own initiative but at your request. For neither I nor anyone like me is able to replicate the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul. When he was with you he accurately and reliably taught the word of truth to those who were there at the time. And when he was absent he wrote you letters. If you carefully peer into them, you will be able to be built up in the faith that was given you.” Regarding Polycarp’s reference to multiple letters to the Philippians, see Philip Sellew, “Laodiceans and the Philippians Fragments Hypothesis,” HTR 87 (1994) 17–28. 18 For better and for worse, Bart D. Ehrman popularized the term “proto-orthodox.” Rather than reinscribing “orthodoxy” anachronistically, I use the term “proto-catholic” historically to designate the individuals whose lives and works were accepted and used in the ideology and historiography of later Christians who aligned with Rome and claimed themselves to be the “catholic (i.e., general, widespread) Church.” Common to such is not necessarily theology (or even in some cases social trajectory), but rather the story of an episcopal succession that preserves a singular and publicly declared doctrine handed down from (God to) Jesus to the apostles to the bishops of the churches in question. 19 Ideologies of episcopal succession appear to have developed among proto-catholics during the episcopates of Pius I (ca. 140–154 C.E.) and Anicetus (ca. 155–164 C. E.) in Rome. See for example Hegesippus (according to Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.23; 3.2; 3.35;

1.0. Paul as a “Martyr”

29

received instruction, which he passed down to the apostles (including Paul), who handed it down to the bishops and others who were the forefathers of the “catholic” HMNNOKVLYD. Irenaeus of Lyons (Gaul), who was from Asia Minor and had once been a hearer of Polycarp, is perhaps the best known proponent of episcopal succession. In his five-volume treatise Adversus haereses (“Against Heresies,” ca. 185 C.E.), 20 written primarily in opposition to Valentinian disciples of Ptolemy (see Adv. haer. 1.praef.), Irenaeus provides a twofold genealogy: one line of right, good, and true doctrine, from God and Christ; and the other of “heresies,” whose originator is the Devil. 21 Particularly important in Irenaeus’s line of argument is reference to the succession of the singular Church in Rome (Adv. haer. 3.3.1–3): 22 3.3.1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church (in omni ecclesia), who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles (ab apostolis traditionem) manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. … 2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches … [I indicate] that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded (fundatae) and organized (constitutae) at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition (ab apostolis traditio) has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. 3.3.3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded (fundantes, THPHOLZYVDQWH) and built up (instruentes, RLMNRGRPKYVDQWH) the Church, committed into the hands of Linus 4.8; 4.22): Hegesippus locates the corruption of an original, pure message to a certain “Simon” of the third generation. Justin Martyr likewise attributes “heresy” to recent corruptions (1 Apol., ca. 155 C.E.). So it is not until Irenaeus (ca. 185 C.E.) that a genealogy of heresy is offered that parallels orthodoxy’s, all the way back to the first generation. 20 The longer and more appropriate title is “Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely-So-Called,” but the Latin title Adversus haereses (“Against Heresies”), abbreviated Adv. haer. or Haer., is the more popular reference; on the former, see Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.7; Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 2.praef. 21 Irenaeus’s genealogy of orthodoxy is quoted below from Adv. haer. 3.3.1–3 (see also 1.10; 1.22; etc.); the genealogy of heresy, as discussed in §4.1.2 below, is apparently attributed to Simon Magus, whose “father” is the devil (Adv. haer. 1.23–31 et passim). In continuity with Justin Martyr’s use of DL-UHYVHL (whose now-lost writing Irenaeus may have used), Irenaeus understands the term to refer negatively to a mere school of thought (as opposed to the one truth). 22 For extant Latin and Greek, see Migne, PG 7:848–51 or the critical edition in SC.

30

Chapter 1. Martyrdom of Paul the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession (successione, WK DXMWK GLGDFK ), the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles (ab apostolis in ecclesia traditio, DMSRWZ Q DMSRVWRYOZQHMQWK  HMNNOKVLYDSDUDYGRVL), and the preaching of the truth (veritatis praeconatio, WRWK DMOKTHLYDNKYUXJPD), have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. (Adv. haer. 3.3.1–3; ANF 1:415–16)

Tertullian of Carthage (North Africa) is similar. Despite offering an alternative succession of bishops in Rome, Tertullian’s treatise De praescriptione haereticorum (ca. 200 C.E.) agrees with Irenaeus on the function of Paul and Peter as the originators of apostolic orthodoxy (e.g., De praesc. haer. 32; 36; cp. 21). 23 With knowledge of competing claims to

23 De praesc. haer. 32: “But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men, – a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind” (ANF 3:258); for the Latin of De praescriptio haereticorum, see Q(uinti). Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera, I, pars I: Opera catholica; Adversus Marcionem (ed. Jan W. Ph. Borleffs; CCSL 1.1; Turnhout: Brepols, 1954) 185–224, at 212–13. De praesc. haer. 36: “Come now, if you are ready to exercise your curiosity better in the business of your own salvation, run through the apostolic churches, where the very thrones of the Apostles preside to this day over their districts, where the authentic letters of the Apostles are still recited, bring the voice and face of each one of them to mind. If Achaea is nearest to you, you have Corinth. If you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi and Thessalonica. If you can go to Asia, you have Ephesus. If you are close to Italy, you have Rome, the nearest authority for us also. How fortunate is that Church (Ista quam felix ecclesia) upon which the Apostles poured their whole teaching together with their blood, where Peter suffered like his Lord (ubi Petrus passioni Dominicae adaequatur), where Paul was crowned with John’s death (ubi Paulus Iohannis exitu coronatur), where the Apostle John, after he had been immersed in boiling oil without

1.0. Paul as a “Martyr”

31

apostolicity, Tertullian does not rely simply on a claim to apostolic succession: working on the assumptions that heresy was later than orthodoxy and was unofficial rather than official, Tertullian calls upon the heretics to produce Church records to demonstrate their apostolicity. It is the official places, with official people (bishops) and official things (authentic, if not autographed, texts), that matter for Tertullian. Indeed, it is not only the teaching of the apostles that is significant; it is also their blood, upon which the church at Rome was based. In this way Tertullian, like Irenaeus, considers Paul’s martyrdom and teaching together with the (other) apostles. Another of Tertullian’s works, De scorpiace, 24 reckons with the significance of persecution and martyrdom and then considers Paul specifically. Using a metaphor that depicts accusers of Christians as scorpions, Tertullian discusses what to do when one is accused of being a “Christian.” The only antidote to a scorpion’s sting – accusation, torture, or death, he does not say – is the medicine of martyrdom: to die as love for God (De scorpiace 5–6). 25 For, the options are only two: denying or confessing, idolatry or martyrdom, life (= Death) or death (= Life). Tertullian therefore uses martial imagery to portray Christians as military personnel who have taken an oath that entails faithful service to one’s commander, even unto death (4–5). 26 To be accused of being a “Christian” is to be called to battle, where one’s only option is to fight the good fight. It is in this context, after appealing to the letters of Peter and John, that Tertullian calls on the example of Paul: But how Paul, an apostle, from being a persecutor, who first of all shed the blood of the church, though afterwards he exchanged the sword for the pen, and turned dagger into a plough, being first a ravening wolf of Benjamin, then himself supplying food as did Jacob, – how he, (I say,) speaks in favour of martyrdoms, now to be chosen by himself also, [when he says various things in 2 Thessalonians, Romans, 2 Corinthians, Philippians, and 2 Timothy] (De scorpiace 13–14; ANF 3:646–47).

harm, was banished to an island …” (translation by S. L. Greenslade); for the Latin, see Tertulliani Opera, CCSL 1.1:216–17. 24 For the Latin of De scorpiace, see Tertulliani Opera, CCSL 2:1067–97. 25 Compare Daniel Boyarin’s analysis of Rabbi Akiva in idem, Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism (Figurae: Reading Medieval Culture; Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999) 93–126, esp. 105–14. A useful interpretation of Tertullian’s metaphor, suggested to me by Karen King, is that the sting is falsehood and the antidote is truth. 26 Note that Tertullian’s martial imagery may have been derived, among other places, from the Martyrdom of Paul, which he read and used (see text below). For analysis of the theme of “cosmic battle” in martyrdoms, see Moss, The Other Christs, 87–97.

32

Chapter 1. Martyrdom of Paul

To confirm what Paul and the other apostles had written, Tertullian appeals primarily to Acts, where the various events – imprisonments, accusations, beatings, etc. – are narrated. But note what Tertullian says in this context: That Peter is struck, that Stephen is overwhelmed by stones, that James is slain as is a victim at the altar, that Paul is beheaded (quod Paulus distrahitur) has been written in their own blood (ipsorum sanguine scripta sunt). (De scorpiace 15.2; ANF 3:648)

“That Paul is beheaded” (distraho, “divide, take apart”)? Where did Tertullian read that? Certainly not in the Acts of the Apostles, which ends with Paul under house arrest in Rome. 27 Tertullian must therefore have been reading one or more other sources, as is made clear in what follows: And if a heretic wishes his confidence to rest upon a public record (commentarius), 28 the archives of the empire (instrumenta imperii) will speak, as would the stones of Jerusalem. We read the lives of the Caesars (vitas Caesarum): 29 At Rome, Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising faith. Then is Peter girt by another, when he is made fast to the cross. Then does Paul obtain a birth suited to Roman citizenship, when in Rome he springs to life again ennobled by martyrdom (tunc Paulus civitatis Romanae consequitur nativitatem, cum illic martyrii renascitur generositate). 30 Wherever I read of these occurrences so soon as I do so, I learn to suffer (Haec ubicumque iam legero, pati disco); nor does it signify to me which I follow as teachers of martyrdom, whether the declarations or the deaths of the apostles, save that in their deaths I recall their declarations also. (De scorpiace 15.3–4; ANF 3:648) 31

27

Two qualifications about my use of De scorp. 15.2: first, it is not clear that all of the quod clauses describe the deaths of the individuals mentioned, as the verbs are ambiguous and only bloodshed is required; second, it may be that the “writing” in question (scripta sunt) refers figuratively to the shedding of blood. Nonetheless, De scorp. 15.3–4 demonstrates Tertullian’s knowledge of Paul’s decapitation, as does De praesc. haer. 36. 28 The Latin term commentarius was used generally for a collection of notes (i.e., a notebook, diary, or memoire; see, e.g., Caesar’s De bello Gallico according to Cicero, Brut. 262), but it was also a technical term for a legal brief (e.g., the record of an interrogation); see OLD, “ , -ium,” 362–63. For a discussion of commentarius as a literary form in the humanist period, see the introduction to Pope Pius II, Commentaries (ed. Margaret Meserve and Marcello Simonetta; 2 vols.; I Tatti Renaissance Library 12, 29; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003), esp. 1:xiv–xxii. See also n. 29 below. 29 Does Tertullian hereby claim that the Martyrdom of Paul is based on an imperial record? See n. 28 above on the Latin term “commentarius.” Much debated, and relevant to the present consideration, is whether Tertullian refers to a legal precedent set by Nero, according to a certain reading of Ad nationes 1.7. Descriptions of Nero’s decisions are available in Tacitus, Annals 15.44; Suetonius, Nero 16 (with 57); Sulpicius Severus, Chronicle 2.29. 30 Tajra (Martyrdom, 174) contends that Tertullian thus defines Roman citizenship. But I would argue, particularly given my contention that Tertullian has read the Martyrdom of Paul, that Tertullian is referring to Paul’s being beheaded – a form of execution (and hence, a martyr’s “birth”) appropriate to a Roman citizen (Acts of Paul 14.3). 31 See Tertulliani Opera, CCSL 2:1096–97.

1.0. Paul as a “Martyr”

33

Paul therefore functions for Tertullian as an example of endurance in faith, confessing Christ to the end. This example, he claims, is not based on hearsay; it is recorded in the “commentarius” – the imperial records (instrumenta imperii), the lives of the Caesars (vitas Caesarum). 32 Tertullian even says that he has read (legero) that Paul was beheaded and then sprang back to life – namely, the story written in the Martyrdom of Paul. By the turn of the third century, it is therefore probable that some form of the Martyrdom of Paul was circulating in North Africa. 33 So the written composition of Paul’s martyrdom, even if it had various forms and continued orally, would have been no later than the second century, thus providing us with a terminus ad quem for some form of the Martyrdom of Paul. 1.0.2. Archaeological Traditions Archaeological data in Rome provides further evidence for the memorialization of Paul’s death, as illustrated by David Eastman. 34 Two sites, in competition with one another, have memorialized the alleged location of Paul’s death in Rome: Aquae Salvias on the Laurentinian Road (also called the “Three Fountains,” based on a medieval legend), 35 and the Basilica of Saint Paul on the Ostian Road. Currently it is impossible to date the legend behind the Aquae Salvias location before the sixth century, though its source may have been much earlier. But the site of the Basilica of Saint Paul, also known as the final burial site of Paul, is attested as early as the

32

Tajra (Martyrdom, 174) notes that the instrumenta in question would have included not only histories such as the ones of Tacitus and Suetonius, but also the imperial edicts, rescripts, etc. 33 Another of Tertullian’s works, De baptismo 17.5, may refer explicitly to a work called “Acts of Paul,” which includes at least the Acts of Paul and Thekla (see discussion in §3.3.3, pp. 134–37 below; see also §6.1.3). It is interesting that in De scorpiace Tertullian affirms what he reads, while in De baptismo he negates at least a certain reading and use of the Acts of Paul and Thekla. 34 See Eastman, “The Cult of the Apostle Paul the Martyr,” esp. 1–138 on Rome. My discussion of archaeology for the cult of Paul is dependent upon David’s work, which he was kind enough to share with me while editing the material for publication in the SBL series cited in n. 5, p. 24 above. David also reminded me that early Christian representations of Paul in art – e.g., sarcophagi depicting his death – often attest to this tradition by portraying Paul with a martyr’s crown. 35 For a discussion of the literary source of the Aquae Salvias location, see Eastman, “The Cult of the Apostle Paul the Martyr,” 74–83, where a comparison with the Latin Passion of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul is used to display the singularities of this tradition in the 6th-cent. Greek Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul. Eastman also notes that a crypt nearby is remembered as the location of Paul’s imprisonment prior to execution.

34

Chapter 1. Martyrdom of Paul

late second century. 36 There Paul’s “trophy” was understood to reside, a monument that was later re-valued by the erection of a series of Roman basilicas beginning in the fourth century. 37 By the early fifth century, the Spanish poet Prudentius, upon seeing the grandeur of the Theodosian Basilica of Saint Paul, was even moved to re-imagine the sacred topography of Rome, with Peter and Paul – rather than Romulus and Remus – playing a foundational role for Rome at the Tiber. 38 The current Basilica of Saint Paul (Basilica Papale di San Paolo fuori le Mura) includes inscription slabs and a sarcophagus, 39 and according to tradition it also houses Paul’s body, a shroud (sudarium) that covered his head during his execution, 40 and his chains. 41 Currently together in a vertical arrangement (one on top of the other), the inscription slabs may have originally been perpendicular or parallel to each other, encasing the sarcophagus on different sides. In Latin script is the inscription PAULO  APOSTOLO MART- (presumably MARTYRI), “To/for Paul the apostle and martyr.” The PAULO slab has three holes in it, one circular and two square, which may have been used for ritual libations and the production of sanctuaria (i.e., second-order relics, understood to receive holiness through contact with primary relics). In any case, by the early fifth century, Jerome was able to refer to contemporary uses of the grave as an altar 36 According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 2.25.7), a certain Gaius wrote in the early 3d cent. about “the sacred vessels (WDL-HUDVNKQZYPDWD) of the apostles”: “But I can point out the trophies (WDWURYSDLD) of the Apostles, for if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church.” See also the Depositio Martyrum, dated ca. 336 C.E. Eastman, in the published form of his work, emphasizes that the Ostian Road site, while functioning as a burial site since Gaius, is not clearly attested as functioning as a martyrdom site until the 4th cent. 37 Eastman, “Cult of the Apostle Paul the Martyr,” 23–27. 38 Prudentius, On the Crown of Martyrdom 12; see Eastman, “Cult of the Apostle Paul the Martyr,” 29–37. 39 See http://www.vatican.va/various/basiliche/san_paolo/index_en.html, which is the basilica’s website. Pilgrims to Rome, for the 2000 Jubilee Celebration, expressed sadness and anger at not being able to view the relics of Paul. So in 2002, excavations began to locate his tomb. The marble sarcophagus located is 2.55m (l) x 1.25m (w) x 0.97m (h), and the apparently related inscription is often dated to the late 4th to early 5th cent. (i.e., at the Theodosian stage). Regarding tradition that the sarcophagus holds the remains of Paul, see the declaration of Pope Benedict XVI on 28 June 2009 that, according to recent C-14 dating, the remains within the sarcophagus are datable to the 1st or 2d cent. C. E. and hence confirm the traditional identification. In addition to the bone fragments that were Carbon-dated, grains of red incense, a piece of purple linen with gold sequins, and a blue fabric with linen filaments were reported. See now Umberto Utro, San Paulo in Vaticano (Perugia: Tau, 2009). 40 Reference to the sudarium (of a certain Plautilla) occurs in a 4th–5th cent. reworking by Ps.-Linus, Passio Sancti Pauli Apostoli. 41 On Paul’s chains, see §3.3.1, esp. p. 127 and its n. 99.

1.0. Paul as a “Martyr”

35

for the Eucharist (Against Vigilantius 8), and after the renovations by bishop Leo I (who may have introduced the circular hole, 440–461 C.E.), requests for sanctuaria became increasingly popular to the time of bishop Gregory I (who may have introduced the square holes, 590–604 C.E.). 42 Historically, therefore, Paul’s basilica was a site of worship, pilgrimmage, veneration of relics, and even privileged burial. Another site in Rome is also important for the cult of Paul as martyr: the site currently known as the Church of St. Sebastian (San Sebastiano) at the Catacombs, located on the Appian Road outside the city walls. Here, by no later than 260 C.E. (when some of the inscriptions are explicitly dated), a triclia building – 23 by 18 meters – was constructed on top of some previously used tombs. 43 Contemporary inscriptions note that, among other things, the site was used to hold meals in commemoration of Peter and Paul (refrigero), as later attested for example in the Burying of the Martyrs for 29 June. 44 As with the Ostian site, further changes were made to the Catacombs when the Basilica of the Apostles was erected in the fourth century (ca. 310–350 C.E.). Among other things, the construction provided for at least 200 privileged burials. Prayers to Paul also were inscribed in the Catacombs, and by 441 C.E. Leo I (Sermon 82) was able to provide contemporary reflection on the long-standing practice of Christians praying to Peter and Paul as patrons who would intercede to God on behalf of Rome. 45 Intriguingly, there is no evidence until the sixth century of a legend that Paul’s mortal remains had once been located at the Catacombs.46 So, at least for now, it is unclear how and why the site was understood to

42

For an explicit reference to the production of brandea, see Gregory I, Letter 4.30. Gregory I also had to deny a request of empress Constantia to send the shroud of Paul to Constantinople. For discussions of the holes and their uses, see Eastman, “The Cult of the Apostle Paul the Martyr,” 41–46 and 73–74, who brings together Gregory’s letter and the square holes. 43 Prior to construction, the site was both Christian and non-Christian. Building phases worked to legitimate the Christian identity of the site and delegitimate non-Christian identity (Eastman, “The Cult of the Apostle Paul the Martyr,” 116–17). 44 Compare the commemorative practice described in Mart. Poly. 18.2–3. Eastman (“The Cult of the Apostle Paul the Martyr,” 96–97) suggests that festive meals for Paul would have included fare common to Mediterranean meals for the dead: bread, wine, and fish; and he notes that the former two are elements of the Eucharist, while the last is consonant with the ,&486 symbol. But it is worth asking whether some commemorative meals for Paul may have included more “ascetic” fare; see for example Acts of Paul 3.25; 5; 9.21; 12.5. In any case, Eucharists are definitely attested. 45 On Paul as patron of Rome, see Eastman, “The Cult of the Apostle Paul the Martyr,” 104–12. 46 For an extended critique of arguments to the contrary, see Eastman, “The Cult of the Apostle Paul the Martyr,” 118–36.

36

Chapter 1. Martyrdom of Paul

acquire its holiness from Peter and Paul. 47 But it is probable that, if some oral form of the later tradition(s) was not already circulating, then at least the site was understood to have come into contact with the apostles, either directly or indirectly. Paul’s death, therefore, was not simply the historical event of his execution by the Roman Empire. For many early Christians, Paul’s death functioned as a martyrdom remembered not only in ideals but also in practices that commemorated his witness and participated in his glorification.

1.1. Paul among the “Martyrs” 1.1. Paul among the “Martyrs”

The Martyrdom of Paul, like other death reports of the apostles, has been neglected in scholarship of early Christian martyrdoms. 48 Theological 47 See Eastman, “The Cult of the Apostle Paul the Martyr,” 125 n. 79 on the theory that Peter and Paul had lived in a residence there during their lifetimes (i.e., apparently following the account of Acts rather than the account of the Martyrdom): “The archaeological record, however, suggests that the domestic buildings were not yet built in the time of the apostles.” Conversely, it should be noted that the Acts of Paul 13 refers to a house of Claudius in Rome, and the Acts of Peter (passim) refers to a house of Marcellus. Sixth-century texts referring to the association of Paul’s body with the site include the Book of Pontifs (Liber pontifilcalis), the Latin Passion of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, the Greek Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and Gregory I Letter 4.30. According to Gregory, the bodies of Peter and Paul were temporarily interred shortly after their martyrdom in the 60s C. E.; according to the middle two sources, the bodies were there shortly after the death of Nero in 68 C.E.; and according to the Book of Pontifs, the translation did not occur until 251–253 C.E. (i.e., the Decian persecution). On the Book of Pontifs, see Louis Duchesne, Liber pontificalis (3 vols.; Paris: Éditions de Boccard, 1981). 48 See for example Helen Rhee, Early Christian Literature: Christ and Culture in the Second and Third Centuries (Routledge Early Christian Monographs; New York: Routledge, 2005) 178–79. Rhee reads the Martyrdom only as part of the broader Acts of Paul, allowing it to function as a transition between her characterization of “apocryphal acts” as “subversive” to the Roman Empire and the “martyr acts” as “resistant.” On her deliberate use of broad literary categories, see ibid., 3–6. For discussion of martyrdom and relevant judicial procedure, see for example Hippolyte Delehaye, Les passions des martyrs et les genres littéraires (Subsidia Hagiographica 13B; Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1921; revised, 1966); H. R. Seeliger, “Martyrs, Acts of the,” in Dictionary of Early Christian Literature (trans. Matthew O’Connell; ed. Siegmar Döpp and Wilhelm Geerlings; New York: Crossroad Publishing, 2000) 405–12; German original: Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1998); Gary A. Bisbee, Pre-Decian Acts of Martyrs and Commentarii (ed. Margaret R. Miles and Bernadette J. Brooten; Harvard Dissertations in Religion 22; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), esp. 19–64; Arthur J. Droge and James D. Tabor, A Noble Death: Suicide and Martyrdom among Christian and Jews in Antiquity (1st ed.; San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992); Jan Willem van Henten and Friedrich

1.1. Paul among the “Martyrs”

37

analyses of early Christian literature tend to reinscribe a genealogy of orthodoxy from the New Testament to the “apostolic fathers” to the “church fathers,” with the apologists as transitional figures; and ethical and practice-based histories typically proceed from the canonized writings to Ignatius and Polycarp to the works of asceticism and hagiography, with martyrdoms in between. But acts of apostles, including Acts of Paul in general and the Martyrdom of Paul in particular, are normally omitted in such studies, suffering again the marginalization they have already received. 49 Let us consider, however, what it would be like to reincorporate the Martyrdom of Paul into the history of early Christian thought. The Martyrdom of Paul is similar to martyrdoms 50 in many regards: 51 Paul is accused, arrested, put on trial, sentenced, and then condemned to

Avemarie, eds., Martyrdom and Noble Death: Selected Texts from Graeco-Roman, Jewish, and Christian Antiquity (London/New York: Routledge, 2002); G. E. M. de Ste. Croix,“Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted?,” Past and Present 26 (1963) 6–38; A. N. Sherwin-White, “Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted? – An Amendment,” Past and Present 27 (1964) 23–27; G. E. M. Ste. Croix, “Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted? – A Rejoinder,” Past and Present 27 (1964) 28–33; Peter Garnsey, “Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire,” in Studies in Ancient Society (ed. Michael I. Finley; Past and Present Series; gen. ed. Trevor Aston; London: Routledge, 1974) 141–65; Adalberto Giovannini and Erhard Grzybek, Der Prozess Jesu. Jüdische Justizautonomie und römische Strafgewalt. Eine philologisch-verfassungsgeschichtliche Studie (Munich: Verlag Ernst Vögel, 2008), esp. 40–56; Glen W. Bowersock, Martyrdom and Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) 41–57; Kathleen M. Coleman, “Fatal Charades: Roman Executions Staged as Mythological Enactments,” JRS 80 (1990) 44– 73; L. Stephanie Cobb, Dying to Be Men: Gender and Language in Early Christian Martyr Texts (Gender, Theory, and Religion; New York: Columbia University Press, 2008); David C. Aune, “Mastery of the Passions: Philo, 4 Maccabees and Earliest Christianity,” in Hellenization Revisited: Shaping a Christian Response within the GrecoRoman World (ed. Wendy E. Helleman; Lanham/New York: University Press of America, 1994) 125–58; Judith Perkins, The Suffering Self: Pain and Narrative Representation in Early Christianity (New York: Routledge, 1995) 77–103; Shaw, “Body/Power/Identity”; Nicole Kelley, “Philosophy as Training for Death: Reading the Ancient Christian Martyr Acts as Spiritual Exercises,” CH 75 (2006) 723–47. 49 On a different kind of exclusion from martyrdom studies, see Anthony Hilhorst, “Christian Martyrs outside the Catholic Church,” Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 60 (2008) 23–36. 50 In recent studies early martyrdoms have generally been understood to include Martyrdom of Polycarp, Martyrs of Lyons and Vienne, Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas, Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs, Acts of Cyprian, and Martyrdom of Pionius. Then broader groupings are offerred, often reflecting the historical valuations of scholars as determined in part by their analysis of the topics and themes in martyrdoms. Earlier studies had a different “canon” of martyrdoms; see Bisbee, Pre-Decian Acts of Martyrs and Commentarii, 81–82 for summary and references.

38

Chapter 1. Martyrdom of Paul

execution by the Romans. 52 But there are also significant differences in the details of Paul’s martyrdom. So, to contrast the Martyrdom of Paul with other martrydoms and to prepare for comparisons with other noncanonized acts of the apostles (§1.2), let me offer an extended description of the text’s earliest extant form. The Martyrdom of Paul, which is abstractly labelled Acts of Paul 14, begins with Paul’s arrival in Rome. Whereas the canonized Acts has Paul go to Rome under military control as part of Roman judicial procedure (Acts 27:1ff.), the Martyrdom has Paul travel to the capital freely as part of his missionary campaign (Acts of Paul 14.1). He is welcomed there by Luke from Gaul and Titus from Dalmatia (cp. 2 Tim 4:10), 53 and he rents a barn (Z^ULRQ) outside the city to teach “the word of truth” (WRQORYJRQWK  DMOKTHLYD). 54 The text reports that many were added to the Lord (cp. Acts 2:41) and that a great many from the house of Caesar (cp. Phil 4:22) became believers through Paul. 55 The scene is set, therefore, for a contest between Paul and Nero, 56 and center stage is Nero’s cup-bearer, a certain Patroclus. 51

For this general opinion, see Anthony Hilhorst, “The Apocryphal Acts as Martyrdom Texts: The Case of the Acts of Andrew,” in The Apocryphal Acts of John (ed. Bremmer) 1–14. 52 When local and occasional persecutions occurred, Christians were often accused of crimes that were not regulated by the quaestio system that governed the ordo iudiciorum publicorum, and hence they were normally (though not always) subjected to the procedure called cognitio extra ordinem. For an overview of Roman procedure, see §1.1.1 of my dissertation, “Remembering the Acts of Paul,” 26–36; especially important is the sequence of articles by Ste. Croix, “Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted?”; Sherwin-White, “Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted? – An Amendment”; and Ste. Croix, “Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted? – A Rejoinder.” 53 Both Luke and Titus figure into the rest of the Martyrdom; neither figure is explicitly named in the Acts of the Apostles, except perhaps in the so-called “we” source (Acts 16:9–40; 20:5–21:18; 27:1–28:16). The 6th-cent. Greek Acts of Titus, which depend on the Acts of Paul, also includes Timothy greeting Paul. The Acts of Titus is now available in English in Richard I. Pervo, “The ‘Acts of Titus’: A Preliminary Translation with an Introduction, Notes, and Appendices,” SBLSP 35 (1996) 455–82. 54 In Acts, Paul is in a [HQLYD (Acts 28:23), apparently inside the city proper (28:16), and his preaching evinces the Lukan theme (interestingly, better attested in D tradition) of critique for ,RXGDL RL (i.e., those who adhere to Judean QRYPR). Nonetheless, Pervo (“A Hard Act to Follow,” 12) argues that the text depends on Acts 28:30–31, due to general correlations of PLVTZ- and Paul teaching. Note that Pervo reads RMUULRQ for the Martyrdom (which is not extant in P. Hamb. but only in other MSS), whereas CCSA prefers Z^ULRQ. 55 Compare Acts 28:23, 28, 29–30. 56 For a discussion of historicity, see Willy Rordorf, “Die neronische Christenverfolgung im Spiegel der Apokryphen Paulusakten,” NTS 28 (1981–1982) 365–74; reprinted in idem, Lex Orandi – Lex Credendi: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum 60. Geburtstag (Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz, 1993) 368–77; see also Tajra, Martyrdom, 131–33.

1.1. Paul among the “Martyrs”

39

Patroclus, not unlike the Eutychus of Acts 20:7–12, 57 comes to hear Paul speak, but he falls asleep in a window, falls to his death, and then is resuscitated by Paul (Acts of Paul 14.1–2). But whereas the story in Acts is short and its function is unclear, the Martyrdom’s story functions to contrast Christ and Caesar (according to Nero’s interpretation), resulting in an imperial edict against the Christians that ends with Paul’s execution. Unlike the Eutychus story in Acts, the Patroclus story is therefore integral to the extant Martyrdom of Paul. 58 Here is how the Patroclus story works. Patroclus dies, and Caesar hears the report of his death. Meanwhile, Paul and the local Christian community mourn over Patroclus, not only for his life, but so that they might remain undisturbed (DMQHQRYFOKWRL). In their mourning, the boy breathes again, and he is sent back alive to Caesar’s house. When Nero leaves the bath, he commands that another be appointed to the wine – a position of trust and intimacy, including the function of wine-tasting. 59 But he learns that Patroclus is alive and standing at the table. Nero, afraid at first, gathers himself and enters to see Patroclus. A short dialogue ensues, which is worth quoting in full: When he entered, Caesar said to him: “Patroclus, are you living?” And he said: “I am living.” Caesar said: “Who is the one who made you to live?” And being carried by the conviction of faith, the boy said: “Christ Jesus, the king of the ages.” Then Caesar said: “So is he going to rule forever and destroy all the kingdoms?” Patroclus said to him: “Yes, he destroys all the kingdoms under heaven, and he will be alone: there will not be a kingdom that flees him.”

Needless to say, Caesar’s immediate response is to strike Patroclus on the face and to ask whether he serves this “king.” Patroclus confesses “Yes, lord Caesar,” as do the foremost of Nero’s household – Barsabas Justus of the flat feet, 60 Orion the Cappadocian, and Festus the Galatian: “We also 57 On a theory for a hypothetical source for “much of [Acts] 20:1–21:19,” see Richard I. Pervo, Acts (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2009), 13 and notes. 58 On the comparison of the Patroclus story in the Martyrdom of Paul (Acts of Paul 14.1–2) and the Eutychus story in Acts 20:7–12, see §1.3.1.1, pp. 54–58 below. 59 Subsequent to my dissertation, Richard I. Pervo has proposed that Patroclus may also have had more intimate relations with Nero, appealing not only to the name Patroclus (in post-Homeric tradition, Achilles’s lover; see Aeschylus, fr. 134a) but also to his function as cupbearer as parallel to Zeus’s Ganymede, who was often understood to have been acquired for sexual purposes (e.g., Theognis 1345–48). I thank Richard for sharing a draft of his argument in October 2010, prior to the 2010 SBL Annual Meeting at which it was presented. According to Pervo, the addition of the descriptor deliciosus makes the sexual relationship explicit in Pseudo-Linus’s reworking Martyrium beati Apostoli Pauli. 60 Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3.39.9) reports that the daughters of Philip the evangelist told Papias about a Barsabas Justus who was required to drink poison but miraculously lived.

40

Chapter 1. Martyrdom of Paul

fight (VWUDWHXRYPHTD) for the king of the ages.” Out of political expediency, Nero therefore has the men tortured and imprisoned, and “he issued a decree (GLDYWDJPD) such that all who were found to be Christians and soldiers of Jesus (VWUDWLZYWD,KVRX ; cp. 2 Tim 2:3) should be arrested (DMQDLUHL VTDL) 61” (Acts of Paul 14.2). Because of the Patroclus incident, Paul is arrested among “the many” (Acts of Paul 14.3). After noticing that Paul is heeded by the other prisoners, Nero addresses him: “Man of the great king, yet captured by me, why did it seem good to you to come by stealth into the domain of the Romans and enlist soldiers from my province?” Paul said before all: “Caesar, not only from your province do we enlist soldiers, but from the whole inhabited world. For this charge has been laid upon us: to exclude no one who wishes to enlist with my king. Therefore, if it pleases you too, enlist with him! For neither wealth nor the splendors of the current life will save you, but if you submit to him and entreat him, you will be saved. For, he is going to destroy the world with fire in one day.”

Upon hearing Paul’s reply, Caesar commands that all the prisoners be burned with fire (crematio) – corresponding to Paul’s threat – and “that Paul be beheaded according to Roman law” (WRQGH3DX ORQWUDFKOR NRSKTK QDLWZ QRYPZWZ Q#5ZPDLYZQ, Acts of Paul 14.3). 62 Coupled with his A certain Barsabas Justus is also named in Acts 1:23 as one of the two candidates to be elected as Judas’s replacement among the Twelve, and it is interesting that the textual tradition of Acts 1:23 and 4:36–37, which introduces Barnabas, alternates between the two names. Did some scribes understand Barnabas, basically Paul’s mentor in Acts, to be one who was near to the Twelve? In any case, MacDonald (The Legend and the Apostle, 24–25) makes an interesting case that the story attributed to Papias should be understood to supplement the Martyrdom of Paul: later in the story, when Barsabas is alive and able to be released (Acts of Paul 14.6), it is not because he had not been sentenced but because he had been poisoned – a form of execution reserved for Roman soliders and officials who had committed treason – yet survived. 61 Wilhelm Schneemelcher (idem, New Testament Apocrypha, 2:261) translates “should be put to death.” But it is not until Nero’s dialogue with Paul that he orders the prisoners to be killed. It is only after this order that another use of DMQDLUHYZ occurs (end of Acts of Paul 14.3), with the implication that arrest is equivalent to execution. In the extant form of the Martyrdom, the first occurrence of DM QDLUHYZshould therefore be read as “arrest” (“take up, capture”). Schneemelcher’s rendering may, however, be appropriate for the penultimate form of the Martyrdom hypothesized below (see §1.3.1 below, pp. 54–59). 62 Here the Martyrdom agrees with the claim of the Acts of the Apostles that Paul was a Roman citizen (see Acts 16:37–38; 22:25–29; 25:10; by birth, 22:28). Unless one text depends literarily on the other, we thus seem to have “multiple attestation” of Paul’s Roman citizenship. It is tempting to harmonize this command to burn the Christians with the attrocities otherwise attributed to Nero after the fire of 64 C.E. (see Suetonius, Nero 16; Tacitus, Annals 15.44; Correspondence of Paul and Seneca 11). But neither connection validates the historicity of the Martyrdom.

1.1. Paul among the “Martyrs”

41

prior decree (GLDYWDJPD) to arrest all the Christians, Nero’s command to execute is in effect a death sentence for Christians in Rome. 63 The Martyrdom, attributing Nero’s activity to the Evil One, 64 says that so many Christians were being arrested (DMQHOHL Q) that the Romans made a stand at the palace to protest that the numbers of the Romans were being depleted by the arrests (Acts of Paul 14.3). Caesar therefore makes another decree (GLDYWDJPD) that none of the Christians should be touched until he had diagnosed their cases. For this reason, Paul, who had not yet been beheaded but has begun preaching “the word” to the prefect Longus and a centurion Cestus (apparently in prison), was therefore brought before Nero again. 65 Caesar confirmed the earlier sentencing, to which Paul replies: “Caesar, it is not for a short time that I live for my king. Even if you decapitate me, this I will do: Having arisen, I will appear to you [to prove] that I did not die but am living for my Lord, Christ Jesus, who is coming to judge the inhabited world.”

Paul therefore prophesies that he, like Jesus in the canonized gospels (except in the shortest form of Mark), will have post-mortem appearances – a prophecy reiterated in the next scene. After his second sentencing, there is an extended dialogue between Paul and the aforementioned Longus and Cestus. 66 The beginning of the dialogue continues the themes of Paul’s first declaration to Nero, explaining how Christians “do not march, as you suppose, with a king who comes from earth, but one from heaven, the living God, who comes as judge because of the lawless deeds that are done in the world” (Acts of Paul 14.4). Paul urges the two, “who are in ignorance and deception (HMQWK DMJQRLYD NDLSODY QK),” to repent and be saved from the coming fire by believing in Christ and living forever. Longus and Cestus offer to free Paul if he will help them. But Paul replies, “I am no deserter (GUDSHYWK) from Christ, but 63 The text is explicit that the “persecution” (to add an analytic category) was local; according to the forthcoming CCSA edition, see the final paragraph of Acts of Paul 14.3. 64 An earlier reference, whose antecedent is unclear, may also refer to the Evil One: when Patroclus dies, the Greek says WRX GHSRQKURX GLDERYORX]KORX QWRWKQDMJDYSKQWZ Q DMGHOIZ QH>SHVHQR-3DYWURNOR, “But since the evil slanderer was jealous of the love of the brethren, Patroclus fell” (Acts of Paul 14.1). Moss (The Other Christs, 87–102) discusses the theme of martyrdom as cosmic battle, which includes military language and reference to the Devil (as the Evil One, Satan, etc.). According to her study, such ideology among martyrdoms is late and primarily western and Latin. 65 The “chronological” sequencing of Paul’s original sentencing and re-trial does not provide verisimilitude. The multiple stages of trial, which appear to reflect redactional activity, function to highlight Paul and his role in the persecution. See further §1.3.1, pp. 54–59 below. 66 The precise location(s) of the dialogue are difficult to discern because of the redactional activity, but by the end of the dialogue Paul is in the location of his decapitation. See further §1.3.1, pp. 54–59 below.

42

Chapter 1. Martyrdom of Paul

a lawful soldier (H>QQRPRVWUDWLZYWK) of the living God. If I were to see that I am [in fact] dying, I would do that [i.e., accept your offer], Longus and Cestus; but since I am living for God and love him, I depart to the Lord so that I may come with him in the glory of his Father” (Acts of Paul 14.4). 67 To their follow-up questions about how they will be saved and live when Paul is dead, Paul replies, “When you come quickly at dawn here to my grave, find two men praying, Titus and Luke. They will give you the seal in the Lord [i.e., baptism]” (Acts of Paul 14.5). Between their first question and Paul’s reply occurs a subdialogue – probably a later addition – that reiterates Paul’s prophecy: into the scene appear a certain Parthenius and Pheretas, sent from Nero to find out whether Paul had been beheaded. When Paul sees them, he calls out to them: “Believe in the living God, who raises up from the dead both me and all who believe in him!” (Acts of Paul 14.5). To make sure the stakes are clear, they reply: “We are departing now to Nero. But when you die and rise, then we will believe in your God” (Acts of Paul 14.5). Thus the stage is set for Paul’s death and “DMQDYVWDVL.” Paul’s death is remarkable in its details. 68 First he stands and prays to the east, and then – after ceasing the prayer – he “communes with the fathers in Hebrew” (NDLNDWDSDXYVDWKQSURVHXFKQNRLQRORJKVDYPHQRH-EUDL!VWL WRL SDWUDYVLQ, Acts of Paul 14.5). Whether this means that Paul participated in an Israelite cult of the dead, conversing with renowned ancestors (as implied by the translation in Schneemelcher), 69 or whether he counseled some local Israelite leaders (cp. Acts 28) is unclear. But, as with the claim to Roman citizenship, here we have another datum on which Acts and the Martyrdom concur: that Paul spoke “Hebrew” (probably, Aramaic; see Acts 21:40; 22:2). In any case, after the conversation, Paul extends his neck, speaking no more. Then occurs an image paralleled in various religious traditions, engendering diverse interpretations: “But as [the soldier] cut off his head, milk spurted onto the soldier’s clothing” (Z-GHDMSHWLY QD[HQDXMWRX WKQNHIDOKQJDYODHMSXYWLVHQHLMWRXFLWZ QDWRX

VWUDWLZYWRX,

67 Echoes of Pauline letters may occur in this statement, but phrases here and following tend to parallel the Gospel of John (and 1 John). 68 Moss (The Other Christs, 69–73) emphasizes the theme of military conversion in martyrdoms, especially as patterned after the centurion’s conversion at the cross of Jesus. It is interesting to note that, despite the text’s emphases on military characters, none of them convert at Paul’s death. 69 Schneemelcher (New Testament Apocrypha, 2:262) translates: “The Paul stood with his face to the east, and lifting up his hands to heaven prayed at length; and after communing in prayer in Hebrew with the fathers he stretched out his neck without speaking further.”

1.1. Paul among the “Martyrs”

43

Acts of Paul 14.5).70 In the words of the text, “The soldier and all who were present, having seen, marveled and gave glory (HMT DXYPDVDQNDL HMGRY[D]RQ) to the God who had given such glory to Paul. And after departing, they reported to Caesar what had occurred” (Acts of Paul 14.5). “While [Caesar] marveled and was perplexed (NDMN HLYQ RXTDXPDY ]RQWR NDLGLDSRURX QWR), Paul came during the ninth hour when many were standing with Caesar – philosophers, family (ILYOZQ), and the centurion” (Acts of Paul 14.6).71 Appearing to all, Paul announces himself: “Caesar, behold Paul the soldier of God. I did not die; rather I am living. But for you there will be many evils in place of those whose just blood you poured out not many days from now.” 72 Then Paul disappears. Disordered (R-WDUDFTHL), Nero commands the prisoners to be released, including Patroclus and those with Barsabas. The first of Paul’s two reported appearances is therefore a political, indeed cosmic, statement to Rome’s imperator. 73 Paul’s second appearance occurs at dawn at his tomb (WDYIR, Acts of Paul 14.7). 74 Longus and Cestus, following Paul’s order, arrive at the tomb 70

In ancient times as in modern, “head” sometimes functioned as a phallic symbol, and the femininity of the milk – derived from the breast – cannot be missed. Rather than an odd juxtaposition of gendered parts and functions, the point is probably to portray how Paul’s death nourished Christians (see the prophecy of Myrta in Acts of Paul 12). A similar story of nourishment from an apostle occurs in the Martyrdom of the later Acts of Philip (according to Mount Athos, Xenophontos 32); see François Bovon, Bertrand Bouvier, and Frédéric Amsler, Acta Philippi (2 vols.; CCSA 11–12; Turnhout: Brepols, 1999) 1:428 n. 90. For a discussion of the post-execution events in the Martyrdom, see János Bolyki, “Events after the Martyrdom: Missionary Transformation of an Apocalyptical Metaphor in Martyrium Pauli,” in The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla (ed. Bremmer) 92–106. For further discussion of Paul’s decapitation, see Tajra, Martyrdom, 164–65; 193–94. Hills (“The Acts of the Apostles in the Acts of Paul,” 39) has proposed that the response to Paul’s beheading is derived from a variant reading of Matt 9:8. 71 Was the centurion Cestus? And is this the same soldier who beheaded Paul? It is difficult to determine. But remember Parthenius and Pheretas (Acts of Paul 14.5), who are more likely candidates for this scene. 72 In Acts 1:5, the phrase denotes a forthcoming occurrence. Moss (The Other Christs, 65–67) notes that martyrs often repeat the words of Jesus, especially in the Lukan form (as also done by “6WHYIDQR” in Acts). Paul’s declaration is remarkably different, with its explicit military and political language. 73 On the hypothesis set forth in §1.3.1 below, this “first” appearance may be a later addition. Regarding these additions, François Bovon reminded me of the story in Homer’s Iliad (23.65–92) where a certain “Patroclus” appears from Hades to address Achilles. (Compare n. 59, p. 39 above.) Did the author of the Martyrdom of Paul use the Iliad as an intertext? 74 According to LSJ, WDYIR does not necessarily refer to a fixed burial location (as in Matt 27–28); it may also refer to funerary rites. Regarding the time period (R>UTURX), compare Luke 24:1 for the visit of Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and “the other women with them” to Jesus’ tomb.

44

Chapter 1. Martyrdom of Paul

to see Luke and Titus praying – with Paul between them. When Luke and Titus notice the Romans approaching, they are seized with “human fear” and turn to flight (HLMIXJKYQ). But Longus and Cestus call after them: “We are not pursuing you for death, but so that you might give us life, as was promised by Paul – the one who was praying in your midst a short while ago.” Overjoyed at the news, Luke and Titus decide to give them “the seal in the Lord.” Paul’s second appearance thus functions to confirm the message of salvation promised by the text. Paul’s accusation, arrest, twofold trial and sentencing, and execution are therefore similar but different from the topics and themes of the martyrdoms. 75 Rather than occurring before a local Roman governor, Paul appears before the Roman imperator, even if the “persecution” in question remains local in time and place. So also, rather than taking place as part of a formalized procedure, Paul’s accusation and trial in the Martyrdom are ad hoc, relating to the specific circumstances of (perceived) sedition on the part of Nero’s associates: Nero fears a coup and nips things in the bud. Moreover, the events do not occur in relation to any festivities or other special occasion; things take place when Patroclus dies and rises, and when the people speak out. Paul speaks his peace, to be sure; but the message he preaches is not perseverance in his Christian faith, but the message of a king from heaven who will destroy all human governments in a cosmic fire, saving only those who are his “soldiers.” It is because of this political statement that Paul is sentenced to a typical punishment for a Roman citizen, decapitation, rather than one of the more spectacular punishments of the martyrdoms (crucifixion, crematio [also called vivicomburium or immolatio], and/or damnatio ad bestias). What is remarkable about Paul’s death, therefore, is not the manner in which he died – for example, in a Stoic or manly fashion; it is rather the “miracles” that attend and follow his death that make it remarkable. For these reasons, the Martyrdom of Paul does not appear to embody the criteria that are characteristic of a martyrdom. It does not even include any PDUW- terminology. How then does the Martyrdom of Paul compare with martyrdoms from other non-canonized acts of the apostles?

75

For an interesting and related study, see Saundra Schwartz, “The Trial Scene in the Greek Novels and in Acts,” in Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative and Greco-Roman Discourse (ed. Todd Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele; SBLSP 20; Atlanta: SBL, 2003) 105–37.

1.2. Paul among the Apostles

45

1.2. Paul among the Apostles 76 1.2. Paul among the Apostles

The category of (non-canonized) “acts of the apostles” is not simply a literary category. The common grouping of five acts of the apostles – the Acts of Paul, Acts of Peter, Acts of Andrew, Acts of John, and Acts of Thomas – is derived from Manichaean collections, later reflected in “orthodox” polemics against the Manichaeans. For example, within “orthodox” historiography, this grouping of texts is attributed to a single heretical author, a certain Leukios Charinos. 77 Modern scholars of “apocryphal” literature in general and acts of apostles in particular are familiar with the category’s origin, and depending on their own theological and historical perspectives, they re-categorize the acts in different ways. Most common is to broaden the category of acts of apostles to include other texts that are comparable in their literary contents and/or form, such as the Acts of Philip, Martyrdom of Matthew, Acts of Timothy, Story of Simon and Theonoe, and so forth. 78 But others delimit the category topically or chronologically, such that only examples of “the Twelve (plus Paul, of course)” are included or only texts prior to the religio-political developments in the fourth century. Without speaking to the issue of categorization, I would like to compare the Martyrdom of Paul to the martyrdoms of texts that are the most chronologically proximate – which happen to be three from the Manichaean collection: Acts of Andrew, Acts of John, and Acts of Peter. (Acts of Thomas, like the Acts of Philip and other texts, is significantly later than Acts of Paul.) Because I am interested in the development of martyrdom literature, it is these early texts that will be most helpful for comparative and analytic purposes. However, since Acts of John does not have a martyrdom as such, 79 we will only be concerned with Acts of An76

Translations of other acts of the apostles are according to Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 2, unless otherwise noted. 77 See François Bovon, “Canonical and Noncanonical Acts of the Apostles,” reprinted in idem, New Testament and Christian Apocrypha: Collected Studies II (ed. Glenn E. Snyder; WUNT 237; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2009) 198, esp. n. 8; see also the essay by Kurt Schäferdiek, “The Manichean Collection of Apocryphal Acts ascribed to Leucius Charinus,” in Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 2:87–100. 78 See Bovon, “Canonical and Noncanonical Acts of the Apostles,” 198–99, esp. nn. 8–9. 79 For the Acts of John, see in addition to Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 2:152–212, Éric Junod and Jean-Daniel Kaestli, Acta Johannis (2 vols.; CCSA 1–2; Turnhout: Brepols, 1983); Jan N. Bremmer, ed., The Apocryphal Acts of John (Studies on the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles 1; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1995); Pieter J. Lalleman, The Acts of John: A Two-Stage Initiation into Johannine Gnosticism (Studies on the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles 4; Leuven: Peeters, 1998). The Acts of John reports the death of John in its Metastasis (PHWDYVWDVL, “departure” or “change in state”). Echoing language from the Johannine literature, especially 1 John and the Gospel of John, the

46

Chapter 1. Martyrdom of Paul

drew and Acts of Peter. What similarities and differences does the Martyrdom of Paul have with these acts of apostles? 1.2.1. Acts of Andrew Acts of Andrew, 80 which is considered by some scholars to be the earliest of the non-canonized acts of the apostles, has a martyrdom that differs significantly from the Martyrdom of Paul. Acts of Andrew was read throughout the Mediterranean. According to ancient sources, the text was especially valued by Christians with strong dualistic and ascetic tendencies, such as the Manichaeans and Priscillianists. But as late as the sixth century, Gregory of Tours had a copy of the entire text before him, which – according to his common practice – he epitomized for the orthodoxy of Metastasis is a description of the final events of John’s life, one Sunday in Ephesus. It begins at a worship gathering, where John addresses the community and reaffirms their theology and values, including a monotheism that separates God from the cosmos. After praying to this God, John breaks bread and gives thanks, offering a docetic prayer that appropriates christological titles from the Gospels of John and Matthew. He prays over the “brothers” who partake, wishes them peace, and then says to a certain Verus: “Take two brethren with baskets and spades, and follow me” (Acts of John 110). Leaving the house, they walk outside the city gates to “a tomb of a brother of ours” (perhaps a reference to another John), where John says, “Dig, my sons” (111). Once his tomb is prepared, John takes off his outer garment, lays it in the grave, and then prays in his undergarments. The prayer begins with an extended invocation of God (111–12), continues with a reminder of how John has maintained his virginity for God (113), and ends with a request that he receive what is due to those who live purely and love God (114). Having thus “sealed” himself, he asks Jesus to be with him, lays down in the grave, wishes peace to the brothers nearby, and finally gives up his spirit while rejoicing (115). The Metastasis of John, therefore, is not a martyrdom. To be sure, it has several theological and ethical similarities to the Acts of Andrew (described below): it is clear how the Manichaeans later would have been able to read the texts together with their presuppositions. But the Metastasis of John does not have an accusation, arrest, imprisonment, trial, sentence, or execution; John simply dies a natural death. Or, according to later developments, John’s simply goes to sleep, or his body is translated into heaven (one to three days later) – alternate interpretations of Jesus’ words about “the beloved disciple” in John 21:22 (“If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is it to you [Peter]?”). 80 In addition to Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 2:101–51, see esp. JeanMarc Prieur, Acta Andreae (2 vols.; CCSA 5–6; Turnhout: Brepols, 1989); Dennis Ronald MacDonald, The Acts of Andrew and The Acts of Andrew and Matthias in the City of the Cannibals (Texts and Translations 33, Christian Apocrypha Series 1; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990); idem, Christianizing Homer: The Odyssey, Plato, and the Acts of Andrew (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994); Jean-Marc Prieur, Actes de l’apôtre André. Présentation et traduction du latin, du copte et du grec (Apocryphes: Collection de Poche de L’AELAC 7; Turnout: Brepols, 1995); Jan N. Bremmer, ed., The Apocryphal Acts of Andrew (Studies on the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles 5; Leuven: Peeters, 2000); and Dennis Ronald MacDonald, The Acts of Andrew (Early Christian Apocrypha 1; Santa Rosa, Calif.: Polebridge Press, 2005).

1.2. Paul among the Apostles

47

his day; and the text was known in the east at least into the ninth century. Today it is available in several Greek forms, most of which include the martyrdom of Andrew. In its various forms, the martyrdom of Andrew is significantly longer than the Martyrdom of Paul – despite including references to speeches of Andrew that are not extant.81 What occasions Andrew’s accusation, imprisonment, trial, sentencing, and execution is not an anti-Roman message of Christ as king of the cosmos, as in the Martyrdom of Paul, nor is it the charge from the martyrdoms that Andrew was a “Christian”; according to Acts of Andrew, Andrew’s “crime” is that he converted a certain Maximilla, wife of Aegeates the governor of Achaia. The kind of life to which Andrew converted Maximilla is philosophical. Deploying ontological oppositions between the outer and the inner, the visible and the invisible, the body and the self, the Acts of Andrew develops a cosmology in which the key to salvation is to “know thyself” – a knowledge available only to Christians, who are the real and true humans. In its use of an elaborate interpretation of Gen 1:1–2:3 and Gen 2:4–3:24, the text imagines the present as a conflict between opposing forces: on one side is the world, including the human body, ruled by the Devil (= Serpent) and his; and on the other is God and Christ ruling in Spirit. Here Adam and Eve symbolize Mind and Body, respectively, and the Serpent tempts the Body to rule the Mind, in particular through carnal passion. It is therefore through renunciation, especially of sexual intercourse but of all things external, that one is liberated from bondage to the world and remembers one’s true Spiritual self. 82 This is how one finds “rest.” Such rest is available not only to men but to women as well, and it is here that Maximilla finds herself when she receives “the seal in the Lord.” Thenceforth, in faithful service to Christ and in opposition to the Devil who rules her husband, Maximilla remains chaste. 83 81 Commonly it is understood that the speeches were intentionally omitted, as other discrepancies in the manuscripts indicate that individual scribes shortened the text according to their preferences. 82 The Acts of Andrew, like some texts formerly grouped together as “Gnostic” (esp. certain so-called “Sethian” materials), may imply that certain humans do not contain the real, true self; note, for example, the text’s emphasis on insiders being of the same lineage (VXJJHQKY), as well as its othering of outsiders as “aliens/foreigners.” 83 A subplot occurs in which Maximilla offers her slave Eucleia to Aegeates by night, apparently adorned with her garments in such a way as to trick Aegeates into thinking it was her. Eucleia later bribes Maximilla into giving her clothes, adornments, and riches, only to betray her trust to some other slaves. Eventually Aegeates learns of the affair and confronts Maximilla, only to learn of her renunciation. Out of his mind, Aegeates is informed by a slave about Andrew, whom he presently happens upon and imprisons. See Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 2:139–42.

48

Chapter 1. Martyrdom of Paul

Enraged, the governor of Achaia imprisons Andrew in Patra. Maximilla and her Christian slave Iphidama, in a scene similar to the Acts of Paul and Thekla (see chapter 3 below), visit Andrew in prison, where his discourse strengthens them. But after several days, Aegeates remembers Andrew and, fleeing the tribunal, runs to his wife and offers her an ultimatum: to sleep with her husband, or for Andrew to die. 84 With the decision laid upon her, Andrew is visited that night by Maximilla, the recently converted Stratocles (brother of Aegeates), and many local Christians, and he offers to them some parting words of wisdom. The next day, with Maximilla standing strong, Aegeates summons Andrew and sentences him to seven scourges, followed by what Andrew had prophesied – and what was intended to be a painful execution: crucifixion without having one’s sinews cut. Like a common criminal (an “enemy” and “corrupter”) with no rights (a “foreigner”), Andrew is led to his place of crucifixion. Regarding it as a sign to all, Andrew rejoices at his cross and uses it as a platform to discourse to the crowds for three days and nights about freeing the soul from all externals: “Turn away, I beg of you all, from this troublesome life, vain, insane, presumptuous, transitory, and strive to lay hold of my soul as it reaches out to what is above time, above law, above word, and you shall obtain whatever you wish. For such is set within your power.” 85 Impressed by his virtues, the people go to the governor and say, “Take the man down, and we shall all become philosophers!” But when Aegeates gives in to the populace, he is greeted by an Andrew who is unmoving. Before the governor and all who are there, he declares: Lord, do not suffer Andrew who is bound upon your cross to be released again. Let not your adversary release the one who hangs upon your grace, Father, but take me yourself, Christ, whom I desired, whom I loved. Receive me, that through my departure (H>[RGR) there may be an entry to you for my many kinsfolk (VXJJHQHL ), who rest upon your majesty. (trans. Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 2:150–51)

The martyrdom in Acts of Andrew, ending with a reference to Andrew giving up his spirit and what happened with the household of Aegeates, therefore differs from both the martyrdoms and the Martyrdom of Paul. Like the martyrdoms, but unlike the Martyrdom of Paul, Andrew’s trial is conducted before the local Roman governor, who in this case also functions as the delator. So also, Andrew is sentenced as a criminal to one of the forms of death common for Christians (crucifixion), and his spectacu84

Aegeates’ reference to freeing the stranger held in prison probably reflects the author’s view that Christians are strangers to the world/body. For a related topical study, see Benjamin H. Dunning, Aliens and Sojourners: Self as Other in Early Christianity (Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009). 85 Trans. Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 2:149.

1.2. Paul among the Apostles

49

lar death functions both as a stage for his final soliloquy and as a visual model, through the “practice of death,” 86 of his message to choose the true inner self over deceptive externals. What is perhaps most interesting, however, is what occurs in Acts of Andrew that does not occur in the martyrdoms: namely, a reason for why Christians might be prosecuted. In Acts of Andrew, Andrew is accused and condemned not for his “atheism,” nor for any charge like cannibalism or incest, much less for simply being a “Christian.” 87 Rather, Andrew is executed for corrupting Roman matrons. Not a political charge like Paul’s, the accusation against Andrew was at once social, economic, and legal, and hence could have been legitimated according to Roman law in various ways, especially with gubernatorial imperium in the provinces. It was intolerable for local marriage practices to be violated by foreign philosophy. 88 1.2.2. Acts of Peter Acts of Peter 89 provides the most interesting and relevant comparison to the Martyrdom of Paul. 90 Acts of Peter begins, at least according to the form attested in the Actus Vercellenses, 91 with an account of Paul in Rome (Acts of Peter 1[1–3]), which appears to be intended as a sequel to the 86

See for example Kelley’s use of Hadot and Foucault in “Philosophy as Training for Death.” 87 See for example Robert Louis Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (2d ed.; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2003). 88 Compare the Acts of Paul and Thekla, discussed in chapter 3 below. 89 In addition to Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 2:271–321, see esp. Jan N. Bremmer, ed., The Apocryphal Acts of Peter: Magic, Miracles and Gnosticism (Studies on the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles 3; Leuven: Peeters, 1998); Matthew C. Baldwin, Whose Acts of Peter?: Text and Historical Context of the Actus Vercellenses (WUNT 2.196; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). 90 Also interesting is the case of Judas in the Acts of Thomas (159–70). Misdaeus, king of India, accuses Judas of “sorceries” and sentences him (as a slave) to death by spear. When Misdaeus’s son Vazan and a certain Siphor are mourning at his tomb, Judas appears and says, echoing Luke 24:6, “I am not here.” Later, one of Misdaeus’s sons becomes ill, so the king decides to open the tomb and use one of the apostle’s bones to heal his son. Judas appears to him, saying that Jesus will humor the king despite his previous actions. But when he arrives at the tomb, the king learns that the body had been removed by one of the brothers. Not to be dissuaded, Misdaeus uses some of the dust where the bones had laid, and his son is healed – prompting the conversion of the Indian king. But the date of Acts of Thomas as a whole, and this part in particular, is unhelpful for comparative purposes; the author may even have known the Martyrdom of Paul. 91 The Actus Vercellenses, named after a codex in Vercelli, is a sixth- or seventycentury Latin manuscript, probably witnessing a fourth-century form of the text. See Baldwin, Whose Acts of Peter? Gérard Poupon (“Les Actes de Pierre et leur remaniement,” ANRW 25.6 [1988] 4363–83) has argued among other things that the opening chapters of Actus Vercellenses are later additions to the Acts of Peter.

50

Chapter 1. Martyrdom of Paul

story in the canonized Acts of the Apostles. 92 A certain Roman prison officer Quartus, after he has followed the lead of his wife Candida to convert, offers Paul the opportunity to leave the city. After fasting and praying for three days, Paul has a vision of the Lord commissioning him to be a “physician” to the people of Spain (cp. Rom 15), and so he lets the Roman community know God’s will. In a dramatic farewell scene, a voice from heaven announces, “Paul the servant of God is chosen for (this) service for the time of his life; but at the hands of Nero, that godless and wicked man, he shall be perfected before your eyes” (Acts of Peter 1), thus attesting to the tradition of Paul’s death in the Martyrdom of Paul. Paul then offers a Eucharist of bread and water (Acts of Peter 1[2]), while the community weeps and begs him to stay (cp. Acts 20:17–38). Eventually, after exhorting them for several days, Paul is sent on his way to Spain, thus opening the way for Simon Magus to corrupt the community in Rome and Peter to restore it – after Peter had fulfilled his twelve years in Jerusalem 93 and had been called by the Lord to Rome (2[4]ff.). Most of the Acts of Peter is then devoted to a competition of power, religious and/or magical, between Simon and Peter in Rome, with Peter winning in every contest. 94 “From that time on,” the text explains, “they all believed in Peter” (32). Therefore, “Peter stayed in Rome and rejoiced with the brethren in the Lord and gave thanks night and day for the mass of people who were daily added to the holy name by the grace of the Lord” (33). For the Acts of Peter, the problem of Paul’s absence is thus solved through Peter’s presence in the Christian community in Rome. But the message that Peter preaches to the Roman community results in his death. In Acts of Peter 34, we learn for the first time in the Acts of Peter that Peter is preaching a message of sexual continence – and a strong form, as in the Acts of Andrew, that results even in married people abstaining from sexual relations with their spouses. 95 Among the many women – not to mention men – who convert to this message are the four concubines 92

See for example Bauckham, “The Acts of Paul as a Sequel to Acts”; idem, “Replacement of Acts or Sequel to Acts?” 93 On the twelve years, see Clement, Strom. IV 5.43, which is attributed to the socalled Kerygma Petri (“Preaching of Peter”). It is also noteworthy that Acts 1:8 may be read as a geographic restriction for the Eleven (Jerusalem, and all Judea and Samaria) during a chronological period (“to the eschaton of the land”). 94 Compare the Priestly source’s portrait of Aaron’s sequence of contests with Egypt’s magicians (Exod 6–9). 95 Historically, the theme of sexual renunciation, as well as the strong dualistic statements in Peter’s speeches, may have been added to an earlier form of the Acts of Peter. (Also suspect, but for different reasons, is the text’s emphasis on Marcellus.) Renunciation of sex in marriage is stronger than the asceticism advocated in the Acts of Paul and Thekla (see chapter 3 below), but is comparable to the Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena.

1.2. Paul among the Apostles

51

of prefect Agrippa (Agrippina, Nicaria, Euphemia, and Doris) and a certain Xanthippe, 96 wife of Nero’s friend Albinus. Albinus, “filled with fury and passionate love for Xanthippe, and amazed that she would not even sleep in the same bed with him, was raging like a wild beast and wished to do away with Peter” (34). So he approached Agrippa to request satisfaction, only to learn that the prefect too had been wronged by Peter’s message. The two Roman leaders therefore conspire to execute Peter as a “troublemaker,” acting on behalf of all who had been deprived of their wives. Xanthippe, meanwhile, learns of the conspiracy and goes to tell Peter (35). At the request of the community, Peter decides to flee the city, on the rationale that he will be able to keep serving the Lord. But on his way out of the city, in a scene that parallels Paul’s run-in with Jesus (Acts of Paul 13; see §§5.1.2–3; 6.1.1; 6.2.1), Peter has a vision of the Lord entering Rome and asks the Lord, Quo vadis? (“Where are you going?,” Acts of Peter 35), to which the Lord replies that he is going to Rome to be crucified again. 97 Coming to his senses, Peter sees the Lord ascend to heaven, and then he returns to the city jubilant in the knowledge that it is not in fact the Lord but he who will be crucified. While he is explaining God’s will to the community, Peter is arrested by four soliders and taken before Agrippa. The prefect, still enraged over his wife, charges Peter with “irreligion” and sentences him to crucifixion. Peter’s crucifixion is remarkable. The text relates that the whole Christian community – rich and poor, orphans and widows, capable and helpless – came to witness the event (Acts of Peter 36). 98 Addressing them as “soldiers of Christ,” Peter quiets the crowd, urging them not to be angry with Agrippa and to know that he has foreseen his crucifixion as part of God’s will. 99 Then Peter, in a monologue that may reflect an earlier dialogue, 96

The Xanthippe in Acts of Peter is not to be identified with the Xanthippe in the Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena, which recounts Paul’s journey to Spain. 97 The relationship between these accounts in Acts of Paul and Acts of Peter has been much discussed, especially in terms of literary dependence of whole texts. See for example Willy Rordorf, “The Relationship between the Acts of Peter and the Acts of Paul: State of the Question,” in The Apocryphal Acts of Peter (ed. Bremmer) 178–91; Dennis R. MacDonald, “Which Came First? Intertextual Relationships among the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles,” in Semeia 80 (1997) 11–41; idem, “The Acts of Paul and the Acts of Peter: Which Came First?,” SBLSP 31 (1992) 214–24; Robert F. Stoops, Jr., “The Acts of Peter in Intertextual Context,” Semeia 80 (1997) 57–86. 98 The text does not state where Peter was crucified, perhaps because it was already a known pilgrimmage site; in any case, the text’s emphasis is on Peter’s burial (Acts of Peter 40). 99 Compare the ideology of providence in the first two acts of the Passion Narrative of Paul (= Acts of Paul 12–14), as discussed in §§5.1.2–3. As a kind of “prequel” for the Martyrdom of Paul, these acts were apparently intended to be read with (the story behind) the Acts of Peter.

52

Chapter 1. Martyrdom of Paul

approaches the cross and speaks of its invisible mystery. He ends the speech by addressing the Roman soldiers: “I request you therefore, executioners, to crucify me head-downwards – in this way and no other. And the reason, I will tell to those who hear” (37). Once crucified upside-down, the apostle speaks of the mystery of all nature, using his body and the cross symbolically to explain how the cosmic Christ reverses values: “Concerning this the Lord says in a mystery, ‘Unless you make what is on the right hand as what is on the left and what is on the left hand as what is on the right and what is above as what is below and what is behind as what is before, you will not recognize the Kingdom’ ” (38; compare Gos. Thom. 22). Peter then waxes eloquent about the difference between the realm of appearance and what is truly real, praying that those with true ears shall hear and receive “what eye has not seen nor ear heard” (1 Cor 2:9; compare Isa 64:4). As the faithful shout “Amen,” Peter gives up his spirit to the Lord (39–40). But Peter’s death is not the end of his martyrdom. Continuing a theme from the broader Acts of Peter, the Martyrdom describes the actions of a certain Marcellus – a character who functioned earlier in the story as a site of contest between Simon and Peter (see especially his re-conversion at Acts of Peter 8–11). 100 Here Marcellus, a wealthy and influential Roman of senatorial class, takes Peter down from the cross, washes and embalms his body with precious goods, and buries him in his own burial-vault (40), like Joseph of Arimathea in the canonized Gospels. 101 But Peter appears to Marcellus by night and explains the significance of Jesus’ saying “Let the dead be buried by their own dead” (see Matt 8:22). Marcellus awakes and reports his vision to the community, and then he remains with them and gains yet more strength “until the coming of Paul to Rome” (40). 102 The Martyrdom of Peter concludes with some remarks about Nero (41). With events that parallel the Martyrdom of Paul, the Martyrdom of Peter claims that “Peter had made disciples of some of [Nero’s] servants and caused them to leave him” and that Nero consequently sought to destroy all of Peter’s disciples. So, when the imperator learns that prefect Agrippa had executed Peter by crucifixion, Nero is enraged, because he would have preferred “to punish him more cruelly and with extra severity” (41). But Nero is visited in a dream by a figure – the text does not say whether it was 100 On the Ps.-Marcellus reworking(s) of Paul’s martyrdom with Peter’s, see Tajra, Martyrom, 143–51. 101 See Matt 27:57–61; Mark 15:42–47; Luke 23:50–56; John 19:38–42. 102 It is unclear what legend of Paul the Martyrdom of Peter witnesses on its own, but remember the voice from heaven in Acts of Peter 1 that declares, “At the hands of Nero, that godless and wicked man, [Paul] shall be perfected before your eyes.” Regardless, the Acts of Peter understands Peter to have been executed before Paul.

1.2. Paul among the Apostles

53

Peter – who scourges him and says, “Nero, you cannot now persecute or destroy the servants of Christ. Keep your hands from them!” Because of the vision, Nero therefore ceases to persecute “the disciples.” 103 Thereafter, according to the text, the Christian community in Rome is idyllic, echoing reports of the Jerusalem HMNNOKVLYD in Acts 1–5. The Martyrdom of Peter therefore provides some interesting points of comparison. As in Acts of Andrew, Peter is accused by a local governor – in this case, a praefectus in Rome – for “corrupting” women through a message of sexual renunciation (compare the prayer about John’s purity in Acts of John 112–14); only, in Acts of Peter, the charge for which the apostle is executed is explicitly “irreligion.” Moreover, in both accounts, the apostle is executed by crucifixion and speaks extensively from the cross about the significance of what is invisible, promoting ontological dualism and ethical asceticism.104 The trial of Peter is local and ad hoc, but the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul both refer to a broader persecution of Christians in Rome under Nero, which moreover is abruptly ceased. In the end, though, the Martyrdom of Paul is inherently military, whereas the Martyrdom of Peter is a description of what happens when Christian ethics upsets the Roman status quo. Even though it is lacking some common hallmarks (e.g., a Christian confession or the opportunity to sacrifice for the imperial cult), the Martyrdom of Peter is therefore remarkably similar to the martyrdoms. Its numerous similarities to Acts of Andrew and Acts of Paul may indicate that the Martyrdom of Peter was even composed after them, perhaps in the late second century when martyrdom literature proper was beginning to be composed. Hence the Martyrdom of Paul, despite its similarities to martyrdoms and to other acts of apostles, remains distinctive. However, its singularity is not without context or explanation. So let us reflect on the origin and development of Paul’s martyrdom with additional comparative materials and then consider whether and how it may have influenced the bodies of literature we have surveyed thus far.

103

Based on the text’s understanding that Peter was executed before Paul, it may be that we are supposed to imagine Peter’s martyrdom prior to 64 C.E. But it is probably impossible to reconcile all the accounts that claim historical knowledge of Nero’s persecution of Christians in Rome. 104 Compare, for example, similar accounts of Jesus in the Acts of John 87–105 and (Coptic) Apocalypse of Peter (NHC VII, 3).

54

Chapter 1. Martyrdom of Paul

1.3. Martyrdom of Paul: Origins and Developments 1.3. Martyrdom of Paul: Origins and Developments

Based on the manuscript tradition, it is clear that the Martyrdom of Paul is a separable literary unit that may be studied on its own terms. 105 Moreover, it is not necessary to assume that the Martyrdom of Paul was originally part of some imagined whole Acts of Paul, only later to be separated by the “orthodox”; such an assumption would date the Martyrdom of Paul, as one part of the Acts of Paul, on the basis of one or more other parts of the Acts of Paul (e.g., the dating of the Acts of Paul and Thekla; see chapter 3 below). So for the sake of argument, let us imagine that the Martyrdom was originally an independent text and, without neglecting the diverse memories of Paul’s death discussed above (§1.0), let us consider how to determine a date and provenance for this written form of Paul’s martyrdom. 106 Granted, we may not be able to get back to an “original text” for the Martyrdom of Paul, much less to the historical events behind Paul’s death; but we may at least be able to situate the composition of an early Christian tradition. 1.3.1. Compositional Considerations The earliest recoverable Greek form of the Martyrdom of Paul is the product of a complex compositional process. It is my hope that the forthcoming critical edition in the CCSA will enable a thorough analysis of the Martyrdom of Paul with form, source, redaction, narrative, and other kinds of “higher” criticism, so that the text’s composition may be more accurately understood. But in the meantime, I will content myself with noting some of the text’s literary “seams,” repetitions, and other markers that indicate where multiple oral and/or written sources may have been used to produce this form of the Martyrdom. 1.3.1.1. The Patroclus Story as a “Source” One oral and/or written source is the Patroclus story, which as we discussed is an integral part of the Martyrdom of Paul and is probably part of 105

The introduction in Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 2:231 is instructive and de facto representative: “By and large, [the Martyrdom of Paul] gives the impression of being a uniform work, complete in itself. Some passages admittedly are thoroughly clumsy, and one might conjecture that different traditions which originally had nothing to do with one another have here been brought together (the story of Patroclus, the conversion of Longus and Cestus, the martyrdom of Paul). But whether this was done by the author of the [Acts of Paul] or had already been achieved before him we cannot say. … The question of how far he was able to rely on local Roman tradition cannot be confidently answered.” 106 Regarding its diverse later forms and versions, Schneemelcher (New Testament Apocrypha, 2:230) puts it succinctly: “The text early ran wild.”

1.3. Martyrdom of Paul: Origins and Developments

55

its original written form. 107 For, as the story is told, the events related to Patroclus are what occasion Nero’s commands to imprison and execute the Christians in Rome, including Paul. Concerning the date and provenance of the Martyrdom of Paul, it is therefore important to ask: if the Patroclus story was part of the original written Martyrdom of Paul, how does it relate to its “parallel” in Acts 20:7–12? 108 The “parallel” between the Eutychus story in Acts 20:7–12 and the Patroclus story in the Martyrdom of Paul (Acts of Paul 14.1–2) is interesting and may be evaluated differently based on one’s working presuppositions. Some similarities are immediately observable: a youth is sitting in a window listening to Paul preach, but he falls asleep and falls to his death, and then he is brought back to life. But there are also some notable differences in the story in Acts: in Acts the youthful man (QHDQLYD) is named Eutychus (“lucky,” rather than Patroclus), 109 is at a house in Troas with Paul’s travelling companions (see 20:1–6), submits to the darkness of sleep (X^SQR) 110 despite an abundance of lamps, does so prior to the breaking of bread “on the first day,” falls three floors, and is not explicitly resuscitated by Paul. Rather, in Acts Paul goes down to Eutychus, puts his arms around him, and simply states to the others: “Don’t be disturbed (TRUXEHL VTH), for his soul (\XFKY) is in him” (20:10). Having descended to Eutychus (NDWDEDY), Paul then ascends (DQDEDY) to break the bread with them and continues speaking until daylight. Only after the departure of Paul is the fate of Eutychus described, and when this “boy” (SDL , as in the Martyrdom of Paul) is led “living” (]Z QWD, 20:12), it is unclear whether the story in Acts is a resuscitation and/or a conversion (with descent to “death” during the night, when the youth is “clothed with Paul,” followed by ascent, nourishing with the bread of life, 111 and finally walking in the light). The story of Eutychus is part of the so-called “we” material in Acts, where the narrative is guided by verbs in the first-person plural (16:9–40; 20:5–21:18; 27:1–28:16). For some scholars, the “we” material is an authentic and historical account from one or more travelling companions of 107 The extant form of the Martyrdom of Paul is probably not the earliest written form of such (see text below). But it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether prior to the penultimate form I discuss below there was an antepenultimate written form. 108 If the Patroclus story depends literarily on the Eutychus story, then the Eutychus story provides a terminus a quo for the Patroclus story (a hypertext does not precede a hypotext); conversely, if the Eutychus story were dependent on the Patroclus story, the date of the Eutychus story would provide a terminus ad quem for the Patroclus story (a hypotext does not postdate a hypertext). 109 Improbable but possible is that Patroclus connoted “renowned of the father,” derived from NOHHQQRY. 110 In post-archaic Greek mythology, Hypnos is sometimes associated with Hades. 111 Compare the other “breaking of bread” story in the “we” material (Acts 27:33–38).

56

Chapter 1. Martyrdom of Paul

Paul (e.g., the traditional Luke) – a diary or travelogue of some kind – that was produced by the author of Acts; for others, the “we” material is an artificial product, either designed to create verisimilitude or to signal a subgenre (e.g., the adventures of so-and-so); and for others, the “we” material is in-between, as a literary invention that draws in part on primary or secondary witnesses. Regardless, it is interesting to note that the Eutychus story is set in Troas (cp. 20:6, 13), which is also the location where the “we” material begins (see 16:9–11). Like so many of the “we” passages, the Eutychus story and its framing material includes a number of details that enhance its verisimilitude, including not only the particulars of travel (20:5–6, 13ff. explains precisely when, where, and by what means Paul travelled before and after the Eutychus story) but also reference to a specific practice (breaking bread on the first day of the week, 20:7), 112 to circumstantial evidence explaining the occasion for Paul preaching so late (Paul’s plan to travel the next day: 20:7, 11, 13), to the exact height of the window from which the youth fell (20:9), and to the rather precise times for the boy’s fall (PHVRQXYNWLRQ, “midnight,” 20:7) and Paul’s departure (DXMJKY, “daylight,” 20:11). Indeed, we learn that an undefined group – the “boy’s” family? owners? church? – were encouraged RXMPHWUYZ(“not a moderate amount,” 20:12). To generalize, scholars who privilege Acts and/or the “we” material within Acts are thus likely to understand the story of Eutychus to have been written prior to the story of Patroclus that occurs in the Martyrdom of Paul. And that is a common tactic: to understand the Patroclus story as imitating the Eutychus story, with varying levels of literary dependence. Indeed, for some, the marked differences between the stories may be explained by the motivations, themes, etc., deployed by the author of the Martyrdom – at least, when understood to be the author of the entire Acts of Paul (including, conspicuously, the Acts of Paul and Thekla). For, it is argued that, since the author of Acts of Paul was antisocial and anti-political, it is plausible that he would have known the earlier, simpler story in Acts and then edited its story to make his political, theological, and other points. But that argument is a double-edged sword. For, the canonized form also has a strong political stance, which is stated clearly in Acts 25:8, when Paul declares to Porcius Festus the Roman governor of Judea (59–61 C.E.): RX>WHHLMWRQQRYPRQWZ Q,RXGDLYZQRX>WHHLMWRL-HURQRX>WHHLM.DLYVDUDYWLK^PDU 112

Other references to breaking bread in Acts are few but interesting: in Acts 2:46, the reference may be to a common meal at home (perhaps opposed not only to location at the Temple in Jerusalem but also to a Christian ritual per se), unless the reference in 2:42 determines its meaning; and in Acts 27:35, which is also part of the “we” material, the breaking of bread is a prophetic and symbolic meal, shared on the rough waters of the Mediterranean by those who would be saved with Paul by his God.

1.3. Martyrdom of Paul: Origins and Developments

57

WRQ(“I have in no way committed an offense against the law of the Judeans, or against the Temple, or against Caesar”). Particularly if we attend to the studies produced by the Paul and Politics Group of the Society of Biblical Literature, it is evident that Acts was concerned to de-politicize the historical Paul. So to the extent that we may discuss “the” author of either collection of traditions, the author of Acts would have been just as likely to depoliticize a story about Paul, as the author of the Martrydom would have been to politicize one. Moreover, the Eutychus story is oddly located in Acts. Even within the text’s trope of Paul travelling from Syrian Antioch and then circling back through Jerusalem, this part of the narrative is irregular. For, Paul has completed his so-called “third missionary journey,” to Ephesus in western Asia Minor (18:23–20:1), and he is travelling back to Jerusalem, where he will stay at the house of Mnason of Cyprus (21:15ff.). Most of the material between is abbreviated travel narrative (20:1–6, 13–16; 21:1–3, 7–8a, 15), apart from the Eutychus story (20:7–12), Paul’s farewell to the Ephesian SUHVEXYWHURL at Miletus (20:17–38), and warnings from the Spirit at Tyre (21:4–6) and Caesarea (21:8b–14). 113 Even if we grant that the other stories are part of the Spirit’s plan for Paul in Acts, what is the function of the Eutychus story? What does it contribute – to Acts as a whole, to the third missionary journey, or to Paul’s ascent to Jerusalem? The Eutychus story is simply unrelated to its preceding and following contexts; and it does not have a definite literary, rhetorical, theological, or other point of its own. Its only function, at least so far as I can tell, is to claim that an event occurred and was witnessed by the “author” of the “we” material. So then, which came first? To ask such a question assumes the literary dependence of one text upon another. In this case, it is common to argue that the Patroclus story depends on the Eutychus story; and such an argument is normally based not on the literary evidence but rather on the presuppositions that Acts was composed earlier than the Patroclus story, that the Patroclus story was part of the abstract whole Acts of Paul, and that the author of Acts of Paul (as evinced by particular themes, etc., in other parts of this alleged whole) would have been properly motivated to change the earlier and simpler story about Eutychus into a complex elaboration for his own purposes. But some like Rordorf have questioned these presuppositions by appealing to common liturgical and/or common language; others such as MacDonald have appealed, with various levels of generality, to preceding oral tradition that was received by both authors; and others like Schneemelcher have appealed rather specifically to com113 Intriguingly, “parallels” to the other two exceptions – the Spirit’s prophesies of Paul’s end (Acts 21:4–6; 21:8b–14) and a farewell scene (Acts 20:17–38) – occur in the Corinth act (Acts of Paul 12). See §5.1.2, pp. 197–202 below.

58

Chapter 1. Martyrdom of Paul

monly shared Pauline tradition, perhaps in some earlier written form. 114 In this case, neither Rordorf’s nor Schneemelcher’s explanations seem to work very well. MacDonald’s in non-falsifiable but is probably, in my opinion, the most reasonable option. But another option may also be possible: the literary dependence of the Eutychus story on the Patroclus story. For, as I argue below, if the Martyrdom of Paul is considered separately rather than as part of some imagined whole Acts of Paul, it may have been composed in one or more written forms prior to the final form(s) of Acts; and if it was produced earlier than the “we” material, then the author of that “we” material may have used the Martyrdom’s story of Patroclus as a source but then edited that hypotext in a manner that would “save” a story about Paul while not offending the imperator (Acts 25:8) and further authorizing the “we” material. So then, in terms of dating the Patroclus story, which functioned as a “source” for the Martyrdom of Paul, it is not necessary to understand the Eutychus story in Acts as a source for the Patroclus story, nor is it necessary to date the Martyrdom of Paul after Acts. 115 1.3.1.2. Other “Sources” In addition to the Patroclus “source,” we may add the Longus and Cestus scenes that are interspersed throughout the narrative and/or the series of interjections about Paul’s post-mortem appearances. For, the Longus and Cestus subplot appears to be secondary to the Patroclus story, and the narrative infelicities occuring between the Patroclus story and the baptism of Longus and Cestus are most simply explained if their story were added to a previous one and/or if the post-mortem appearances were added. In particular, at least three units of material appear to be later additions, all of which are related to the prophecy and fulfillment of Paul’s postmortem appearance(s): (1) the unit of material – a paragraph in CCSA’s edition – that occurs between the first and second references to Longus and Cestus; (2) the vignette with Parthenius and Pheretas; and (3) Paul’s postmortem appearance before Nero. The excision of these three scenes would result in a more fluid and consistent story, focused not on Paul’s postmortem appearances but on the baptism of Longus and Cestus at Paul’s tomb. 116 Whether such a form of the story would have included Paul’s post-mortem appearance to Longus and Cestus is unclear, but it is clear that the two appearances in the extant form differ markedly in their nature 114

See §0.1.1, pp. 5–12 above. For consideration of the “parallels” to Acts in the Ephesus Act (Acts of Paul 9), see §2.3, pp. 81–98 below. 116 Note that references to Luke and Titus would bookend such a form of the Martyrdom of Paul. 115

1.3. Martyrdom of Paul: Origins and Developments

59

and function: the collective and “objective” appearance to Nero and his associates is political and judicial, functioning to condemn Nero and to free the Christian captives; but the personal and “subjective” appearance to Longus and Cestus, which not even Luke and Titus witness, functions to legitimate (and to make less fearful) the baptism of Roman soldiers. Moreover, the appearance to Nero is prophesied and includes a post-mortem logion of Paul, whereas the appearance to Longus and Cestus is not prophesied – Paul only foretells the presence of Luke and Titus – and is a simple appearance without logia or dialogue. So, depending on whether or not the Longus and Cestus story is original to the Martyrdom in its written form and on whether their story originally included a post-mortem appearance, the Martyrdom of Paul may have developed – like the canonized gospels – from a grave visit to a story about Paul’s post-mortem appearances. As interesting as this prehistory may be, the extant form of the Martyrdom of Paul is constructed so that each of its parts is essentially related to the whole. The story is bracketed by references to Luke and Titus and the addition of “many souls” to the Lord, including people from “the house of Caesar.” It is the death, resuscitation, and new life of Patroclus the cupbearer that results in Nero imprisoning Christians, including Paul; and this is due to the political and military declarations of the converts. Likewise, it is the death and post-mortem appearance of Paul that results in Nero freeing Christians, including Patroclus, Barsabbas, and other Roman “soldiers of Christ”; and this is due to the political and military declaration of Paul. Central to the story, in text and perhaps in emphasis, is therefore Paul’s dialogue with Longus and Cestus, where he preaches the HXMDJJHYOLRQ to soliders in Rome while imprisoned by Nero. 117 It is immediately following this dialogue that Paul’s remarkable death is described. The narrative as a whole is therefore composed in such a way as to weave together different narrative strands, uniting several sources that may once have been separate, into a story that glorifies Paul’s witness in Rome. 1.3.2. Historical-Critical Considerations To situate the composition of the Martyrdom of Paul, which would have occurred sometime between the death of Paul (mid-60s C.E.) and Tertullian’s reading of the text (De scorp. 15, ca. 200 C.E.), standard historical methods and materials may be used. First to consider are the intertexts discernable in the Martyrdom of Paul, since these function to push back the terminus a quo and sometimes, based on an intertext’s reception history, also help to delimit certain geographic areas as the most plausible. In this case, rather than assuming that the Martyrdom was composed as part 117

Note the interesting contrasts to the structure and emphases of Acts 28.

60

Chapter 1. Martyrdom of Paul

of some hypothetical whole Acts of Paul, let us consider the Martyrdom separately. 118 Within the Martyrdom, it is relatively certain that the author knew some form of the Gospel of John (18:36 and 11:25ff.). Other intertexts, often understood as “sources,” have also been suggested. 119 But the military language of the martyrdom (“king of the ages,” “army,” “soldiers of Christ,” etc.) need not be attributed to 1 or 2 Timothy, nor do other shared names or phrases necessarily imply literary dependence on Acts, Romans, or Philippians. 120 There is the similar tradition of Luke in Gaul and Titus in Dalmatia, but at most that indicates oral tradition common to the Martyrdom of Paul and 2 Timothy – but not necessarily to “the Pastorals” as an imagined whole (see further pp. 116–19 below). So in addition to the Gospel of John, only the Patroclus/Eutychus story sounds familiar. But as MacDonald has argued, and as I have presupposed throughout, neither story is clearly dependent on the other literarily; instead, the two may be written variations on a common oral tradition. 121 On the basis of its intertexts, the composition of the Martyrdom of Paul can therefore be no earlier than the end of the first century. However, the circulation of the Gospel of John, while perhaps attested more in some areas than in others, is geographically diverse and unhelpful, as is any association with 2 Timothy; at most, the circulation of the intertexts would incline us toward (nonnorthern) Asia Minor. Another, but vaguer, means of situating the Martyrdom of Paul would be its political ideology. Due to recent trends in scholarship, it is tempting 118

For a listing of possible references, see Julian V. Hills, “The Acts of the Apostles in the Acts of Paul,” SBLSP 33 (1994) 24–54, Appendix ad loc. Of the fourteen possible parallels in Acts to the Martyrdom (labelled §11, according to the HenneckeSchneemelcher abstraction), the only one for the Eutychus story is labelled a “C” (where “C” reflects a “low degree of probability” of dependence); the two “A” parallels (allegedly reflecting “little reasonable doubt” of dependence) are Acts 1:5 and 4:8. Other “A” parallels are Matt 9:8 and Phil 4:22. 119 For example, Hills (“The Acts of the Apostles in the Acts of Paul,” 39) has proposed that the response to Paul’s beheading is derived partially from a variant reading of Matt 9:8. 120 Hills (“The Acts of the Apostles in the Acts of Paul,” 38) offers Phil 4:22, based on the phrase [those] HMNWK .DLYVDURRLMNLYD (see Acts of Paul 14.13; cp. 14.3). For, according Hills’s use of Lightfoot (cited at ibid., n. 16), there are only two other uses of the phrase apart from quotations of Phil 4:22: Philo, In Flacc. 35; and Hippolytus, Adv. haer. 9.12. 121 MacDonald, The Legend and the Apostle, 25–26. Recall that the story of Eutychus (Acts 20:7–12) does not function to further the plot in Acts, whereas the Patroclus story provides the occasion in the Martyrdom for Nero’s persecution of the Christians. So while neither can be said to depend on the other literarily, the Patroclus form of the legend “does more work” in its narrative than the Eutychus form does. See n. 59, p. 39 above. See also Pervo, “A Hard Act to Follow,” 11 n. 39, on the “Western” form of Acts 20:1–12 in Codex Bezae.

1.3. Martyrdom of Paul: Origins and Developments

61

to classify the Martyrdom of Paul as an “anti-imperial” writing like texts produced in and about Asia Minor: Revelation and 1 Peter. The canonized book of Revelation, 122 sometimes regarded as a literary apocalypse but better understood as an epistolary report of a prophetic vision, was completed around 95 C.E. Once decoded, the text clearly refers to the Roman imperator (e.g., the healed “beast” of Rev 13) and to Rome (the “great whore” = “Babylon” in Rev 17). 123 In Rev 17:9–11 there is a debated sequence of rulers, which in the end appears to refer to the last Flavian imperator, Domitian (81–96 C.E.). For, the final compositional stratum of Revelation understood Domitian as Nero redivivus. 124 The text’s discussion about the beasts and the fall of Babylon are therefore prophecies against the Roman Empire, issued during the reign of Domitian from Asia Minor, probably from Ephesus. 125 Equally coded is the pseudonymous letter 1 Peter, 126 allegedly written from “Babylon” (5:13) to “sojourners in 122 On Revelation, see for example Adela Yarbro Collins, Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984); Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment (2d ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998; 1st ed., 1985); Steven J. Friesen, Twice Neokoros: Ephesus, Asia, and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family (Leiden: Brill, 1993); idem, Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John: Reading Revelation in the Ruins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001); Leonard L. Thompson, The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997); and Frilingos, Spectacles of Empire. 123 On the use of “Babylon” as an Israelite cipher for Rome, see also 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra. Both texts were composed and apply the term when it makes sense chronologically: after Rome had destroyed the second Israelite temple in Jerusalem (70 C.E.), just as Babylon had done to the first (586 B.C.E.). See Rev 11:1–14 on the destruction of Jerusalem and the enigmatic “two witnesses.” 124 Rev 13:18 uses the number 666 as code for the Hebrew transcription of the Greek form “Caesar Neron” (Q=100, S=60, R=200, N=50, R=200, W=6, N=50); the textual variant of 616 probably confirms the code, as it represents the Latin form “Caesar Nero.” Legends of Nero returning from death are preserved in Sibylline Oracles 4.138–39; 5.108–10, 214–27. It is probable that Revelation was constructed from multiple sources over a period of time, perhaps beginning with oracles issued in Judea during Nero’s reign. 125 Other data used to infer Ephesus include: (1) the address of the first letter in Rev 2; (2) the woman clothed in the sun in Revelation 12, who may be the Ephesian Artemis/Diana; (3) Domitian’s apparent expulsion of “the philosophers” in 92 C.E.; (4) a famine that occurred in Asia Minor in 93 C. E.; (5) the election of Ephesus as neokoros, a “temple warden,” of the Flavian dynasty’s imperial cult sometime in the early to mid90s; (6) Suetonius’s report that Domitian accepted the title dominus et deus (Domitian 13.1–2); and (7) the reference later in Pliny and Trajan’s correspondence to previous persecutions (Pliny, Ep. 10.96–97). 126 See for example the commentaries by Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter (ed. Eldon J. Epp; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996); and John Hall Elliott, 1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 37B; New York: Doubleday, 2000).

62

Chapter 1. Martyrdom of Paul

Diaspora” in Asia Minor (1:1). On a cursory reading, 1 Peter appears to be in line with Roman society, when it advocates general conformity to society (2:13–17), develops a household code (2:18–3:7), and encourages Christians to “suffer for doing what is right” (3:14, 17). But it is also laden with anti-imperial eschatology (1:3–5, 8–11; 4:7 with 12–19; 5:10), clarifying its expectation of an imminent end that will repay those who persepersecute Christians. When and from where 1 Peter was written is much debated. But it was written sometime between 70 C.E. and the composition of 2 Peter, displaying knowledge of Asia Minor. Both of these texts, Revelation and 1 Peter, therefore provide “apocalyptic” ideology in coded statements against the Roman Empire. Moreover, additional data for anti-imperial sentiment in Asia Minor may be acquired not only from the letters of Ignatius but by the correspondence around 112 C.E. between Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia, and imperator Trajan (Pliny, Ep. 10.96–97). There it is made clear that persecutions against Christians, however local and sporadic, had occurred in the northern part of Asia Minor prior to Pliny’s letter to Trajan. So both the “public” and “hidden transcripts” (to borrow James Scott’s terminology 127) indicate that Asia Minor provides a definite and localized context for the development of Christian anti-Roman propaganda. But the political ideology of the Martyrdom of Paul is not simply “antiimperial,” nor is “anti-imperial” ideology particular to Asia Minor or the turn into the second century, as is made clear by the history of martyrdoms. So, while it may be reasonable to situate the composition of the Martyrdom of Paul in western Asia Minor during the reign of Trajan (98– 117 C.E.), it is not necessary to do so. For, the Martyrdom articulates an intricate understanding of the kingdom of God that is at once heavenly and present, yet earthly and eschatological. The Martyrdom’s HXMDJJHYOLRQ is preached to and accepted by Roman soldiers, and Paul even offers salvation to Nero. It would be inaccurate, therefore, to state that the Martyrdom of Paul is opposing Christians and Romans, Christ and Caesar; it is simply one person Paul, a general of Christ, who is opposed by another, imperator Nero. Indeed, the Martyrdom of Paul portrays Nero as conquered by the passions (esp. fear) and controlled by “the Evil One,” a symbol of irrationality and disorder who is but a pawn in God’s plan for Paul at Rome. The Martyrdom’s portrayal of Nero is therefore not dissimilar from Roman portraits of Nero in the early second century, for example by Tacitus (d.

127

James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1990); see also Richard A. Horsley, ed., Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance: Applying the Work of James C. Scott to Jesus and Paul (Semeia Studies 48; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2004).

1.3. Martyrdom of Paul: Origins and Developments

63

117 C.E.) and Suetonius (d. ca. 122 C. E.). 128 The Martyrdom of Paul, in other words, is definitely anti-Neronian but not necessarily anti-imperial. So its political ideology does not necessarily help us to situate the text with any more chronological or geographic precision. It is therefore the “genre” of the Martyrdom of Paul that may be most helpful for situating the text. 129 For, the form of the Martyrdom – including its structural components as well as its topics and themes – is somewhere between the earlier gospels and the later martyrdoms and acts of the apostles. 130 To be sure, this does not mean that the Martyrdom, in its earliest extant Greek form, cannot have been composed concurrently with the latter. But on the balance, the “genre,” intertexts, and political ideology of the Martyrdom do not require a late dating and may be best situated around the reign of Trajan, as perhaps implied by Ignatius’s letter to the Romans (Rom. 4). 1.3.3. Further Developments Just as the earliest recoverable Greek form of the Martyrdom of Paul has signs of previous compositional stages, so did traditions of Paul’s martyrdom develop and continue to be produced. The Martyrdom, as I shall discuss in chapter 5 below, was the final scene in both manuscripts that collect several Acts of Paul; and as the conclusion to a longer story, its meaning and significance was changed. The Martyrdom also “early ran

128 My thanks to Giovanni Bazzana, whom I neglected to mention in my dissertation, for persuading me away from a stronger (and perhaps less accurate) political interpretation and in particular for noting this parallel critique among the Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius. But I do consider the date (Trajan’s reign, 98–117 C.E.) to be probable and the provenance (western Asia Minor) to be the most reliable proposal available for the composition of the Martyrdom in its extant form – or perhaps for its penultimate form. 129 John Frow, Genre (The New Critical Idiom; London/New York: Routledge, 2005) 10: “Genre … is a set of conventional and highly organised constraints on the production and interpretation of meaning.” With Frow, I would argue that a particular text such as the Martyrdom of Paul is not necessarily related to a genre in a simple token/type, instance/form, or particular/general relation; rather, a text may use one or more genres in various ways to numerous ends. So, to be more clear: it is the use and lack of use of different genres in the Martyrdom of Paul that may help to occasion its dating. 130 For an interesting study on related processes from composition to reception, see François Bovon, “The Synoptic Gospels and the Noncanonical Acts of the Apostles,” HTR 81 (1988) 19–36; for a related study on genre, which primarily discusses the Acts of Paul and Thekla as part of Acts of Paul, see Ann Graham Brock, “Genre of the Acts of Paul: One Tradition Enhancing Another,” Apocrypha 5 (1994) 119–136, particularly at 133, where for the Martyrdom she highlights Paul’s wonder-working, trial, death, and post-mortem appearances.

64

Chapter 1. Martyrdom of Paul

wild” 131 and was, for example, significantly expanded in four different Latin groups of manuscripts. Moreover, alternative martyrdom stories, especially grouping Paul with Peter or with Andrew, were later produced. Indeed Paul’s martyrdom so occupied early Christian imaginations that it is difficult to speak of a singular record of his death, as oral and written forms continued to interact with each other for centuries. But the Martyrdom of Paul as we have studied it in this chapter does offer a clear and consistent memory of Paul, and hence a window onto the community who remembered Paul thusly.

1.4. Paul in the Martyrdom of Paul 1.4. Paul in the Martyrdom of Paul

The Martyrdom of Paul is an early Christian text that remembers Paul’s death. The text was early and widely used for the commemoration of Paul’s feast day, for which the text may even have been composed; but there is also some evidence that the Martyrdom of Paul was used for catechetical instruction and baptismal practice (which, again, may have been the purpose of its penultimate form). The earliest oral form of the story should have originated in Rome, but it is difficult to determine the earliest written form. In its penultimate written form (i.e., without the post-mortem materials), the text was written to emphasize some kind of baptism; and in its final form, the Martyrdom of Paul glorifies Paul as a martyr whose witness is apparent even to Nero and as a foundational figure for the Christian community in Rome – a portrait absent in the canonized letters and Acts. The Martyrdom thus testifies to an early, politically engaged form of Pauline faith and practice. Not a martyrdom but more like a gospel, the Martyrdom depicts Paul in contest not with a local Roman governor (e.g., Pontius Pilate or Pliny) but with imperator Nero, ruler of the inhabited world. Though wrongly understood by Nero as a battle between two kings, Christ and Caesar, the Martyrdom narrates a contest between two generals, Christ’s (Paul) and the Evil One’s (Nero), in which states and statuses are revaluated: in Paul’s death is Life, and in his defeat is Victory. Indeed, one might be forgiven for understanding the conflict to be only an illusion, as God’s kingdom triumphs over the world, not only in the eschatological future but in the text’s here and now. Paul is thus remembered in the Martyrdom as a witness to Christ’s kingdom in Rome. Precisely when, where, and for whom the Martyrdom of Paul was composed is yet unclear; but the reign of Trajan is probable, and western Asia Minor is plausible. In any case, the Martyrdom occurs in both manuscripts 131

Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 2:230; see also n. 1, p. 23 above.

1.4. Paul in the Martyrdom of Paul

65

that collect several Acts of Paul (P. Hamb. and P. Heid.), where it provides what is absent in the canonized writings: an end for Paul’s life. One of the most well known “facts” about Paul, his decaptitation by Nero, is thus a story preserved not in the New Testament but in “Acts of Paul.” In addition to the Martyrdom of Paul, other “Acts of Paul” circulated independently. Chapters 2 through 4 study these traditions separately – the Ephesus Act (chapter 2), the Acts of Paul and Thekla (chapter 3), and 3 Corinthians (chapter 4) – and in critical comparison with one another. For, as we shall see, Paul is remembered differently in each of the traditions collected as “Acts of Paul.”

Chapter 2

The Ephesus Act Like the Martyrdom of Paul, the Ephesus Act – which is abstractly labelled Acts of Paul 9 – is attested both independently and among other “Acts of Paul.” But whereas the Martyrdom of Paul occurs in both manuscripts attesting to Acts of Paul (abstractly conceived), the Ephesus Act is not extant in the sixth-century Coptic manuscript (P. Heid.); it is extant only in the fourthcentury Greek manuscript “Acts of Paul” (P. Hamb.), where it is the only material to precede the Passion Narrative of Paul (i.e., the Martyrdom [Acts of Paul 14], with its prefaced material [Acts of Paul 12–13]; see §5.1.2 below). 1 In addition, the Ephesus Act is attested independently in a fourth-century Coptic manuscript titled “An Act of Paul” (Papyrus Bodmer 41; §2.2). As with the Martyrdom of Paul, in this chapter let us consider the Ephesus Act separately and on its own terms, beginning with the extant Greek remains in P. Hamb. and then continuing with the Coptic of Papyrus Bodmer 41.

2.0. Pagination of the Hamburg Manuscript 2.0. Pagination of the Hamburg Manuscript

The fourth-century Greek manuscript at Hamburg, with the title 35$;(,6 3$[8/28], 2 narrates Paul’s acts in Ephesus (Acts of Paul 9), in Corinth (Acts of Paul 12), from Corinth to Rome (Acts of Paul 13), and his Martyrdom in Rome (Acts of Paul 14). 3 This witness to Acts of Paul is part of a codex, written in Greek and Coptic, that is only partially preserved. 4 Its material for Acts of Paul occurs on two of the codex’s five preserved 1 On the Passion Narrative of Paul, see n. 99, p. 51 above, and §§5.1.2–3 and §§6.1.1–2 below. 2 As with most ancient titles, 35$;(,6 3$[8/28] occurs at the end of the manuscript (Schmidt, 35$;(,63$8/28, 72). Compare the earliest titles for Acts: 35$;(,6 and 35$;(,6$32672/:1; see further n. 6, p. 3 above. 3 For a reconstruction of Acts of Paul, see Figure 0.1, pp. 4–5 above; according to the editors of CCSA, what would have occurred between Ephesus and Corinth in the original text of the Acts of Paul is at least one act at Philippi, Acts of Paul 10–11. See also Figure A.1, p. 262 below. 4 For a description of the codex, see Schmidt, 35$;(,63$8/28, 3–18.

2.0. Pagination of the Hamburg Manuscript

67

quires, which consisted of 4 bifolded leaves (= 8 folios). Based on its subscripted title, it is clear that on the first two folios of its second extant quire the manuscript preserves the final part of its text of Acts of Paul; the rest of its “Acts of Paul” occurs on the remains of its first extant quire. However, the manuscript is missing several of the pages that it once included. In particular, for its first extant quire, the two outer leaves are missing: of its original eight folios, four are absent – two at the beginning, and two at the end – such that only the middle eight of its sixteen pages are intact. Regrettably, the editor of P. Hamb., Carl Schmidt, did not paginate accordingly; instead, he numbered the extant pages of the manuscript consecutively, beginning with what remained of that first folio (see Figure 2.1, p. 68 below). 5 So the pagination introduced by Schmidt is misleading. For example, what Schmidt labelled as “page 1” of the first quire was its page 5, since the quire is missing its first two folios (= pages 1–4) and the page in question is the recto of the third folio. One result is the oddity that, prior to “page 1,” P. Hamb. used to include additional material – at least four pages – from Acts of Paul. Perhaps even more perplexing is what occurs where the other two folios are missing: there, between Schmidt’s “page 8” (the end of extant material in the first quire) and “page 9” (the beginning of the second quire), P. Hamb. used to include four additional pages. Suffice it to say that the pagination for the codex, and hence for the Hamburg witness of Acts of Paul (P. Hamb.), is less than ideal. For my own discussion of the manuscript, when it is necessary I will therefore refer to the pages by quire (A or B) and folio (e.g., P. Hamb. 1 = P. Hamb. A3 r). 6 See Figure 2.1, p. 68, for page equivalencies.

5

Assistance for the editing of P. Hamb. was provided by Wilhelm Schubart. My discussion of P. Hamb. is based primarily on the Greek text prepared for the CCSA edition. For detailed discussion of P. Hamb. and Schmidt’s reconstruction of its witness to Acts of Paul, see §5.1, pp. 191–95 below. 6

68

Chapter 2. Ephesus Act

Figure 2.1. The Hamburg Manuscript of Acts of Paul (P. Hamb.) (absent) (absent) Acts of Paul 9

First Extant Quire (A) Acts of Paul 12 Acts of Paul 13

folio 2r folio 2v folio 3r folio 3v

P. Hamb. 3 P. Hamb. 4

folio 4r folio 4v

P. Hamb. 5 P. Hamb. 6

folio 5r folio 5v

P. Hamb. 7 P. Hamb. 8

folio 6r folio 6v

(absent)

Song of Songs

folio 1v

P. Hamb. 1 P. Hamb. 2

(absent)

Acts of Paul 14

folio 1r

folio 7r folio 7v folio 8r folio 8v

P. Hamb. 9 P. Hamb. 10

folio 1r folio 1v

P. Hamb. 11 P. Hamb. 12

folio 2r folio 2v

(etc.)

folio 3r folio 3v folio 4r folio 4v

Second Extant Quire (B)

folio 5r folio 5v Lamentations

folio 6r folio 6v folio 7r folio 7v folio 8r folio 8v

2.1. P. Hamb. on Ephesus

69

2.1. P. Hamb. on Ephesus (P. Hamb. A3r–5r [P. Hamb. 1–3]; Acts of Paul 9) 7 2.1. P. Hamb. on Ephesus

The acephalous Hamburg manuscript begins at the top of its first extant page (P. Hamb. A3r [P. Hamb. 1]) partway through the Ephesus Act (Acts of Paul 9). The Ephesus Act is one of the so-called “Acts of Paul” that has received the most scholarly attention, given its parallels to a riot in Ephesus (Acts 19:23–20:1) 8 and to the stories of Paul’s call or conversion (Acts 9; 22; 26). 9 As in other studies that compare Acts of Paul and Acts, discussions of the Ephesus Act have tended to presuppose certain matters about the date, authorship, and/or value (historical, theological, etc.) of both texts (see §0.1.1): the approach has typically been to highlight certain parallels of phrasing – from named individuals to verbal forms to events, etc. – and to argue that the Acts of Paul is later than and literarily dependent upon Acts. However, as I discussed regarding Acts 20:7–12 and The Martyrdom of Paul (§1.3.1.1), a “parallel” does not a dependence make, nor is it necessary to presuppose that Acts antedates the Acts of Paul as a whole, much less in certain parts. So let us begin by considering the Ephesus Act in light of its own ideas rather than in the shadow of Acts. Set in western Asia Minor during a Pentecost 10 (Acts of Paul 9.14), the Ephesus story in P. Hamb. describes how Paul’s message was received by the household of Roman governor Hieronymos. The cast of characters is small: governor Hieronymos, his wife Artemilla, the freedman of Hieronymos Diophantes and his wife Eubula, slaves of Hieronymos, guards at the prison, a mysterious youth, and the lion and crowds at the theater and stadium. Keeping in mind Paul’s reference to battling the beasts in Ephesus (HLMNDWDD>QTUZSRQHMTKULRPDYFKVDHMQ(IHYVZ, “If it was as a mortal that I battled the beasts at Ephesus” or “If it was against a human that I battled the beasts at Ephesus”; 1 Cor 15:32), the story is either a legend constructed on the basis of Paul’s reference or, if Dennis MacDonald is right, this story – or a similar one – may have been an early tradition (factual 7

For the pagination of P. Hamb., see §2.0 and §5.1, pp. 191–95 below. See for example Schneemelcher, “Apostlegeschichte,” 242–44; Dunn, “The Acts of Paul,” 15–18, 28–30, 43–44, 72–74, 145–46, 182–85, et passim ; Pervo, “A Hard Act to Follow,” esp. section IV, pp. 10–17; Rordorf, “In welchem Verhältnis,” esp. 232–34, where the text of P. Hamb. is set in parallel with Acts 19:23–26, 29–30, 35–37. 9 See for example Bauckham, “The Acts of Paul as a Sequel to Acts”; idem, “The Acts of Paul: Replacement of Acts or Sequel to Acts?”; Marguerat, “A Phenomenon of Rereading”; and Rordorf, “Paul’s Conversion.” 10 The early Christian festival of SHQWDNRVWKY occurs roughly from the Israelite holidays of Pesah (“protection, passover”) to Shavuot (“booths, tabernacles”), the latter of which is a joyful agrarian festival of the firstfruits that came to be associated with the giving of Torah at Sinai/Horeb. 8

70

Chapter 2. Ephesus Act

or fictive) that occasioned Paul’s reference (cp. 2 Tim 4:16–19, esp. 4:17; Ps 21:20–21 LXX). 11 After its non-extant folios, the manuscript picks up (P. Hamb. A3 r [P. Hamb. 1]) in the theater of Ephesus (Acts of Paul 9.13). Paul, apparently in reply to a question of the governor, offers a message to persuade the crowd (R>FOR). To put it simply, Paul proclaims a Christianized form of contemporary Israelite proselytism: that humanity has fallen into idolatry and immorality and must repent and be faithful to the one true creator God. 12 This speech, like 1 Cor 15 and Rom 5, includes theology of an erroneous world in which one literally dies in one’s sins, adding threats of ceaseless fire (SXULDMVEHYVWZ) and the extinction of one’s memory (WRPQK PRYVXQRQ). 13 But it provides hope of salvation in Christ, as mediated through those like Paul who proclaim the word purely. Thus Paul, to an undisclosed Ephesian crowd, proclaims a monolatrous form of henotheism. That is, he proclaims “atheism,” as he denies the worship of local and Roman gods, calling into question the peace and security of Ephesus and Empire. 14 The local governor (K-JHPZYQ) Hieronymos – literally “sacred-named” and often rendered into English as Jerome 15 – speaks in defense of Paul when he calls the Ephesians to judgment: “Ephesians ($QGUH(IHYVLRL), I know that this man has spoken well, but now is not the time to learn these things. So decide (NULYQDWH) what you want (to do)” (Acts of Paul 9.14). As the occasion and function of the assembly are unclear, some call for Paul to be burned (NDWDNDLYZ, the same verb as Paul’s ceaseless fire) beside the shrine (SUR WZ QDZ ), while the goldsmiths say “To the beasts with this man” (HLMTKULYDWRQDMQGUD). A great hubbub occurs (TRYUXER, as recon11 Dennis Ronald MacDonald, “A Conjectural Emendation of 1 Cor 15:31–32: Or the Case of the Misplaced Lion Fight,” HTR 73 (1980) 265–76. 12 Compare Rom 1:18–32; and see 1 Enoch 6–11, especially the role of Azazel (8.1–2; 9.6). Within Acts, one is reminded of Paul’s proclamation to the Athenian philosophers (Acts 17:16–34). Several phrases are reminiscient of Matthew – or, at least, a gospel containing logia of Jesus; for examples, see Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 2:267; Hills, “The Acts of the Apostles in the Acts of Paul,” 51. 13 Compare the ontological reading of 1 Cor 15 in 3 Corinthians; see §4.2.3, pp. 173– 85 below; see also the speech to the house of Claudius in Rome (Acts of Paul 13), §5.1.3. 14 In 1 Cor 8–11, Paul argues that whereas idols are insignificant, daimons may and should not be worshipped through them; but in the Ephesus Act, it is argued that the idols themselves are deities made of stone and wood. Distinct kinds of anti-idolatry propaganda are being used, and it is not impossible that the author of the Ephesus Act is advocating a rudimentary form of monotheism (versus the christologized henotheistic monolatry of the historical Paul). 15 It is unclear whether Hieronymous is a pseudonym or Christian name, as the healing of his ear at the end of the story may symbolize or otherwise signal conversion. (“Let those who have two ears hear.”)

2.1. P. Hamb. on Ephesus

71

structed by Rordorf), and then the scene at the theater ends by Hieronymos accepting the crowd’s wishes when Paul is flogged (IUDJHOOZYVD) and condemned ad bestias. 16 After Paul is sentenced to the beasts, the Hamburg story of Ephesus continues to the stadium, where Paul is imprisoned. The sequence of events is difficult to discern, due in part to the manuscript’s preservation and in part to the grammatical constructions used. But several matters are certain: that we are in the midst of the holiday of Pentecost (P. Hamb. A3 r [P. Hamb. 1]), that Paul’s sentencing had been six days prior, and that his battle with the beasts will occur in two days. For, after six days, on the first of a two day narrative, Hieronymos gathers the beasts, such that all who saw them (THZUH-) were astonished at their size (Acts of Paul 9.15). Especially noteworthy is the lion (P. Hamb. A3 v [P. Hamb. 2]), whose roar was so mighty that all who heard it called out, “The lion!” Even Paul, who had been praying, ceased in terror (GHLOZTHYQWD). 17 Into this progression of events is inserted a subplot for the story – if not another story – with the narrative marker +QGHDMQKYUWL, “Now, there was a man” (Acts of Paul 9.16). 18 Introduced is Diophantes (literally “seer of God”), a freedperson of Hieronymos, and it is he – a client of the governor – who hastens the beast-fighting (WDTKULRPDFLYD). He does so when he becomes jealous (]KORYZ) over his wife Eubula (literally “well-counseled”), who had become a PDTKWKY (“student, apprentice, disciple”) 19 of Paul, 16 On condemnation ad bestias, see §1.1.1 of my dissertation, “Remembering the Acts of Paul,” 26–36, which discusses martyrdoms in general. As discussed in §2.3.3 below, Acts 19:23–20:1 is a “parallel” that has often been compared to this part of the Ephesus Act. 17 The event thus appears to span eight days. Paul’s trial in the theater must have been on a Sabbath, while we meet him praying on the day of preparation (i.e., the day before the Sabbath begins at nightfall). The first visit with the women occurs that Sabbath night, and then the baptism occurs on the evening headed into the Lord’s day, when the beastfighting occurs. Oddly, it appears that Paul rests from praying during the Sabbath, due in part to fear of the lion. 18 In Greek narrative textemes, the imperfect tense is often used to provide background (or shift-of-scene) information. It is difficult to discern how (parts of) this story fits in sequentially with the story of the beast-hunt and lion’s roar. But the grammatical oddities lend themselves to source-critical study and may imply redaction. The first block of material extends from one prayer to another, Acts of Paul 9.16–21, and it is interesting that within such material, other narrative oddities set apart the baptismal events in 18–21. Additional materials of interest include most of what occurs from the second half of 9.22 through 9.24 and 9.27–28. Even if these materials were later additions, it is unclear whether the hypothetical earlier form would have have included a lion siding with Paul and also being saved (9.25–26); also difficult to discern is whether that earlier form may have understood the wife of Hieronymous to be the Procla mentioned in P. Bodm. 41 (discussed below). 19 CCSA reconstructs PDTKWULYD, which is a feminine variant of the same.

72

Chapter 2. Ephesus Act

listening to him “night and day.” Of Diophantes we do not learn much more, and even his wife Eubula is a minor character. So what forwards the narrative is Eubula’s relationship with a woman who was her former mistress (as she also is called a freedperson), namely, Hieronymos’s wife Artemilla (literally, “little Artemis”). 20 Artemilla, following Eubula, becomes a disciple of Paul (9.16–17; see also 9.18–21, 22, 27), and it is by using the rumor of her spending night and day with Paul that Diophantes hastens the beast-fighting (9.18). In this way governor Hieronymos goes from reluctantly accepting Paul’s sentence to actively hastening its execution, due to Paul’s interactions with Artemilla while imprisoned. It is unclear when Artemilla first meets Paul – the day of preparation (i.e., before the Sabbath) or on the Sabbath (Acts of Paul 9.16). 21 But it appears that she does so in the midst of Paul’s prayer and perhaps during the period when he ceased22 praying out of fear from the lion’s roar (see 9.15, 16, 22). 23 In any case, the two are introduced by Diophantes’s wife Eubula. For, Artemilla tells Eubula of her interest in hearing “the beastfighter’s prayer” (SURVHXFKQWRX TKULRPDYFRX); Eubula proposes the idea to Paul, who joyfully agrees; and then Eubula brings Artemilla to Paul – perhaps on the eve (i.e., beginning) of the Sabbath. Paul’s greeting is less than hospitable (Acts of Paul 9.17). With Artemilla having arrived in “darker clothes” (VNXTUZSRYWHUDL-PDYWLD, 9.16), perhaps due to an evening setting and desire for anonymity, Paul groans upon seeing her and lays in to her: “Woman, ruler of this world, mistress of much gold, citizen of great luxury, splendid in thy raiment, sit down on the floor and forget thy riches and thy beauty and thy finery.” 24 Taken aback by her adornment and possessions, Paul preaches a complement to his earlier message: rather than to idols and to smoke-offerings, Artemilla must now dedicate herself “to the living God and Father of Christ (]Z QWLTHZ NDLSDWUL &ULVWRX ), whose is the glory for ever and ever”; it 20 Demetrius and the other silversmiths of Acts 19:23–20:1 work at the temple of Artemis. 21 See also Acts of Paul 9.17, 18, 19, 21, 22. Part of the difficulty is determining whether the final redactor’s timeline coheres with his source’s (or sources’); the other part is determining, for redactor and source(s), whether a day begins at sunset or sunrise. 22 The author of the Ephesus Act may have been playing with “Sabbath” as “rest.” 23 The editor who inserted the story of Diophantes, and thus Eubula and Artemilla, evidently wants the reader to understand the visit to have occurred during this period. For, later in the story Paul’s grief over battling the lions dissipates, and at the end of baptizing and sending off Artemilla Paul returns to prayer. But the narrative’s editing is not seamless. 24 Translation by Schneemelcher in idem, New Testament Apocrypha, 2:252. Note that the reference to “darker clothes” (VNXTUZSRYWHUDL-PDYWLD) may also refer to a color (e.g., purple) or type of dye that indicates wealth.

2.1. P. Hamb. on Ephesus

73

is from such a one that Artemilla will gain “a crown of freedom” (HMOHXTHYULRQVWHYIDQRQ). Paul’s message is evidently well received, as Artemilla asks Paul to “bathe” her (ORXYZ) in the Lord (Acts of Paul 9.17). 25 Theological distinction between God and Christ is difficult to identify, since in 9.19 Paul will refer to Christ Jesus as “my God.” So what is important is not the difference between the two but the difference between the divine on the one hand and everyone and everything else on the other. Salvation, described in terms of freedom, is available only in God and Christ. Such salvation is symbolically portrayed in what follows (Acts of Paul 9.18–21; P. Hamb. A4r–v). First and foremost, God’s salvation is evident in Paul’s release from prison – an event that functions not only within the narrative as a means of “freeing” Artemilla but also as a symbol of Paul’s own release from fear and imprisonment (to the body and its passions). That the event will so function is made clear from the beginning, when the women ask Paul whether he would like a smith to free him from prison (9.18). Setting visible against invisible, human power against God’s, Paul replies that it is on the basis of God’s prior “freeing” that he expects release from prison (9.19). So he cries out to God – in sacred time 26 – for his fetters to be broken before the eyes of Artemilla and Eubula. A young man, 27 who appears twice more during the Ephesus Act, then loosens Paul’s bonds and disappears. 28 Once freed, Paul travels with the women to the Ephesian coastline, so that they may be baptized (Acts of Paul 9.20–21). The raging sea functions narratively as an occasion for Artemilla to swoon. Paul prays a short prayer with invocations of God (R- ODYP SZQNDLIDLYQZQ) as the creator of ):6 (variously inflected in Greek as “light” or “man”), perhaps alluding to some kind of “reunification” ideology in baptism: 29 he prays that God should help like a shepherd, lest the nations claim that Paul killed Artemilla and fled. Then the mysterious youth appears again smiling, and the matron (PDWUZYQD) is inspired and raised. Entering a nearby house – hers? the jail? – while the sun is rising, Paul leads Artemilla in post-baptismal Schmidt (35$;(,63$8/28, 30) reconstructed HMQTHZ ; CCSA HMQNXULYRX. The author marks Paul’s prayer in three ways: “on the Sabbath, as the Lord’s day drew near, the day on which Paul was to fight with the beasts” (Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 252). 27 CCSA reconstructs: QHDQLYVNRR^PRLR… [ca. 11 letters absent] (Acts of Paul 9.20). Later (9.21) he is said to be “shining,” and if the character in 9.27 is the same, CCSA reconstructs D>JJHOR, while 9.28 reconstructs SDL . 28 Compare the story of Peter’s “release from prison” in Acts 12:1–19. 29 See Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church; see also n. 119, p. 134 below. However, note the discussion below on the forms of Saul’s call in Acts, particularly the revelation of ):6 (Acts 9:3; 22:6; 26:13). 25 26

74

Chapter 2. Ephesus Act

sacrament consisting of bread and water and “the saying” (U-K PD) 30, and then he dismisses her to her husband, governor Hieronymos. 31 As Paul returns to prayer (GHYRPDL; cp. SURVHXF- above), the stage is thus set for his battle with the beasts. The curtain rises with the sun (Acts of Paul 9.22): “At dawn there was a cry from the citizens: ‘Let us go to the spectacle (THZULYD)! Come, let us see the man who possesses God battling the beasts (WRQH>FRQWDWRQTHRQ TKULRPDFRX QWD)!’ ” 32 Hieronymos thus orders Diophantes and the other slaves to bring Paul, mysteriously returned to the prison from whence he had been freed, into the stadium. 33 Paul, evidently despondant with his head bowed and groaning while he is led in triumph, then enters the stadium, where occurs a story with echoes of the famous tale of Androclus and the Lion 34 and with probable allusion to 1 Cor 15:32. Governor Hieronymos, distressed about the rumor of his wife, orders that a recently captured, very fierce lion be loosed on Paul (damnatio ad bestias; Acts of Paul 9.23). Sadly, the text of the Hamburg manuscript is rather corrupt here, 35 but it is clear that the lion speaks in a human voice and that Paul replies – to which the crowd responds, “Away with the magi30 The phrasing is odd (H>NODVHQD>UWRQX^GZUWHSURVKYQHJNHQHMSRYWLVHQU-KYPDWL, Acts of Paul 9.21) but it may refer to distribution of the drink while repeating some form of the so-called “words of instiution” (see, e.g., the earliest attested but most ritualized form in 1 Cor 11:24, 25) or another ritualized saying. 31 Note that this episode, which includes married women, lacks reference to sexual renunciation (see 1 Cor 7:1–7 for the married; cp. 1 Cor 7:8–9, perhaps interpreted by the author as being for the unwed). There is no indication that Artemilla, or even Eubula for that matter, is exhorted not to engage in marital relations with her spouse. Contrast the ideologies of Acts of Andrew, Acts of Peter (Martyrdom), and Acts of John, discussed in §1.2, pp. 44–53 above. 32 Compare Acts of Paul 9.25, where there is reference to R- WRX  DMQTUZYSRXTHRWRX  TKULRPDFKYVDQWR, “the God of the human who battled the beasts.” MacDonald (“A Conjectural Emendation of 1 Cor 15:31–32”) has argued, primarily on the basis of archaeological evidence, that the story of Paul battling the beasts was a myth invented by the Corinthians during Paul’s own lifetime. 33 Note that without the Diophantes stratum (which probably should be understood to include the leonine material), Paul’s offense would not have included an encratic message. Was there an earlier form of the Ephesus Act that did not include the ascetic component? 34 See Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights 5.14 (ca. 160 C. E.; earlier were Apion, Aegyptica, 1st cent. C. E. and oral forms); for discussion, see MacDonald, The Legend and the Apostle, 21–22. 35 See Schmidt, 35$;(,63$8/28, 38. The forthcoming CCSA edition includes reconstruction that portrays the lion as running up to Paul and then leaning up against his legs “like a well-trained lamb.” (In P. Bodm. 41, the lion to be baptized is led like an ox.) The lion says “Grace be with you,” and Paul, unafraid, replies “Grace be with you, Lion!” and puts his hand down upon him.

2.1. P. Hamb. on Ephesus

75

cian (PDYJR), away with the bewitcher (IDUPDNRY ),” 36 interpreting the lion’s speech and/or docility as a kind of enchantment (9.24). Paul then recognizes the lion as one who had come to him to be washed (ORXYZ), and he confirms this fact with the lion (P. Hamb. A5r). 37 The two, reunited with each other, then commiserate on their captivity. As a sage reader might expect (cp. the stadium scene in the Acts of Paul and Thekla 38), governor Hieronymos then sends a host of beasts to kill Paul and archers to kill the lion (9.25). But like the theater scene in the Acts of Paul and Thekla, a divine hail storm appears, which in this case spares Paul and the lion but kills the other beasts, even dismembering Hieronymos with the loss of an ear. 39 As the crowd flees, they cry out: “Save us, O God; save us, O God of the man who battled the beasts (R-WRX DMQTUZYSRXTHRWRX TK ULRPDFKYVDQWR, 9.25)!” In the hubbub and confusion, Paul and the lion leave and part ways 40 – the lion to the mountains, and Paul down to the harbor, where like one of the fugitives he boards a ship destined for Macedonia (9.26; cp. Acts 20:1). The story ends, however, not with Paul’s departure but back at the household of Hieronymos (Acts of Paul 9.27–28). 41 Artemilla and Eubula, who had previously become sick to the point of death over Paul’s imminent demise (9.22), are again troubled by his state and whereabouts: mourning and fasting occur. 42 But somehow, though the details are as lacking as the manuscript’s contents, the women are comforted, perhaps by the person who visits Hieronymos by night – who may also be the same

36

On accusations of “magic” see Gérard Poupon, “L’accusation de magie dans les Actes Apocryphes,” in Les Actes apocryphes des Apôtres. Christianisme et monde païen (ed. François Bovon et al.; Publications de la faculté de théologie de l’Université de Genève 4; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1981) 71–93, esp. 86ff. For similar charge, see the Acts of Paul and Thekla, discussed in §3.4, esp. pp. 137–40 below. 37 The lion’s baptism would have been narrated in the material that is missing from the beginning of P. Hamb. The story is extant, however, in P. Bodm. 41, as discussed in §2.2, pp. 76–81 below. 38 Within chapter 3, see pp. 132–33 and 137–45 below, esp. pp. 142–44. 39 Compare Q’s Gethsemane scene (Matt 26:47–56//Luke 22:47–53). 40 The odd phrasing that occurs at the beginning of Acts of Paul 9.26 may be another indication of editing, in this case perhaps indicating an earlier form of the story without the lion speaking – or without the lion altogether. For, the genitive absolute (“it/him no longer speaking,” apparently referring to the lion rather than to Paul, who occurs in the nominative) is definitely a later addition, as the preposed nominative descriptors may also be. 41 Again, source- and redaction-critically one may postulate an earlier form of the Ephesus Act that, while including a (perhaps unnamed) governor, would not have included emphasis on the household of Hieronymous, including Artemilla. 42 In the Ephesus Act the women’s concern for Paul is not, as in the extant form(s) of the Acts of Paul and Thekla, portrayed as “romantic” or “erotic.”

76

Chapter 2. Ephesus Act

youth who appeared earlier in the story. 43 In any case, Hieronymos awakes with a discharge at his ear, probably where his ear was removed by the hail. Someone appears and instructs Hieronymos to treat the ear with honey and to pray to Paul’s God. When he does so, his ear becomes healthy, and the story abruptly ends. What, we are left wondering, happened with the Roman governor? 44 According to what occurs in the extant manuscript pages of P. Hamb., the Ephesus Act therefore appears to be focused on the household of the Roman governor Hieronymos. But whether it was is questioned by the other witness to the Ephesus Act: Papyrus Bodmer 41.

2.2. Papyrus Bodmer 41 on Ephesus (Acts of Paul 9) 2.2. Papyrus Bodmer 41 on Ephesus

Papyrus Bodmer 41 is a Coptic manuscript recently published by Rodolphe Kasser and Philippe Luisier. 45 Its version of the Ephesus Act supplements P. Hamb., providing the missing beginning to the story (Acts of Paul 9). 46 Papyrus Bodmer 41, a “(demi?)-cahier” written in the Lyco-diospolitan dialect and dated to the second half of the fourth century, was originally at least 9 folios (18 pages) for our text – two of which are missing (folios 5– 6), one of which is badly mutilated (folio 8), and two of which are very badly mutilated (folios 7 and 9). 47 The Ephesus Act is the first in the note43 The person who appears to Hieronymos is reconstructed by CCSA as D> JJHOR (Acts of Paul 9.27), but the reconstruction in 9.28 is SDL . Either or both may be the QHDQLYVNR of 9.20 and 9.21. On Christ as a child, see especially François Bovon, “The Child and the Beast: Fighting Violence in Ancient Christianity,” HTR 92 (1999) 369–92. 44 MacDonald (The Legend and the Apostle, 32) reports that a 14th-cent. epitome by Nicephorus Callistus (Church History 2.25) narrates the conversion of Hieronymous. The Coptic of P. Bodm. 41, more fragmentary than the Greek of P. Hamb., is not helpful, except for confirming that its form of the Ephesus Act also ended here – with the qualification that, after its subscripted title, there are some peculiar phrases followed by brief reference to Hieronymous leaving during the night and someone speaking to him (see Kasser and Luisier, “Le Papyrus Bodmer XLI,” 342). On analogy to the women’s conversion by night (if not also the story of the lion’s baptism, discussed below), it would be possible to argue that P. Bodm. 41 thus attests to the narration of a similar baptismal procedure for Hieronymous; however, according to the inscribed structure of the text(s) in P. Bodm. 41, such would also seem to be a later addition to the story. 45 Kasser and Luisier, “Le Papyrus Bodmer XLI,” 281–384; for an earlier English translation, see Kasser in Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 2:263–65. 46 For comparison of the whole reconstructed Ephesus scene with Acts 19, see Kasser and Luisier, “Le Papyrus Bodmer XLI,” 305. 47 For additional details, see “Description du manuscrit” by Kasser and Luisier, “Le Papyrus Bodmer XLI,” 283–88. The manuscript (“un seul cahier”) had at least 36 pages, with the Ephesus Act occupying the first 18. Thankfully the first 8 pages (folios 1–4) have been preserved well enough to supply the first part of the Ephesus Act.

2.2. Papyrus Bodmer 41 on Ephesus

77

book, and at the end of its text is the explicit title SUD[LVSDXORX, “An Act of Paul.” 48 Given the phenomenon of iotacism (especially in Coptic), it is theoretically possible that the title represents an earlier form of SUD[HLVSDXORX, “Acts of Paul”; but the fact that the text narrates only one event supports the extant title. The top of very first page of P. Bodm. 41 begins: “After Paul said these things, he went out from Smyrna 49 down to Ephesus, and he went into the house of Aquila and Priscilla.” 50 So whereas the acephalous P. Hamb. picks up partway through the story, P. Bodm. 41 provides the actual beginning of the Ephesus Act, such that the two manuscripts together – P. Bodm. 41 and P. Hamb. – provide the Ephesus story in its entirety (apart from minor omissions). Rather than focusing primarily on the household of the Roman governor, we find that the story began with and also focused on the household of Aquila and Priscilla, who is probably to be identified with the Prisca of the Pauline letters. 51 According to P. Bodm. 41 ( D), the first scene of the Ephesus Act is set in the household of Aquila and Priscilla (Acts of Paul 9.1). 52 The scene begins with an extraordinary night of prayer and rejoicing, but then “the angel of the Lord” comes into the house and speaks to Paul “in tongues” (+1+HQHVSH), such that all can see but not understand what is happening (9.2). 53 The result is fear and confusion, but Paul explains the message that was relayed (P. Bodm. 41 E ): “There is a great tumult (RXQD&1UZF) coming upon you at Pentecost … ” (9.3). The rest of Paul’s message is difficult to reconstruct, 54 but Kasser has explained that the substance is “Put your trust in God and Christ; they will support you in this trial.” 55 The “tumult” that is coming is either the mob action yet to be described or 48

Compare “The Act of Peter” in Berlin Papyrus 8502. According to Kasser and Luisier, neither direct nor indirect tradition for the Acts of Paul attests to a visit to Smyrna (Kasser and Luisier, “Le Papyrus Bodmer XLI,” 302–3). But CCSA includes it as part of Acts of Paul 8. 50 Coptic at Kasser and Luisier, “Le Papyrus Bodmer XLI,” 314; English translations are mine. As discussed in §2.3.2 below, the situation imagined in P. Bodm. 41 seems to “parallel” the events in Acts 18:24–19:7. 51 Bauckham (“The Acts of Paul as a Sequel to Acts,” 110) interprets the use of “Priscilla” rather than “Prisca” (as in the Pauline letters) as dependence upon Acts. 52 Compare Acts 18:1–4, 18–21, 24–28; 19:1–7. See discussion below, and note that certain Pauline letters (1 Cor 16:19; 2 Tim 4:19) portray Aquila and Priscilla in Ephesus. 53 Compare the discrepant forms of Saul’s call in Acts 9 and 22, discussed below. Pervo (“A Hard Act to Follow,”12 n. 46) understands the angel’s appearance and a report about Damascus to “derive” from Acts 22:9. 54 But see Kasser and Luisier, “Le Papyrus Bodmer XLI,” 316. 55 Kasser in Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 2:270, at Appendix n. 3 (edited). But see now Kasser and Luisier, “Le Papyrus Bodmer XLI,” 316, where God and Christ Jesus are equated and distinguished from SRQKURV (as in Acts of Paul 9.19). 49

78

Chapter 2. Ephesus Act

Paul’s later condemnation ad bestias (as described in §2.1). But now, after first learning the news, Paul decides not to mourn but rather to rejoice (9.4). Indeed, it is interesting to note the author’s comment that Paul would not mourn, since it was a festival for “those who have faith in Christ,” both “the suitable” and “the faithful” (P. Bodm. 41 E lines 15–18). 56 So there is much joy and zeal for the agape-meal, 57 with psalms and praises to Christ. Moreover, to strengthen those who hear (QHWVZWP), Paul hearkens the “men and brothers” to a short speech. Paul’s sermonette in the house of Aquila and Priscilla concerns entering into one’s service for the Lord (Acts of Paul 9.5–10; P. Bodm. 41 E–H). The speech begins with an account of Paul’s call within Damascus 58 while he was “pursuing the faith in God” (U GLZNH1WSLVWLVP SQRXWH). 59 I will discuss the details below, but to sum up: Paul first discusses his call in Damascus, emphasizing his entrance into life in Christ and explaining how Paul entered “a large church” (XQD&1HNNOKVLD) through Judas the brother of the Lord, who subsequently discipled Paul (9.5–6). After this autobiographical vignette, 60 Paul relates a story about travelling during the night 61 with a certain widow Lemma and her daughter Ammia on the road

Coptic DXZ1NDTKNRXPHQRVP1QHWU SLVWWHXH. The former phrase may be rendered “catechumens,” but it is helpful to note that such are those who have been prepared or made ready – and “suitable” wryly adds reference to the subsequent baptism of a “great crowd” of such. 57 Coptic 1&LRXQD&1UHYHP1RXRXUDWQDJDSK , the second clause of which may also be translated “and an abundance of love” (see Kasser’s English translation in Scheemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 2:264). Such a translation would parallel joy and love, just as psalms and hymns to Christ may be paralleled (though perhaps referring to general Israelite and distinctly Christian songs). But my translation preserves the possibility that stages of ritual and initiation may be assumed, in which subsequent stages are only for the more initiated. “Hearers” may attend to Paul’s sermon (cp. the Pythagorean distinction between “hearers” and the “learned”), and after doing so, a “great crowd” is “added to the faith.” Compare the sequence of Paul preaching and then leaving during the agape-meal, as described in Acts of Paul 9.6–7. 58 Rordorf, “Paul’s Conversion.” Note that the Coptic scribe, or a predecessor, assimilated or omitted the initial consonant of the place-name, perhaps as a second dental: WDPDVNRV (P. Bodm. 41 E 24–25). 59 P. Bodm. 41 E lines 24–25: Often translated as “persecute,” GLZYNZ may also mean to chase (literally), pursue (figuratively), or prosecute (legally); see LSJ. Rather than assume the canonized stories, where Saul/Paul persecutes (or perhaps even prosecutes) Jesus followers, I have decided on a translation that is more neutral. 60 Within the extant form(s) of the Ephesus Act, the autobiographical “call” story (Acts of Paul 9.5–6) may represent a distinct source from the subsequent story (Acts of Paul 9.7–9). 61 The phrase that marks the beginning of their trip, DHLLHEDO+1WDJDSK, is unclear: Did Paul “go out from” the agape-meal or “go because of” it? 56

2.2. Papyrus Bodmer 41 on Ephesus

79

to Jericho (9.7–9). 62 As relayed, the story concerns a large and terrible lion who, in the morning, arises from the valley of bones. 63 Through prayer the beast is tamed, and Paul has a dialogue with the lion while filled with the Spirit: “Lion, what do you want?” The lion replies: “I want to be baptized” (9.7). Paul thanks the Lord for giving speech to a beast and leads the lion like an ox down to the river (9.8). There Paul invokes the Lord, recalling Daniel in the lions’ den, and asks that they escape from the lion and fulfill the divine plan (RLNRQRPLD) 64 that God appointed. Taking the lion by the mane (9.9), Paul then immerses the lion “in the name of Jesus the Christ” three times. The lion arises, shakes his mane, and says: “Grace be with you!” To which Paul replies liturgically, “And also with you.” The two then part ways, though it was revealed to Paul in his heart that the lion subsequently met a lioness, to whom the lion did not yield. 65 Both Paul and the lion, therefore, were able to change – apparently through baptism into Christ. 66 It is after these two stories of conversion that Paul ends his ser-

62 Coptic HHLQDEZN+1DYLHULFZ1WHIXQLNK, “As I was about to go into Jericho of Phoenicia.” Scholars who assume that “Damascus” is Damascus (in Syria) and that “Jericho” is Jericho (in Judea) often claim that the scribe or a predecessor introduced an error for IRLQLNZQ and hence “Jericho of the Palms” (cp. Deut 34:3; and on Jericho in other Pauline tradition, see the [Coptic] Apocalypse of Paul, NHC V,2). See Kasser and Luisier, “Le Papyrus Bodmer XLI,” 319 n. 7; and on the scribal inadequacies of P. Bodm. 41, see ibid., 285–88, 306–7 et passim. My own opinion is that the scribe of P. Bodm. 41 was copying an earlier Coptic version rather than functioning as a translator. 63 For a figurative reading of the story, as would have been done later in ascetic venues, see Rordorf, “Quelques jalons pour une interprétation symbolique des Actes de Paul.” I am undecided whether there is intertextual allusion to the story of Samson’s affair with a Philistine (Judg 14); for the valley of (dry) bones, Kasser and Luisier (“Le Papyrus Bodmer XLI,” 321 n. 8) have also proposed Ezek 37:1. For a discussion of the diverse attestation to this particular story, see Schmidt, 35$;(,63$8/28, 85–98. 64 RLNRQRPLD is the same term used in the Passion Narrative of Paul (Acts of Paul 12–14, discussed in §§5.1.2–3 and 6.1.1 below). 65 Note the similar ideology of baptism in the Acts of Paul and Thekla, discussed in §3.4, pp. 137–45 below. It is interesting that the lion returns later in the Ephesus story, where he remembers and converses with Paul, and then is saved by the divine hail storm and escapes to the mountains. See also the Antioch scene of the Acts of Paul and Thekla, where a lioness lies at Thekla’s feet and then defends her (Acts of Paul and Thekla 4.33; cp. 4.28). For further discussion, see §6.1.3 below. To extend the symbolism, does this story narrate Paul’s baptism and eschewal of his wife? (And if so, does the Ephesus Act preserve the name of his wife as Lemma or even Ammia? Note that the [Greek] Acts of Titus 3, after summarizing Acts 1–7, reports Paul exorcising a certain Apphia/Amphia, wife of Chrysippus. But if and where the latter cites Acts of Paul is much debated.) If baptism symbolizes such, would that apply to Aquila and Priscilla? 66 Dunn (“The Acts of Paul,” 182) concurs with Kurfess’s hypothesis that the baptism of the lion may depend theologically upon Rom 8:19–23’s hope for the redemption of NWLYVL; he also (ibid., 183) sees parallels that indicate dependence on Pauline letters at

80

Chapter 2. Ephesus Act

mon with an address and application to Aquila and Priscilla (9.10). 67 Whatever else the sermon may be doing, it is therefore legitimating the ministry of Aquila and Priscilla, in whose house Paul’s speech occurs. 68 After Paul says these things, so large a crowd was established on the faith (RXQD&PPKYHRXZ+DWSLVWLV, 69 Acts of Paul 9.11) that there was envy (NZ+) 70 and the governor of Asia – variously titled the DUFZQ and +KJHPZQ, but only later identified as Hieronymos – caused opposition to Paul so that he might die. 71 According to the story in its extant form, of particular concern was the baptism of a certain Procla 72 and her household. For, Procla was a wealthy woman who used to do many works (+D+1+ZE, that is, benefactions) in the polis; but when she heard Paul’s speeches about a God who would consume other gods with fire, her favor was transferred. Indeed, though the Coptic manuscript is corrupt at this point, the text seems to attribute to her conversion a broader socioeconomic shift in Ephesus – from Roman and local gods, to God – as summarized in a rumor (or two) about Paul’s preaching. 73

Acts of Paul 9.13//Eph 3:9–10; 9.13//Rom 8:38–39 and Col 1:16; 9.17//Phil 3:7–11; 9.21//1 Cor 7:12–13. 67 The Coptic is poorly preserved and Kasser has differed in his reconstruction and translation of P. Bodm. 41 H lines 27–28. In my opinion, after addressing Aquila and Priscilla, Paul first describes their becoming faithful to God ( U SLVWHXHDSQRXWH) and their subsequent teaching (WVHER) and preaching (WDYH), and then he calls upon them to establish (WD+H, “stand up, raise up”) themselves and/or their “hearers.” 68 Due in part to the poor preservation of the Coptic (discussed in the previous note) and in part to its vagueness about stages of ritual and initiation, it is unclear whether Aquila and Priscilla are among the people who are established on (or added to) the faith after Paul’s sermon. In contrast, note that Thekla receives her commission from Paul to preach the word of HMJNUDYWHLD subsequent to (validation of) her baptism; see §3.4, pp. 137–45 below. 69 Or, “was added to the faith”; unlikely is the intransitive sense, “dwelled with the faith” (see Crum, RXZ+ I and II with H-). 70 P. Bodm. 41 is unclear about who is envious: the governor, the “certain people” (probably to be identified later with the goldsmiths), or the Ephesians more broadly. 71 The Coptic phrase 7RXEHSDXORVMHNDVHH)QDPRX attributes causality to the governor and may provide a de-mythologized equivalent to the idea of Paul “beastfighting” at Ephesus (see 1 Cor 15:31–32). 72 An earlier form of the Ephesus Act may have identified Procla as the wife of Hieronymous, and that her “conversion” (economic and/or otherwise) was a source of the governor’s opposition to Paul. Dunn (“The Acts of Paul,” 74 n. 7) has proposed that Procla was “a supporter of the Ephesian cults.” In any case, the story of Procla is added as a JDU clause explaining the governor’s opposition. 73 Note that if an earlier form of the Ephesus Act described Procla as the wife of the governor (perhaps not explicitly named as Hieronymous), the statement in Acts of Paul 9.11 may be equivalent to the rumor mentioned in 9.22. References to socioeconomic shift may occur with FDULV, SNODPSHF U V D)DYHHL, and U NDWDOXH11QRXWH.

2.3. Contexts for the Ephesus Act

81

With an odd shift in the narrative (Acts of Paul 9.12), Paul is taken into the theater, perhaps by the “certain men” (SLUZPH) who spread the rumor(s) as well as the city’s leaders (1SXUWDQLV [sic]). The governor is then summoned and he questions Paul: “Why do you say that and teach the doctrines that are condemned by the kings and rejected by the world and not learned by us? 74 You exalt your God, as we have heard, in order to destroy the gods 75 of the Romans and of the people here. Repeat what you have said when you persuaded the multitude.” 76 It is here (9.13) that the extant remains of P. Hamb. begin to offer parallels, continuing with Paul’s reply to governor Hieronymos. 77 Papyrus Bodmer 41 therefore supplements P. Hamb. by providing material that would have preceded “P. Hamb. 1” (P. Hamb. A3r): 78 with its story of Paul’s arrest in Ephesus, it explains his imprisonment in Ephesus as socioeconomic and religiopolitical; and with its speech in the house of Aquila and Priscilla, it introduces the kind of baptism that is narrated for the household of Hieronymous. 79 So it is from his autobiography in P. Bodm. 41 to his trial in P. Hamb. that Paul is lionized in the Ephesus Act. 80

2.3. Contexts for the Ephesus Act 2.3. Contexts for the Ephesus Act

The Ephesus Act, which in its extant form(s) probably incorporates several sources and literary strata, is frequently studied in comparison to two sets of parallels in Acts: the stories of Paul’s call or conversion (Acts 9; 22; 26), and a riot in Ephesus (Acts 19:23–20:1). Now that we have considered the Ephesus Act on its own terms, let us compare it to the stories in Acts. Only, rather than assuming the literary whole of Acts on the one hand and 74 Kasser’s French translation ends the rhetorical question after NRVPRV, then continues: “Nous non plus, nous ne les apprenons pas” (325). 75 Coptic “and (they) are destroyed, these (gods).” 76 Kasser’s English translation in Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 2:265. 77 The parallels for P. Hamb. and P. Bodm. 41 are provided in Kasser and Luisier, “Le Papyrus Bodmer XLI,” where the two are also harmonized in French translation with commentary; summary of material that is unparalleled due to the absence of four pages in P. Bodm. 41 (basically, Acts of Paul 9.15–19) is provided at ibid., 304, 330 (“Transition”). For discussion of the Coptic as translation of the Greek, see ibid., 306–7. 78 In chapter 2, I have only considered how P. Bodm. 41 supplements the story of P. Hamb. For consideration of how such materials relate to the reconstruction of P. Hamb.’s original text, see §5.1, pp. 191–95 below. 79 Such emphases may be indicative of distinct compositional strata, the latter building on and reshaping the former. 80 As implied in chapter 3 and discussed in §6.1.3 (see also §6.2.2.2), Thekla also was remembered battling the beasts; see esp. van den Hoek, “Thecla the Beast Fighter.”

82

Chapter 2. Ephesus Act

the Ephesus Act as part of an abstract whole Acts of Paul on the other, let us consider the tradition(s) and redaction(s) of the pericopes in question. 2.3.1. Form of the Call In its canonized forms, Acts narrates at least three forms of the call 81 given to Paul: one is composed as a biographer’s description of the event (Acts 9:1– 19), and two are composed as autobiographies within apologetic speeches (21:37–22:16, to a crowd of ,RXGDL RL near the Roman SDUHPEROKY in Jerusalem; 26:1–18, for Herod Agrippa II, Bernice, and other notables, as well as Roman procurator Porcius Festus, at the DMNURDWKYULRQ in Caesarea Maritima). 82 At an abstract level, all three narrate the same basic components of a call for someone named “Saul” (see Acts 13:9 for the written tradition of “Saul” as “Paul”): Saul’s preceding days, including an official commission by authorities in Jerusalem to arrest Jesus-believers in “Damascus” and prosecute them in Jerusalem (9:1–2; 22:1–5; 26:4–11); 83 a ):6(variously inflected as “light” or “hu/man”) from heaven stopping Paul en route to Damascus, including a dialogue in which Saul falls to the ground, a voice asks Saul why it is being pursued, Saul requests the name of the NXYULR in question, and the voice identifies itself as Jesus who is being persecuted (9:3–5; 22:6–8; 26:12–15); and finally, instructions about what to do (9:6–7; 22:9–10; 26:16–18). But a number of differences, from the insignificant to incompatible, also occur. Consider for example the ):6 from heaven. Did its light shine only around Saul (Acts 9:3; 22:6) or also around those who went with him (26:13)? Did those fellow travellers see the light and not hear the voice (22:9), or did they not see but hear (9:7)? Perhaps more importantly, did the voice who identified itself as Jesus command Saul to receive further instructions in Damascus (9:6; 22:10) or not (26:16–18)? The final form of 81

Other forms of Paul’s calling occur, for example, in Gal 1, the Pseudo-Clementines (if “Simon”), (certain forms of) the Acts of Toledoth Yeshu, and Epistula Apostolorum. Dunn (“Acts of Paul,” 16–17, 145–46) argues for similarities to Gal 1:11–17, among other things claiming that Galatians allows for Paul’s call to occur in Damascus. 82 More narrowly, Acts 9:3–19; 22:6–16; and 26:12–18; or more broadly, 9:1–30; 21:37–22:21; and 26:1–23. The story of Barnabas introducing Saul to the DMSRYVWRORL may function separately (Acts 9:27–28), and it agrees in outline with the simplest extant story (ch. 26) and a hypothetical earlier form of chapter 9 (omitting the Ananias material in 9:10–18 and perhaps also 9:19b–20, which coheres thematically and terminologically with the first part of chapter 26’s story, esp. 26:9–11 on Paul’s earlier days). Marguerat has labelled the three forms in Acts as rewritings. But how many sources would the author have been rewriting – one, three, or some other number? 83 I have decided to render the term GLZYNZ variously as “pursue,” “persecute,” and “prosecute,” in order to indicate the range of possibilities for (the sources and redactors in) Acts.

2.3. Contexts for the Ephesus Act

83

Saul’s call (Acts 26) is the simplest, since in Acts 26:16–18 it is the ):6 who commissions Saul, and he does so as part of Saul’s vision en route to Damascus, explaining – in language reminiscient of the deutero-Pauline epistles – that Paul will “open the eyes” of those in “darkness.” 84 But the other two stories are more useful for comparison with the Ephesus Act. After the visionary dialogue with ):6 en route to Damascus, Acts 9 and 22 continue “the” story of Saul’s call within the polis of Damascus, where a certain Ananias functions to heal Saul of the blindness he had received from ):6 (9:10–18; 22:12–16). The simpler form of the Saul’s healing (Acts 22) is extant as part of Paul’s speech before a mob of ,RXGDL RL in Jerusalem; 85 and given the story’s inscribed audience, it is not surprising to find Ananias portrayed as well regarded by the ,RXGDL RL in Damascus for his religious and political piety (22:12). After healing Saul with a simple command (22:13: “Brother Saul, regain your sight!”), Ananias functions within the narrative – as a kind of intermediary for “the God of our fathers” (22:14) – to declare the election of Saul as a PDYUWX (22:14–15) and then to exhort Saul to arise to be baptized and “to wash off” (DMSRORXYZ) his sins through “his name” (22:16). 86 The more complicated form of the story (Acts 9:10–18), rather than being part of an “autobiographical” speech, is presented as a biographer’s report of the alleged event; and, due to its details and location in Acts, it is this form that has dominated popular and scholarly imagination about “the” call. 87 In this story, Ananias is a PDTKWKY (“student, apprentice, disciple”) in Damascus, who, like an Israelite prophet, is summoned and 84

Of the stories in Acts, the form of Saul’s call in Acts 26 is the most similar to Gal 1:12–16; compare also the story attributed to Barnabas in Acts 9:27–28. To the extent that similarities occur between the call in the Ephesus Act and the calls in Acts, most occur with the form in Acts 26 (and so also with Gal 1). 85 Acts 21:37–22:16 claims that ,RXGDL RL from Asia rallied an R>FOR (“crowd, mob”) on false charges of Paul bringing an Ephesian Trophimus into the Jerusalem Temple. Paul is first beaten by the mob but then taken into custody by the Roman FLOLYDUFR. 86 The healing in Acts 22:12–16 may be a Lukan composition based on the source used in Acts 9:10–18, or it may be derived from another source that portrays “Tarseus” as a ,RXGDL R (see Acts 21:39; cp. 21:40; 22:1, 2, 3, 14). On “Saulos” and “Tarseus,” see n. 88, p. 84 below, regarding the story in Acts 9:10–18. It is interesting that Ananias’s commissioning (22:16–18) does not refer explicitly to ,KVRX  or &ULVWRY, and it is unclear whether “to be immersed” and “to wash off” (22:18) refer to the same act. 87 Pervo (Acts, 239–44) has proposed a source-critical reconstruction for Acts 9:10–18 (with 7:58; 8:1, 3; 9:19), in which there is Lukan redaction (most of vv. 13–16, parts of v. 17) of one source about Paul’s punishment and healing (vv. 10–most of 11, most of 17–19) and another source that had earlier edited such into a story of Paul’s conversion (vv. end of 11–12, end of 18). I concur that most of the material in question derives from a separate source, but I reconstruct the source differently, as indicated the subsequent notes on this page.

84

Chapter 2. Ephesus Act

commissioned by the Lord in a vision (9:10–12). Ananias objects to the call to heal the sight of Saul because of how much evil Saul has done in Jerusalem (9:13–14), until the Lord explains that Saul will himself suffer much for the Lord’s name and be used for his ends (9:15–16). So Ananias goes to the street called “Straight” and enters the house to which the Lord guided him: the house of a certain Judas (9:11, 17). Having found “Saulos by the name Tarseus” there, 88 Ananias – in contrast to the short command in the simpler form of the story (Acts 22:13: “Brother Saul, regain your sight!”) – brings about Saul’s healing, apparently through the name of the Jesus, 89 explaining that he was sent not only to restore Saul’s sight but also so that he might be filled with holy spirit (9:17). 90 Then previously unmentioned scales fall from Saul’s eyes and he can see (9:18a). It is only after this healing, 91 performed in the house of Judas by Ananias, that Saul gets up and is immersed (EDSWLY]Z, 9:18b); however, in neither form of “the” story is it clear that Ananias is the one who baptizes Saul. In any case,

Note that VDX OR in Greek means “straddling, waddling.” For the source(s) of Acts 9, it may be worth noting the parallel with the introduction of Ananias: “a certain learner in Damascus by the name Ananias” (9:10) versus “a toddering man by the name Tarseus” (rather than 7DUVLNRY, “of Tarsus”; 9:11). Quite possibly, particularly if vv. 13–16 are Lukan addition to earlier material, the tradition in 9:10–18 may evince an earlier and unrelated story of the healing of a blind man named Tarseus. Interestingly, apart from its Lukan redaction and editorial bracketing, the tradition in Acts 9:10–18 is comparable with Acts 26:9–15. Among the canonized writings, the only other occurrence of 7DUVHXY is Acts 21:39, where it is commonly understood to function as equivalent to 7DUVRY, which is the term otherwise used in Acts to refer to Tarsus (Acts 9:30; 11:25; 22:3). But must the occurrence in 21:39 be the polis Tarsus? Not necessarily. In fact, the syntax of Acts 21:39 may be even simpler to understand if 7DUVHXY  is a proper name (“Tarseus of Cilicia”) rather than a city (“Tarsus of Cilicia”). Relatedly, consider the occurrences of the transliterated Hebrew name 6DRXYO: Acts 9:4 bis (call), 17; 13:21 (XL-RQ.LY); 22:7 bis (call), 13; 26:14 bis (call). Otherwise, Acts uses 6DX OR to describe one or more people: Acts 7:58 (QHDQLYRXNDORXPHYQRX6DXYORX); 8:1, 3; 9:1, 8, 11, 22, 24; 11:25, 30; 12:25; 13:1, 2, 7, and 9.  89 Perhaps noteworthy is that the so-called Majority text and Sahidic manuscripts omit use of Jesus’ name, referring simply to the one who appears to 6DX OR. 90 Traditionally, and based in part on harmonizing the stories (and broader themes in Acts), Acts 9:17 has been understood as referring to “the Holy Spirit” – an interpretation that sometimes lends itself to the anachronistic uploading of subsequent Christian theology. But the story may originally have been about the healing of a man whose blindness was understood as some kind of impurity. 91 The source edited in Acts 9:10–18 may have had a different sequence: first immersion and then the removal of scales and sight. It may also have been preceded by description of “Saul’s” (that is, Tarseus’s) blindness, which, according to the presence of scales over his eyes, may have been classed as a kind of leprosy. 88

2.3. Contexts for the Ephesus Act

85

Acts 9 concludes its account by explaining that, having fasted for three days (9:9), Saul then ate some food to regain his strength (9:19). 92 Not surprisingly, the stories in Acts 9, 22, and 26 also differ on what occurs after Saul’s call. For example, according to the speech in Acts 22 Paul’s next notable location is Jerusalem (22:17), whereas the speech in Acts 26 mentions preaching in Damascus (22:19–20) and the narrative in Acts 9 describes some of that preaching’s content and reception (9:19b– 21), including the Lukan themes of opposition by ,RXGDL RL and a plot to end Saul’s life (9:22–25). 93 Furthermore, once in Jerusalem, only Acts 9 narrates the story of Barnabas as an intermediary between Saul and the DMSRYVWRORL (9:27–28; cp. 9:26 on the PDTKWDLY, which may be a separate narrative strand); and Acts 9:29–30 and 22:17–21 include variant explanations for how Saul learned that he should depart from the polis of Judea. 94 Therefore it is difficult to discuss these forms as if Acts represents a single, unified story about Saul’s calling. But to the extent that we may speak about the text’s stories in their final form – in any extant edition (e.g., “B,” “D,” or Majority) – it seems that the author of Acts has woven together one or more forms of these and some other stories by relating them to Saul/Paul and the polis of Judea. 95 Such stories include Saul’s reputation as an active and upstanding citizen of Judea; the story of Saul as a persecutor (if not prosecutor) in Jerusalem, including his presence at Stephen’s stoning; Saul’s commission by Jerusalem authorities to go to Damascus; Saul’s revelatory vision on the way to Damascus; Saul’s return to Jerusalem; and Saul’s departure from Jerusalem. Included are the heal92

Reference to three days of fasting followed by a post-baptismal dining (Eucharistic or otherwise) may reinscribe and/or prescribe ritual practice for the community of the author who composed this stratum of Acts. Such may reflect an early practice of using Saul as a pattern for “conversion.” Conversely, it may reflect a pre-Lukan tradition’s emphasis on fasting for healings to occur; see nn. 86 and 88–91, pp. 83–84 above. 93 Contrast the Ephesus Act, where it is the goldsmiths and governor who oppose Paul and plot his death. 94 Harmonization for the stories occurs earlier in Acts via the stories that (apparently) identify Stephen as one of the Hellenists and Saul as someone approving of his stoning. Not surprisingly, it is the story in Acts 9 that seems to have the most “Lukan” markers. 95 Acts is organized thematically (esp. 25:8) but also geographically and chronologically. Acts 1:8, often wrongly understood to be the thesis of Acts, explains that the Galilean DM SRYVWRORL will witness to Jesus both in Jerusalem (Acts 1–7) and in the broader regions of Judea and Samaria (Acts 8–12), even until “the endtime (eschaton) of the [holy] land” – where indeed they remain throughout Acts, whose narrative ends ca. 63 C . E. Dispersion to other geopolitical regions is then narrated in Acts 13–28, where Paul is theoretically based out of Antioch in Syria. Stories of Saul’s call – from his prior life through his departure from Jerusalem and eventual arrival at Antioch – bridge the gap, with the stoning of Stephen and subsequent prosecution of the Jerusalem HMN NOKVLYD occasioning the dispersion of the kingdom from Jerusalem to Rome.

86

Chapter 2. Ephesus Act

ing by Ananias in Damascus, as well as reports of preaching by Saul in Damascus and Jerusalem, opposition and plotting against him in both locations (by ,RXGDL RL and “Hellenists,” respectively), and his socialization into various communities of Jesus-followers. Compared to these stories in Acts, the Ephesus Act differs significantly. First of all, the Ephesus Act does not witness to the tradition – attested exclusively by Acts – that Paul was also called “Saul.” Second, whereas Acts portrays Saul as actively pursuing, arresting, and imprisoning Jesusbelievers – particularly, in Jerusalem – the Ephesus Act does not explain the nature or extent of Paul’s earlier pursuit (UGLZNH) of “the faith in God.” Indeed, unless other Pauline traditions are “uploaded,” it is unclear that Paul’s “pursuit” of “the faith in God” is negatively valued in the Ephesus Act; in abstracto, it is equally possible that Paul’s “pursuit” was the quest of a catechumen striving to learn more. Third, the revelation that Paul receives is not the ):6 from heaven – and so, for example, there is no blindness in the Ephesus Act. Rather a distinct entity, “the mercy” (SQDH), 96 descends from the Father and gives a report (HXDJJHOL]HLQ) about God’s Son. Whether its revelation to Paul was external (as in Acts) or internal (as apparently in Gal 1) is unclear, as is the question of whether it is later identified with the HNNOKVLD: in the Ephesus Act, the “mercy” that appears to Paul may be a figurative representation of the church or one of its sacraments. Fourth, rather than the prophetic commission that Saul receives through Ananias (Acts 9; 22) or immediately from the ):6 (Acts 26), the Ephesus Act narrates a “conversion” story about Paul that is told figuratively in terms of conception (“so that I might live in him”; “the life in Christ”)97 and development (“nourished by his words”). 98 Only, it is unclear what kind or degree of “conversion” occurred when Paul “entered into a large

96 The critical edition (Kasser and Luisier, “Le Papyrus Bodmer XLI,” 317 n. 5) explains that “the copyist” of P. Bodm. 41 added a superlinear stroke over SQD, apparently understanding it as the nomen sacrum for SQHX PD; as indicated by Kasser’s earlier English translation (Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 2:264), even a critical scholar can duplicate such mistakes. That mistake in particular has been used for example by Bauckham to argue for compatability with Acts 9 (idem., “The Acts of Paul”), as well as the alleged tendency of Acts of Paul to “harmonize” Acts and Galatians. 97 Coptic HHLQDZQ++UKL1+KW) and SZQ+HW+1SHF U V (Acts of Paul 9.5; Kasser and Luisier, “Le Papyrus Bodmer XLI,” 316–18); compare Gal 2:19–20; 2 Cor 4:10– 11; 2 Tim 1:1. 98 Coptic HHLVDQDYW+1QH)VHMH (Acts of Paul 9.6; Kasser and Luisier, “Le Papyrus Bodmer XLI,” 318).

2.3. Contexts for the Ephesus Act

87

HNNOKVLD.” 99 Often it is assumed that such entry entailed baptism and full membership in a church – an assumption shared even by Rordorf, who understands the following baptism of a lion as representative of initiation into an ascetic subcalling or subgroup. But other kinds of inclusion and/or initiation are possible. For example, diverse early Christian groups attest to the practice of first excluding catechumens from any communal gathering (an HNNOKVLD), then allowing them to hear sermons, and finally, once baptized, to participating in the Eucharist. Indeed, given the text’s reference to Paul’s prior acquaintance with the faith (Acts of Paul 9.5) 100 and given its reference to him departing from an DJDSK 101 during the evening (9.7), Paul’s story in the Ephesus Act may evince such a catechetical process, culminating in his baptism of “the lion” by night. 102 For, the sequence of preaching prior to one’s own baptism is attested in Acts, notably by Apollos and apparently also by Aquila and Priscilla (see Acts 18:1–3; 18:18–21; and esp. 18:24–19:7); 103 and in the Ephesus Act, Paul explicitly applies his own story to that of Aquila and Priscilla, who are described as progressing from faith (U SLVWHXHDSQRXWH), to teaching (WVHER), to preaching (WDYH), and beyond. 104 Fifth, in the Ephesus Act it is a certain “Judas” who is instrumental in Paul’s development. Only one of the stories in Acts, the narrative in Acts 9:10–18 (and 19b–21), refers to any “Judas”; and there, Judas is simply the person with whom Saul is staying. Whether the Judas in Acts is a stranger, friend, or proximate family member of Saul, we do not know; 105 but from Coptic DHLEZND+RXQDXQD&1^Q`HNNOKVLD (Acts of Paul 9.5; Kasser and Luisier, “Le Papyrus Bodmer XLI,” 318). 100 Perhaps explicit is the phrase WDJDSKHWMDVH1WHWSLVWLV, “the love that is above the faith” (Acts of Paul 9.5; Kasser and Luisier, “Le Papyrus Bodmer XLI,”318). Also, in 9.6, Paul becomes “strong enough” to be “worthy of the word” (1WDUL&1&DPMH DHLP SYDPSVHMH); and Judas is described as the one who promoted (SURWUHSH) Paul. 101 See n. 92, p. 86 above: it may be that Paul departed because of the DJDSK. 102 Scholars often assume – sometimes on a particular understanding of the Protestant presupposition of sola fide – that faith is one’s birth and that one’s subsequent development is the growth from childhood to adulthood, as in 1 Cor 3–4 for example. But some early Christians seem to understand faith as one’s conception, catechesis to be development in the womb (so to speak), and baptism to be one’s birth – an event that is sometimes (perhaps ironically) equated with one’s coming-of-age. 103 The proclamation of (a second) baptism in Acts 19:1–7, when read in context of the preceding verses about Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:1–3; 18:18–21; and esp. 18:24– 28), may offer another useful “parallel” between Acts and the Ephesus Act (Acts of Paul 9). See discussion in §2.3.2, pp. 89–90 below. 104 See n. 67 above. At the end of his description of Aquila and Priscilla, Paul calls upon them to establish (WD+H, “stand up, raise up”) themselves and/or their “hearers.” 105 The traditions attested in Acts differ on Saul’s/Paul’s various affiliations, and discernment of such is often complicated by the terms used, since ,RXGDL R for example is 99

88

Chapter 2. Ephesus Act

his name, it is probable that the Judas in Acts 9 is an Israelite, if not an Israelite of the tribe of Judah. But in the Ephesus Act (Acts of Paul 9.5–6), the “Judas” in question is twice called “blessed” and is also labelled “the brother of the Lord” and a “prophet.” Like the Judas in Acts 9, this Judas apparently resides in “Damascus” – though there is no reference to his house or to Paul staying with him. 106 But unlike the character in Acts, the Judas in the Ephesus Act is someone without whom Paul would not be who he is: it is Judas who from the beginning gave Paul “the love that is above the faith,” who helped Paul “enter a large HNNOKVLD” in Damascus 107 and nourished him with the Lord’s words, and who, once Paul had become strong enough to be worthy, promoted him to the ministry of the word. But as a shepherd, where was Judas leading Paul? Often it is assumed that Judas was leading Paul from being a “convert” to being a “preacher” and/or “missionary.” But another option is that Judas was leading Paul from faith to baptism. Either way, Judas functions to establish Paul in a manner differently than Saul is established in Acts. In Acts, Saul/Paul is established by Ananias in Damascus and by Barnabas in Jerusalem (if not in Tarsus and Antioch as well) as someone working with the HMNNOKVLYD in Jerusalem, where the “Twelve” Galilean DMSRYVWRORL 108 and Jesus’ family – if not also the enigmatic Hellenists – are united in the Spirit’s plan to spread the kingdom of God to Rome. Conversely, the Ephesus Act establishes Paul as the PDTKWKV (not-so-called) of only one prophet, Judas the brother of Jesus, who introduces Paul to a large HNNOKVLD in “Damascus” and then helps him to mature and progress. Like Elisha after Elijah or Jesus after John, Paul is thus portrayed in the Ephesus Act as the successor of a blessed prophet – in this case, the brother of Jesus who was remembered in other early Christian traditions as the “twin” (Didymus, Thomas) of Jesus (e.g., John 20), the faithful scribe of his logia (“sayings”; Gospel of Thomas 1; see logion 7), and a missionary to the east (Acts of Thomas).

sometimes used geopolitically (Judean), sometimes tribally (Judahite – as opposed to other tribes of Israel), and sometimes ethnically (Jew – as opposed to other ethnicities). 106 But a figurative reading of Acts 9 may allow for understanding Paul to have been “enlightened” at the house (= church?) of Judas in the Ephesus Act (Acts of Paul 9). 107 To contrast more explicitly, in Acts 9:27–28 (cp. 9:26, which may be a separate tradition) it is Barnabas who introduces Saul to the DMSRYVWRORL in Jerusalem (and hence affiliates him with that HMNNOKVLYD); and in the Ephesus Act (Acts of Paul 9.5–6), it is Judas who helps Paul to enter a large HNNOKVLD in Damascus – not “the great Church,” as in proto-catholic ideology. 108 Note the textual variant in Acts 1:23, where it is Barnabas who is the other person proposed to replace the Judas who handed over Jesus. Compare the introduction of Barnabas in Acts 4:36–37.

2.3. Contexts for the Ephesus Act

89

Therefore, the “call” of Paul is attested diversely in Acts and the Ephesus Act. Rather than assuming the literary unity of Acts and blending its three (or more) forms of Saul’s call into a hodge-podge whole, it is important to keep its stories separate and to highlight their differences, as I have done above. For example, not all of the stories in Acts narrate Saul’s blindness, Ananias’s healing of Saul through the laying on of hands, or Saul’s baptism. 109 Indeed, a more detailed analysis would critically evaluate each of the distinct traditions and Lukan redaction in all of the call stories in Acts. 110 But it is equally if not more important for our current purposes to note that none of the “basic components” of those stories in Acts occurs explicitly and clearly in the Ephesus Act: the name “Saul,” Saul’s prior persecution of Jesus-followers, the revelation of ):6from heaven en route to Damascus, the dialogue between ):6 and Saul, or ):6’s instructions on what to do. That is, the story of Paul’s “conversion” in the Ephesus Act has literally nothing in common with the stories of Saul’s “commission” in Acts: it is simply a different kind of calling or conversion. So the only point of contact between the stories in Acts and the Ephesus Act is the presence of Paul with a certain Judas in Damascus. Therefore, in the absence of a theory that determines material to be its supporting evidence (e.g., “the Acts of Paul enhances Acts” or “Acts catholicizes Acts of Paul”), there is insufficient data to infer the literary dependence of one tradition upon another. However, even if someone were to determine such a relationship, it should be noted that the dependence in question would not be of one whole text upon another (e.g., Acts of Paul upon Acts); it would only be of one tradition upon another (e.g., the Ephesus Act [or rather, this speech of Paul’s] upon Acts 9:10–18 [or the relevant subunit]). 2.3.2. Function of the Call In my opinion, a more interesting – and much more promising – “parallel” to consider is the manner in which the autobiographical speech about 109 Rordorf (“Paul’s Conversion”) highlights precisely these three details as what distinguishes Acts and Acts of Paul (conceiving of the Ephesus Act in a part-whole relation to “the” broader work), and he argues based on these differences that the author of Acts of Paul did not know and use Acts. On the compositional model I am advocating, it would be more appropriate to isolate the discrete traditions in Acts and compare them to the Ephesus Act individually. 110 In my dissertation, the material on the Ephesus Act was discussed as part of the chapter on manuscripts attesting to collections of Acts of Paul. The current form of this material has been prepared to provide a more adequate discussion of this separately attested “act,” and now I plan also to produce an article discussing Paul’s “call” in more detail, including references to the relevant articles, disserations, monographs, and commentaries that have been omitted in this work on Acts of Paul.

90

Chapter 2. Ephesus Act

Paul’s “call” functions for its hearers in Ephesus. For, in Acts 18:24–19:7 a story – or set of stories (18:24–28 and 19:1–7) – is narrated about how Paul visits some PDTKWDLY in Ephesus and instructs them to receive a second baptism: not John’s baptism of repentance, but Jesus’ of Holy Spirit. Particularly interesting is that the Jesus-baptism in question is presented as a higher level or degree of initiation into “the Way,” which according to Acts 18:24–28 supplements the “accurate” teaching of Apollos (HMGLYGDVNHQ DMNULEZ , 18:25) and perhaps also the “more accurate” teaching of Aquila and Priscilla (DMNULEHYVWHURQDXMWZ HM[HYTHQWD, 18:26). Given that the baptismal status of the couple is not described, and given that the text refers only vaguely to PDTKWDLY (19:1) and to twelve of them receiving Holy Spirit (19:6–7: WRSQHX PDWRY D^JLRQ), is it possible that the story of Jesusbaptism in Acts 19:1–7 is a story that is also about Aquila and Priscilla? 111 That would provide an interesting parallel to the story in the Ephesus Act, especially according to my hypothesis that it narrates the “conversion” of Paul in several stages of initiation: from (mere but socially excluded) believer, to a PDTKWKY who hears the word, to a PDTKWKYwho is officially appointed to preach the word, and (if we read the lion-baptism in this manner) to one who is baptized and only then may partake in the agape meal. For, a similar if not identical model for stages of initiation is presupposed in Acts 18:24–19:7. Only, rather than baptism of twelve into the Lukan Holy Spirit, who is the divine main actor in Acts, in the Ephesus Act the “large crowd” that was “added to the faith” 112 would have been baptized into an ascetic holy spirit. 2.3.3. Riot in Ephesus Coincidentally, the story of Paul baptizing the PDTKWDLY in Ephesus (18:24– 19:7) is followed – after some Lukan summaries and the “sons of Sceva” vignette (Acts 19:8–22) 113 – by the other alleged “parallel” to the Ephesus Act: the so-called riot in Ephesus (19:23–20:1). Like the stories of the resuscitated youths Patroclus in the Martyrdom of Paul (Acts of Paul 14.1– 2) and Eutychus in Acts 20:7–12 (§1.3.1.1), commonalities between these 111 Paul lays hands on the baptized in Acts 19:6, just as Ananias does for him in Acts 9:17. Another option is the official establishment of twelve leaders in Ephesus, as in Jerusalem. After all, from whence are the SUHVEXYWHURL whom Paul summons in Acts 20:17–38? 112 Coptic DX^RX`QD&PPKYHRXZ+DWSLVWLV (Acts of Paul 9.11; Kasser and Luisier, “Le Papyrus Bodmer XLI,” 322–24). Compare the summary-statements in Acts (2:47; 5:14; 6:7; 9:31; 16:5; and, perhaps not surprisingly, 19:20). 113 The narrator’s commentary in Acts 19:21–22 includes an interesting reference to Paul’s intention to go to Rome; compare Paul’s farewell to the SUHVEXYWHURL of Ephesus in Acts 20:17–38, as well as the Corinth act (Acts of Paul 12).

2.3. Contexts for the Ephesus Act

91

two stories are obvious and well known: a setting in Ephesus, a group of metallurgists, Paul’s proclamation against idolatry, an angry mob, and an ad hoc “trial” scene.114 But there are also many differences in Acts: there is a man named Demetrius who is leader of the metallurgists (versus no leader); the metallurgists, if such are the artisans, seem to be silversmiths (rather than goldsmiths 115); the content of Paul’s preaching is rehearsed in a single speech by Demetrius (not by “certain men,” perhaps the goldsmiths, followed by Paul); the mob grabs Paul’s Macedonian travelling companions Gaius and Aristarchus (instead of Paul, who in Acts is explicitly described as not being there); 116 there is a token ,RXGDL R Alexander whose presence in the theater incites the Ephesian HMNNOKVLYD; 117 the “defendants” appear before the JUDPPDWHXY (instead of the governor); and they are exonerated (rather than condemned ad bestias and flagellated). How should such similarities and differences be understood? As always, several options for dependence are available: that one text is dependent upon the other literarily, that both are dependent upon a different text, that both are dependent upon the same or similar oral tradition(s), or that one is dependent upon vague reminiscience of the other – via the author’s own acquaintance or mediated through (an)other(s). 118 Some scholars such as Rordorf have argued for the literary independence of both traditions, attributing commonalities to shared oral or written traditions. But others, often working explicitly on the presupposition that Acts of Paul was composed after Acts and depended upon such literarily, explain the commonalities as evidence of literary dependence. Consider for example the parallels adduced by Julian Hills. According to Hills, Acts is attested by the 150s, and Acts of Paul as a whole (without 3 Cor) was composed shortly before 200 C.E., by which time Acts would have been well known. 119 The question Hills considers, explicitly in terms 114

Pervo, “A Hard Act to Follow.” Marguerat (“A Phenomenon of Rereading”) understands the Ephesus Act to creatively supplement Acts by adding details from 2 Cor 1:8–9a and 1 Cor 15:32. 115 Pervo (“A Hard Act to Follow,” 14) understands the presence of “goldsmiths” to be “the most telling specific” of the Ephesus Act (as part of Acts of Paul) depending on Acts. 116 But compare Acts 18:12–17, which occurs in the midst of Aquila and Priscilla materials. 117 Perhaps apples to oranges, compare Acts 18:12–17 on the beating of Sosthenes, the DMUFLVXQDYJZJR. Note that diverse manuscripts (including D, 1739, the Majority text, and versions in Syriac and Sahidic) attest to Sosthenes being beating by “the Greeks” (18:17). 118 Hill (“The Acts of the Apostles in the Acts of Paul,” 25) offers six “intertextual” models – that is, means by which a set of “parallel” texts may be related to each other in some kind of dependence. See also §0.1.1, pp. 5–12 above. 119 Hills, “The Acts of the Apostles in the Acts of Paul,” 26.

92

Chapter 2. Ephesus Act

of whole texts, 120 is whether the author of Acts of Paul knew and used Acts, since it was available. For the Ephesus Act (which he labels as “Acts of Paul 7,” according to the Hennecke-Schneemelcher abstraction), Hills identifies eight possible occurrences of literary dependence upon Acts: 121 six of these he labelled as “passages which may possibly be referred to, but for which the evidence is too uncertain to allow any reliance” (Acts 2:38//B.24; Acts 8:12//B.24; Acts 14:15//B.12; Acts 19:24//A.10; Acts 20:21, 23, 24//B.20; Acts 23:11//B.20), one as “a lower degree of probability [than a ‘high’ one]” (Acts 19:29//A.8), and only one as a passage “about which there can be little reasonable doubt of dependence” (Acts 4:12//B.11 [cp. A.2]). 122 Because the two parallels from the Ephesus scene amount to nothing more than what we have considered above (Acts 19:24, 29), 123 the only parallel in Acts of “sufficient length or distinctiveness” 124 is from Peter’s statement to a council of Jerusalemite leaders (Acts 4:5– 22). Partly because he works in terms of whole texts and is confident in the identification of other dependences upon Acts, 125 Hills understands the phrase HMQZ_GHL VZTK QDL (“in which/whom it is necessary to be saved”; 120

Ibid., 28. In his 1994 study (“The Acts of the Apostles in the Acts of Paul,” 27), Hills decided to exclude “names and places” from his scope of study. But in 1997 (“The Acts of Paul,” 153), Hills included the example “Men, Ephesians” (D>QGUH(IHYVLRL, by Hieronymous in Acts of Paul 9.14 and the unnamed JUDPPDWHXY in Acts 19:35), as well as “to give (forth) witness” (WRPDUWXYULRQ + GLYGZPL in Acts of Paul 9.23; DMSRGLYGZPL in Acts 4:33) and “to sink into a deep sleep” (i.e., NDWDIHYURPDLX^SQZ EDTHL , “to be brought down with/by a deep sleep,” Acts of Paul 9.20; Acts 20:9, which interestingly is part of the Eutychus material that parallels the Patroclus story in the Martyrdom of Paul – see §1.3.1.1, pp. 54–58 above). These three are among “a number of cases of rare expression that I must argue derive from Luke’s Acts,” with the qualification that a word or expression may (only) be judged “rare or common to the best of our knowledge” (ibid., 152, italics original). 122 For definitions, see Hills, “The Acts of the Apostles in the Acts of Paul,” 28; for the Appendix of passages, see ibid., 51–54. Hills’s method for citing Acts of Paul, allegedly by major and minor units, differs from editions available to me. 123 In 1997 Hills added, presumably in a similar category, the address “Men, Ephesians” (D>QGUH(IHYVLRL, by Hieronymous in Acts of Paul 9.14 and the unnamed JUDPPDWHXY in Acts 19:35; see idem, The Acts of Paul,” 153). Perhaps it is “rare” to address Ephesians, but if one were to do so, is it not common to address residents by D>QGUHplus a polis-based adjective? 124 Hills, “The Acts of Paul and the Legacy of the Lukan Acts,” 146. 125 On the use of whole texts and the “cumulative” argumentation assumed and deployed, see Hills, “The Acts of the Apostles in the Acts of Paul,” 28 (points 9 and 10). Interestingly, there are only six other passages that he claims to be “beyond a reasonable doubt”: within the Martydom (labelled as “Acts of Paul 11”), Acts 1:5 and 4:8; within the travel from Corinth to Rome (labelled as “Acts of Paul 10”), Acts 2:30; within the Acts of Paul and Thekla (labelled undivided as “Acts of Paul 3”), Acts 1:24 and 22:7; and his own proposal for the Coptic act in Myra (labelled as “Acts of Paul 5”), Acts 4:29. 121

2.3. Contexts for the Ephesus Act

93

Acts of Paul 9.17 [extant only at P. Hamb. A3 v]) to be a “most striking parallel,” especially because in both cases it follows a passive participial form of GLYGZPL. 126 But even if we were to accept Hills’s presuppositions on dating (and, for the sake of argument, even if we were also to accept that other parts of Acts of Paul depend on Acts literarily), would it indeed be “most striking” that two early Christian texts would consider it “necessary” that theirs was an exclusive means of “salvation”? 127 Suffice it to say that, apart from working on a theory that identifies data as its supporting evidence, it is difficult to adjudicate whether such parallels are indicative of the literary dependence of one text upon the other – especially given the mereological fallacies inherent to comparing one allegedly whole text to another. Indeed, as with the stories of Patroclus and Eutychus (§1.3.1.1), the riot in Ephesus is another case of parallels that would be equally if not better explained as a “Lukan” editing of a particular “act of Paul.” 2.3.4. Other “Parallels” Nonetheless, some “parallels” may indicate intertexts used in the Ephesus Act and hence provide context for its composition. Among Israelite writings, there is explicit reference to Daniel; and some have adduced dependence on the story of Samson in Judges or the valley of dry bones in Ezekiel. The Gospel according to Matthew may be referenced – though a collection of logia such as the Gospel of Thomas should also be considered (particularly given the text’s reference to Judas; see Gos. Thom. 1; 7). A small collection of Pauline letters may also have been used, perhaps including Romans and 1 Corinthians. 128 And, as MacDonald popularized, the 126

See ibid., 47–48; see also Hills, “The Acts of Paul and the Legacy of the Lukan Acts,” 151 (example c), where Hills is replying in 1997 to Rordorf’s critiques of that earlier 1994 article. 127 My own opinion is that, since the relative pronoun in the Ephesus Act does indeed refer to God (pace Hills), the phrases are strikingly different: in the Ephesus Act the issue is being saved in the God who abides (through a cosmic conflagration), whereas in Acts the issue is being saved through the name of Jesus (probably NXYULR, maybe as a pious substitute for Yahweh as in LXX); and in the Ephesus Act, the participle refers to adoption given by God and is grammatically irrelevant to the adverbial clause, whereas in Acts, the participle refers to a name given among humans and is, with its modified term, the antecedent for the relative pronoun of the adverbial clause. Hills is not uninformed about similar phrases in earlier and roughly contemporary authors (Antiphon; Ignatius; Hermas’s Vision; Irenaeus; Acts of Peter), but his theory has reckoned data as evidence. 128 In the notes above, several other Pauline “parallels” have been mentioned, but the phrases and ideas in question (e.g., life and birth) are also attested in other early Christian literature (e.g., Johannine materials). Particularly interesting, if frustratingly difficult, is the case of 2 Timothy – a text whose materials may also be paralleled in other “Acts of

94

Chapter 2. Ephesus Act

text seems to have incorporated some form of the Androclus and the Lion story. 129 But did the author of the Ephesus Act (in its extant form[s]) know and use Acts? The question should be answered not on the basis of Acts of Paul as a whole but rather according to distinguishable parts of the Ephesus Act, in case such are representative of distinct traditions. Therefore, regarding the call proper, it is not necessary to infer that the author was familiar with any of the forms of Saul’s prophetic commissioning preserved in Acts (9; 22; 26), since the only commonality among the traditions is a character staying with a certain Judas in Damascus, which occurs only in Acts 9:10– 18 (and which, moreover, may be a Lukan redaction of earlier tradition): just as Acts preserves at least two separate forms of “the” story (a direct commission in Acts 26 and an indirect commission in Acts 9 and 22) and may attest to several distinct traditions (e.g., the healing of a toddering blind man in Damascus, and the prophetic call of a Jerusalemite authority), the story of Paul’s conversion in the Ephesus Act preserves a distinct tradition. More problematic, however, are the several parallels between the Ephesus Act and Acts 18:18–20:1 – basically, Paul’s “third missionary journey.” 130 Often it is argued that the Ephesus Act, as part of Acts of Paul, depends upon the whole of Acts literarily. However, discussions by Czachesz and Pervo have advanced discussion by indicating that, rather than thinking only in terms of “original texts,” we would do well also to think in terms of the growth and development of both textual traditions, with particular recensions of each influencing others. 131 Only, both Czachesz and Pervo have contended that Acts – basically in its “B” text-type – was composed in its original form prior to Acts of Paul and that the “D” modifications to Acts were composed roughly contemporaneously with Acts of Paul. In this way, at least two kinds of compositional interaction have been identified: Acts of Paul preserving (later) variant forms of Acts, and (later) variant Paul.” For, as a pseudepigraph, it may not be 2 Timothy but its source(s) that are the basis of parallels. 129 Note again that the leonine imagery may be a later addition to an earlier form of the Ephesus Act, deriving from 1 Cor 15:31–32 or Corinthian legened (MacDonald). 130 Within the story of Acts, Paul’s so-called “missionary journeys” are the ones that begin and end in Syrian Antioch, such that the “second missionary journey” ends in 18:22 when arriving in Antioch and the “third” begins in 18:23 when departing there. Technically, one may argue that the Ephesus Act (Acts of Paul 9) parallels only parts of Acts 19, but to understand such parallels it is necessary to factor in the related Ephesus stories, as discussed above. Also, note that Paul’s narration of his “call” in the Ephesus Act is generically “parallel” to the autobiographies in Acts 22 and 26, whereas the setting and function of such is “parallel” to Acts 19:1–7, further initiating PDTKWDLY. 131 Czachesz, “The Acts of Paul and the Western Text of Luke’s Acts”; and Pervo, “A Hard Act to Follow,” 11 n. 39.

2.3. Contexts for the Ephesus Act

95

forms of Acts preserving Acts of Paul. But due in part to their dating (the “B” form of) Acts earlier than Acts of Paul (as an imagined whole), other kinds of compositional interaction have not been seriously considered. However, just as an alternate dating would open up the possibility of the Eutychus story in Acts depending upon the Patroclus story in the Martyrdom of Paul (§1.3.1.1), so also would it be possible to argue for the dependence of Acts upon the Ephesus Act. For, on the one hand, “parallels” are changed from data into evidence based on one’s interpretive theory, and with reversed dating it would be possible to use the data collected by Hills and others to support the theory of Acts’ dependence on Acts of Paul (or, more precisely, of its Ephesus riot upon that of the Ephesus Act); and on the other hand, just as scholars have adduced alleged motivations for the selection, editing, and composition by “the” author of “Acts of Paul” and then used those alleged motivations to explain where, how, and why the author used or did not use (certain parts of) Acts, so also may the converse be done, adducing the motives of the author of Acts and then using those motives to explain his use or non-use of Acts of Paul. To my knowledge, no one has offerred such an argument for the “parallels” in the Ephesus Act. For example, what Pervo gives with one hand by noting that the riot in the Ephesus Act has more “coherence” than the story in Acts, he takes away with the other by remarking (on analogy to the four source hypothesis) that the Gospel according to Luke often has more “coherence” than Mark. 132 But especially if we remember the late attestation for Acts – and hence the possibility of its late composition – it is simple to imagine the kinds of argumentation one might offer based on the political agenda, ecclesiastical themes, and so forth of the author(s) of Acts: because the author wanted to portray Paul and Christians in general as innocuous to Roman and local governments (Acts 25:8), if he had known and wanted to use the story of the Ephesus riot, he may have (1) changed the arrested party from Paul to Gaius and Aristarchus, (2) explained Paul’s absence by articulating Paul’s desire to be there (empathy) but the dissuasion of others (divine plan), (3) added verisimilitude by naming a particular leader for the metallurgists, 133 (4) composed a speech for Deme132 Pervo, “A Hard Act to Follow”; in this article, Pervo offers a variety of “analogies” to the (study of the) synoptic gospels. See also Pervo, Acts, 484–502 on the pericope in Acts, for which several scholars have for a variety of reasons postulated one or more pre-Lukan sources (esp. 485–90). 133 Sometimes it is argued that Acts is a group of silversmiths, as opposed to the goldsmiths in the Ephesus Act. However, in Acts, Demetrius leads artisans in general (WHFQL WDL, 19:24; cp. 19:38), and while he is described as fabricating “silver shrines” for Artemis (coins or statuettes), it is interesting that his introduction seems to note a nickname: 'KPKYWULRJDYUWLRMQDYPDWLDMUJXURNRY SR, “For a certain Demetrius, by the name Silver-Striker, …” (Acts 19:24; the “D” text substitutes K?Q for RMQDYPDWL). It is possible

96

Chapter 2. Ephesus Act

trius in order to sculpt the (alleged) economic motives of the metallurgists into a critique of local gods, (5) inserted a well-known slogan (see Xenophon, Ephesian Tale 1.11.5), (6) referred to a certain ,RXGDL RAlexander (19:24), possibly to harmonize with a Pauline reference (2 Tim 4:14; cp. 1 Tim 1:20) and definitely to further a critique of contemporary ,RXGDL RL, (7) demonstrated concern for proper Roman and local legal procedure (19:35–40), and so also (8) exonerated the arrested party from any wrongdoing. So, particularly if one were to attend to the nickname of Demetrius and group of artisans that he motivated, it would be relatively simple to argue where, how, and why the author of Acts “changed” the story in the Ephesus Act for his own purposes. That is, if one were first to disaggregate the abstracted and hypothetical whole Acts of Paul and then to date the Ephesus Act prior to Acts 19:23–20:1, it would be possible to argue for a kind of compositional relationship not previously considered: the dependence of Acts 19:23–20:1 upon at least this part of Acts of Paul. Another and related option, which may be particularly fruitful for the set of “parallels” in question, would be to consider an alternative to the literary dependence of one text (in whole or even in part) upon another: rather than privileging one type of text as the “brute given” under and against which others are contrasted as later, dependent, and inferior, it would be useful to rethink the production of both sets of materials in terms of their shared compositional practices, distinguishing traditions and redactions in each and considering how and why the authors produced the extant works. In particular, when comparing traditions preserved in Acts and Acts of Paul (not to mention other narratives about Paul), rather than assuming the “B” text-type of Acts to be the “original text” and considering it only as a whole that is greater than its parts, it would be useful to analyze the traditions and redactions of each form of all traditions – regardless of the text(s)/manuscript(s) in which it is attested – without assuming that the tradition redacted is an otherwise extant and identifiable written source. At various stages of analysis, “parallels” should indeed be analyzed and compared, among other reasons to determine whether such a relationship of literary dependence may be postulated; but to begin one’s analysis by presupposing such a relationship – and indeed, that it is a unilateral relationship for wholes – is to predetermine a study’s observations and conclusions. (“Seek and ye shall find.”) To study each form of all the traditions historically and critically, it is necessary on the one hand to disaggregate the “parts” of the final textual forms by isolating distinct and separable traditions, and on the other to dissociate those traditions from the evaluative categories often associated that the author of Acts inserted a separate and only partly understood tradition about a coin-maker named Demetrius.

2.3. Contexts for the Ephesus Act

97

with such (e.g., “canonical/apocryphal,” “orthodox/heretical,” “historical/fictional”). For, the traditions that are attested in Acts and Acts of Paul were (1) accessible to certain people at distinct times and places but may not have been available to all, (2) received in one or more forms, as evinced by (a particular form of) a particular text, (3) evaluated in such form(s) by the recipients, based on the recipients’ criteria of adjudication (for authority, theology, ethics, etc.), (4) accepted in one or more forms, in one or more ways and degrees (again, based on the recipients’ criteria), and then (5) handed down in the same or some other form(s) based on the recipients’ authorial interests and goals. 134 Because the authors of Acts and Acts of Paul participated in these common and comparable compositional practices, considering each form of a story in terms of these practices may help us to better understand, on a case-by-case basis, whether a particular set of “parallels” may evince the use of one text-form by another. 135 For, what is at stake is precisely the availability, selection, and use of traditions in the stories that are attested in various parts and forms of Acts and Acts of Paul – traditions that were not necessarily preserved first in one “original” or “pure” form (e.g., in the “B” form of Acts) and then later in some “corrupted” or “impure” form(s) (e.g., in the “D” form of Acts or Acts of Paul), but which may have been preserved in a variety of particular forms that were shaped by the values, interests, and goals of distinct redactorauthors. 136 134

Note, as is often done in text-critical discussions, that for those of us interpreting later manuscripts, matters are further complicated by the roles played by “copyists,” who participated in such activites as well. 135 For example, within the text-forms of Acts, it is often assumed that the “B” texttype was earlier and more original than the “D” text-type. But in particular cases, the “B” may depend on a “D(-like)” form or both may depend on some prior form. 136 As with comparing Baur and Harnack, Chadwick and Gonzalez, or any other set of (his-)story tellers (e.g., Plato and Xenophon on Socrates), we must not assume that both historians were using the same materials, that the later author knew and used the work of the earlier, that even if they had the same material it would be evaluated similarly, etc. Imagine finding and comparing two “Americana” quilts from the Revolutionary war. As a quilt, common to each would be a collection of blocks of material, the (re-)organization of such materials into a pattern, the excision of undesirable parts, the preparatory cleansing of dirty parts, the recoloring and/or patching of less desirable parts, perhaps the supplementation of additional (ideally, complementary) parts, and the stitching of everything together – with the inevitable trimming and mending. Based on the time, place, and theme of the two quilts, a number of “parallels” would occur: indeed, particular parts of the quilts may even use the same threads, stitch patterns, blocks of fabric, etc. But would those commonalities necessarily constitute knowledge and use of one quilt by the other? Even if one quilt were dated a few years earlier than the other and had hundreds of co- or re-productions, would it be necessary that the later one imitated the former? What if the earlier quilt were produced by the “American” rebels, and the later by British loyalists?

98

Chapter 2. Ephesus Act

The question to ask is therefore whether the extant forms of “the” riot in Ephesus provide enough evidence to determine such practices. Probably not. For, while there are some significant “parallels” between the stories in the Ephesus Act and in Acts 19:23–20:1, “parallels” do not constitute evidence for literary dependence apart from a theory that includes dating, availability, selection, and use; and in the absence of a definitive argument for dating one form prior to the other, all we know is that each author had a set of values, interests, and goals – as well as additional and/or alternate material – that may have occasioned his (or her) editing the other if such was available. So either may have known and used the other, or both may have depended on one or more common traditions about Ephesus, oral and/or written, that were redacted independently. In any case, it is interesting to note that both the Ephesus Act (Acts of Paul 9) and Acts 19:1–20:1 137 collect a set of stories about Paul’s travel to Ephesus. Both portray Paul as visiting a community where Aquila and Priscilla were located; both have Paul further the faithfulness of the PDTKWDLY in Ephesus; and both identify Paul as proclaiming a message against idolatry, which results in local artisans initiating a “riot,” arrest, and ad hoc trial. The set of traditions in the Ephesus Act were collected and edited together into a coherent narrative that circulated independently as “An Act of Paul” (P. Bodm. 41) and with other “Acts of Paul” (P. Hamb.) while the others were collected and edited only as part of the broader narrative of Acts, functioning as its so-called “third missionary journey.”

2.4. Paul in the Ephesus Act 2.4. Paul in the Ephesus Act

The Ephesus Act (Acts of Paul 9) remembers Paul differently than the Martyrdom of Paul (Acts of Paul 14). Whereas the Martyrdom portrays Paul as a general of Christ’s army in contest with imperator Nero and exalts his life beyond death, the Ephesus Act does not include any martial ideology or remember Paul in so dignified a manner. Instead, the Ephesus Act uses Paul to portray God and Christ – to the extent that such are distinct in the text – as worthy of “atheism” and to highlight a type of asceticism that is associated with baptism and the renunciation of things external.138 However, such asceticism is secondary, if not indeed a later addition, to 137

See also Acts 18:1–4, 18–28. Note that, in contrast to the Acts of Paul and Thekla (see chapter 3 below), the Ephesus Act advocates a kind of renunciation that does not explicitly nullify traditional family structures and practices such as sexual relations and childbearing. However, even in the Acts of Paul and Thekla, it is difficult to determine to what extent and for whom such ideology was advocated. 138

2.4. Paul in the Ephesus Act

99

the text’s critique of idols and the polylatrous cultus deorum common to ancient Mediterranean societies, including Ephesus and Rome. Apart from such “atheism” and a mutual interest in baptism (variously understood), the Martyrdom of Paul and Ephesus Act portray Paul differently, using different locations, intertexts, themes, events, and characters to do so. But the themes of the Ephesus Act are similar to the next text we will consider, the so-called Acts of Paul and Thekla. Like the Ephesus Act but unlike the Martyrdom, the Acts of Paul and Thekla is attested in only one of the two extant collections of Acts of Paul. Only, whereas the Ephesus Act is in the fourth-century Greek manuscript at Hamburg (P. Hamb.), the Acts of Paul and Thekla is extant only in the sixth-century Coptic manuscript at Heidelberg (P. Heid.), where it is one of several acts preceding the Martyrdom.

Chapter 3

The Acts of Paul and Thekla “… amore Pauli …” – Tertullian, De baptismo 17.5

The Acts of Paul and Thekla, like the Martyrdom of Paul and the Ephesus Act, is a text that circulated both independently and in at least some collections of “Acts of Paul,” including the sixth-century Coptic manuscript at Heidelberg (P. Heid.). It has been debated whether the story was originally part of Acts of Paul, only later to be separated, or whether it was extant prior to Acts of Paul and later incorporated into some or all collections of Acts of Paul. As an indirect means of addressing the issue, let us consider the text independently in this chapter. The Acts of Paul and Thekla is without question the most popular part of Acts of Paul: articles, dedicated journal issues, dissertations, monographs, and edited works are continually being produced on the work. In a project such as mine, I have not been able to keep abreast of all of the issues and options in current scholarship on the Acts of Paul and Thekla in particular, so I must refer the reader who is interested in such matters elsewhere. 1 As part of my broader work on the composition and reception of “Acts of Paul,” I have decided to concentrate in this chapter on a particular “second-order” matter: the selection and use of comparative materials for studying the Acts of Paul and Thekla. To situate my work, I begin by discussing the reception of Thekla among early Christians: what we find is that, after only a few references in the early centuries, her story becomes widely known in the fourth century, when she is understood, interpreted, received, and used in a variety of ways. Modern scholarship also has received Thekla diversely, classifying her and her story in a variety of 1 See for example the recent dissertations by Jeremy W. Barrier, The Acts of Paul and Thecla: A Critical Introduction and Commentary (WUNT 270; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009); Elisabeth Esch-Wermeling, Thekla–Paulusschülerin wider Willen? Strategien der Leserlenkung in den Theklaakten (Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen 53; Münster: Aschendorff, 2008). See also Matthijs den Dulk, “I Permit No Woman to Teach except for Thecla: The Curious Case of the Pastoral Epistles and the Acts of Paul Reconsidered,” NovT 54:2 (2012) 176–203.

3.0. Thekla

101

ways. To highlight the significance of these classifications, I discuss some of the issues and options that have been raised by comparing the Acts of Paul and Thekla to Greek-language novels, in particular the Hellenistic romance novel. After identifying some of the “facts” that are produced by such comparisons, I propose that we also consider reading the Acts of Paul and Thekla as hagiography.

3.0. Thekla 3.0. Thekla

Thekla is a character attested no later than the end of the second century. 2 The Physiologus, parts of which may date to the late second century, refers to Thekla in §17 (“On the Ibis”) and §31 (“On the Whale, that is, the Aspidoceleon”). 3 But Tertullian, whom we shall discuss below, is normally understood as the earliest witness (De baptismo 17.5, ca. 200 C.E.). In the third century, Origen uses a phrase that parallels both 1 Cor 7:29 and a statement in the Acts of Paul and Thekla; 4 and two of the psalms in the Manichaean Psalm-Book, parts of which may originate in the late third century, also refer to Thekla. 5 But it is not until the fourth century that references to Thekla begin to flourish. Thekla was widely known and referenced in the fourth century. For example, Thekla is portrayed as the main character in Methodius of Olympus, Symposium (ca. 311 C.E.), where she is one of ten virgins at a banquet. Her speech on virginity is longer than the others, due in part to her vituperations of astrology and various heretics; she is awarded first prize by Arete and invited to lead a hymn to the Bridegroom. In addition to 2 For Thekla in early Christian literature, see Carl Holzhey, Die Thekla-Akten. Ihre Verbreitung und Beurteilung in der Kirche (München: J. J. Lentner, 1905); Vouaux, Les Actes de Paul, 24–69; Michel Aubineau, “Compléments au dossier de sainte Thècle,” AnBoll 93 (1975) 356–62; Willy Rordorf, Liturgie, foi et vie des premiers chrétiens (Théologie historique 75; Paris: Beauchesne, 1986) 435–43; Léonie Hayne, “Thecla and the Church Fathers,” VC 48 (1994) 209–18; Monika Pesthy, “Thecla among the Fathers of the Church,” in The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla (ed. Bremmer) 150–63. 3 See Michael J. Curley, Physiologus (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009) 25–26, 45–46. The Physiologus attests to Thekla’s fleeing Thamyris and to her rescues from Iconium and Antioch. 4 Origen, On Easter 36.6–37.1; for text, see Octave Guéraud and Pierre Nautin, Origène. Sur la Pâque (Christianisme Antique 2; Paris: Beauchesne, 1979) 224–26; for discussion, see François Bovon, “Une nouvelle citation des Actes de Paul chez Origène,” Apocrypha 5 (1994) 113–17. 5 C. R. C. Allberry, ed., A Manichaean Psalm-Book, part II, vol. 2 (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1938) 143.5–10 (the “psalm of endurance”; 143.32); 192.25–193.3. Like the Physiologus, the Manichaean psalms attest to the basic story preserved in the Acts of Paul and Thekla.

102

Chapter 3. Acts of Paul and Thekla

functioning as a literary character, Methodius refers to events in Thekla’s life as described by the Acts of Paul and Thekla. 6 Thekla’s virginity is praised also by Augustine (Contra Faustum 30.4; Sancta virg. 1.44), Gregory of Nazianzus (Praesc. ad virg. 190; Exh. ad virg. 87; Or. 24.10; Or. 4.69), and even Jerome (Ep. 22.41), who otherwise seems to condemn a form of her story as “apocrypha” (De vir. ill. 7; see discussion at §§6.1.3 and 6.2.2.2). Ambrose, bishop of Milan, also lauds Thekla’s virginity; and since his recently constructed basilica was later dedicated to Thekla, it may be particularly significant that Ambrose portrays Thekla in a reading of Song of Songs 4:12 as the sister-bride of Christ – namely, the Church (Ep. 63.34). Thekla was similarly portrayed in terms of her renunciation of material possessions (John Chrysostom, Hom. 25 in Acta apost.) or even all things external (Gregory of Nyssa, Hom. in Cant. 14). Thekla was also remembered as a martyr and saint. In the year 374 C.E., after the death of his father, Gregory of Nazianzus travelled to nearby Seleucia and stayed for several years at a monastery dedicated to Thekla (De vita sua, lines 545–69; Or. 21.22). A decade later, in 384 C.E., a female pilgrim by the name of Egeria 7 travelled from Tarsus to Seleucia. In her travelogue (Itin. Eger. 22.1–23.6), she provides a description of the city’s martyrium for Thekla, near which were located cells for male and female monastics. There she participated in dialogue, prayer, Eucharist, and the reading of actu sanctae Teclae, “The Acts of Saint Thecla” (see §6.2.2.2). But Thekla’s life as a saint was not confined to a martyrium in Seleucia. For example, Gregory of Nyssa, in a Life he wrote about his sister Macrina, describes how Thekla appeared to their mother in a dream in order to bestow upon the girl the secret name of “Thekla” and hence grace Macrina with virginity (Vita Macr. 961–62). According to the monumental study by Stephen Davis, the cult of Saint Thekla spread so rapidly and widely that “by the end of the fifth century C.E., Thecla was extolled as an exemplary virgin and martyr not only in Asia Minor, but also in Italy, Gaul, Germany, North Africa, Armenia, Cyprus, Palestine-Syria, and Egypt.” 8 Devotion to Thekla, which Davis (following Carl Holzhey) understands to parallel spread of the Acts of Paul and Thekla, 9 is attested not only in texts but also in gravestone inscrip6

Methodium, Symposium, Logos 8, Prelude and Hymn 3–5; see PG 18.28–220. Variants for Egeria’s name include Aetheria and Silvia. 8 Stephen J. Davis, The Cult of Saint Thecla: A Tradition of Women’s Piety in Late Antiquity (Oxford Early Christian Studies. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), at 83–85. Davis’s study concentrates on Seleucia and on reception of the Thecla cult in Egypt. On the reception of Thecla in the East and West, Davis refers especially Holzhey, Die Thekla-Akten. 9 Davis (Cult of Saint Thecla, 85ff.) hypothesizes that the Acts of Paul and Thekla began circulating in Egypt by entering Alexandria through Origen and dispersing from 7

3.0. Thekla

103

tions, paintings, textile fragments, combs, lamps, and pilgrim flasks, as well as dedicated churches, spanning from the fourth to seventh centuries – at least in Egypt, Davis’s area of study. 10 From there are the two earliest manuscript fragments of the Acts of Paul and Thekla: a 4th-cent. Greek parchment from Antinoopolis (P. Ant. 1.13), and a 5th-cent. Greek vellum leaf from Oxyrhynchus (P. Oxy. 1.6). The manuscripts of the Acts of Paul and Thekla, which number at least 50, 11 are witnesses not only to the text of the Acts of Paul and Thekla but are themselves artifacts that attest materially to textual practices of piety. 12 Their extant titles, for example, provide a glimpse into how, where, and why the texts were being produced and used. The manuscripts are regularly titled PDUWXYULRQ in Greek (“testimony, witness; martyrdom”) and passio in Latin (“suffering; martyrdom”) and normally refer only to Thekla: in the Greek manuscripts, she is D-JLYD… 4HYNODK (“holy/saint Thekla”), often supplemented with SUZWRPDYUWXUR(“protomartyr”) or HMQGRY[RX (“glorified one”). 13 In other words, the manuscripts of the text that we call the “Acts of Paul and Thekla” were normally titled the “Martyrdom of (Glorified) Saint Thekla (the Protomartyr).” Particularly given what may be known of their provenance and/or site of discovery, several of these manuscripts were produced and used in cultic practice.

there. But his argument requires interpreting the 6th-cent. Coptic manuscript of Acts of Paul as evidence that “the Acts of Paul and Thekla circulated as part of the Acts of Paul in Egypt” (ibid., 85 n. 11) and then using that interpretation to conclude from Origen’s third-century references to “the Acts of Paul” (Comm. Joh. 20.12; De princ. 1.2.3) that the Acts of Paul and Thekla were in Alexandria when Origen was head of the catechetical school. For discussion of Origen’s testimony to Acts of Paul, see §§6.1.1; 6.1.3.2; 6.2.1. 10 See also for example Annewies van den Hoek and John Hermann, Jr., “Thecla the Beast Fighter: A Female Emblem of Deliverance in Early Christian Popular Art,” Studia Philonica Annual 13 (2001) 212–49 and references; Dennis R. MacDonald and Andrew D. Scrimgeour, “Pseudo-Chrysostom’s Panegyric to Thecla: The Heroine of the Acts of Paul in Homily and Art,” Semeia 38 (1986) 151–59. 11 See Rordorf’s note in Bovon and Geoltrain, Écrits apocryphes chrétiens, 1:1123; Geerard, Clavis apocryphorum Novi Testamenti, no. 211.2.1; 211.3. 12 See Claudia Rapp, “Holy Texts, Holy Men, and Holy Scribes: Aspects of Scriptural Holiness in Late Antiquity,” in The Early Christian Book (ed. William E. Klingshirn and Linda Safran; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2007) 194– 222; see also Larry W. Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006); and Craig A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias, eds., Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon (London: T&T Clark, 2009). Note also Davis’s hypothesis (Cult of Saint Thecla, 46) that it was in part by renarrating Thekla’s life that her presence was transferred to non-local shrines. 13 Lipsius-Bonnet, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, 235.

104

Chapter 3. Acts of Paul and Thekla

Consider two variant forms of the text. 14 In the mid-fifth-century, the Acts of Paul and Thekla was rewritten in a Greek text called the Life and Miracles of (Saint) Thekla. 15 As its title implies, the work consists of two parts: the first is a paraphrase of the Acts of Paul and Thekla, as recently demonstrated by Scott Johnson, and the second is a collection of forty-six miracles (TDXYPDWD, “wonders”) ascribed to Thekla. Both parts, especially the Miracles, probably had several stages of composition and editing. But each would have been completed shortly before 476 C.E., when Zeno constructed a church for Thekla in Seleucia. The final form of the text presents an author who composed the work out of piety (and thankfulness for his own healing) and with the personal guidance of Thekla through visions: 16 it is written as the first-person account of a devotee who piously records the miracles that Thekla did for him and others, as guided by the saint herself. A second variant form – or perhaps set of variant forms – are manuscripts G (“Seleucian”) and M that change and add to the ending of the Acts of Paul and Thekla. As Davis notes, 17 it is difficult to determine a terminus ad quem earlier than the extant manuscripts (8th–10th cents.), but a terminus a quo for the variants may be fixed with the relocation of Thekla’s shrine to the mountain’s cave (i.e., sometime in the mid-5th cent.). For, these manuscripts mention not only Thekla’s presence in that cave but describe the location as the final site of her embodied miracles. 18 14

For an interesting discussion of five particular variants within the manuscript tradition of the Acts of Paul and Thekla, see Kim Haines-Eitzen, “Engendering Palimpsests: Reading the Textual Tradition of the Acts of Paul and Thecla,” in The Early Christian Book (ed. William E. Klingshirn and Linda Safran; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2007) 177–93. Contrast Davis’s description of a separate narrative that was produced in the name of Thekla (Cult of Saint Thecla, 177–90). 15 See the edition by Gilbert Dagron, ed., Vie et miracles de Sainte Thècle: Texte grec, traduction, et commentaire (Subsidia Hagiographica 62; Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1978) and the study by Scott Fitzgerald Johnson, The Life and Miracles of Thekla: A Literary Study (Cambridge, Mass.: Center for Hellenic Studies, 2006). For discussion, see §6.2.3 below. 16 See Krueger, Writing and Holiness, 79–92. 17 Davis, Cult of Saint Thecla, 42. 18 For editions, see Lipsius-Bonnet, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, 2:269–72; for English translations, Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, 372–74. More explicit contrasts between the two reworkings are offered by Johnson (Life and Miracles of Thekla, 227– 30), who critiques the Seleucian expansion in comparison to the more artful Life and Miracles: the expansion allegedly “does more violence to the narrative style” of the original. Perhaps, but narrative style should not be the only criterion. For, the Seleucian expansion in fact adds a third miraculous salvation for Thekla, at once resulting in her “perpetual virginity” (to borrow a phrase and leadingly use it in another context) and legitimating the contemporary site in Seleucia as a sacred place of embodied presence – despite the notable absence of a body. Indeed, the story provides an etiological legend for a relic (a scrap of Thekla’s dress) and then states clearly: “All this happened by the

3.1. Categorizing the Acts of Paul and Thekla

105

Such rewritings attest to local knowledge of Seleucia’s sacred space and to contemporary understandings of Thekla’s abiding presence. 19 So who is this Thekla? The earliest witness to Thekla is the Acts of Paul and Thekla. To the extent that we may discuss “sources” for reconstructing an historical Thekla, the text may be our only extant source. Any and all attempts to address the question of Thekla’s historicity must therefore begin with literary analysis of the Acts of Paul and Thekla. Putting the cart after the horse, I have decided not to consider Thekla’s historicity in this chapter but rather, as many recent studies have done, to study the narrative’s portrayal of its character “Thekla.” This will help us to situate the Acts of Paul and Thekla within the composition and development of traditions attributed to Acts of Paul, as well as to focus on the story that has provided inspiration for centuries, even today. 20

3.1. Categorizing the Acts of Paul and Thekla: Issues and Options 3.1. Categorizing the Acts of Paul and Thekla

Histories of scholarship on the Acts of Paul and Thekla are widely available.21 One of the primary interests in modern scholarship 22 is the classification of the Acts of Paul and Thekla, a matter often equated with classification of “Acts of Paul” as an imagined whole. Interest is normally in the text’s “genre” or literary form, sometimes also in reconstructing one or more hypothetical forms, written and/or oral, prior to the extant texts. In order to permission of God for the faith of those seeing the venerable place and for a blessing in the generations afterwards to those who believe our Lord Jesus Christ out of a pure heart” (trans. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, 374). 19 Davis, Cult of Saint Thecla, 46. See ibid., 46–47 for a further Roman development, where Thekla travels underground to Rome to die and be buried near Paul. Does this final expansion articulate a Roman appropriation of Thekla? In any case, note that the Life and Miracles and the shorter Seleucian expansion may also be read as defenses for Thekla and her cult (at least, locally to Seleucia) against imagined and/or real opposition in the late 5th cent. 20 Thekla was among the saints of Roman Catholicism until 1969, and veneration of Thekla continues among some of the Orthodox today. 21 See for example Willy Rordorf, “Tradition and Composition in the Acts of Thecla: The State of the Question,” Semeia 38 (1986) 43–52; Virginia Burrus, Chastity as Autonomy: Women in the Stories of Apocryphal Acts (Studies in Women and Religion 23; Lewiston, N.Y.: E. Mellen Press, 1987) 7–30; Shelly Matthews, “Thinking of Thecla: Issues in Feminist Historiography,” JFSR 17:2 (2001) 39–55; Esther Yue L. Ng, “Acts of Paul and Thecla: Women’s Stories and Precedent?,” JTS 55 (2004) 1–29. 22 The first critical edition of the Acts of Paul and Thekla was produced by Joannes Ernestus Grabe, Spicilegium SS. patrum ut et haereticorum, seculi post Christum natum I. II. & III. (2 vols.; Oxoniae: E Theatro Sheldoniano, 1698–1699).

106

Chapter 3. Acts of Paul and Thekla

classify the Acts of Paul and Thekla, categories have to be used, texts and traditions have to be classified, and comparisons have to be done. 23 It is interesting to note that, with only a few exceptions, the same basic database of material has been used for more than a century, with the result that scholarly debate has frequently dealt with which categories to use, which things to classify where, and which materials to compare. In order to set up my own contribution, let me highlight some of the issues and options that are significant in such discussion. The most frequent comparison has been with the Hellenistic novel – only, the category of “novel” and the texts and traditions classified as a “novel” have varied. 24 For example, Ernst von Dobschütz 25 used a broad definition and classification for the “novel.” Taking the Acts of Paul and Thekla with other “Acts of Paul” plus four other apostles’ acts (Acts of Andrew, Acts of John, Acts of Peter, and Acts of Thomas), he compared the two bodies of literature and identified the “apocryphal acts” as Greek novels based on their common love story (Liebesgeschichte), which he understood the acts to have modified from the erotic to the ascetic. Richard Reitzenstein 26 23

See for example Jonathan Z. Smith, “In Comparison a Magic Dwells,” in Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982) 19– 35; idem, “On Comparison,” in Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990) 36–53; and idem, “Classification,” in Guide to the Study of Religion (ed. Willi Braun and Russell T. McCutcheon; New York: Cassell, 2000) 35–44. 24 See for example Erwin Rohde, Der griechische Roman und seine Vorläufer (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1876); Patricia Cox Miller, Biography in Late Antiquity: A Quest for the Holy Man (Transformation of Classical Heritage 5; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983); Tomas Hägg, The Novel in Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983); Arnaldo Momigliano, The Development of Greek Biography (exp. ed.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993); Ben Edwin Perry, The Ancient Romances: A Literary-Historical Account of Their Origins (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967); Bryan P. Reardon, The Form of Greek Romance (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991); Gareth Schmeling, ed., The Novel in the Ancient World (rev. ed.; Memnosyne 159; Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 2003); James Tatum, ed., The Search for the Ancient Novel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994); Lawrence M. Wills, The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995). See for example the study by Melissa Aubin, “Reversing Romance? The Acts of Thekla and the Ancient Novel,” in Ancient Fiction and Early Christian Narrative (ed. Ronald F. Hock, J. Bradley Chance, and Judith Perkins; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1998). One of the merits of Barrier’s 2008 dissertation is providing parallels from these texts to the Acts of Paul and Thekla. 25 Ernst von Dobschütz, “Der Roman in der altchristlichen Literature,” Deutsche Rundschau 111 (1902) 87–106. 26 Richard Reitzenstein, Hellenistische Wundererzählungen (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1906). Reitzenstein argued that Egyptian aretalogies of prophets and philosophers functioned as a model for Hellenistic miracle stories, which would have been available orally in “folk religion,” a thesis that was tested by Ludwig Radermacher, “Hippolytus und

3.1. Categorizing the Acts of Paul and Thekla

107

replied that von Dobschütz’s category should be divided into two categories: the aretalogy, which according to Reitzenstein lists “acts” (SUDY[HL) in chronological order with no connection to each other apart from their alleged historicity; and the novel, which made no claim to history. Using the same group of Christian texts, Reitzenstein argued (based mainly on the Acts of Thomas) that the apocryphal acts should be labelled not as novels but as aretalogies. Later Philipp Vielhauer 27 further divided between aretological acts (SUDY[HL) and travel narratives (SHULYRGRL), and he argued that the apocryphal acts were at once both and neither: by taking individual acts and weaving them together with a travel narrative, the apocryphal acts produced a new form of literature – the “travel novel.” What is interesting about these studies is that the only “control” in the equation was the corpus of five “apocryphal” acts of the apostles. Setting aside the historical question of how and why those five were grouped, 28 the scholars in question varied their definitions of categories and classifications of texts, and then compared and categorized the corpus of acts on that basis. To frame the matter starkly, the Acts of Paul and Thekla has thus been categorized as fictional (von Dobschütz), historical (Reitzenstein), or both (Vielhauer), depending on how other texts have been classified. One trend in recent scholarship has been to rework the position of von Dobschütz by comparing the apocryphal acts to Hellenistic romance novels. 29 For example, Jean-Daniel Kaestli has argued that “the stories of the apocryphal Acts where the erotic theme predominates are directly inspired

Thekla. Studien zur Geschichte von Legende und Kultus,” Sitzungberichte, Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaft in Wein. Philosophisch-historische Klasse 182.3 (1916). 27 Philipp Vielhauer, “Apokryphe Apostelgeschichten,” in idem, Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1975). 28 The most probable thesis is that at least some groups of Manichaeans attest to this grouping of five and that the “collection” (if indeed the Manichaeans understood the five as such) was reinscribed, reinterpreted, and revalued in anti-Manichaean polemic. See for example Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 114, where the five are attributed to a single heretic author. For discussion with bibliography, see pp. 45–46, 240–42, 255–56. 29 Note especially the “canon” of five Hellenistic romance novels: Chariton, Chaereas and Callirhoe; Xenophon of Ephesus, An Ephesian Tale (which I find most useful for the Acts of Paul and Thekla); Achilles Tatius, Leucippe and Clitophon; Longus, Daphnis and Chloe; and Heliodorus, An Ethiopian Story; for translations, see Bryan P. Reardon, ed., Collected Ancient Greek Novels (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989). Note that the “canon” of five Greek-language romance novels provides only a small database, which may or may not be representative of such works in general. Fragments of other Greek novels indicate that genres other than the romance were also extant, including comedic narratives previously ascribed only to Latin writers like Petronius and Apuleius (see, e.g., Ps.-Lucian, The Ass).

108

Chapter 3. Acts of Paul and Thekla

by the genre of the Hellenistic romance novel.” 30 On the basis of more recent papyrus discoveries, Kaestli has argued that Greek-language romance novels were being written as early as the first or even second century B.C.E. As an established literary form, the novel’s emphasis on the erotic would thus have done more than “inspire” the apocryphal acts; it would have functioned as a pattern for imitation – even if only one among several. Moreover, to rebut an earlier critique that the romance novel was of higher literary quality than the apocryphal acts, Kaestli argued that evidence now weighs in favor of the novel originating as a popular form of literature not dissimilar from the apocryphal acts. A second trend occurs in the trajectory of Rosa Söder. 31 Söder also was interested in comparing the apocryphal acts to Greek-language novels. At once defining the category and determining its texts, Söder argued that “the novel” included five main “elements”: travel, aretalogy, teratology (wonders), eroticism, and propaganda. In this broad sense, the apocryphal acts were indeed “novels.” But according to Söder’s subcategorizations of the novel, the apocryphal acts were neither aretologies (Reitzenstein) nor romance novels (von Dobschütz), because their inclusion of both aretological and erotic elements was incompatible with both subcategories. However, rather than concluding that the apocryphal acts should be classified into another literary category (e.g., Vielhauer), Söder argued that the commonalities between the apocryphal acts and romance novels should be attributed to dependence on common nonliterary sources: folktales. Söder’s interest in folklore studies was popularized by several notable studies in the 1980s, each of which was also interested in social history: Stevan L. Davies (1980), Dennis Ronald MacDonald (1983), and Virginia Burrus (1987). 32 Davies, who explicitly labelled his work as extending Söder’s, argued that the apocryphal acts (to which he added the Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena) provide evidence for an historical period between itinerant apostles and a patriarchal, institutionalized church. 30

Jean-Daniel Kaestli, “Les principales orientations de la recherche sur les Actes Apocryphes des Apôtres,” in Les Actes Apocryphes des Apôtres (ed. François Bovon et al.; Publications de la Faculté de Théologie de l’Université de Genève 4; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1981) 67. 31 Rosa Söder, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und die romanhafte Literatur der Antike (Stuttgart: 1932; reprinted in Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1969). For interest in oral tradition from Reitzenstein through Radermacher and Karl Kerenyi (Die griechische-orientalische Romanliteratur in religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung [Tübingen: 1927; reprinted in Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1962]) to Söder, see Burrus, Chastity as Autonomy, 12–19. 32 Stevan L. Davies, The Revolt of the Widows: The Social World of the Apocryphal Acts (Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press, 1980); MacDonald, The Legend and the Apostle; Burrus, Chastity as Autonomy.

3.1. Categorizing the Acts of Paul and Thekla

109

According to his study, the acts originated and circulated orally among women for generations and later were written down by a group of literate, economically significant, sexually abstinent women whom Davies calls “widows.” Burrus provided a more schematic study that concentrates on seven “chastity stories.” 33 Using theory from the Russian folklorist Vladmir Propp, Burrus identified a sequence of fourteen “functions” in the chastity stories, and argued that compared to the five extant Greek romance novels, the chastity stories are formally distinct. 34 Differences among the seven chastity stories may be best explained, she argued, by understanding them as variant versions of a legend that “originated in oral tradition before being put in literary form.” 35 So whereas romance novels reinscribe the dominant social and political orders, chastity stories like Thekla’s oppose marriage and family and thus embody a legend of “the radical alienation of a woman from her society.” 36 Between the works of Davies and Burrus, both of which were interested in reconstructing women’s history from the apocryphal acts in general, Dennis MacDonald focused on “Acts of Paul” in his monograph The Legend and the Apostle: The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon (1983). 37 Concen33

In this work, Burrus defines “chastity” as “women’s abstinence from all sexual relations”; eadem, Chastity as Autonomy, 4 n. 4. Burrus has continued to interact critically with the Thekla story; her earlier work is not indicative of later opinions, for example as articulated in eadem, “Word and Flesh: The Bodies and Sexuality of Ascetic Women in Christian Antiquity,” JFSR 10:1 (1994) 27–51; “Mimicking Virgins: Colonial Ambivalence and the Ancient Romance,” Arethusa 38 (2005) 49–88. See also David Konstan, “Acts of Love: A Narrative Pattern in the Apocryphal Acts,” JECS 6 (1998) 15–36. 34 See Tables 1 and 2 at Burrus, Chastity as Autonomy, 61–62. 35 Ibid., 57. Burrus explains that some variations may also be attributed to the creative combination of the chastity story with other narrative types: “The most striking example of a ‘merging’ is the Thecla story, which appears to be strongly influenced by folktales in which a heroine is abandoned by a hero whom she must pursue in men’s clothing in order to win him back” (ibid., 58). 36 Burrus, Chastity as Autonomy, 60. Burrus’s sociological analysis is furthered, for example, in the work of Kate Cooper, The Virgin and the Bride: Idealized Womanhood in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1996); see also Jennifer Wright Knust, Abandoned to Lust: Sexual Slander and Ancient Christianity (Gender, Theory, and Religion; New York: Columbia University Press, 2006). 37 Dennis Ronald MacDonald, The Legend and the Apostle: The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983). For a position similar to that of Burrus and MacDonald, see Rordorf, “Tradition and Composition in the Acts of Thecla,” which was presented orally in the early 1980s but not published until 1986. Rordorf, in addition to including a brief but indicative history of scholarship on the historicity of Thekla, provides a review of the salient parts of MacDonald’s monograph. Independently, Rordorf came to the same conclusion as MacDonald that the commonalities between the so-called Pastorals and Acts of Paul (and Thekla) may be attributed to dependence on

110

Chapter 3. Acts of Paul and Thekla

trating on three parts of Acts of Paul – the Martyrdom, the Ephesus Act, and the Acts of Paul and Thekla – and comparing these with the so-called Pastoral letters (i.e., 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus), MacDonald argued that the Pastoral epistles – which he groups together and ascribes to a common author – were written as a response to oral legends lying behind Acts of Paul. Supplementing the work of folklorist Alex Olrik with that of Albert B. Lord, MacDonald identified nine “laws” or “ethnopoetic canons or rules of composition” that characterize especially oral storytelling. 38 Bringing these to the analysis of Acts of Paul, MacDonald concluded that the stories told there, especially the Acts of Paul and Thekla, had the telltale signs of oral composition. So, despite accepting Tertullian’s testimony that the text was authored by a presbyter in Asia Minor (De baptismo 17.5), MacDonald argued that the Sitz im Leben of the oral legends lying behind the text were celibate female storytellers from Asia Minor, 39 whereas the Pastorals represent the male-headed perspective of the developing “orthodox” episcopacy. MacDonald, like Davies and Burrus, thus located within the Acts of Paul and Thekla a woman’s perspective – indeed, one that he considered from a historical perspective to be on an equal if not more secure foundation than the canonized Pastorals.

similar oral traditions; see “In welchem Verhältnis stehen die apokryphen Paulusakten zur kanonischen Apostelgeschichte und zu den Pastoralbriefen?,” in Text and Testimony: Essays on New Testament and Apocryphal Literature in Honour of A. F. J. Klijn (ed. T. Baarda et al.; Kampen, Netherlands: Kok, 1988). In “Tradition and Composition in the Acts of Thecla,” Rordorf agrees that the Sitz im Leben is a “female liberation movement” (52). He also adds: “One can only speculate on the legend’s historical nucleus; it was perhaps about a maiden in Paul’s entourage who suffered for her faith and who became the heroine of a circle of Christian women in Anatolia. One may be tempted to see an allusion to the story of Thecla in two passages from the Apostolic Fathers (1 Clement 6.2 and Ignatius, Romans 5.2)” (52). 38 Noting that several of the “laws” apply also to written storytelling, MacDonald argues for a moderate thesis: “Our stories contain characteristics almost always found in oral narratives and often absent in written ones” (Legend and the Apostle, 27). The first eight laws are Olrik’s (see Alex Olrik,“Epic Laws of Folk Narrative,” in The Study of Folklore [ed. Alan Dundes; Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1961] 131–41): the laws of opening; of concentration on a leading character; of contrast; of twins; of the single strand; of repetition; of using tableaux scenes; and of closing. The final characteristic is supplied by Lord (Albert B. Lord, The Singer of Tales [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960]): the presence of narrative inconsistencies, the sort of which are not typical in originally written works. For a critique of MacDonald’s use of such principles, see Dunn, “The Acts of Paul,” 48–51. 39 See for example MacDonald, Legend and the Apostle, 34ff.

3.1. Categorizing the Acts of Paul and Thekla

111

In the most recent edition of New Testament Apocrypha (1991), Wilhelm Schneemelcher dismisses such studies for Acts of Paul: 40 Whether we can apply the ‘laws’ of folk-lore to the [Acts of Paul and Thekla] (and also to the other parts of the [Acts of Paul]) remains however doubtful. Above all we must be very cautious about any combination of these folk-lore hypotheses with the assumption of a liberated women’s movement in the Church of the 2nd century as the Sitz im Leben for the [Acts of Paul] (and the other [apocryphal acts]). On a sober treatment of the evidence, hypotheses of such a kind appear to be largely no more than the products of modern fancy, 41 without any basis in the sources.

For Schneemelcher, there are indeed independent oral sources behind the Acts of Paul and Thekla. But “since the linguistic form of the text today before us is the work of the author of the [Acts of Paul],” who “has given a stamp of his own to the traditional material,” Schneemelcher deems it difficult if not impossible to separate tradition from redaction. 42 Oral tradition, even oral tradition that emphasizes a female character, does not necessarily imply a Sitz im Leben of female story telling. A third trend is signalled by Kate Cooper’s work. 43 Like some of the scholars mentioned above, Cooper was concerned with comparative material in Greek romance novels, especially Longus’s Daphnis and Chloe. In that text Cooper found textual representation of marriage as an instrument of civic virtues, portraying the man as self-controlled and the woman as 40

See Schneemelcher’s introduction to Acts of Paul in idem, New Testament Apocrypha, 2:221–22. Schneemelcher’s note to this comment specifically cites the studies of Davies, Burrus, and MacDonald. 41 For critique of what Schneemelcher so dismissively calls “modern fancy” (i.e., feminist reconstructive histioriography), see for example E. Margaret Howe, “Interpretation of Paul in the Acts of Paul and Thecla,” in Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to Professor F. F. Bruce on His 70th Birthday (ed. Donald A. Hagner and Murry J. Harris; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1980) 33–49; Lynne Courter Boughton, “From Pious Legend to Feminist Fantasy: Distinguishing Hagiographical License from Apostolic Practice in the Acts of Paul/Acts of Thecla,” Journal of Religion 71 (1991) 362–83; Peter W. Dunn, “Women’s Liberation, the Acts of Paul, and Other Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles: A Review of Some Recent Interpreters,” Apocrypha 4 (1993) 245–61. Conversely, Sheila E. McGinn, “The Acts of Thecla,” in Searching the Scriptures: A Feminist Commentary, vol. 2 (ed. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza; New York: Crossroad, 1994); more recently, see for example the several contributions in A Feminist Companion to the New Testament Apocrypha (ed. Amy-Jill Levine, with Maria Mayo Robbins; Feminist Companion to the New Testament and Early Christian Writings 11; London: T&T Clark, 2006). 42 In chapters 5 and 6 below, I critique the position that the author of the Acts of Paul and Thekla also composed the other Acts of Paul – except perhaps for the Ephesus Act and/or some related but non-extant traditions. 43 Cooper, Virgin and the Bride. Antecedents to Cooper’s work may be located, among other places, in the late-1980s works of Peter Brown, who was one of the advisors on Cooper’s dissertation committee at Princeton. Burrus’s later work (“Colonial Ambivalence”) responds to Cooper.

112

Chapter 3. Acts of Paul and Thekla

devoted and fertile. The apocryphal acts, rather than providing a window onto women’s liberation movements, are thus a corpus that appropriates and transforms a social ideal shared by most members of Mediterranean society, including Christians, in order to advocate an alternative societal form. As Cooper reads them, texts like the Acts of Paul and Thekla are not about women or even about virtues that are advocated for women; rather women are used “to think with” in order to portray authority and the social order, as embodied in the contest between a traditional paterfamilias (Lat., “father of the family” – a male head of household) and an apostle for the devotion of a (would-be) matron. In other words, the female characters of the apocryphal acts – including Thekla – are being used not to re-present the women of early Christian communities but instead to symbolize the ideological positionings of the text’s male authors. Due to the constructed, ideological nature of these textual representations, Cooper (like Schneemelcher) deems it inappropriate to search for historical reality in or behind the women portrayed in texts like the Acts of Paul and Thekla, since such characters are the symbolic constructs of ideological conflicts between men. 44 Whether we call such a perspective “poststructuralist,” part of the “linguistic turn,” or a rose by any other color, Cooper’s point has been summarized well by Shelly Matthews: “It is no longer feasible to pluck women from ancient texts and restore them to historical narratives without paying attention to issues of textual representation.” 45 For more than a century, scholars have thus been comparing the Acts of Paul and Thekla to Hellenistic romance novels. Such comparisons as a whole have yielded a number of important observations, which at least in my opinion may now be considered as “facts” or “data” to be incorporated into any interpretive theory for the text (see §3.2 below). But it is worth remembering that each particular comparison – with its working presuppositions, criteria of selection, materials considered, and hypothesis examined – provides a distinct contribution, at once revealing some things about the texts in question and concealing others. To be sure, a number of significant contributions have been and will be made to the study of the Acts of Paul and Thekla that are not explicitly comparative: from the historical work of William M. Ramsay (1893) to the source- and redactioncritical work of Elisabeth Esch-Wermeling (2008) this is evident. 46 Indeed, 44

Matthews (“Thinking of Thecla,” 49) cites parallel developments in the works of Roberta Krueger, Lawrence Wills, Sandra Joshel, and Howard Eilberg-Schwartz. 45 Matthews, “Thinking of Thecla,” 50. 46 William Mitchell Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire before A.D. 170 (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1893); Esch-Wermeling, Thekla–Paulusschülerin wider Willen?

3.2. Comparing the Acts of Paul and Thekla

113

personally, I am not confident that adequate attention has been paid to studies that revaluate the categories for the “novel” and then reclassify acts: perhaps most notable in this regard and still undervalued is the work of Richard I. Pervo, which argues that both the canonized and apocryphal acts are, when the category is properly understood, “historical novels.” 47 But I propose that comparison with a different corpus of texts – and a different manner of writing – would provide a useful supplement to the studies offered to date, contributing to the overall analysis of the Acts of Paul and Thekla. So let me briefly review the “data” whose interpretation I hope to supplement with a complementary theory.

3.2. Comparing the Acts of Paul and Thekla: “Data” from Novels 3.2. Comparing the Acts of Paul and Thekla

Comparisons of the Acts of Paul and Thekla with other materials, particularly Greek-language romance novels, have resulted in a number of observations that contribute to our understanding of the text and should therefore be incorporated as “data” into any explanatory theory for the text’s production or use. First and foremost, scholars have emphasized Thekla’s sexual renunciation (“chastity”) by comparing her story with similar ones. For example, Radermacher argued that Thekla was portrayed as Euripides’s Hippolytus (5th cent. B.C.E.), whose vow to chastity was tested by Phaedra, while MacDonald contended that her story resembles Hyginus’s epitome of Hagnodice (late 2d cent. C.E.). With these and other comparisons, it is made clear that Thekla’s sexual asceticism is noteworthy, as confirmed by so many of the references in fourth-century Christian literature (see §3.0 above). Oddly coupled with this emphasis is another: Thekla’s erotic desire. 48 Comparisons with the romance novel have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the Acts of Paul and Thekla attests to many of the same topics and themes, even some of the same literary structures, as the extant novels – but in a genre-bending 49 shorter text that has other interests as well. Also important are the text’s narrative duplications, which are basically divided between the scenes in Iconium (Acts of Paul 3) and Antioch (Acts

47

Richard I. Pervo, Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987). 48 For a related and interesting study, see Virginia Burrus, The Sex Lives of Saints: An Erotics of Ancient Hagiography (Diviniations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004). 49 I have borrowed this phrase from Attridge, “Genre Bending in the Fourth Gospel.”

114

Chapter 3. Acts of Paul and Thekla

of Paul 4). 50 In Iconium, Thekla has a male suitor (her fiancé Thamyris), whom she scorns; for this, she is imprisoned by a Roman governor and then put on trial and sentenced to death, from which she is divinely delivered. Then in Antioch, she is pursued by Alexander, whom she shames; and for this, she is imprisoned by the local governor, put on trial, sentenced to death, and then delivered. Whether or not we consider such to be occurrences of Olrik’s “Law of Repetition” (à la MacDonald’s folkloric analysis), the point is clear: the duplications are so formalized that the scenes are like snapshots of the same thing happening twice – at least, at an abstract level. But whereas the male suitors, governors, and crowds at the theater in Iconium and at the stadium in Antioch are similar, other characters in the Acts of Paul and Thekla contrast with each other. 51 MacDonald, appealing to Olrik’s “Law of Contrast,” cites Onesiphorus and his hospitality for Paul as a contrast to the betrayal of Paul by Demas and Hermogenes. 52 So also, on a number of readings, Paul’s character and function within the story have been contrasted with Thekla’s fiancé Thamyris and, to a less extent, her other suitor Alexander: other men want to possess Thekla and her sexuality, whereas Paul wants her to embrace HMJNUDYWHLD; or some men represent traditional society, while Paul stands for a new social order. 53

50

Interesting studies of the text’s duplications include Margaret P. Aymer, “Hailstorms and Fireballs: Redaction, World Creation, and Resistance in the Acts of Paul and Thecla,” Semeia 79 (1997) 45–61; and Esch-Wermeling, Thekla–Paulusschülerin wider Willen? Aymer argued that behind each scene is a separate folktale, later redacted by a third party. Esch-Wermeling has recently argued that the Antioch scene (Acts of Paul 4, probably originally located in Syrian Antioch) is the earliest stratum, and that the Iconium scene (Acts of Paul 3) duplicates Antioch as part of a later and broader rewriting. Richard Pervo (in an RBL review) concludes from Esch-Wermeling’s work that the author of the broader Acts of Paul would have constructed that later material. 51 MacDonald (Legend and the Apostle, 28) reckons this under Olrik’s “Law of Contrast.” 52 I would argue that the text offers a different contrast (see Acts of Paul 3.1): the behavior of Demas and Hermogenes toward Paul, with the behavior of Paul toward them. Also contrasted is their appearance with Paul’s (3.3–4), as well as whether they accept bribes (3.11, 26), drink wine (3.13, 25), etc. The text thus distinguishes between two kinds of itinerant preachers. Indeed, when the text has Paul explain the gospel to Demas and Hermogenes (3.1), and when it has Demas and Hermogenes suggest the accusation of Paul being a “Christian” (3.14, 16), it may be implying that Demas and Hermogenes are not “Christians” in the relevant sense. 53 MacDonald (The Legend and the Apostle, 41, 111 nn. 43–46) proposes that Alexander was a Galatarch, “an honorific local official responsible for financing – largely from his own purse – public banquets, games, and sacrifices, and for overseeing the imperial cult. Apparently, on certain occasions Galatarchs wore gold wreaths bearing the emblem of the reigning emperor, as did the  (‘wreath bearers’) in other Asian

3.2. Comparing the Acts of Paul and Thekla

115

Especially poignant is the contrast between Thekla’s mother Theokleia, who (initially) abandons her, and the woman Tryphaena, who takes Thekla in – a contrast often understood as Thekla changing mothers, families, or communities. MacDonald, using Olrik’s “Law of Contrast,” highlights the contrast between these two women, who both appear to be widows. However, their relation is more complex than mere opposites. For, during the course of the story, Tryphaena provides what Theokleia apparently wanted, possibly resulting in a Theokleia’s changed relations with Thekla: Tryphaena’s financial support for Thekla 54 offers the economic equivalent of a dowry, thus providing legitimation for Thekla’s sexual (and thus marital and legal) status. Thanks to Thekla returning home with some booty, her mother Theokleia receives the comfort of socioeconomic status, even as Thekla eschews the local tradition of marriage with sex and childbearing. Whatever else may be going on here – and I admit that there are good literary reasons for musing on the topics of motherhood and childlessness 55 – it is Tryphaena’s patronage that produces the conditions that enable Thekla not only to remain chaste during her trial in Antioch but also to return to her mother in Iconium while remaining encratic. Thekla’s HMJNUDYWHLD is empowered by Tryphaena. It is therefore Tryphaena, rather cities” (ibid., 41). Thekla’s casting of his wreath to the ground would thus be an act of political sacrilege, as made explicit in an Armenian variant. 54 See Magda Misset-van de Weg, “A Wealthy Woman named Tryphaena: Patroness of Thecla of Iconium,” in The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla (ed. Jan N. Bremmer; Studies on the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles 2; Kampen, Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1996) 16–35. 55 According to contemporary Roman law, a woman was not yet able to adopt a child and provide inheritance to her; see for example Y. Thomas, “The Division of the Sexes in Roman Law,” in A History of Women in the West I: From Ancient Goddesses to Christian Saints (ed. P. Schmitt Pantel; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992) 83– 137, at 106 and 128–9. Misset-van de Weg (“A Wealthy Woman named Tryphaena,” 32– 34) provides a set of arguments that Tryphaena’s relation with Thekla does not constitute adoption, even though the text can be read thusly. For related studies on marriage and family, see for example Keith Hopkins, “The Age of Roman Girls at Marriage,” Population Studies 18 (1965) 309–27; Dale B. Martin, “The Construction of the Ancient Family: Methodological Considerations,” JRS 86 (1996) 40–60; Leo Ferrero Raditsa, “Augustus’ Legislation concerning Marriage, Procreation, Love Affairs and Adultery,” ANRW 2.13 (1980) 278–339; Richard Saller, “Pater Familias, Mater Familias, and the Gendered Semantics of a Roman Household,” CP 94 (1999) 182–97; Michael L. Satlow, Jewish Marriage in Antiquity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001); Brent D. Shaw, “The Age of Roman Girls at Marriage: Some Reconsiderations,” JRS 77 (1987) 30–46; Susan Treggiari, Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991); Kathleen O’Brien Wicker, “First Century Marriage Ethics: A Comparative Study of the Household Codes and Plutarch’s Conjugal Precepts,” in No Famine in the Land (eds. James W. Flanagan and Anita Weisbrod Robinson; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975) 141–53.

116

Chapter 3. Acts of Paul and Thekla

than Paul, who stands in place of Thamyris. For, whereas Paul comes then goes, Tryphaena’s patronage allows Thekla to resocialize. Indeed, by assigning “all that is hers” to Thekla, Tryphaena provides a surplus that overflows to the poor. 56 In addition to this socioeconomic function, Tryphaena is an interesting character from an historical perspective. As early as 1864, Alfred Gutschmid noted that an historical person by the name of Tryphaena existed in the relevant part of Asia Minor. 57 She was the widow of King Kotys of Thrace and mother of Polemon II, who was King of Pontus (38–63 C.E.); and she was a distant relative of the Roman Emperor Claudius (41– 54 C.E.; see Acts of Paul 4.36). For scholars like Theodor Zahn and William Ramsay, 58 the reference to Tryphaena in the Acts of Paul and Thekla was thus understood to provide historicity, especially on a certain reading of Rom 16:12 (“Greet Tryphaena”). 59 At the very least, assuming that the Tryphaena in the Acts of Paul and Thekla was meant to be identified with the historical Queen Tryphaena, it shows that the author of the text has an interest in historical – and, if I may say so, political – personages. 60 The references to Demas and Hermogenes, not to mention Onesiphorus and Alexander, are also remarkable from an historical perspective. Hermogenes is known from 2 Tim 1:15, and Demas is referenced in Phlm 24, Col

56

It is worth noting that Tryphaena’s patronage is reciprocated through the honor of prayer for her and her deceased daughter. But I am less certain than Misset-van de Weg (“A Wealthy Woman named Tryphaena,” 30) that the text partially functions as “a monument to a Queen among women.” I would instead note that through her patronage to Thekla, Tryphaena is able to buy her daughter Falconilla’s salvation. Moreover, in contrast with scholars who simply identify Tryphaena as a “believer,” I would be interested in a more complex study of her patronage and association, along the lines of Shaye J. D. Cohen’s study of the various ways and degrees to which people participated in synagogue communities; see idem, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1999), chs. 3–5. 57 Alfred Gutschmid, “Die Königsname in den apokryphen Apostlegeschichten,” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie n.s. 19 (1864) 161–83, at 177–79; reprinted in idem, Kleine Schriften (ed. Franz Rühl; 5 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1889–1894). 58 Theodor Zahn, Forschungen zur Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen Literatur (Leipzig: Deichert, 1890) 907; Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, 375–428. Ramsay, however, noted that other evidence indicates that the historical Tryphaena lived in Cyzicus and was a priestess of Livia (ibid., 382–89). 59 For a summary of the reading in question, see MacDonald, Legend and the Apostle, 107 n. 20, where he rehearses arguments for Rom 16 as a separate letter, written to accompany a copy of Romans to Ephesus. 60 Ramsay (Church in the Roman Empire, 382–89) distinguished between an early, basically reliable narrative and its later revision; as another argument for an historical core, he appeals to the text’s reference to a “royal way” (Acts of Paul 3.3) that was no longer extant in the second century.

117

3.2. Comparing the Acts of Paul and Thekla

4:14, and 2 Tim 4:10. So the characters are known from canonized “prison letters.” Most interesting are the references in 2 Timothy: You are aware that all who are in Asia have turned away from me, including Phygelus and Hermogenes. May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, because he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chain; when he arrived in Rome, he eagerly searched for me and found me – may the Lord grant that he will find mercy from the Lord on that day! And you know very well how much service he rendered in Ephesus. (2 Tim 1:15–18, NRSV) Do your best to come to me soon, for Demas, in love with this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica; Crecens has gone to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to my ministry. I have sent Tychicus to Ephesus. When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments. Alexander the coppersmith 61 did me great harm; the Lord will pay him back for his deeds. You also must beware of him, for he strongly opposed our message. (2 Tim 4:9–15, NRSV) Greet Prisca and Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus. (2 Tim 4:19,

NRSV)

Although the details differ from the story in the Acts of Paul the Thekla, Demas and Hermogenes are presented in 2 Timothy as people who abandon Paul (see Acts of Paul 3.13). Moreover, in the Acts of Paul and Thekla, Hermogenes is called a coppersmith (R-FDONHXY, Acts of Paul 3.1; see Alexander in 2 Tim 4:14), while both Demas and Hermogenes are teaching that resurrection occurs in one’s progeny (Acts of Paul 3.14; compare the more general doctrine attributed to Hymenaeus and Philetus in 2 Tim 2:17–18). Demas and Hermogenes thus have several of the attributes given to them or others in 2 Timothy – “parallels” that are used by MacDonald as evidence for inferring common oral tradition behind the two texts. 62 Whatever we do with MacDonald’s theory, the similarities between the Acts of Paul and Thekla and 2 Timothy are worth noting. 63 However, whereas MacDonald presupposes the common authorship of the Pastorals and assumes that 2 Timothy was written over and against the Acts of Paul and Thekla, I would argue that what holds for 1 Timothy does not necessarily hold for 2 Timothy. It is only in 1 Timothy that a kyriocratic 61

In 1 Tim 1:20 a certain Alexander is paired with Hymenaeus, who in turn is paired in 2 Tim 2:17–18 with Philetus and accused of teaching that the resurrection has already occurred (just as Demas and Hermogenes are in the Acts of Paul and Thekla); the Alexander in 2 Tim 4:14 is probably to be identified with the Alexander referenced in Acts 19:33 (but not the other Alexanders in Mark 15:21 and Acts 4:6), even if Alexander is a “silver-striker” in the Lukan form of the story. See pp. 91 and 95 above. 62 Bauckham, Dunn, etc., have considered such parallels to be literary dependence; see §0.1.1. 63 Interestingly, one of the minuscule manuscripts (181) of 2 Timothy includes variants that seem to refer to some form of the Acts of Paul and Thekla; see MacDonald, The Legend and the Apostle, 62.

118

Chapter 3. Acts of Paul and Thekla

ecclesiology is espoused, with its hierarchical functions and subordination of women (esp. 1 Tim 2:9–15; 3:1–13; 5:1–22; compare the rough parallels in Titus, which I understand to be an intertext for 1 Timothy); and if we are to understand its ideology as positioned over and against that of the Acts of Paul and Thekla, we must recognize that it is 1 Timothy’s in particular. Second Timothy, on the other hand, knows nothing of such matters, concentrating instead on Paul passing a doctrinal baton to Timothy. So, even if we were to agree with MacDonald that 1 Timothy was intentionally and explicitly opposed to (oral traditions behind) the Acts of Paul and Thekla, a separate argument would be required that the same should hold true for 2 Timothy. After all, it is 2 Timothy in particular that has parallels to the Acts of Paul and Thekla, as well as reference to literal common ground: Now you have observed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, my persecutions, and my suffering the things that happened to me in Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra. What persecutions I endured! Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them. Indeed, all who want to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. (2 Tim 3:10–12, NRSV)

Parallel references to Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra are also present in Acts 13–14, the so-called “first missionary journey” of Paul in Acts. But whereas 2 Timothy has several commonalities with the Acts of Paul and Thekla, the Lukan description of Paul’s visits to Antioch and Iconium is markedly different than the Acts of Paul and Thekla: apart from occurring in the same locales, the stories differ in their characters, messages, events, etc. 64 Moreover it has often been noted that this part of Acts is anomalous within its broader whole, and hence it is the basis of various theories and explanations among scholars. For, on the one hand, Acts 13–14 includes emphases (e.g., discussion of GLNDLRVXYQK and QRY PR) that are not as prominent in other parts of Acts; 65 and on the other, the story has telltale markings of an interpolation into a story about a conference at Jerusalem. Regarding the latter, the author of Acts may have divided and revised a tradition about an event in Jerusalem, during which it was decided how non-,RXGDL RL would be integrated into “the Way,” into two separate visits by Saul/Paul to Jeru64

Only Acts of Paul 3.13 approximates the message(s) in Acts 13–14. Acts 14:1–7, which discusses Iconium, is especially short and centered on the reception of Paul’s message by local Judeans. Also noteworthy in Acts is that Paul and Barnabas, apparently with other companions (see 13:13), are said to have stayed a significant time (L-NDQRQFURYQRQ) and to have performed “signs and wonders” (VKPHL DNDL WHYUDWD), a Lukan theme that is noticeably absent in the Acts of Paul and Thekla’s story of Iconium. 65 However, some scholars argue that speeches within Acts are, in general, meant to be complementary and supplemental to one another, such that Paul would no longer need to speak thusly in Acts.

3.2. Comparing the Acts of Paul and Thekla

119

salem (see Acts 11:27–30 with 12:25 [reading HMN], plus 15:1–35). 66 In my opinion, such changes were probably made on the one hand to harmonize Lukan sources and to account for the chronology known in Gal 1–2, 67 and on the other to center the discussion about Judean QRYPR on “Luke’s” character(s) of interest. In any case, it is not clear that either the Acts of Paul and Thekla or the canonized Acts knows the other’s description of events in Iconium and Pisidian Antioch; 68 at most, it seems to me, both may have common knowledge of tradition otherwise attested in 2 Timothy and account for it differently. 69 Such contributions to the study of the Acts of Paul and Thekla are, in my opinion, “data” for which any interpretive theory should provide account. Because “data” are always constituted within a theory, such data entail that an interpretive theory for the Acts of Paul and Thekla must include comparisons between the Acts of Paul and Thekla and contemporary Greek-language romance novels. But this does not require understanding the text to be a romance novel. For, as many scholars have 66 See for example Daniel R. Schwartz, “The End of the Line: Paul in the Canonical Book of Acts,” in Paul and the Legacies of Paul (ed. William S. Babcock; Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1990) 3–24. 67 It is common, especially among scholars with a “high” view of Scripture, to note that the arrangement of Acts allows one to read Gal 1–2 as if its description should be identified with the Jerusalem visit in Acts 11:27–30. Less common is to postulate that the editorial decisions made by “Luke,” including the addition (if not production) of the anomalous chapters 13–14, were designed precisely to occasion such a reading. On this hypothesis, Luke would have accepted Galatians as authentic and then modified a tradition about Jerusalem by interpolating a “south Galatian” journey in order to harmonize his sources. As a marker indicating Luke’s reworking, note that the letter allegedly sent with Paul (Acts 15) was addressed only to the communities in (Syrian) Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia (i.e., the regions mentioned in Acts 9–11, but not also the regions visited in Acts 13–14). 68 In P. Heid.’s collection, the Acts of Paul and Thekla is preceded by an act in Antioch. Nicetas of Paphlagonia (Panegyric to Paul, 9th cent.) writes as if the preceding Antioch is in Syria (but he may be harmonizing or conflating with Acts), and EschWermeling (Thekla–Paulusschülerin wider Willen?) has recently argued that the Antioch scene in the Acts of Paul and Thekla was originally set in Syria. But reference to Iconium and Myra in P. Heid.’s form of the Acts of Paul and Thekla implies geographic proximity to Pisidian Antioch and hence understanding one or both “Antioch” acts as located in Pisidia rather than Syria. So the addition of the Iconium scene (on Esch-Wermeling’s theory) or situating the Acts of Paul and Thekla between Antioch and Myra (see §§5.2.2; 6.1.4) may have shifted geographic references from one Antioch (Syrian) to the other (Pisidian). 69 For broader discussion of the relations between Acts of Paul and Acts of the Apostles, see §§0.1.1; 1.3.1; 2.3; 5.1.2–3. It is interestingly that Hills (“The Acts of the Apostles in the Acts of Paul,” Appendix), despite claiming that as many as 22 separate verses in Acts may be paralleled in the Acts of Paul and Thekla, cites only five verses from Acts 13–14, none of which he assigns higher than a “C” probability.

120

Chapter 3. Acts of Paul and Thekla

argued, the Acts of Paul and Thekla is comparable with but not identical to such texts. 70 Such a conclusion is not at all surprising, because genres – to the extent that such are contemporary to authors and prescriptive, rather than posterior and descriptive – do not relate to texts or the authors of texts in that manner. 71 Instead, authors of texts use one or more genres artfully to compose a product, which is received by others who interpret the text likewise. So to affirm that it is useful to read the Acts of Paul and Thekla with Hellenistic romance novels is primarily a statement about how to interpret the text; only secondarily may it imply that the author of the text used such a genre to produce the text. That said, I do believe that the author of the Acts of Paul and Thekla used the genre(s) of Greek-language romance novels to produce his work; and in my opinion, this occurs primarily in the first half of the work, the Iconium scene (Acts of Paul 3). But a complementary perspective may be acquired by considering another “genre” 72 the author may have used: hagiography.

3.3. A Theory Revised: The Acts of Paul and Thekla as Hagiography 3.3. The Acts of Paul and Thekla as Hagiography

Rereading the Acts of Paul and Thekla as hagiography will enable us to account for the “data” in question, while helping us to better understand the narrative’s structure, topics, and themes. After discussing related proposals, I will therefore offer additional observations about the narrative, from explicit references to intertextual allusions, to suggest how the Acts of Paul and Thekla may be reread as hagiography and what benefits may result from doing so. In 1905, as Carl Schmidt was publishing a slightly revised edition of P. Heid. (1904), Father Hippolyte Delehaye published Les légendes hagiographiques, an introduction to hagiography. 73 One of the foremost of an 70

See for example the critique by Brock, “Genre of the Acts of Paul”; see also Aubin, “Reversing Romance?”; Cooper, The Virgin and the Bride. Brock, after considering the Acts of Paul and Thekla as part of Acts of Paul (eadem, “Genre of the Acts of Paul,” 121), contends that Acts of Paul was “a religious propaganda tract modeled somewhat after the gospels” (ibid., 133) and that it is worth comparing such with lives of philosophers. For Brock, Paul was “grafted” onto an earlier Thekla legend. 71 Frow, Genre, 10. 72 Strictly speaking, “genre” is not the appropriate term for what I propose; for, hagiographic texts, like the martyrdoms discussed in chapter 1 above, do not conform to one literary form. What I am discussing, without having yet acquired the appropriate rubric to do so, is a hagiographic manner of writing. 73 Hippolyte Delehaye, Les légendes hagiographiques (Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1905). Related but more specialized studies were subsequently published as

3.3. The Acts of Paul and Thekla as Hagiography

121

élite group of Jesuit hagiographers, the Bollandist(e)s, Father Delehaye was well known and his monograph was translated into English in 1907, as well as into many other languages. The goal of the work was clearly stated in his later introduction: To indicate briefly the spirit in which hagiographic texts should be studied, to lay down rules for discriminating between the materials that the historian can use and those that he should hand over as their natural property to artists and poets, to place people on their guard against the fascination of formulas and preconceived systems, such has been the aim of this volume. 74

Having worked on the first edition of Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca (1895), Delehaye was acquainted with a wide range of literature that could be classed a “hagiographic” and so he formed a broad working definition: It thus appears that, in order to be strictly hagiographic, the document should be of a religious character and should aim at edification. The term may only be applied therefore to writings inspired by devotion to the saints and intended to promote it. The point to be emphasised from the first is the distinction between hagiography and history. The work of the hagiographer may be historical, but it is not necessarily so. It may assume any literary form suitable to the glorification of the saints, from an official record adapted to the use of the faithful, to a poetical composition of the most exuberant character wholly detached from reality. 75

In other words, hagiography is a manner of narration, not a literary form. 76 Because Delehaye’s understanding of hagiography was not delimited by “genre,” he rejected at least two types of literary classification for hagiographies: classifications based on subject matter (e.g., Passions, Biographies, Translations, and Miracles – the primary classification system used in BHG), and classifications based on what he calls “literary form” (“Metrical, or Rhymed Lives and so on”). So also Delehaye dismissed divisions based Les origenes du culte des martyrs (1912; 2d ed., 1933) and as Les passions des martyrs et les genres littéraires (1921). 74 Citation from the English translation: Hippolyte Delehaye, The Legends of the Saints: An Introduction to Hagiography (trans. V. M. Crawford; intro. Richard J. Schoeck; University of Notre Dame Press, 1961) xii. 75 Ibid., 2. In order to discuss the variety of manners of nonhistorical writings, Delehaye first defines fable, romance, myth, tale, and legend; the latter he admits may be used for all hagiographical materials, but in theory he limits his use of the term in this writing (see ibid., 2–12, esp. 12 on “legend”). In the next chapter, however, Delehaye describes how “the development of the legend is, according to our definition, the outcome of an unconscious or unreflecting agent acting upon historical material,” introducing “the subjective element into the realm of fact” (ibid., 12). For critical discussion of early twentieth century historiographic practices, see for example Elizabeth A. Clark, History, Theory, Text: Historians and the Linguistic Turn (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004). 76 Compare the discussion of “hagiography” by Thomas Head, “Introduction,” in Medieval Hagiography: An Anthology (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 2000) xiii–xv.

122

Chapter 3. Acts of Paul and Thekla

on the historicity of the persons in question, as determined by the validity of claims on “public veneration” (i.e., “those whose cultus has been canonically established by the Church and has received the sanction of centuries,” versus “those real personages, devotion to whom was in the first instance regularly established, whatever consecration it may have acquired through length of usage,” versus “the imaginary personages to whom a real existence has ultimately been attributed”). 77 For, Delehaye’s concern was primarily with the historicity of the hagiographies. Delehaye therefore divided hagiographies into six categories, which were “classed by the degree of truth and historic value they possess.” 78 (1) The first category, which he deems the most truthful and historic, are the official reports of the interrogations of martyrs, which in theory would have been deposited in the archives of a proconsul. As an example, he distinguishes between three redactional levels of the Passio Cyrpriani, including only the original text of the interrogation in 257. Possibly included are also parts of the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs. (2) The second category, also consisting of “authentic acts,” has a more literary character, including a subjective element that is “entirely absent” in the official reports: this category comprises “the accounts of eye-witnesses, and others worthy of confidence, or of well-informed contemporaries recording the testimonies of other eye-witnesses.” Further subdivisions are provided, but what they all have in common is that “they express directly, without the intervention of any written source, an oral and contemporary testimony.” An example in which personal observation is included are the chapters of Eusebius’s Martyrs of Palestine. (3) The third category, which incorporates a wide range of editorial activity, is composed of acts “of which the principal source is a written document belonging to one or the other of the preceding categories.” Here we have forms of the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs, as well as some of the lives by Simeon Metaphrastes. (4) The fourth category depends not on a written source but rather “the fantastic combination of a few real events in a framework of pure imagination, in other words, historical romances.” Included in these historical romances are the series of cycles of the Roman Legendarium, as well as acts that

77

Delehaye, Legends of the Saints, 108–9. Ibid., 111. Note that Delehaye’s later division (Les passions des martyrs et les genres littéraires, 1921), which was concerned particularly with the smaller corpus of martyrdoms, was simpler: historical passions (based on acta proconsularia, documents of a trial before a magistrate, or eye-witness reports), panegyrics (e.g., Basil, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzus), and the epic passions (literary products based on some historical memories). Because different corpora and interests were in mind, the two taxonomies overlap but do not align. 78

3.3. The Acts of Paul and Thekla as Hagiography

123

provide simple adaptations from one saint to another. 79 There may indeed be “literary reminiscences,” as well as popular traditions, in the texts, but a minimum of historical data are available here, usually limited to the saint’s name, place of burial, and feast date. (5) Similar in narrative style but distinguishable in historicity is the fifth category of imaginative romances, in which the “saint” is an imagined character, such as in the Passion of St. Nicephorus or the story of Barlaam and Joasaph. (6) Finally, Delehaye’s sixth category is forgeries, among which he includes “all hagiographic legends composed with the object of deceiving the reader.” Delehaye was concerned with texts from late antiquity and the middle ages, so his study did not include classification for early texts like the Acts of Paul and Thekla. Of his opinion, we know only that he understood the text to be an “artifical and deliberate” composition that he classed, apparently following von Dobschütz, as “hagiographic romance.” 80 Grouping the text with other apocryphal acts of the apostles, as well as with the Clementine literature, he described such literature as “a series of incidents, partly true, partly fictitious,” by which “the author has attempted to depict the soul of a saint honoured by the Church.” 81 Quite probably, he therefore would have included the Acts of Paul and Thekla among his fourth category, historical romances. In any case, Delehaye understood the Acts of Paul and Thekla to be a work of hagiography in the relevant sense – an edifying religious text that “inspired devotion … and intended to promote it.” Other scholars, even if they have understood the broader Acts of Paul as hagiography, have been reticent to classify the Acts of Paul and Thekla as such. Take Daniel Marguerat for example. 82 Marguerat has argued that Acts of Paul in general is an instance of hagiography. For Marguerat, this means that Paul is depicted in Acts of Paul not as a disciple but as a saint whose image is mirrored on Christ and who is thus portrayed as worthy of veneration: “With the exception of the Acts of Thecla, Paul appears constantly in the account as the solitary, admirable, infallible hero, persecuted for his courage to announce Christ.” 83 Even in the Acts of Paul and Thekla, there is “a transfer of the figure of the exemplary disciple to Thecla, and,

79 Delehaye notes (Legends of the Saints, 115 n. 1) that Adolf Harnack approved of his sixfold division but suggested the addition of a seventh category (see Harnack, Geschitche der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius, 2:464–65); that seventh category was incorporated into Delehaye’s fourth by the example of adaptations from one saint’s life to another. 80 Delehaye (Legends of Saints, 4 n. 1) cites the 1902 article of von Dobschütz. 81 Ibid., 4. 82 Daniel Marguerat, “The Acts of Paul and the Canonical Acts: A Phenomenon of Rereading,” Semeia 80 (1997) 169–83. 83 Marguerat, “Acts of Paul,” 179.

124

Chapter 3. Acts of Paul and Thekla

consequently, the apostle is modeled after the figure of Christ.” 84 Marguerat therefore avoids labelling the Acts of Paul and Thekla in particular as hagiography, but he nonetheless recognizes hagiographical elements within the text, at least as part of “Acts of Paul.” For our purposes, Marguerat’s thesis is important because of its analysis of Thekla. Rather than working with a model that compares the Acts of Paul and Thekla to the novel and then highlight Thekla’s “romantic” inclinations toward Paul, Marguerat focuses on the manner in which her devotion is portrayed: 85 Thekla “listened day and night to the word” (Acts of Paul 3.7) and “pressed on in the faith rejoicing exceedingly” (ibid.); she “sat at his feet and heard (him proclaim) the mighty acts of God” (ibid., 18) and “her faith also increased” (ibid.). On this reading, Thekla is being used to model the “exemplary disciple,” at once reproducing and producing contemporary practice in the author’s community. Particularly compelling for Marguerat is the episode in Acts of Paul 3.21 where “Thecla sought for Paul, as a lamb in the wilderness looks about for a shepherd.” Here he finds a hypertextual rereading 86 of Paul’s vision(s) of Jesus in Acts (Acts 9, 22, and esp. 26), even as he understands Thekla’s salvation from the water as Paul’s deliverance from shipwreck (Acts 27). For Marguerat, Thekla is a rewriting of Paul from the book of Acts. The characteristics of Thekla that Marguerat identifies as belonging to an “exemplary disciple” (of Christ) 87 have been classified by social historian Peter Brown as a different kind of devotee. 88 Attending to different aspects of the narrative, Brown emphasizes other ways in which Thekla’s “love” for Paul is expressed. Noting that Thekla kisses Paul fetters (Acts of Paul 3.18) and rolls where he had been (20), Brown understands Thekla to represent “the model Christian supplicant at the cells of the martyrs.” 89 84

Marguerat, “Acts of Paul,” 180. When Marguerat says that “the apostle is modeled after the figure of Christ” in the Acts of Paul and Thekla, he has a more restricted meaning than elsewhere: here he refers primarily, if not exclusively, to the episode in which Christ manifests himself as Paul. 85 Marguerat, “Acts of Paul,” 180. 86 Marguerat uses the theoretical framework provided by Gérard Genette, Palimpsestes. La littérature au second degré (Paris: Seuil, 1982) 7–12. As Marguerat summarizes (“Acts of Paul,” 172; see also 181), “Hypertextuality designates any relation linking a text B (hypertext) and an earlier text (hypotext) ‘onto which it is grafted in a manner that is not commentary.’ ” 87 For Marguerat’s listing, see “Acts of Paul,” 180–81. Several of these will be discussed in the text below. 88 See Peter Robert Lamont Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (Lectures on the History of Religions, New Series, 13; New York: Columbia University Press, 1988) 153–59. Cooper (Virgin and the Bride) does not explicitly adopt Brown’s reading of Thekla as a devotee of the martyrs. 89 Brown, Body and Society, 156.

3.3. The Acts of Paul and Thekla as Hagiography

125

Entirely a literary construct on Brown’s reading (“the imagined inviolate virgin”), 90 Thekla is a character who is being used “to think with,” 91 as she functions to depict contemporary local practices. She is not, therefore, symbolic of discipleship in general; she represents a particular kind of devotion. Brown’s thesis that Thekla represents “the model Christian supplicant at the cells of the martyrs” may be supported, among other ways, by rereading the passages that are normally read as indicative of Thekla’s “erotic desire” for Paul: 92 for example, Theokleia describes Thekla “gazing steadily” toward Paul and being “gripped by a new desire and a fearful passion,” hanging on his every word and being taken captive (Acts of Paul 3.8–9); Thamyris says that she “loves” the stranger (13); Thekla is found “bound to [Paul], in a way, with love” (19); 93 and so forth. In other words, much of the “data” that have been derived from comparisons with Hellenistic romance novels may also (or alternatively) be explained in terms of cultic piety. But I propose that Thekla is portrayed at once more specifically and more generally than Brown imagined: Thekla is a devotee of Paul. Now, it is beyond my abilities to prove this hypothesis; and even if it were not, it is always difficult to persuade someone to a different interpretive perspective. But working with Delehaye’s understanding of hagiography as a manner of writing, and building on Brown’s analysis of Thekla’s textual representation, I would like to explain why I understand Thekla to be portrayed as a devotee of Paul and the Acts of Paul and Thekla to be written hagiographically. For, such an understanding of the text has significant implications. Here it is not necessary to recall the evidence for remembrance of Paul as a martyr (§1.0) nor to recollect what may be known about early cultic practice for martyrs (see, e.g., Ign. Rom. 4.2; Mart. Poly. 17–18). 94 So I will present my case first by analyzing four passages that appear to portray Thekla as a devotee of Paul; then I will argue that some of the more vexing interpretive issues for the text (e.g., its repetitions and Paul’s notable ab90

Ibid., 158. See Brown’s use of the phrase and discussion at ibid., 153 (esp. n. 57). 92 Haines-Eitzen’s study of the manuscript tradition of the Acts of Paul and Thekla (“Engendering Palimpsests”) indicates that scribes were concerned to rewrite such passages. 93 Note, however, that VWRUJKY is rarely used for sexual love (LSJ, “VWRUJKY,” 2, q.v.; see also “VWHYUJZ”). In early Christian literature, the term is often used for abstract affections, for example, for one’s family, God for humanity, and so forth; see Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon, “VWRUJKY,” 1262. 94 For an interesting study that situates such practice within broader Christian commemorations of the dead, see now Ramsay MacMullen, “Christian Ancestor Worship in Rome,” JBL 129:3 (2010) 597–613. 91

126

Chapter 3. Acts of Paul and Thekla

sences) may be explained by understanding the Acts of Paul and Thekla to embody the hagiographic practice of rewriting Scripture. 3.3.1. Textual Representations At least four passages in the Acts of Paul and Thekla may be read as if Thekla is portraying devotion to Paul. The first passage, already highlighted by Brown, is during Thekla’s visit to Paul in jail (Acts of Paul 3.18–19). Whereas Brown understands Thekla to visit a martyr’s cell, as Christians certainly did in the second to early fourth centuries, I would insist that it is Paul whom Thekla visited and note that Paul is portrayed not as a martyr in the Acts of Paul and Thekla – at least, when read separately from other Acts of Paul – but rather as a “holy man” whose powers are manifested in his bodily life. 95 Evidence for Paul’s portrayal occurs, for example, in the text’s description of his body. Scholars have debated how to understand this description,96 often limiting the options to a strictly historical interpretation (i.e., as indicative of Paul’s physical appearance) or to a symbolic one (e.g., a physiognomic interpretation in which Paul’s bodily characteristics are representative of certain qualities). The debate is complicated by textual variants, especially among the several versions. 97 But it seems to me that the function of the description is clarified later in the text’s narrative: because Titus had described Paul’s appearance to Onesiphorus (Acts of Paul 3.2), it is on the basis of Paul’s body that Onesiphorus first recognizes Paul and then smiles and says: “Greeting, attendant of the blessed God!” (4). What is remarkabe about the description is not so much the early part: “a man small of stature, with a bald head and crooked legs, in a good state of body, with eyebrows meeting and nose somewhat hooked, full of friendliness” (3); it is rather what follows: “for now he appeared like a man, and 95

On the “holy man,” see especially Peter Brown, “The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity,” Journal of Roman Studies 61 (1971) 80–101; reprinted in idem, Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1982) 103–52; idem, “The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity, 1971– 1997,” JECS 6 (1998) 353–76. 96 See for example Robert M. Grant, “The Description of Paul in the Acts of Paul and Thecla,” VC 36 (1982) 1–4; Abraham J. Malherbe, “A Physical Description of Paul,” HTR 79 (1986) 170–75; Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey, “Physiognomics and Personality: Looking at Paul in The Acts of Paul,” in iidem, Portraits of Paul: An Archaeology of Ancient Personality (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996) 100– 52; János Bollók, “The Description of Paul in the Acta Pauli,” in The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla (ed. Jan N. Bremmer; Kampen, Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1996) 1–15; and Jan N. Bremmer, “Magic, Martyrdom, and Women’s Liberation in the Acts of Paul and Thecla,” in ibid., 36–59, at 37–39. 97 Malherbe, “A Physical Description of Paul.”

3.3. The Acts of Paul and Thekla as Hagiography

127

now he had the face of an angel” (3). 98 Paul’s body, in other words, is able to metamorphosize. It is this transformed state that Onesiphorus identifies as the “fruit of righteousness” (4), embodying the beatitudes of Paul’s subsequent encratic sermon: “Blessed are they who have fear of God, for they shall become angels of God” (5); “Blessed are they who through love of God have departed from the form of this world (WRVFK PDWRNRVPLNRYQ), for they shall judge angels and at the right hand of the Father they shall be blessed” (6). In the Acts of Paul and Thekla, it is Paul’s embodiment of HMJ NUDYWHLD that is remarkable. When Thekla’s faith grows by kissing his chains (NDMNHLYQKKX>[DQHQK- SLYVWLNDWDILORXYVKWDGHVPDDXMWRX , Acts of Paul 3.18), she is acquiring power by kissing “relics” that had been in contact with Paul’s divinized body. 99 Later (20), in the same jail, Thekla also “rolled herself upon the place where Paul taught as he sat in the prison” and then, when called to the governor’s bema, she went off “with joy exalting.” 100 Taken together, these two passages offer witness not to a supplicant at a martyr’s cell, but to a devotee of Paul in particular, able to acquire faith and joy – like magical powers – through indirect bodily contact with the apostle. Indeed, if anyone is being portrayed as a martyr in this scene, it is more likely Thekla, whose “exalting” (DMJDOOLZPHYQK) was a literary characteristic of those facing death. 101 In addition to the two passages at the Iconian jail cell, Thekla is portrayed as a Pauline devotee in two other locations. The first is near the Iconian 98

Translation by Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 2:239; the Greek text as reconstructed by Rordorf in the forthcoming CCSA volume is: D>QGUDPLNURQWZ PHJHY THL\LORQWK  NHIDOK DMJNXYORQWDL NQKYPDLHXMHNWLNRYQVXYQRIUXQPLNURQHMSLYUURQ FDYULWRSOKYUKSRWHPHQJDUHMIDLYQHWRZ-D>QTUZSRSRWHGHDMJJHYORXSURYVZSRQHL? FHQ. Lipsius-Bonnet (iidem, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, 1:237) reads PLNUZ  HMSLYUURQfor PLNURQHMSLYUURQ. Compare for example Mart. Poly. 2.3. 99 Because Paul is not explicitly portrayed as a martyr in the Acts of Paul and Thekla, the phrase “relics” may not be appropriate to describe how power is transferred from Paul to his chains. On Paul’s chains, see for example John Chrysostom, Hom. Eph. 8 (PG 62) 56–57; Hormisdas, Ep. 77; and Gregory I, Letter 4.30; for discussion, see Eastman, “The Cult of the Apostle Paul,” 71–73. Even in the 13th cent., Jacobus de Voragine adduces the testimony of Gregory: “Gregory of Tours declares that Saint Paul’s chains work many miracles. When the faithful desire a few filings from these chains, a priest rubs them with a file; and sometimes the filings drop at once, while at other times, long and hard as the priest may file, not a grain falls from the chains” (The Golden Legend of Jacobus de Voragine [trans. Granger Ryan and Helmut Ripperger; New York: Arno Press, 1969] 345). See also §1.0.2 above on archaeological evidence for the cult of Paul. 100 Rordorf’s annotation to the passage is delightful (Bovon and Geoltrain, Écrits apocryphes chrétiens, 1:1135 ad loc.): “III, 20. Thècle se roulait à terre: passage étrange. Il semble qu’il s’agisse d’un phénomène extatique.” 101 See Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon, “DMJDOOLDY Z,” 6, which cites the Martyrdom of Perpetua, Acts of Philip, Acts of Thomas, etc.

128

Chapter 3. Acts of Paul and Thekla

theater (perhaps at the bema), where at her mother’s suggestion Thekla is sentenced to be burned when she declines to answer the governor’s question about why she would not marry Thamyris according to local Iconian law: Now Thecla, as a lamb in the wilderness looks around for the shepherd, was looking around for Paul. And when she looked into the crowd, she saw the Lord sitting as Paul and said: Z-DMQXSRPRQKYWRXPRXRX>VKK?OTHQ3DX ORTHDYVDVTDLYPH. And she held fast to him, looking intently, but he departed into heaven. (Acts of Paul 3.21, my translation) 102

What did Thekla say? According to Schneemelcher, the Greek sentence in question should be rendered: “As if I were not able to endure, Paul has come to look after me.” I agree that the alpha privative of DMQXSRPRYQKWR has been “Christianized,” such that adjective means “not-enduring” rather than its traditional valence of “unbearable.” But Schneemelcher’s translation requires an odd interpretation of the genitive absolute, while taking PH as the object of the infinitive: if we render the genitive absolute as “Since I am not-enduring,” does it make sense to take PH as the object of THDYVDVTDL? – Why would Paul want to watch Thekla fail to endure? Especially given Thekla’s reaction of grasping the Lord with her eyes, 103 I would argue that the context promotes a different option: that the Lord – Thekla’s true Shepherd – appears as Paul in order for Thekla to gaze upon him and thus enable her endurance. 104 Hence it would read: “Since I am failing to endure, Paul came for me to gaze upon.” 105 In any case, Thekla fixes her eyes on the ascending Lord, and then, when she is brought into the theater naked, the ruler weeps and marvels at the power in her (22). It is therefore upon seeing the Lord as Paul that Thekla speaks her first words of the narrative; and it is after gazing upon him that there is power visible 102 Schneemelcher’s translation (idem, New Testament Apocrypha, 2:242–43) is misleading in several places: “Thecla sought for Paul, as a lamb in the wilderness looks about for the shepherd. And when she looked upon the crowd, she saw the Lord sitting in the form of Paul and said: ‘As if I were not able to endure, Paul has come to look after me.’ And she looked steadily at him; but he departed into the heavens” (Acts of Paul 3.21). One must account for the narrative sidestaging provided by the imperfect, as well as alternative interpretation of the genitive absolute. 103 For an interesting comparison, note the functions of the verb DMWHQLY]Z in Luke and Acts, especially in the Stephen scene (Acts 7:55). 104 For an important discussion of endurance (X- SRPRQKY, patientia) in martyrdom ideology, see Shaw, “Body/Power/Identity: Passions of the Martyrs.” Among the various descriptions of polymorphism, compare especially the Lord appearing as Andrew (Acts of Andrew 14, Cod. Vaticanus 808). 105 See also Thekla’s odd prayer thanking God for the ability to see Paul (L^QD3DX ORQ L>GZ, Acts of Paul 3.24); and note the earlier reference, put into Theokleia’s mouth, of Thekla figuratively “gazing as with delight” (DMWHQLY]RXVDZ-SURHXMIUDVLYDQ, 3.8).

3.3. The Acts of Paul and Thekla as Hagiography

129

in her body and she endures the fire with God’s help. 106 As in the Iconian jail, here again we seem to have a cultic practice – gazing on an image of the apostle and thus seeing the Lord 107 – that is followed by strengthening. The final episode of this type occurs back in Iconium, in the house of Onesiphorus (Acts of Paul 4.42). There Thekla casts herself onto the ground where Paul had taught, and she cries out to God her Helper: “God of us and of this house, where the light enlightened me, Christ Jesus the Son of God, Helper to me in prison, Helper over rulers, Helper in fire, Helper with beasts: you are truly God, to whom be the glory for ever, Amen” (Acts of Paul 4.42, my translation). Following her prayer, Thekla is then able to bear witness (GLDPDUWXURX PDL, Acts of Paul 4.43) when she visits her birth mother Theokleia and calls upon her to trust that the Lord lives in the heavens, providing economic prosperity. 108 In these four passages Thekla is thus portrayed like a devotee who gains power from Paul. 3.3.2. Intertextual Representation In addition to these explicit textual representations, Thekla may also be portrayed as a devotee of Paul intertextually. One of the hallmarks of Christian hagiography is a kind of typological rewriting of the Tanakh in which Christian saints are modeled after Israelite heroes. 109 Whereas most scholars deny that the Acts of Paul and Thekla displays any knowledge of Israelite Scriptures, I propose that the author was familiar with at least one story from the Hebrew Bible: the story of Abram/Abraham and Sarai/Sarah. 110 For, on my reading of the text, the author has provided Between the two events Acts of Paul 3.22 offers an odd description: K-GHWXYSRQVWDX URX  SRLKVDPHYQKHMSHYEKHMSL WZ Q[XYOZQ. Does this refer to a bodily gesture, such as crossing herself or extending her arms (as an orans)? Or does it mean that Thekla symbolized the cross? – And if so, when and how? 107 Compare the Acts of John 26–29, where a portrait of John is used to discuss the difference between the inner and outer person; see also Acts of John 87–93 on the amorphous/polymorphous Christ; cp. Acts of Peter 19–21. 108 It is notably after Paul learns of Thekla’s baptism (Acts of Paul 4.40) that he first touches her (41). 109 For bibliography, see Krueger, Writing and Holiness, 207–8 nn. 21–23. Note especially the important work of Victor Saxer, Bible et hagiographie: Textes et thèmes bibliques dans les Actes des martyrs authentiques des premiers siècles (Berne: Lang, 1986). “Heroes” is a Greek analogy, as “patriarchs” is too restrictive for the Israelites in question. 110 I will refer to Greek forms of the narrative. Regarding the fire and beasts of Thekla’s story, it is tempting also to see allusion to the stories to the three in the fiery furnace and Daniel in the lion’s den; and indeed, Thekla was often portrayed in early Christian art as an equivalent to Daniel, between two lions. (Compare the iconography of Diana/Artemis of the beasts.) On Daniel in the lions’ den, note the explicit reference in the Ephesus Act (Acts of Paul 9.8); see p. 79 above. After preparing this chapter, I 106

130

Chapter 3. Acts of Paul and Thekla

allusions – and thus implicit reference – to parts of the narrative, portraying Paul as Abraham and Thekla as Sarah. If this is so, the Acts of Paul and Thekla casts Paul and Thekla as the patriarchal odd couple, where the wife is also a sister. The narrative of Abraham and Sarah is so well known that I will mention only one part of the narrative – or rather two parts: the stories in Gen 12:10–20 and 20:1–18 (cp. Gen 26:1–14 about Isaac and Rebekah). 111 In these stories, Abraham travels to sojourn in a foreign city (simply “Egypt” in Gen 12, and Gerar in Gen 20). Once there, the sovereign of the land – Pharaoh in Gen 12, and King Abimelech in Gen 20 – “falls in love” with Sarah (to put it in Victorian terms). In both cases, Abraham instructs Sarah to say that she – his wife – is his sister, so that his life may be spared; thus each ruler takes Sarah unto himself (Gen 12:11–15; Gen 20:2). But God afflicts the ruler for taking Abraham’s wife, plaguing the entire household of Pharaoh (Gen 12:17) and then Abimelech (Gen 20:17), even though the story of Abimelech includes the significant report that God had protected the chastity of Sarah during her stay in the ruler’s house (Gen 20:3–7). When asked about his decision to say that Sarah was his sister, Abraham’s only reply is that she is indeed his (half) sister, the daughter of his father, who had also become his wife (Gen 20:12). In both cases, the rulers return Sarah to Abraham, to ward off the wrath of the Lord: for the first ruler Pharaoh, there is salvation from plagues; but for the second, even if the wombs of Abimelech’s wife and female slaves are opened (Gen 20:17–18), the emphasis appears to be more on the freedom from guilt about wrongdoing. In any case, Abimelech provides the two with male and female slaves (SDL GHNDLSDLGLYVNDL) and other booty. These two narratives, though not identical, tell a formally comparable story about Abraham and Sarah (see Figure 3.1 below, p. 132); 112 and in telling this story twice, a metanarrative learned that comparison to the Abraham narrative was first proposed by Ruth Albrecht, Das Leben der heiligen Makrina auf dem Hintergrund der Thekla-Tradition. Studient zu den Ursprungen des weiblichen Monchtums im 4. Jahrhundert in Kleinasien (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986) 259; and that it has been used to very different ends by Beate Wehn, “ ‘Blessed are the Bodies of Those Who Are Virgins’: Reflections on the Image of Paul in the Acts of Thecla,” JSNT 79 (2000) 149–64. 111 According to most forms of the documentary hypothesis, Gen 12:10–20 was produced by the J source in Judah ca. 922–722 B.C.E. (as well as Gen 26:1–14 about Isaac), whereas Gen 20:1–18 was produced by the E source in Ephraim/Israel ca. 922–722 B.C.E. Whether the two stories are variants concerning the same patriarch is difficult to determine, particularly since the names Abram (J in Gen 12) or Abraham (E in Gen 20) are dialectical variants meaning “honored father.” In any case, sometime after 722 B.C.E., another southern redactor incorporated both stories within Israelite Scripture, and readers of the Septuagint probably would not have been concerned with such matters. 112 Note how the story in Genesis 20 at once simplifies and expands the story in Genesis 12. The same kind of “duplication” occurs in Thekla’s story. Such duplications may

3.3. The Acts of Paul and Thekla as Hagiography

131

is communicated not only about Abraham and Sarah but also about the relationship between the patriarchal couple and the Lord. The Acts of Paul and Thekla tells a similar story, and like Genesis it tells the story twice. To be sure, the Thekla story includes additional elements in its narrative, such as interrogations and trials, lovesickness and devotion. But the formal pattern of the Abraham/Sarah story, and even some of the details, seems to have been written into the Acts of Paul and Thekla. In Figure 3.1 (see p. 132 below), I have cited what I consider to be the most significant parallels between the stories. Some of the parallels are less certain than others; and by a necessity, comparison of any particular parallel will yield not only similarity but difference – such is the strength and weakness of analogy. But taken together as a whole, the common pattern is striking, especially considering that it is duplicated in both texts. Let me therefore begin with an overview. The males declare that the females are so beautiful that temptation will occur in a foreign land (HXMSURYVZSR, Gen 12:11–12; HX>PRUIR, Acts of Paul 3.25), and then the males deny their relation to the females (Gen 12:18–19; 20:2a; Acts of Paul 4.26), which results in the females being taken captive (Gen 12:15; 20:2b; Acts of Paul 3.21; 4.26). The first occurrences of both stories (Gen 12; Acts of Paul 3) describe a mighty demonstration of God’s wrath, from which the foreigners are delivered once they restore the female to the male. But the second occurrences of both stories (Gen 20; Acts of Paul 4) provide more extended narrative. For example, in both cases there is a lengthy description that explains how the female’s chastity is kept secure while in captivity (Gen 20:3–7; Acts of Paul 4.27–31) – an emphasis that, once understood, requires one to interrogate the silence of the earlier narrations. So also in both of the second tellings, upon their release, the happy couple receives benefaction consisting of material (Gen 20:16; Acts of Paul 4.41) and human resources (SDL GHNDL SDLGLYVNDL, Gen 20:14; QHDQLYVNRLNDL SDLGLYVNDL, Acts of Paul 4.40). Immediately after its second telling of the story, Genesis continues: “The Lord dealt with Sarah as he had said, and the Lord did for Sarah as he had promised” (Gen 21:1, NRSV). So also for Thekla.

be analyzed literarily and/or historically; or, perhaps better, they may be analyzed in two literary ways: synchronically and diachronically. For example, the Abraham stories are sometimes read as alternative performances of one historical memory, as are Peter’s duplicate trials in Acts 4 and 5. The duplications of Thekla’s contest with a male may be read similarly, but emphasis on the literary representation may preclude moving from story to history.

132

Chapter 3. Acts of Paul and Thekla

Figure 3.1. Comparing Genesis and the Acts of Paul and Thekla Genesis 12:10–20; 20:1–18

Acts of Paul 3; 4

Location

Egypt

Gerar

Iconium

Antioch

Ruler

Pharaoh

Abimelech

Castellius

Proconsul

Suitor of female

Pharaoh

Abimelech

Thamyris

Alexander

Reference to female’s beauty

12:11–12

–

–

3.25

Male’s plan: wife as sister

12:13

20:2a

–

3.25 113

Male denies relation with female 114

(12:18–19)

20:2a

(3.20)

4.26

Female abducted

12:15

20:2b

3.21

4.26

Protection of female’s chastity

–

20:3–7

–

4.27–31

Male’s rationale about female

–

20:12

(3.17, 20)

–

God’s wrath/salvation

12:17

20:17

3.22

4.34–36

Restoration

12:19–20

20:14

3.22–25

4.40–41

Benefaction: material

–

20:16

–

4.41

Benefaction: human

–

SDL GHNDL SDLGLYVNDL 20:14

–

QHDQLYVNRL NDL SDLGLYVNDL 4.40 (cp. 3.22)

113

Compare Thekla’s declaration to Matt 8:19, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.” 114 Contrast Sarah’s complicity in both events to Thekla’s opposition in the second, declaring herself God’s female slave (GRXYOKWRX THRX , Acts of Paul 4.26, 37).

3.3. The Acts of Paul and Thekla as Hagiography

133

Several significant differences occur between the narratives, which in my opinion function to enhance the story of the Acts of Paul and Thekla. For example, whereas the Genesis narrative mentions the rulers as Sarah’s paramours, the Acts of Paul and Thekla distinguishes between the rulers (Roman governors) and Thekla’s would-be suitors (the local elite). Moreover, the Acts of Paul and Thekla adds two mother figures (both apparently widows), and it uses the latter (Queen Tryphaena) to describe how the Lord protected the female’s chastity during her second captivity (cp. Gen 20:6, where the Lord claims responsibility). The addition of Tryphaena also allows the author to transfer Abimelech’s dream vision, where he is told to ask for Abraham’s prayers, to Tryphaea, who asks for Thekla’s help (Gen 20:3–7; Acts of Paul 4.28, where Tryphaena’s deceased daughter appears to her). 115 Perhaps most notably, Sarah’s story ends in conception, Thekla’s in perpetual virginity. 116 The author of the Acts of Paul and Thekla therefore seems to have used the doublet stories of Abraham and Sarah in order to enhance, if not to construct, his doublet stories of Paul and Thekla. 117 Patterning Thekla after Sarah would be interesting. In addition to being the matriarch of Israel, from whom innumerable descendants were begotten after her second deliverance, Sarah is also used as an “allegory” in the letter to the Galatians (Gal 4:21–5:1). There Sarah functions in like manner to symbolize the birth of the HMNNOKVLYD: like the Jerusalem above, Sarah is the free woman who, despite being desolate, will be according to the Lord’s promise mother of the innumerable who are free: SROODWDWHYNQD WK HMUKYPRXPD OORQK@WK HMFRXYVKWRQD>QGUD, “more numerable are the children of the desolate one than she who has the man/husband” (Gal 4:27). To portray “the desolate Thekla” (Acts of Paul 4.28) as Sarah might also be to portray her, according to Galatians, as a symbol of the virginal Church 118 – a Body that freely bears fruit in the Spirit through death to the body and its passions and desires (see Gal 5:22–25). To be sure, this is adding hypothesis upon hypothesis. But the declaration that Thekla makes to Paul after her baptism (Acts of Paul 4.40) parallels a similar declaration in Gal 2:8. Whereas Galatians says “For the one who worked with Peter 115

See McGinn, “Acts of Thecla,” 817, 827 n. 27; see also p. 116 n. 56 and p. 144. Note that in the second forms of their stories, Thekla is described as “the desolate Thekla” (WKQH>UKPRQ4HYNODQ, Acts of Paul 4.28), which may parallel Sarah’s barrenness (Gen 20:18). 117 Note that if the Acts of Paul and Thekla is patterned from Genesis, then some of the interpretive difficulties – for example, Paul’s implicit denial of Thekla in Iconium and apparent abandonment of her in Antioch – may be better explained. Contrast the perspective of Wehn, “ ‘Blessed are the Bodies of Those Who Are Virgins.’ ” 118 Compare Ambrose, Ep. 63.34, where Thekla is the Church-Bride of the Song of Songs. 116

134

Chapter 3. Acts of Paul and Thekla

for an embassy for the Circumcision [= Judeans] worked also with me for the nations [= non-Judeans],” the Acts of Paul and Thekla says “he who worked with you for the gospel has also worked with me for my baptism.” The author of the Acts of Paul and Thekla was therefore familiar with Galatians, 119 so the connection is not implausible if he otherwise figures Thekla as Sarah. Based on at least four textual representations of Thekla as a devotee of Paul, and with the possibility that Paul and Thekla were portrayed as Abraham and Sarah in the Acts of Paul and Thekla, it is therefore worth considering the text as a work of hagiography. That is was indeed a work of hagiography may even be attested around 200 C.E. in a reference by Tertullian of Carthage (North Africa). 3.3.3. Textual Misrepresentation? In De baptismo 17.5 (ca. 200 C.E.), 120 Tertullian probably refers to the Acts of Paul and Thekla. The textual variants are difficult to evaluate, due in part to orthographic conventions (e.g., Codex T uses -e for -ae); and as Stevan Davies once argued, it is possible that Tertullian refers ambiguously to texts falsely written by or about Paul. 121 But Codex T refers clearly to certain acta Pauli and says that its exemplum Theclae is used ad licentiam mulierum docendi tinguendique, “to allow women to teach and to baptize.” Esther Ng 122 has recently discussed the interpretive options that remain for the beginning of the text:

119 For possible uses of Galatians, see Hills, “The Acts of the Apostles in the Acts of Paul,” Appendix ad loc. According to John Anson (“The Female Transvestite in Early Monasticism: The Origin and Development of a Motif,” Viator: Medieval and Renaissance Studies 5 [1974] 1–32), Thekla’s baptism is a narrative rendering of Gal 3:27–28, where “male and female” is negated. See the seminal essay by Wayne A. Meeks, “The Image of the Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity,” reprinted in idem, In Search of the Early Christians (ed. Allen R. Hilton and H. Gregory Snyder; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2002) 3–54. 120 For a critical edition, see Tertulliani Opera (ed. Borleffs; CCSL 1.1; Turnhout: Brepols, 1954) 291–92. 121 See for example Stevan L. Davies, “Women, Tertullian, and the Acts of Paul,” Semeia 38 (1986) 139–43; for critique, see Thomas W. Mackay, “Response,” Semeia 38 (1986) 145–49; Willy Rordorf, “Tertullien et les Actes de Paul,” reprinted in Lex Orandi – Lex Credendi, 475–84; Ross S. Kraemer, “Women’s Authorship of Jewish and Christian Literature in the Greco-Roman Period,” in ‘Women Like This’: New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World (ed. Amy-Jill Levine; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991) 221–42, at 232–35. 122 Ng, “Acts of Paul and Thecla,” 21–22.

3.3. The Acts of Paul and Thekla as Hagiography

135

Quodsi quae 123 Acta Pauli quae perperam scripta sunt exemplum Theclae ad licentiam mulierum docendi tinguendique defendunt, sciant … (De bapt. 17.5, Codex T).

The question is whether to render quae as the feminine plural substantive subject of defendunt (“But if certain women defend”), or whether to take it as a neuter plural adjective modifying the subject Acta of defendunt (“But if certain Acts of Paul defend”). The former option provides an antecedent subject for the subsequent verb sciant (“let [the women] know”), whereas the latter leaves the verb’s subject indeterminant. I have not yet decided on the matter, but the general consensus is that Tertullian is discussing “certain women.” In any case, whether or not quae is the grammatical subject, it seems clear from Codex T that Tertullian’s concern is about using acta Pauli and Thekla’s example to defend women’s teaching and baptizing. Therefore at least three conclusions may be inferred: (1) Tertullian is concerned that Thekla’s example may be used by some to argue for women teaching and baptizing; and whether he is addressing an historical or imagined scenario,124 his concern seems to be with people reading about Thekla’s example and arguing on that basis; (2) if this is so, then Tertullian knows of the existence of some written form of what we today call the Acts of Paul and Thekla; and (3) if Tertullian used the phrase acta Pauli, he therefore would have been referring at minimum to the Acts of Paul and Thekla by the title “Acts of Paul.” 125

123

Codex T, which is presented above according to CCSL 1.1.291, technically reads quodsique, but the manuscript sometimes substitutes -e for –ae, as in the subsequent qu(a)e; for a helpful presentation of both codices in parallel, see Rordorf, “Tertullien,” 476. On the passage, see the editor Borleffs’s comments in “La valeur du Codex Trecensis de Tertullien pour la critique de texte dans le traite De Baptismo,” VC 2 (1948) 185– 200, at 196–98. Regarding the possibilities, it is interesting to note how Jerome (De vir. ill. 7) uses and adds to Tertullian’s testimony (see §§6.1.3 and 6.2.2.2). 124 Ng (“Acts of Paul and Thecla”) and Gail P. C. Streete (“Authority and Authorship: The Acts of Paul and Thecla as a Disputed Pauline Text,” LTQ 40 (2005) 265–76) have recently situated Tertullian’s statement in context of his broader treatise, where he displays particular concern with a certain “female viper” who recently visited Carthage and taught other than Tertullian on baptism. 125 For critique of this adscription, see Anthony Hilhorst, “Tertullian on the Acts of Paul,” in The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla (ed. Bremmer) 150–63. Hilhorst doubts that Codex B’s Pauli scripta provides the title “Paul’s writings” (however, see P. Heid.’s title, discussed in §5.2, pp. 207–8 below), and so he concludes that we do not know under what title Tertullian knew the Acts of Paul and Thekla (which Hilhorst takes together with the broader Acts of Paul). Proposals are therefore offered from Origen, Jerome, and the Decretum Gelasianum (ibid., 162). As I discuss in §6.2, other titles would have been available as well.

136

Chapter 3. Acts of Paul and Thekla

Whether or not Tertullian refers to the Acts of Paul and Thekla by the title “Acts of Paul,” what Tertullian says at the end of the passage is interesting: Sciant … presbyterum qui eam scripturam construxit, quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans, convictum atque confessum id se amore Pauli fecisse loco decessisse. Let them know … that the presbyter who compiled that document, as if adding from his own to the titulus of Paul, having been convicted and confessed that he had done it out of love for Paul, resigned 126 from his position. (De bapt. 17.5)

According to Tertullian, the Acts of Paul and Thekla – at least, in the form known to him – was written by a male presbyter. Moreover, if Tertullian’s claim is accurate, then we also learn that the presbyter did his work amore Pauli (“out of love for Paul”). Sadly, it remains unclear whether the presbyter was more of an author or compiler (see construxit and cumulans), what he was trying to add to what and why (quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans), 127 and what other materials he may have written or compiled (if this differs from the previous question). 128 But Tertullian’s De bapt. 17.5 states that Thekla’s story was written “out of love for Paul” and hence provides at least indirect support to the hypothesis that the Acts of Paul and Thekla was written hagiographically.

126

Rordorf (“Tertullien,” 477) and others have argued persuasively that decessisse should be taken in an active sense: the presbyter resigned; he was not deposed, as used to be argued. Compare Jerome’s later comment in De vir. illust. 7; see §§6.1.3 and 6.2.2.2. 127 The phrase quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans is interesting. Based on the verb construxit and participle cumulans, some have argued that the presbyter was not primarily an author but a compiler. But what does the phase titulo Pauli mean? Remember the distinctive meaning of “titulus” in Rome; see for example Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries (ed. Marshall D. Johnson; trans. Michael Steinhauser; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003) 19–22 and bibliography ad loc. Was the presbyter paying to collect traditions to donate for use at Paul’s monument? Was he trying to add to Paul’s reputation? To Paul’s accomplishments? In any case, it seems implausible that de suo designates a negative motivation (e.g., “out of his own reputation”), since the presbyter otherwise acted amore Pauli; de suo probably means “at his own expense.” For further ruminations on titulus, see Gérard Poupon, “Encore une fois: Tertullien, De baptismo 17,5,” in Nomen Latinum: Mélanges de langue, de littérature et de civilisation latines offerts au professeur André Schneider (Neuchâtel: Faculté de lettres, 1997) 199–205, at 205, “Note additionnelle”: arguing against “reputation” and noting that an inscription is not required, he proposes titulus as a title, so that Tertullian may refer obliquely to the text in question. For possible support, see Figure 5.1, p. 208 below, on the use of subheadings in P. Heid.’s collection. 128 Also unclear is the phrase in Asia, which occurs between sciant and presbyterum. Most scholars understand this adverbial phrase to modify the presbyter (“the presbyter in Asia”), but it is also possible that it refers to the subject of sciant and hence to the imagined readers of the presbyter’s text (“let those [quae, women?] in Asia know”).

3.4. Rereading the Acts of Paul and Thekla

137

Therefore, in addition to comparing the Acts of Paul and Thekla with Hellenistic novels and discussing Thekla’s love simply as “romantic,” I propose that we also consider the text as hagiography. For, even when Paul is offstage, like Abraham in Egypt and Gerar, the text uses Thekla to think about devotion and faithfulness to Paul, who embodies the text’s beatitudes. It is by hearing Paul’s words, gazing upon his image, travelling to the sites he had visited, and intimately touching the things he had touched that one gains power. 129 Rather than Thekla, it is therefore Paul who is the saint in the Acts of Paul and Thekla.

3.4. Rereading the Acts of Paul and Thekla: The Baptism of HMJNUDYWHLD 3.4. Rereading the Acts of Paul and Thekla

To reread the Acts of Paul and Thekla as hagiography – that is, to reread the text as a hagiographic work about and for Paul – would open a range of interpretive possibilities. Among other things, it would encourage us to continue studying the literary portrayal of characters in the text, understanding them as less historical and more symbolic of the author’s contemporary circumstances and/or interests. Let us consider, for example, how the text uses not only Thekla but also Paul to portray its “Pauline” understanding of baptism – namely, as death to the passions of the body and all things exterior. In addition to descriptions of his body and virtue, the Acts of Paul and Thekla portrays Paul as a travelling philosopher. Unlike the canonized book of Acts and letters of Paul, which depict Paul as a founder and builder of communities and a wonder-working charismatic, the Acts of Paul and Thekla offers the portrait of an itinerant preacher who offers a message that challenges the local customs and family norms of ancient Mediterranean societies. He is repeatedly called a “stranger” or “foreigner” ([HYQR, Acts of Paul 3.8, 13), likened to a “sorcerer” in his ability to entrance his subjects (e.g. 9, 14, 20): his message is, so to speak, the ultimate love potion. Teaching deceptive and subtle words (8, 11), he is accused of wooing the women and corrupting the youth (9, 11, 15). What is more, he charged with “atheism” and violation of local laws (9, 11, 16, 20), as part of that superstitious group called “Christians” (14, 16). 130 With accusa129

For broader contemporary practices, see for example Jás Elsner and Ian Rutherford, Pilgrimage in Graeco-Roman and Early Christian Antiquity: Seeing the Gods (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). 130 For helpful discussion, see esp. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them; and Martin, Inventing Superstition. I use the term “superstitious” to allude to the Latin term superstitio, about which Martin says: “Roman superstitio differed somewhat from

138

Chapter 3. Acts of Paul and Thekla

tions like these, the text has a high degree of verisimilitude (e.g., Pliny, Ep. 10.96; Suetonius, Nero 16.2; Tacitus, Annals 15.44). But we must also attend to the manner in which Paul is represented textually. 131 Accusations like these are precisely the kind of charges leveled against Socrates in Plato’s Apology, and so Paul is being presented as something of a Christianized – and rather Cynic – VRYIR (“sage, wise man”). 132 Granted, the presentation is not as philosophical as the Acts of Andrew. 133 But it is so stylized that we must be careful when moving from textual representation to historical situation. Less likely to deceive is the text’s emphasis on HMJNUDYWHLD. Traditionally rendered as “self-control,” the virtue of HMJNUDYWHLDhas its philosophical roots in the early monistic system of Stoicism where it referred to the ability to empower oneself by properly ordering the passions (HMQ -, “in”; NUDWH-, “hold”). HMJNUDYWHLDas such was somewhat at odds with the more traditional virtue of VZIURVXYQK (“moderation, discretion, self-control”), which for women included the household virtues of fertility and fidelity to one’s husband. 134 But with changing cosmologies and societies under the Roman Empire, the virtue was reimagined in a variety of ways, even among early Christian communities. So it is important to be clear on what kind of HMJNUDYWHLDa text promotes. 135 Greek deisidaimonia in the Roman emphasis on the political threat posed by superstition to the Roman state and people, and that difference provides a key for understanding the Roman perception of Christianity as a superstition” (ibid., 126, emphasis original); “The political danger implied by superstitio is connected in many contexts with the use of superstitio to represent foreign religion. It is unclear whether one of these themes – superstitio as political threat or superstitio as foreign – preceded and influenced the other” (ibid., 131, emphasis original). 131 For a discussion of how the text uses the charge of PDYJR more broadly in the narrative, see Magda Misset-van de Weg, “Magic, Miracle and Miracle Workers in the Acts of Thecla,” in Women and Miracle Stories: A Multidisciplinary Exploration (ed. AnneMarie Korte; Studies in the History of Religion 88; Leiden: Brill, 2001) 29–52. 132 See Richard Goulet, “Les Vies de philosophes dans l’Antiquité tardive et leur portée mystère,” in Les Actes apocryphes des apôtres (ed. Bovon) 161–208; Charles H. Talbert, “Biographies of Philosophers and Rulers as Instruments of Religious Propaganda in Mediterranean Antiquity,” ANRW 2.16.2 (1978) 1619–51. It is interesting that the philosopher is not among Dunn’s sevenfold description; see Peter W. Dunn, “L’Image de Paul dans Les ‘Actes de Paul,’ ” Foi et vie 94 (1995) 75–85. 133 On the Acts of Andrew, see §1.2.1, pp. 46–49 above. 134 On the competition of ideals, see Cooper, Virgin and the Bride. For discussion of the self’s formation, see Johannes N. Vorster, “Construction of Culture through the Construction of Person: The Acts of Thecla as an Example,” in The Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture: Essays from the 1995 London Conference (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbright; JSNTSup 146; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997) 445–73. 135 Important studies on virginity and asceticism include Peter R. L. Brown, “The Notion of Virginity in the Early Church,” in Christian Spirituality: Origins to the Twelfth

3.4. Rereading the Acts of Paul and Thekla

139

In the Acts of Paul and Thekla, the philosophical message that Paul preached from town to town was “the word of God about HMJNUDYWHLD and DMQDYVWDVL” 136 (Acts of Paul 3.5). Nowhere in the Acts of Paul and Thekla does Paul explicitly discuss the case of married people: 137 we do not know whether his message was also for them, and whether it would have included renunciation from sex and/or other marital relations, unless inferences are made from the beatitude that echoes 1 Cor 7:29. 138 Only the family of Onesiphorus is mentioned, and they do not appear to be divided based on adherence to Paul’s message. What we do know, however, is that he offered a message to young men and young women – apparently to all Century (ed. Bernard McGinn and John Meyendorff; World Spirituality: An Encyclopedic History of the Religious Quest 16; New York: Crossroad, 1985) 427–43; David R. Cartlidge, “Competing Theologies of Asceticism in the Early Church” (Th.D. diss., Harvard Divinity School, 1969); Elizabeth A. Clark, “Antifamilial Tendencies in Ancient Christianity,” Journal of the History of Sexuality 3 (1995) 356–80; eadem, Reading Renunciation: Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999); Eliezer Diamond, Holy Men and Hunger Artists: Fasting and Asceticism in Rabbinic Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003); Steven D. Fraade, “Ascetical Aspects of Ancient Judaism,” in Jewish Spirituality: From the Bible through the Middle Ages (ed. Arthur Green; New York: Crossroad, 1986) 253–88; Veronika Grimm, “Fasting Women in Judaism and Christianity in Late Antiquity,” in Food in Antiquity (eds. John Wilkins, David Harvey, and Mike Dobson; Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1996) 225–40; William Harmless, Desert Christians: An Introduction to the Literature of Early Monasticism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); Aline Rousselle, “Body Politics in Ancient Rome,” in A History of Women in the West I: From Ancient Goddesses to Christian Saints (ed. P. Schmitt Pantel; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992) 296–336; eadem, Porneia: On Desire and the Body in Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988); Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, “A Response to the Social Functions of Women’s Asceticism,” in Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism (ed. Karen L. King; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988) 324–28; Leif E. Vaage and Vincent L. Wimbush, Asceticism and the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995); Richard Valantasis, “Constructions of Power in Asceticism,” JAAR 63 (1995) 775–822; L. Michael White, “Regulating Fellowship in the Communal Meal: Early Jewish and Christian Evidence,” in Meals in a Social Context: Aspects of the Communal Meal in the Hellenistic and Roman World (ed. Inge Nielsen and Hanne Sigismund Nielsen; Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1998) 177–205; Vincent L.Wimbush, ed., Ascetic Behavior in Greco-Roman Antiquity: A Sourcebook (Studies in Antiquity and Christianity; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990); Vincent L.Wimbush and Richard Valantasis, eds., Asceticism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998). 136 The Greek word DMQDYVWDVL, usually translated as “resurrection,” would have carried the less politically innocuous connotation of “uprising.” 137 Contrast the Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena, Acts of Andrew, Acts of Peter, etc. 138 Acts of Paul 3.6: PDNDYULRLRL-H>FRQWHJXQDL NDZ-PKHFRQWHR^WLDXMWRLNOKUR QRYPRLTHRX JHQKYVRQWDL. Compare 1 Cor 7:29: 7RX WRGHIKPLYDMGHOIRL R- NDLURVXQH VWDOPHYQRHMVWLYQWRORLSRYQL^QDNDLRL-H>FRQWHJXQDL NDZ-PKH>FRQWHZ?VLQ SDUDYJHLJDUWRVFK PDWRX NRYVPRXWRXYWRX. (See again the eleventh beatitude in Acts of Paul 3.6, concerning departing from WRVFK PDWRX NRVPLNRX .) 

140

Chapter 3. Acts of Paul and Thekla

unmarried people – on the benefits of avoiding marital relations, including sex and childbearing. (Contrast for example 1 Tim 2:9–15.) In the words of Thekla’s fiancé Thamyris: Paul “deceives the souls of young men and virgins (\XFDQHYZQNDL SDUTHYQZQ), so that they do not become married but remain thusly” (Acts of Paul 3.11).139 But the word of HMJNUDYWHLDis also a broader message about how to relate to exterior things, which the dynamic character Thekla embodies. As she changes throughout the narrative, she does not simply progress from being a weak character to a strong one, from a silent woman to someone who teaches the word of God; she also transforms externally. On the one hand, and most obviously, she changes her adornment. 140 First she gives up her bracelets and silver mirror in order to visit Paul in the Iconian prison (Acts of Paul 3.18); then she proposes to cut her hair short (25); and finally she dons a loincloth 141 and puts on a man’s overcoat (4.33 and 40), not unlike a Cynic philosopher (see, e.g., Epictetus, Diss. 3.22). On the other hand, she may also change her bodily form, as implied by the power visible within her body (3.22) as well as her subsequent need for girding (4.33 and 40). 142 If this is the case and Thekla begins literally to embody masculinity, then the text may be offering an interesting commentary not only on gender but on embodiment in general. For, with references to Paul’s body being like an angel’s (3.3) and to Christ appearing in the form of Paul (21), we may very well have a cosmology that portrays an ontological continuum that one may ascend or descend according to one’s HMJNUDYWHLD. The masculine, on this ideology, is neither coequal with the feminine nor at the top of the continuum; it is rather between the feminine and the angelic,

139 The source of this ideology is 1 Cor 7:8–9. Compare for example Justin, 1 Apol. 29.1; Hermas, Vis. 16.1ff. (III.8). 140 Regarding adornment, it is unclear whether the Acts of Paul and Thekla uses 1 Enoch 6–11 as an intertext, as for example did Jude and Tertullian (e.g., On the Apparel of Women 1.2–3; 2.9). Another option for an intertext, perhaps representing local variation on ancient Mediterranean tradition, would be a reworking of the story of the goddess Inanna/Ishtar/Astarte, who renounced her external possessions in stages while preparing for death and revival. 141 Putting on a loincloth is sometimes also symbolic of holding one’s passions in check; see LSJ, “DM QD]ZYQQXPL.” 142 See Willi Braun, “Physiotherapy of Femininity in the Acts of Thecla,” in Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity (ed. Stephen G. Wilson et al.; Waterloo, Ont.: Canadian Corp. for Studies in Religion, 2000) 209–30, who appeals to the “one-sex model” to explain Thekla’s transition from feminine to masculine; contrast Stephen J. Davis, “Crossed Texts, Crossed Sex: Intertextuality and Gender in Early Christian Legends of Holy Women Disguised as Men,” JECS 10:1 (2002) 1–36, who contends that transvestite females were sometimes regarded as eunuchs, a “third sex.” Neither model is formulated to account for angels or Christ/God.

3.4. Rereading the Acts of Paul and Thekla

141

probably with Christ (= God in this text) yet higher. One’s “clothes” are thus provided by God (38), according to one’s HMJNUDYWHLD. 143 This word of HMJNUDYWHLDincludes yet other renunciations, as demonstrated by the household of Onesiphorus. At the beginning of the Acts of Paul and Thekla, Onesiphorus provides at least one kind of patronage for Paul when he offers him hospitality and a place where Paul can proclaim his message (Acts of Paul 3.2ff.); and he may maintain his house, since at the end of the story Thekla is able to visit there (4.42). 144 But in between these references, we find the family of Onesiphorus in a scene that is as strange to us as it was familiar to early Christians: people gathered together to worship at a tomb (3.23ff.). 145 With his wife and children, and perhaps also with some slaves, 146 Onesiphorus is with Paul at a family tomb outside Iconium on the way to Daphne. What we learn is that the group is fasting and praying, apparently for Thekla, which they continue for six days (23). Then, when they become hungry, we learn something 143

A host of studies are devoted to such topics, more generally and in particular to the Acts of Paul and Thekla; see for example Kerstin Aspegren, The Male Woman: A Feminine Ideal in the Early Church (ed. René Kieffer; Acta universitatis Upsaliensis; Uppsala Women’s Studies, Women in Religion 4; Sweden: Gotab, 1990); Braun, “Physiotherapy of Femininity”; Elizabeth Castelli, “‘I Will Make Mary Male’: Pieties of the Body and Gender Transformation of Christian Women in Late Antiquity,” In Body Guards: The Cultural Politics of Gender Ambiguity (ed. Julia Epstein and Kristina Staub; London: Routledge, 1991) 29–49; Mary Rose D’Angelo, “Veils, Virgins, and the Tongues of Men and Angels,” in Off with Her Head (ed. H. Eilberg-Schwartz and W. Doniger; Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1995); Davis, “Crossed Texts, Crossed Sex”; idem, “Fashioning a Divine Body: Coptic Christology and Ritualized Dress,” HTR 98:3 (2005) 335–62; Susanna Elm, “Virgins of God”: The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994); David M. Scholer, “ ‘And I Was a Man’: The Power and Problem of Perpetua,” Daughters of Sarah 15 (1989) 10–14. 144 Conversely, Thekla enters and exits the house apparently at will and without speaking to humans, and is at leisure to fall down on the ground, cry, and pray (Acts of Paul 4.42). Was the house now a dedicated church? Architectural evidence for converted houses occurs in the second century; see L. Michael White, The Social Origins of Christian Architecture (2 vols.; Harvard Theological Studies 42; Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1990–1997). 145 Most all of the early Christian artifacts are from tombs. Tombs, as located in a nekropolis outside the city gates, were sites where people were permitted to gather legally, and so early Christian communities – which were so often centered on familial units – found it amenable to integrate worship into more common practices for the dead. (Compare, for example, the Epicureans’ veneration of Epicurus.) Thus, for example, the evidence for the earliest Christian communities in Rome. In addition to Lampe (From Paul to Valentinus), see also Graydon F. Snyder, Ante Pacem: Archaeological Evidence of Church Life before Constantine (rev. ed.; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 2003); and MacMullen, “Christian Ancestor Worship in Rome.” 146 Note that Paul sends a SDL  for food; the term may refer to a child, male or female, or it may be used to refer to a slave (as in the lamentable use of “boy”); see LSJ, “SDL .”

142

Chapter 3. Acts of Paul and Thekla

else: “They had nothing with which to buy bread, for Onesiphorus had left the things of the world and followed Paul with all his house.” Paul therefore offers to exchange his outer garment (HMSHQGXYWK) for some food, which consists of five loaves, vegetables, and water (D>URXSHYQWHNDLODY  FDQDNDLX^GZU, 3.24). Whether the meal intentionally excludes meat, for example for cultic or socio-halakhic reasons (1 Cor 8–10; Rom 14–15), or whether it does so as part of a “poor man’s” diet, we cannot be sure. But the effect is the same from a practical standpoint: followers of Paul are supposed to regulate their ingestion, mastering the passions of the stomach, while giving up their possessions and riches. The latter is made especially clear with the model of Tryphaena, whose overabundance flows out not only to Thekla, whose continence requires economic support, but also “to the service for the poor” (HLMGLDNRQLY DQWZ QSWZFZ Q, 4.41). Not too dissimilar to the early chapters of Acts, the Acts of Paul and Thekla thus urges a redistribution of goods, as it offers in Onesiphorus and in Tryphaena two models for Christian patronage. 147 But the most interesting part of the HMJNUDYWHLDin question is its relation to baptism. 148 A careful reading of the narrative indicates that one of the main topics portrayed through the figure of Thekla is baptism; indeed, the text may be usefully read as a narrative meditation on the ninth beatitude of Paul’s sermon: “Blessed are they who have kept their baptism secure, for they shall rest with the Father and the Son” (Acts of Paul 3.6). 149 Thekla’s interactions with Paul after each of her trials indicate what is at stake. When she is saved from the fire in Iconium, she offers to cut her hair and follow Paul. But he said: “The season is unfavourable, and thou art comely. May no other temptation (SHLUDVPRY) come upon thee, worse than the first, and thou endure not and play the coward!” And Thekla said: “Only give me the seal in Christ, and temptation (SHLUDVPRY) shall not touch me.” And Paul said: “Have patience, Thecla, and thou shalt receive the water.” (Acts of Paul 3.25, Schneemelcher’s translation)

What is at stake in baptism, 150 regardless of however it may be understood for “salvation” and other issues, is its relation to temptation (SHLUDVPRY). That this is so is clarified at Paul and Thekla’s next reunion. 147 Again, I propose rereading Tryphaena’s character in the manner that Cohen discusses various kinds of conversion to Judaism (Beginnings of Jewishness, chs. 3–5); she is, as it were, a “Christ-fearer,” who participates in the church through patronage but is not clearly a full convert (see Acts of Paul 4.39 on her instruction). 148 Compare for example 2 Clem. 8:6; Tertullian, De bapt. 18. 149 PDNDYULRLRL-WREDYSWLVPDWKUKYVDQWH may also be rendered, “Blessed are those who guard baptism” (Acts of Paul 3.6). 150 On baptism, see most recently Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009); also relevant may be Arthur Vööbus, Celibacy, A Requirement for

3.4. Rereading the Acts of Paul and Thekla

143

But he was astonished when he saw her and the crowd that was with her, pondering whether another temptation (SHLUDVPRY) was not upon her. But observing this she said to him: “I have taken the bath, Paul; for he who worked with thee for the Gospel has worked also with me for my baptism. [cp. Gal 2:8]” 151 (Acts of Paul 4.40, Schneemelcher’s translation)

As astonished as he was, after Thekla announces that she was baptized (cp. Gal 2:8), Paul immediately touches Thekla for the first time and welcomes her to speak. The narrative therefore affirms Thekla’s earlier, crucial statement (“Only give me the seal in Christ, and temptation shall not touch me,” 152 Acts of Paul 3.25). Taken together with Thekla’s bodily transformation, the Acts of Paul and Thekla may therefore be providing a narrative representation of Gal 3:28’s thesis that there is no “male and female” in baptism, as John Anson has argued; 153 and it definitely connotes the Pauline idea that baptism constitutes death to the body and its passions and desires (e.g., Gal 5:24). Paul and Thekla are now, it appears, crucified together as one in Christ (see Gal 2:19–20; 3:26–28). For, Thekla has “manned up” and “taken the plunge”; with her declaration “In the name of Jesus Christ I am baptized on the last day” (4.34, emphasis added) and by throwing herself into the water, Thekla commited suicide – the noble death of a philosopher. 154 Admission to Baptism in the Early Syrian Church (Papers of the Estonian Theological Society in Exile 1; Stockholm: Estonian Theological Society in Exile, 1951). For a useful introduction, see François Bovon, “Baptism in the Ancient Church,” Sewanee Theological Review 42 (1999) 428–38. 151 Note that Thekla’s logion (R-JDUVRLVXQHUJKYVDHLMWR HXMDJJHYOLRQNDMPRLVXQ KYUJKVHQHLMWRORXYVDVTDL, Acts of Paul 4.40) rewrites Gal 2:8: R-JDUHMQHUJKYVD3HYWUZ HLMDMSRVWROKQWK SHULWRPK HMQKYUJQVHQNDLHMPRLHLMWDH>TQK. 152 Perhaps better: “And temptation will not take hold of me” (NDL RXMFD^\HWDLY PRLSHL UDVPRY, Acts of Paul 3.25). It is notable that after her baptism, Thekla experiences no more trials, and it is interesting that the later Seleucian addition to the Acts of Paul and Thekla (manuscript G) portrays Thekla avoiding the grasp of would-be rapists. What, one may ask, is “temptation” in this text? Was Thekla truly saved in Iconium, or did she in fact “burn” (see 1 Cor 7:9)? – And for whom did she burn? Note how oddly silent the text is about Iconium (Acts of Paul 3//Gen 12) compared to Antioch (Acts of Paul 4//Gen 20), and how wrathful the Lord becomes in the first case. 153 See Anson, “The Female Transvestite,” 1–32. Thekla’s baptism is not, strictly speaking, a self-baptism. Because there is no officiant, Thekla immerses herself; but it is God who provides the fire-lightning and cloud, echoing at once the Tanakh’s stories about the glory of God in the wilderness and Jesus baptizing with fire (Matt 3:11); I owe this observation to Peter Dunn, followed by Willy Rordorf. 154 Note the apparent narrative duplication of Thekla throwing herself into the water (Acts of Paul 4.34, e.g., in Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 2:245). Prior to her declaration the text simply says: NDLH>EDOHQH-DXWKYQ. The question is: what and how did she EDYOOZ? In addition to the possibility of a narrative reduplication, at least two other options are possible: she may have struck herself, or – and this would be shocking

144

Chapter 3. Acts of Paul and Thekla

Baptism is thus associated with death in general and in particular with martyrdom and DMQ DYVWDVL (“uprising, resurrection”). It is difficult to know how to sort out these ideas in a text where allusions are subtle and pervasive, and where themes intermingle and blend. But it should be pointed out that, just as most of the “romantic” passages about Thekla and “philosophical” ones about Paul occur in the first scene in Iconium, most all of the passages to which one may appeal for this baptismal emphasis occur in the second scene at Antioch and between the two. 155 Take for example the matter of Falconilla. Falconilla, the deceased daughter of noble Tryphaena, appears to Tryphaena in a dream and says: “Mother, thou shalt have in my place the stranger, the desolate Thecla, that she may pray for me and I be translated to the place of the just” (Acts of Paul 4.28).156 Tryphaena accepts Thekla into her house and passes along her request, to which Thekla immediately concedes (29). After praying one for another, the two are parted during Thekla’s trial and later are reunited. Embracing Thekla, Tryphaena proclaims: “Now I believe that the dead are raised up! Now I believe that my child lives! Come inside, and I will assign to thee all that is mine” (39, Schneemelcher’s translation). Here it does not appear to be the case, as it is in 1 Cor 15:29, that someone is baptized on behalf of the dead. Rather, Thekla’s baptism – with the seals’ death and her life – functions with the rest of her trial as evidence that God can deliver from death and provide life. Thekla is thus modeled as the living dead – the martyr who did not die (see again Gal 2:20). But after enlightening many with the word of God, Thekla rests like a martyr with a good sleep (PHWDNDORX  X^SQRXHMNRPKYTK, 4.43). The Acts of Paul and Thekla is thus a story with various themes and topics working on several levels at once. So it is not surprising that, despite Thekla’s portrayal as a devotee of Paul, the text has also been read, from Tertullian’s day to ours, in terms of Thekla. Nonetheless, we would do well not to neglect the hagiographic features of the text, including its emphases on HMJNUDYWHLDand baptism and the manner in which it forms its characters. For, the manner and degree to which Thekla’s character has enough to draw the crowd’s uproar – she casts off the loincloth she had been provided when otherwise stripped (see earlier in 4.33), so that all behold her beauty. The latter, it seems to me, would make the most sense of the text’s description of the cloud of fire protecting her (both from the beasts and from the crowd’s eyes, 4.33), as well as Thekla’s subsequent response to the governor: “He who clothed me when I was naked among the beasts will clothe me with salvation in the day of judgment” (4.38). On the significance of clothing in later Coptic Christianity, see Davis, “Fashioning a Divine Body,” esp. 353–60. 155 For different readings of these “discrepancies,” see for example Aymer, “Hailstorms and Fireballs”; and Esch-Wermeling, Thekla–Paulusschülerin wider Willen? 156 See McGinn, “Acts of Thecla,” 817, 827 n. 27.

3.5. Paul and Thekla in the Acts of Paul and Thekla

145

been constructed by her author affects how we – in that tenuous move from story to history – may be able to reconstruct Thekla.

3.5. Paul and Thekla in the Acts of Paul and Thekla 3.5. Paul and Thekla in the Acts of Paul and Thekla

The Acts of Paul and Thekla is a story that tells us at least as much about its author’s ideology and practices as it does about Paul and Thekla. Using not only Thekla but also Paul “to think with,” the text portrays an encratic Christian life that is founded on love for Paul. The Acts of Paul and Thekla represents in narrative the ideal lifestyle intimated for unmarried Christians in 1 Cor 7: renunciation of marriage, with sex and childrearing, in light of a world whose form is passing away. Neither over and against society, nor separated from it, the text offers a way to live encratically within ancient Mediterranean society, even if one is persecuted for violating local (and imperial) customs. For, benefactors such as Onesiphorus and Tryphaena 157 enable the encratics to live lives that are dead to the passions of their bodies (e.g., Gal 2:19–20; 5:24–25), with the hope of living in “new clothes” in the end (Acts of Paul 4.38). The Acts of Paul and Thekla is thus an interesting witness to early Christianity in general and Pauline piety in particular. 158 In De baptismo Tertullian claims that the text was written by a male presbyter “out of love for Paul,” and it implies that by the end of the second century it was, at least in theory, read in favor of women teaching and baptizing. 159 But how, when, where, and why the story came to be read not “out of love for Paul” but out of love for Thekla – translated, as it were, from the cult of Paul to the cult of Thekla – is another matter. Here, it seems, historical conclusions are not possible, at least based on the extant evidence; for, of Thekla’s cult we know nothing until the fourth century. 160 Then we find 157

The Seleucia expansion in manuscript G capitalizes on “wellborn” women. The Acts of Paul and Thekla may indeed have been composed in Asia Minor in the mid- or late second century, as most scholars prefer and as Tertullian’s reference may imply. But parallels in ideology, and errata in history and geography, may occasion reconsideration of one of the other major locales in early Christian history, for example, Rome or Syrian Antioch. See also n. 163, p. 146 below. 159 The remark of Ng (“Acts of Paul and Thecla,” 29) is tempting: “His refutation of such a possibility with the mere mention of the historical circumstances of the writing of the [Acts of Paul] and the fate of the author suggests that he is unaware of oral legends about Thecla circulating independently.” 160 Boughton (“From Pious Legend to Feminist Fantasy,” 381) notes another Thekla described in Eusebius, Martyrs of Palestine 3. The Thekla of Eusebius’s story was condemned ad bestias, but one of her male companions (Agapius; Martyrs of Palestine 6) is imprisoned, lives through a bear attack when condemned ad bestias, and then is 158

146

Chapter 3. Acts of Paul and Thekla

Egeria journeying from Tarsus to Seleucia, as part of a pilgrimage from Paul’s primary cult-site in Asia Minor to Thekla’s martyrium. To be sure, the fifth-century Life and Miracles of Saint Thekla provides further evidence for such practice: 161 the author indicates that the city of Seleucia converted a temple of Zeus into “the dwelling place of her teacher Paul,” that the city of Tarsus dedicated a site to Thekla, and that the sites welcomed visitors from the other city. 162 So we know how the two were later related. But the origins and history of Thekla and her cult, God only knows. 163 The Acts of Paul and Thekla remembers Paul differently from the Martyrdom of Paul and the Ephesus Act. Abstractly, there are some commonalities: “atheism,” baptism, and contests with local and/or Rome leaders. But the Martyrdom remains distinct in its political and military emphases, glorifying Paul as the Lord’s general. Of interest, though, are further similarities between the Ephesus Act and the Acts of Paul and Thekla – at least, in the forms considered. 164 For, both texts discuss local household units (Hieronymos’s and Aquila and Priscilla’s in Ephesus; Theocleia’s and Onesiphorus’s in Iconium), both are interested in the renunciation of externals through baptism (esp. Artemilla in Ephesus; Thekla in Antioch), both highlight the power of female patrons (Procla in Ephesus; Tryphaena in Antioch), and so forth. Indeed, both the Ephesus Act and Acts of Paul and Thekla have lions to assist the heroes in their trials. So, in chapters 5 and 6 below, we shall have to give further consideration to their relations. But for now, let us remember how distinct the Acts of Paul and Thekla is from the Ephesus Act: in the Acts of Paul and Thekla, Paul appears sometimes as an angel, just as Christ appears sometimes as Paul; Paul preaches in beatitudes; instead of a rumor (as with Artemilla), Thekla falls drowned in the sea. Boughton hypothesizes that the events described there are not contemporary to Eusebius but rather should be dated earlier to the reign of Trajan (98–117 C . E.), and that one person’s attributes may have been transferred to the other. 161 See discussion in Davis, Cult of Saint Thecla, 77–79. Note that it was also during the fifth century when Thekla was being paired in Africa with Saint Menas. 162 Miracle 4.4–5, 9–10; see Dagron, Vie et miracles, 294. For rivalry between the two cults, see Davis’s discussions of Miracle 4.9, 12; Life 27.46; and Miracle 29 (Cult of Saint Thecla, 78–79). 163 Entertaining is to imagine a sequence of developments from the cult of Thekla (tradition), to the cult of Paul (redaction into the Acts of Paul and Thekla), (back or still) to the cult of Thekla (reception and further developments, such as the Life and Miracles), at a site such as Seleucia. But I continue to prefer discussing developments of the textual tradition, and interestingly the earlier materials – which may have been situated in Syrian Antioch – emphasize Thekla’s baptism as deliverance from SHLUDVPRY. 164 On an earlier form of the Ephesus Act, see p. 71 n. 18. 74 n. 33, 75 nn. 40–41, p. 80 nn. 72–73, and p. 82 n. 82.

3.5. Paul and Thekla in the Acts of Paul and Thekla

147

in love with Paul’s words; Thekla’s “conversion” is a lengthy process, with interest in sexual abstinence and gender-bending twists; her baptism, rather than occurring with Paul, is effected in his – and the Lord’s – absence; Paul sends Thekla, once converted, not back to her fiancé (or husband, as with Artemilla) but to preach the word of HMJNUDYWHLD; and so forth. So the kind and degree of renunciation of externals is different, as may be the implied cosmology. For, even if the Ephesus Act equates God and Christ, it does not imply a continuum of beings from female to male to angel to Christ, as the Acts of Paul and Thekla does. That or a related cosmology is what enables the Acts of Paul and Thekla to remember Paul as a holy man, whose power is present even in his absence. The presence and absence of Paul is an interest also for 3 Corinthians.165 Like the Martyrdom, Ephesus Act, and Acts of Paul and Thekla, 3 Corinthians circulated both independently and with other Acts of Paul; and like the Acts of Paul and Thekla, it is extant only in the sixth-century Coptic collection of “Acts of Paul” at Heidelberg (P. Heid.). Now that we have considered several narratives about Paul, let us consider a tradition that uses another literary form: a letter written in the name of Paul.

165

See also the Acts of Peter, as discussed in §1.2.2, pp. 49–50.

Chapter 4

Third Corinthians “Flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God.” – 1 Cor 15:50 (according to Irenaeus)

Chapter 4. Third Corinthians As with the Martyrdom of Paul, the Ephesus Act, and the Acts of Paul and Thekla, Third Corinthians (3 Cor[inthians]) is a text that circulated independently and within at least one collection of “Acts of Paul”: the sixthcentury Coptic manuscript at Heidelberg (P. Heid.). Abstractly, 3 Corinthians includes up to four sections: (1) a narrative introduction, (2) a letter from the Corinthians to Paul, (3) a narrative transition, and (4) a letter from Paul to the Corinthians. So the text is sometimes called “The Apocryphal Correspondence between Paul and the Corinthians,” “Paul’s Apocryphal Correspondence with the Corinthians,” “Correspondence of Paul and the Corinthians,” and other such titles. 1 As in the preceding chapters, here we will consider 3 Corinthians separately from other “Acts of Paul.” Whereas this was a relatively novel idea for the narratives studied above, it is common practice to study 3 Corinthians separately; for, even among scholars who assume that Acts of Paul was an early coherent whole, 3 Corinthians is normally understood to be a later addition to the text. Below we will consider many of the reasons why, and most of these have to do with the 1

On analogy to the canonical letters (or letter fragments) 1 and 2 Corinthians, the phrase “3 Corinthians” should be used only to refer to the fourth section of the text: Paul’s letter. But for simplicity of reference, I will continue the convention of using the phrase “3 Cor(inthians)” loosely to refer to the whole correspondence, denoting its abstract sections with Arabic numerals (e.g., the Corinthians’ letter is “3 Cor 2,” Paul’s “3 Cor 4”). Chapter and verse for 3 Cor are according to Willy Rordorf, “Hérésie et orthodoxie selon la Correspondance apocryphe entre les Corinthiens et l’apôtre Paul,” in idem, Lex Orandi – Lex Credendi, 389–431, at 428–31. But note that I do not divide Paul’s letter (section 4) into sections/chapters 4, 5, and 6, as does Rordorf. Because Rordorf’s versification in Paul’s letter is continuous, the reader working with my text and his can read his “5” and “6” as my “4.” See further §4.0 below. For a succinct summary of collections of Paul’s letters, see for example Harry Y. Gamble, “The New Testament Canon: Recent Research and the Status Questionis,” in The Canon Debate (ed. Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002) 267–94, esp. 282–87. For a helpful compilation of ancient witnesses to New Testament collections, see Lee Martin McDonald, “Appendix D: Lists and Catalogues of New Testament Collections,” in ibid., 591–97.

Chapter 4. Third Corinthians

149

text’s uses of different locations, intertexts, themes, events, characters, and so forth. So as we consider 3 Corinthians, keep in mind the differences between the Martrydom, Ephesus Act, and Acts of Paul and Thekla, and ask whether 3 Corinthians’ differences are markedly different from the others, and if so why. To begin our study of 3 Corinthians, a brief description of the text’s manuscripts and contents is in order. 2 For, as a correspondence between the 2

The history of “manuscript discovery” for 3 Cor is interesting but outside the scope of this study. For related secondary sources, see for example Wilhelm Friedrich Rinck, Das Sendschreiben der Korinther an den Apostel Paulus und das dritte Sendschreiben Pauli an die Korinther in armenischer Übersetzung erhalten, nun verdeutscht und mit einer Einleitung über die Aechtheit begleitet (Heidelberg: C. F. Winter, 1823); James Ussher, In Polycarpianam epistolarum Ignatianarum syllogen annotationum (Oxoniae: H. Hall, 1644); Johannes Albertus Fabricius, Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti: Collectus, castigatus, testimoniisque, censuris & animadversionibus (3 vols.; 2d ed.; Hamburg: Schiller & Kisneri, 1719); Mosis Chorenensis Historiae Armeniacae Libri III (London: Joannem Whistonum Bibliopolam, 1736);   

   A[stua]tschunch’ Matean Hin ew Nor Ktakaranats’ [= Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments] (Venetik [Venice]: Gortsarani S[r]b[o]yn Ghazaru, 1805); Pasqual Aucher, A Grammar, Armenian and English (trans. Lord George Gordon Byron; Venice: Press of the Armenian Academy, 1819); Michel Testuz, “La correspondence apocryphe de saint Paul et des Corinthiens,” in Littérature et théologie Pauliniennes (ed. A. Descamps et al.; Louvain: Desclée de Brouwer, 1960) 217–23; Carl Ullmann, Über der durch Wilhelm Friedrich Rinck. Aus Armenischer Übersetzung bekannt gemachten (Heidelberger Jahrbücher der Literatur; Heidelberg: Universitäts Buchhandlung, 1823); Ephraem, Srboyn Ep’remi matenagrut’iwnk’ [= “Works of Ephrem”] (4 vols.; Venetik [Venice]: Tparani Srboyn Ghazaru, 1836) 3:116–23; Ephraem, S. Ephraemi Syri commentarii in epistolas D. Pauli nunc primum ex Armenio in Latinum sermonem a patribus Mekitharistis translati (Venice: Typographia Sancti Lazari, 1893) 117–24; David Bundy, “The Pseudo-Ephremian Commentary on Third Corinthians: A Study in Exegesis and Anti-Bardaisanite Polemic,” in After Bardaisan: Studies on Continuity and Change in Syriac Christianity in Honour of Professor Han J. W. Drijvers (ed. Gerrit J. Reinink and Alexander Cornelis Klugkist; Louvain: Peeters, 1999) 51–63; Theodor Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (2 vols. in 4 parts; Erlangen: Deichert, 1888–1891; reprinted in Hildesheim: Olms, 1975) 2.2:592–95, 606–7; Paul Vetter, “Der apocryphe dritte Korintherbrief,” TQ 72 (1890) 610–39; idem, “Der apocryphe dritte Korintherbrief,” Tübingen Universitätsschrift (1893–94) 42–52; idem, Der apocryphe dritte Korintherbrief (Vienna: Mechitharisten, 1894); Samuel Berger and A. Carrière, “La correspondance apocryphe de saint Paul et des Corinthiens. Ancienne version latine et traduction du texte arménien,” RTP 24 (1891) 333–51; A. M. Ceriani, La correspondance apocryphe de Saint Paul et des Corinthiens (Paris: 1891); Eduard von Bratke, “Ein zweiter lateinischer Text des apokryphen Briefwechsels zwischen dem Apostel Paulus und den Korinthern,” TLZ 17 (1892) 585–88; A. Berendts, “Zur Christologie des apokryphen 3. Korintherbriefes,” in Abhandlungen Alexander von Öttingen (Münich: C. H. Beck, 1898) 1–28; Schmidt, Acta Pauli; Adolf Harnack, “Untersuchungen über den apocryphen Briefwechsel der Korinther mit dem Apostel Paulus,” SPAW (1905) 3–35; idem, “Der Korintherbrief,” in Apocrypha IV: Die Apocryphen Briefe des Paulus an die

150

Chapter 4. Third Corinthians

Corinthians and Paul, the literary genre(s) of the text is abnormal, both for acts and letters of Paul, 3 and it is important to understand the original form of the text. For, as I shall argue, the form of 3 Corinthians is related to its function, as it remembers Paul as an author who writes against the opposition of apostolic tradition.

4.0. The Contents of 3 Corinthians 4.0. Contents of 3 Corinthians Third Corinthians has an interesting history of manuscript “discovery” in modern western scholarship, 4 but for our purposes it is the extant manuLaodicener und Korinther (KIT 12; Berlin: Bonn, 1931) 6–23; idem, Geschichte der altchristlichen litteratur bis Eusebius (2 vols. in 4; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1893–1904) 1:37– 39; 2:506–8; Vouaux, Actes de Paul; D. Donatien De Bruyne, “Un Nouveau Manuscrit de la Troisième Lettre de Saint Paul aux Corinthiens,” RBén 25 (1908) 431–34; MarieLouise Auger, “La Bibliothèque de Saint-Bénigne de Dijon au XVIIe siècle: Le témoignage de Dom Hugues Lanthenas,” Scriptorium 39 (1985) 234–64 ; D. Donatien De Bruyne, “Un Quatrième Manuscrit Latin de la Correspondance Apocryphe de S. Paul avec Les Corinthians,” RBén 45 (1933) 189–95; Helmut Boese, “Über eine bisher unbekannte Handschrift des Briefwechsels zwischen Paulus und den Korinthern,” ZNW 44 (1952) 66–76; Alberto D’Anna, “La pseudepigrafa Corrispondenza tra Paolo e i Corinzi: il suo contesto e la sua funzione nella construzione di un’identità dottrinale cristiana,” Annali di storia dell’esegesi 20 (2003) 111–37; Testuz, Papyrus Bodmer X–XII; Thomas W. Mackay, “Observations on P. Bodmer X (Apocryphal Correspondence Between Paul and the Corinthians),” in Papyrologica Bruxellensia 16–19 (1977) 122–24; S. Peter Cowe, “Text Critical Investigation of the Armenian Version of Third Corinthians,” in Apocryphes arméniens (ed. Valentina Calzolari Bouvier, Jean-Daniel Kaestli, and Bernard Outtier; Lausanne: Éditions du Zèbre, 1999) 91–102; A. F. J. Klijn, “The Apocryphal Correspondence between Paul and the Corinthians,” VC 17 (1963); Gerald Luttikhuizen, “The Apocryphal Correspondence with the Corinthians and the Acts of Paul,” in The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla (ed. Jan N. Bremmer; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996) 75–91; D. Donatien De Bruyne, “Prologues bibliques d’origine Marcionite,” RBén 24:1 (1907) 1–16; Dunn, “The Acts of Paul”; Bart D. Ehrman, “The Third Letter to the Corinthians,” in idem, Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Make It into the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003) 157–59; Thomas W. Mackay, “Content and Style in Two Pseudo-Pauline Epistles (3 Corinthians and the Epistle to the Laodiceans),” in Apocryphal Writings of the Latter-Day Saints (ed. C. Wilfred Griggs; Religious Studies Monograph Series 13; Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 1986) 215–40; Martin Rist, “III Corinthians as a Pseudepigraphic Refutation of Marcionism,” Iliff Review 26 [1969] 49–58 3 Compare the later Latin Correspondence of Paul and Seneca. As far as I know, none of the variants of that correspondence include narrative sections like 3 Cor 1 and 3. 4 For the most recent English study of 3 Cor, see Vahan Hovhanessian, Third Corinthians: Reclaiming Paul for Christian Orthodoxy (Studies in Biblical Literature 18; New York: Peter Lang, 2000). See the review of Hovhanessian’s monograph by James K. Elliott at JTS 52:2 (2001) 854–56. Alberto D’Anna recently released an Italian mono-

151

4.0. Contents of 3 Corinthians

scripts that are important. There are many Armenian manuscripts, one tenth century Armenian translation of Ephrem’s Syriac commentary, five Latin manuscripts (10th–13th cents.), one Coptic manuscript (6th cent., P. Heid.), and one Greek manuscript (3d cent., P. Bodm. 10; see Figure 4.1). According to the four abstract sections of 3 Corinthians, these manuscripts attest to the circulation of three forms of the text (see Figure 4.2, p. 152).

Figure 4.1. Manuscripts of 3 Corinthians Language Abbreviation(s)

Date

Contents

Published

Armenian A

[misc.]

2, (3,) 4

[1644; 1714; 1805]

E (Ephrem)

10th cent.

2, 3, 4

1836

M (L1 )

10th cent.

2, 4

1890/1891

Milan

L (L2 )

13th cent.

2, 4

1892

Laon

P

10th–11th cent. 10th–11th cent.

4 (om. ll.1–3) 2, 3, 4 ll.1–3

1908 1985

Paris Paris

Z

10th cent.

2, 3 [ad. 4]

1932

Zürich

B

13th cent.

2, 4

1952

Berlin

Coptic

P.Heid. (C)

6th cent.

1, 2, 3, 4

1904/1905

Heidelberg

Greek

P.Bodm. 10 (G)

3rd cent.

2, 4

1959

Geneva

Latin

Location

As displayed in the “Contents” column of Figure 4.1, all of the manuscripts attest to the Corinthians’ letter and Paul’s reply (3 Cor 2 and 4), some attest also to the inclusion of a narrative transition 5 between the letters (3 Cor 2–4), and only the sixth-century Coptic manuscript P. Heid. attests to a narrative introduction (3 Cor 1–4). See also Figure 4.2, p. 152. graph on 3 Cor, which I have not been able to consult: Terza lettera ai Corinzi. La risurrezione (Letture cristiane del primo millennio 44; Milan: Paoline, 2009). See also n. 2, pp. 149–50 above. 5 The narrative transition includes parallels to several other Pauline texts (broadly understood): 3 Cor 3:1 may be compared to Acts 20:7–12; 3 Cor 3:2 to Acts 16:22–24; 3 Cor 3:3 to Phil 1:23; 2:27; and 3 Cor 3:4 to Eph 6:11 and 2 Cor 2:4. Neither Acts nor Philippians is certainly a source in the other sections of 3 Cor, although Philippians may be. So the narrative transition may evince further “Paulinization” of the text, probably to incorporate 3 Cor into a form of Acts of Paul.

152

Chapter 4. Third Corinthians

Figure 4.2. Types of Manuscripts of 3 Corinthians Sections 2 and 4 (only the letters)

“a few of the Armenian manuscripts”; 6 the Latin manuscripts L, M, and B; and the 3d-cent. Greek manuscript P. Bodm. 10

Sections 2–4 (letters, plus transition)

“most of the Armenian manuscripts”; 7 the Armenian translation of (pseudo-)Ephrem’s Syriac commentary; and the Latin manuscripts P and Z

Sections 1–4 (letters, plus intro and transition)

the 6th-cent. Coptic manuscript P. Heid.

In the absence of a critical edition, it is difficult to determine the original text of 3 Corinthians. 8 Textual critics of the New Testament work back to the earliest recoverable text, often on the assumption that the “B” or “Alexandrian” text should represent that form; and in theory, the goal with 3 Corinthians should likewise be to determine its earliest recoverable text. According to my current understanding, the third-century Bodmer 9 papyrus (P. Bodm. 10) best represents that form of the text, since it is the earliest manuscript (perhaps ca. 200 C.E.), written in the original language of composition (Greek), has the fewest and probably original contents (i.e., only the letters that are abstractly labelled as 3 Cor 2 and 4),10 and is the shortest recension of those contents. 11 However, at least two qualifications 6

Hovhanessian, Third Corinthians, 35. Ibid. 8 For some of the ambiguities and difficulties inherent in this task, see for example Eldon J. Epp, “The Multivalence of the Term ‘Original Text’ in New Testament Textual Criticism,” HTR 92 (1999) 245–81. 9 The Bodmer papyri derive their name from Martin Bodmer (1899–1971), who in 1956 purchased a cache of manuscripts – of unknown origin – in Cairo. For an introduction to the collection, see Rodolphe Kasser, “Bodmer Papyri,” in The Coptic Encyclopedia (8 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1991) 8:48b–53b. 10 On my reading, 3 Cor 3 is a later addition designed to incorporate the letters not only into the narrative of the Acts of Paul but also into a broader set of Pauline traditions. But suffice it to say that the original text of 3 Cor definitely included 3 Cor 2 and 4, probably did not include 3 Cor 1, but may have included 3 Cor 3. 11 With the publication of P. Bodm. 10 in 1959, Testuz argued that it is improbable that the Syrian and Armenian churches would have extracted and then canonized part of a document (Acts of Paul) that was both well known and condemned by their traditions; and subsequent scholarship has concurred with Testuz. Prior to then, the publication of P. Heid. in 1904 (the 6th-cent. Coptic manuscript of Acts of Paul in which 3 Cor appears) was taken as confirmation of La Croze’s early-18th cent. theory that 3 Cor was originally part of the Acts of Paul. 7

4.0. Contents of 3 Corinthians

153

should be made. 12 First of all, the Greek codex in which 3 Corinthians occurs includes other known texts, including the materials called P72 by New Testament textual critics (1–2 Peter; Jude). Studies of P72 indicate that the text for such material is not always reliable, in terms of its literary predecessor and/or in terms of its redactional activity. For this reason, P. Bodm. 10 may be similarly questionable. Second, Armenian tradition often preserves early forms of Christian texts, as attested for example through its manuscripts of the New Testament. So the fact that P. Bodm. 10 is an early Greek manuscript does not necessarily mean that a later Armenian manuscript may not testify to an earlier, more reliable form of 3 Corinthians. It is therefore not without qualification that the following discussion of 3 Corinthians is critically based on P. Bodm. 10. The contents of P. Bodm. 10 are the Corinthians’ letter to Paul (abstract chapter 2) and Paul’s letter to the Corinthians (abstract chapter 4).13 After a scribal heading (“The Corinthians to Paul”), the letter from the Corinthians has a prescript with sender, recipient, and greeting (2:1). Stephanos and four named presbyters 14 report to Paul that a certain Simon and Cleobius 15 have come up to Corinth (2:2), offering teachings that the Corinthians had not previously received from Paul or the others (2:2, 4–5). The Corinthians ask Paul to assess these new teachings (2:3, 6–8), which

12

For the first reminder I thank Eldon J. Epp, and for the second, the Armenian scholar who spoke with me after the Christian Apocrypha section on 18 November 2006. 13 It is important to note that, within Paul’s letter, P. Bodm. 10 does not include some abstractly numbered verses: 4:14; 4:22–23; and 4:33. Below I explain why we should understand that both “Paul” and “Stephanos” (et al.) are pseudonyms. 14 Or “elders”; P.Bod. 10 35(6%87(52,. Some of these names are paralleled in the New Testament and other early Christian literature: Stephanos (-as, -us) at 1 Cor 1:16; 16:15–18; Daphnos at Ignatius, Smyrn. 13:2; Eubolos at 2 Tim 4:21; and Theophilus at Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1. It is interesting that all the names, including Theonoe’s at 3 Cor 2:8, may be etymologized for positive attributes, assuming that Xenon is understood as “guest.” Rordorf (“Hérésie et orthodoxie”) has argued that within 3 Cor there is a tripartite ecclesiastical structure in which Stephanos is the local bishop, accompanied by his presbyters and deacons (who appear in section 3); contrast Luttikhuizen, “Apocryphal Correspondence,” 84 n. 17. Alberto D’Anna (“La pseudepigrafa Corrispondenza tra Paolo e i Corinzi: il suo contesto e la sua funzione nella construzione di un’identità dottrinale cristiana,” Annali di storia dell’esegesi 20:1 [2003] 111–37, at 129) has argued instead for a local “college of presbyters”; see Hans von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries (London: A. & C. Black, 1969) 76–123. 15 A certain Cleobius is also mentioned in Acts of Paul 12 (P. Hamb. 6–7; P. Heid. 44/43; 51/52), which occurs in Corinth and editors place after 3 Cor in Acts of Paul. The Cleobius there is prophetically filled with the Spirit to foretell Paul’s demise, and it is not at all clear that he is intended to be the same Cleobius (who would have been “converted”) from 3 Cor.

154

Chapter 4. Third Corinthians

they summarize in seven points (2:9–15). The letter closes with an exhortation to reply – indeed, to visit 16 – quickly, followed by a farewell (2:16). After another scribal heading (“Paul to the Corinthians”), which adds a topical summary SHULVDUNRY  (“Concerning [the] Flesh”), Paul’s letter begins with a prescript of sender, recipient, and greeting (4:1). Here it is clear that Paul is writing as a prisoner (see also 4:34–35). 17 Paul begins his reply, setting the tone for his letter, by remarking how he is not surprised that the doctrines (GRYJPDWD) of the Evil One are advancing so quickly18 that Christ’s visitation will be soon, since the Lord is being denied by those who mischaracterize his sayings (ORYJLD) (4:2–3). Paul then repeats the tradition that he had handed down to the Corinthians, 19 which he also had received from those who were (apostles) 20 before him (4:4–18). The tradition is summarized in two parts, denoted by coordinate clauses (R^WL… NDL R^WL… , “that … and that …”): 21 that Christ became incarnate in the flesh (4:5–6); and that, with his incarnation and subsequent death and resurrection, Christ was sent to save all the human flesh God the Father had formed (4:7–18). 22 Therefore, the letter concludes, those who deny God’s providence are children of wrath, with the accursed faith of the snake (4:19–20). Paul commands the Corinthians to turn away from such Another urgent request to visit is in 2 Tim 4:9: 6SRXYGDVRQHMOTHL QSURYPHWDFHYZ. P.Bod. 10 2'(60,26&5(,672)8,+(62)8. Based on Paul’s subsequent statement in 3 Cor 4:34–35, here the genitives may connote “for Christ Jesus”; but note also the parallel designations in Phlm 1 and 9 (with variants in v. 1 for DMSRYVWROR, DMSRYVWROR GHYVPLR, and GRX O R) and Eph 3:1 (where the only variant is omission of ,KVRX ). Here the function of the phrase is more similar to Philemon’s, but of the two texts the only other possible parallel is with Ephesians. The phrase “Christ Jesus” occurs frequently in Ignatius of Antioch. 18 Compare Gal 1:6. 19 For receiving and handing down, see 1 Cor 11:23 and esp. 15:3. Compare Gal 1:17 for an explicit reference to those who were apostles before Paul, but contrast Gal 1:12. Martin Rist (“III Corinthians as a Pseudepigraphic Refutation of Marcionism,” Iliff Review 26 [1969] 49–58, at 54) understands a similar ideology of Paul with the apostles to occur in Epistula Apostolorum 31. 20 Only P. Bodm. 10 does not include “apostles.” 21 Both Rordorf and Luttikhuizen note the coordinate clauses, but neither structures the text as I do. More broadly, Luttikhuizen (“Apocryphal Correspondence,” 86) offers an analysis according to abstracted categories from ancient rhetorical speech; he argues that the text is written in the form of a deliberative speech, with a proem (vv. 2–3), narration with proposition (vv. 4–8), argumentation with two proofs (9–21, 24–32), and conclusion (vv. 34–39). 22 In this subsection, there are two main clauses, “After God … sent” (4:9) and “God … sent down” (4:12–13), followed by a purpose clause, “in order that …” (4:15). This is followed by an explanatory sentence (4:16–18). Within the first complex sentence (4:9– 15), there is a grammatical digression demarked by conjunctions and verb tenses in the Greek. 16 17

4.1. “Opposition” of 3 Corinthians

155

people (4:21[–23]), noting in particular how they err by denying resurrection of the flesh (4:24–25). 23 From the “parable of the seeds” (4:26–27; compare 1 Cor 15:36–38), from the story of Jonah (4:28–31), and from the legend of Elisha (4:32[–33]), Paul offers three arguments for resurrection and then tells the Corinthians not to torture him with any more questions, as he is imprisoned and beaten for Christ (4:34–35). He encourages the Corinthians to endure in the “rule” (NDQZYQ) that was received “through the blessed prophets and the holy gospel” (4:36). Then he warns against transgressing apostolic tradition (4:37) and again commands the Corinthians to turn from people who oppose the Lord (4:38). The letter ends with a wish for peace (4:38).

4.1. The “Opposition” of 3 Corinthians: Reconstructing Its Rhetorical Situation 24 4.1. “Opposition” of 3 Corinthians One of the normal methods for determining a text’s composition – its author, audience, date, provenance, and Sitz im Leben – is to reconstruct its rhetorical situation and to situate it within attested intellectual and social history. (For example, at the end of the chapter 1 above, I analyzed the political ideology in the Martyrdom of Paul in order to determine whether it might be situated historically by such means.) For this and related goals, modern scholars have worked diligently to determine the “opponents” of 3 Corinthians – that is, the person(s) against whom the author(s) of the text may be understood as arguing. A variety of historical reconstructions for 3 Corinthians have been proposed on the basis of such considerations, each of which has then been used to reinterpret the text’s contents. 25 Not surprisingly, my own analysis of 3 Corinthians has been formed in dialogue with the issues and options previously discussed, so to contextualize what follows a short description and analysis of prior scholarship would be useful.

23

It is interesting that the first argument for resurrection begins as an explanatory clause (Greek JDYU, “For”). Implicit is that the Corinthians should turn away from people who deny the resurrection because it is clearly attested. Perhaps also implied is that those who are controlled by passions are not able to reason properly. Such accusations were common in heresiological literature and were paralleled in contemporary philosophical argumentation (esp. Platonic and Stoic). For references, see n. 120, p. 182 below. 24 I borrow the phrase, with modification, from Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, “Rhetorical Situation and Historical Reconstruction in 1 Corinthians,” NTS 33 (1987) 386–403, esp. 389. 25 Historical reconstructions and interpretations have had an interesting correlation with the history of manuscript discoveries; for references, see n. 2, pp. 149–50 above.

156

Chapter 4. Third Corinthians

4.1.1. Reconstructions of the “Opponents”: A Summary Historical reconstructions of the “opponents” of 3 Corinthians have begun with the two men named in 3 Cor 2:2: “a certain Simon and Cleobius.” If the correspondence between “the Corinthians” and “Paul” were authentic, then Simon and Cleobius would people of interest in the mid-first-century C.E. But for reasons that will be made clear in §4.2 below, I am discussing only the options offered by scholars who affirm that 3 Corinthians is a pseudonymous text. 26 On that working hypothesis, scholars affirm that the names “Simon” and “Cleobius” do not refer to actual, historical individuals from the first century but rather, given the pseudepigraphic nature of the text, to second- or even third-century contemporaries of the author(s) of 3 Corinthians – the contemporaries of “Paul.” Various social groups, all of whom would have considered themselves Christians (to speak inclusively and anachronistically), have been identified as the pseudonymous “opponents” of 3 Corinthians. 27 Theodor Zahn and Paul Vetter, on the basis of Ephrem’s fourth-century commentary, identified the opposition as “the Bardesanian heresy” and the author as the “the orthodox church” in Edessa, Syria, with Vetter dating 3 Corinthians to ca. 180–190 C.E. Martin Rist identified the opponent as Marcionism, perhaps as characterized by Marcion’s disciple Apelles. 28 Willy Rordorf (followed by Thomas Mackay, et al.) has identified the original opponent as Saturninus (who originated from Antioch in Syria and flourished during the late first to early second century), adding that subsequent versions of 3 Corinthians were edited to oppose other heretics (e.g., P. Heid. to oppose Basilides). But due to the reification of ancient heresiological discourse into the category “Gnosticism,” 29 the most common tactic has been to identify the 26 The most fundamental distinction for analysis has been between scholars who consider 3 Cor an authentic correspondence between Paul and the Corinthians (e.g., Rinck, Das Sendschreiben), and scholars who affirm the pseudepigraphical character of the text (the majority). Scholars like Rinck who affirm the authenticity of the correspondence are able to identify Paul’s opponents as Simon Magus (see Acts 8; Acts of Peter) or as “docetists,” “adoptionists,” or proto-something-or-others (e.g., proto-“Gnostics”). 27 See the lengthy description in Hovhanessian, Third Corinthians. 28 Rist (“III Corinthians,” 58) mentions the discrepancy that Apelles affirmed creation of the world by only one (fiery) angel rather than by “angels,” but he considers this only a minor discrepancy with 3 Cor 2:15, not worthy of Klijn’s rejection of the identification. 29 For helpful critiques of the category “Gnosticism,” see esp. Michael A. Williams, Rethinking “Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996); and Karen L. King, What is Gnosticism? (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003). In 1995 Bentley Layton proposed a philologicalhistorical research program for restricting the term “Gnostic(s)” to a particular subgroup (see idem, “Prolegomena to the Study of Ancient Gnosticism,” in The Social World of the

4.1. “Opposition” of 3 Corinthians

157

opponents of 3 Corinthians as one or more “Gnostic” individuals or groups. Adolf Harnack and Michel Testuz simply identified the opponents as Gnostics. 30 M. Muretow claimed that the opponent was Simon Magus, a claim strengthened by A. F. J. Klijn’s identification of the opponent as Simon Magus in addition to a “tendency” toward Gnosticism, particularly in Asia Minor. 31 Similar was Gerald Luttikhuizen’s identification of the opponents not simply with Simon and Cleobius but with “the invasion of Gnostic ways of thinking into Christianity.” 32 More recently, Vahan Hovhanessian has also identified the opponents as second-century Gnostics, tentatively suggesting that among other groups Ophite and Naassene Gnostic sects of Valentinian relation may have been opposed, 33 while Alberto D’Anna has insisted on not using the term “Gnostic” but discussing the opposition’s “dualist mentality” with its division between the divine and material realms. 34 Intriguingly, such diverse conclusions about the opponents of 3 Corinthians have resulted from the same method of analysis. In order to identify the opponents called “Simon and Cleobius” (2:2), scholars have first and foremost been using the sevenfold summary of the opponents’ teachings in 3 Cor 2:9–15. Secondarily used are implications from how Simon and Cleobius are described by “the Corinthians” (2:2–5), as well as the passages in which “Paul” describes such people (i.e., 4:2, 3, 19, 20, 24–25, 26, 28, 37–38; see also 4:21, 39 and the implication from 4:10–11, 15). 35 Since Paul’s letter includes direct or indirect oppositions to each of the teachings summarized in 2:9–15, I offer in Figure 4.3 (see p. 158 below) a table to present the summary of the teachings of Simon and Cleobius, paralleled by Paul’s antitheses to each of these teachings.

First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks [eds. L. Michael White and O. Larry Yarbrough; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1995] 334–50); David Brakke, a former student of Layton’s, has recently reformulated that program in idem, The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diveristy (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2010). 30 Testuz proposes a date of 175–200 C.E. and a provenance of Egypt (Papyrus Bodmer, 23, 26). 31 Klijn, “Apocryphal Correpondence,” 22–23. 32 Luttikhuizen, “Apocryphal Correspondence,” 91. 33 See for example “Chapter Three: A Response to Second Century Gnosticism,” in Hovhanessian, Third Corinthians, 81–131. 34 D’Anna, “La pseudepigrafa Corrispondenza,” 131. 35 Above I have provided quotation marks not only for “Simon and Cleobius” but also for “Paul” and “the Corinthians” as a reminder that the names are loose designators. Similar qualifications are assumed below, as we consider the text(s) as pseudonymous.

158

Chapter 4. Third Corinthians

Figure 4.3. Antithetical Teachings in 3 Corinthians 36 Teachings of Simon and Cleobius (3 Cor 2:9–15)

Paul’s antithetical teachings

1. “It is not necessary,” they say, “to use the prophets,

(2:10) 4:9; 4:10; 4:28–31; 4:32; 4:36

2. “nor for God to be almighty,

(2:11) 4:9; 4:12 (see also 4:19; contrast 4:10–11, etc.)

3. “nor for resurrection to be of the flesh,

(2:12) 4:6; 4:24–25; 4:32–33 (see also 4:8; 4:12–15, 16–18; 4:26–27; 4:28–31; 4:35; 4:36)

4. “nor for the formation of humans to be by God,

(2:13) 4:7; 4:12; 4:19 (see also 4:26–27)

5. “nor that the Lord entered into the flesh,

(2:14a) 4:5; 4:6; 4:13; 4:15; 4:16–17 (see also 4:32)

6. “nor that he was born from Mary,

(2:14b) 4:5; 4:13

7. “nor that the cosmos is of God – but rather [is] of angels.”

(2:15) 4:19 (see also passages above; but note the functions attributed to God’s adversary in 4:2; 4:10–11; 4:15)

36 For an alternative presentation, see D’Anna, “La pseudepigrafa Corrispondenza,” 119. D’Anna’s chart is organized differently: his first column consists of “Affermazioni ‘di Simone e Cleobio’ ”; then his “Confutazione ‘di Paolo’ ” is divided into “parte kerygmatica” and “altro.” D’Anna is hence another scholar who participates in the reading practice I describe below, adding yet another level of assumption: a clear distinction between apostolic preaching and “Paul’s” additions. For the Latin variants to the teachings summarized in 3 Cor 2:10–15, see Thomas W. Mackay, “Content and Style in Two Pseudo-Pauline Epistles (3 Corinthians and the Epistle to the Laodiceans),” in Apocryphal Writings of the Latter-Day Saints (ed. C. Wilfred Griggs; Religious Studies Monograph Series 13; Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 1986) 215–40, at 222–24.

4.1. “Opposition” of 3 Corinthians

159

Scholars have used this material in the following way, doing similar things to both sides of the chart. On the one hand (the left, in this case), scholars analyze what is and is not said about Simon and Cleobius, and then they compare that with what is and is not said about people described in other early Christian literature in order to identify the opponents of the text. On the other hand (the right), they analyze what is and is not said by Paul, then they compare that with what is and is not said in the undisputed Pauline writings, the disputed Pauline writings, and other early Christian literature in order to situate the text’s proponents (i.e., the person or people whose position is affirmed by 3 Corinthians). Let’s consider the first method more carefully: how scholars identify the opponents of 3 Corinthians. Not all end this way, but every reconstruction of the opponents’ identity has begun with the assumption that the teachings described in 3 Cor 2:10–15 were actual positions held by historical individuals or groups (see again Figure 4.3 above, p. 158). That is, scholars have worked on the assumption that the opponents of 3 Corinthians’s authors were historical people who may be identified among other ways 37 on the basis of the teachings summarized in 3 Cor 2. For this reason, careful attention is paid to what the teachings do and do not state, so that the opponents’ theology may be properly discerned for the sake of historical identification. With this understanding, scholars compare the opponents’ theology with the theologies described in other early Christian literature, especially the positions described in Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 1.23–31 (ca. 185 38 C.E.). For example, all of Willy Rordorf’s arguments 39 understand 3 Cor 2:10– 15 to designate actual positions held by historical people. Rordorf argues on the basis of Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 1.23, that Marcion cannot be the opponent of 3 Corinthians (so also, e.g., Klijn, pace Rist). Rordorf then argues on the basis of Adv. haer. 1.24.1–2, that Saturninus was the opponent of 3 Corinthians’s original text. 40 Then finally, he argues on the basis of Adv. 37

To offer just one example, in 3 Cor 4:20 the author(s) characterizes the kind of people who believe teachings like those of “Simon and Cleobius” as having “the accursed faith of the snake.” Scholars have therefore debated whether the accursedness and the snake in question may be sufficiently explained as an allusion to Gen 2–3 or whether an interpretive tradition like that attributed to the so-called Ophites is also required. 38 On the title of Irenaeus’s work, see n. 20, p. 29 above. 39 Rordorf, “Hérésie et orthodoxie,” 389–431. 40 The Greek text of Irenaeus is preserved in Hippolytus, Elench. 7.28; it is paralleled with 3 Cor 2:10–15 at Rordorf, “Hérésie et orthodoxie,” 409–10. Note that, according to Irenaeus, Saturninus arose among the followers of Menander, the so-called successor of Simon Magus (see Adv. haer. 1.23.5–24.2). Irenaeus claims that pseudonymous “ ” derives from Simon’s followers (1.23.4), and he attributes a group called   to Menander (3.4.3). But Irenaeus also states that “succession” and “discipleship” are

160

Chapter 4. Third Corinthians

haer. 1.24.3–5 that in P. Heid. (the 6th-cent. Coptic manuscript of Acts of Paul, which is the only one extant to include 3 Corinthians explicitly), 3 Corinthians was incorporated into Acts of Paul in such a way that, through the addition of 3 Cor 1, the opponent of 3 Corinthians was changed to Basilides. In each case, Rordorf considers what is and is not said about Simon and Cleobius in 3 Corinthians, and then he compares that with what is and is not said by Irenaeus about various “heretics.” In this way Rordorf and others have considered the topics on the lefthand side of Figure 4.3 to be actual positions held by historical individuals or groups. Such considerations, I believe, are useful in a number of ways, 41 and I would argue that more fruitful work can be done here, especially by culling the so-called “apocryphal” and “Gnostic” materials for comparisons. 42 Among other things, this would provide the benefit of considering other positions from their own perspectives rather than from the perspectives of “proto-catholic” apologists and heresiologists. Nonetheless, there are at least two problems with this method. The first is an ethical one. To effect such reconstructions is to read the letters only as theological debates, where the first letter presents a problem, the second its solution, and both are read as point and counterpoint. This kind of reading, which has been used to locate in 3 Corinthians a “creed,” “rule of faith,” “confession of faith,” “salvation history,” etc., may be useful for such ends. But such cut-and-paste theology invariably fails to consider each point’s context, not to mention the structure and genre of the whole. Indeed, by considering the letters in a problem-solution manner, this interpretation not only assumes that the theology opposed was the position of historical people; it also deals with the letters themselves not as parts of a pseudepigraphic whole but as individual letters by different people, separating one from the other, such that the position of 3 Corinthians’s proponent(s) is sought only in Paul’s reply to the Corinthians (3 Cor 4) rather than in the scenario created by the whole correspondence (3 Cor 2 relative not so much to what is confessed by the “heretics” but to what is denied (see 1.10; 1.22; and esp. 1.27.4, where he defines his terms). 41 I thank John T. Townsend for reminding me that the heresiological bias of the summary in 3 Cor 2 may be counterbalanced by the heresiological bias of Irenaeus’s summaries in Adv. haer. 1. 42 I am not reifying either of these categories but use them to refer, for example, to texts such as the ones collected and translated to English in Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha; James M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library in English (3d, rev. ed.; San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 1990); and Bentley Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures: A New Translation with Annotations and Introductions (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1987). Comparison with these materials should also include consideration of the passages mentioned above (3 Cor 2:2–5; 4:2, 3, 19, 20, 24–25, 26, 28, 37–38; and also 4:21, 39 and 4:10-11, 15).

4.1. “Opposition” of 3 Corinthians

161

and 4 considered together). The second and not unrelated problem is that reading primarily for theological positions has resulted in numerous and varying identifications of the opponents’ identity. Such discrepancies should give us pause for consideration of the method’s adequacy. 4.1.2. Reconstructing the Opposition: A Proposal In order to situate the text’s composition historically, let me therefore propose another method for considering whom and what 3 Corinthians opposes. 43 As with the preceding method, let us begin again with 3 Cor 2:10–15, the summary of the teaching of “Simon and Cleobius” (again, understanding the text as pseudonymous). Only, without assuming that the summary is – or is not – a description of actual positions held by historical people, let us attend closely to the passage in question: “It is not necessary,” they say, “to use the prophets, nor for God to be almighty, nor for resurrection to be of the flesh, nor for the formation of humans to be by God, nor that the Lord entered into the flesh, nor that he was born from Mary, nor that the cosmos is of God – but rather [is] of angels.” (3 Cor 2:10–15)

When reading through 3 Cor 2:10–15, probably the first thing one notices is the content of this passage – the theological positions that are summarized. So it is understandable why scholars normally begin their analysis by sorting out what is and is not affirmed and/or denied theologically. But rather than starting with the passage’s content, I propose that we begin by studying the structure of the summary – how the passage is organized syntactically. The structure of 3 Cor 2:10–15 is probably best analyzed with the table in Figure 4.3 (p. 158, above), where the seven clauses of 2:10–15 are clearly distinguished. There it is made clear that the structure of the passage is, “It is not necessary … nor … nor … ,” etc. The Greek original is even clearer: it is the phrase RXMGHL Q followed by seven coordinate accusative and infinitive constructions. 44 The syntax of 3 Cor 2:10–15 therefore clarifies that the summary is “negative,” and thus that a “negative” (not to say, apophatic) theology is being provided. Some scholars like Klijn have noted this fact: “These are negative statements only. Nothing is said about the doctrine of the heresy.” 45 However, such scholars continue to use the method described above, 43

My proposal was first presented publicly at the Christian Apocrypha section at the SBL Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., 18 November 2006: “Third Corinthians: An Orthodox Production of Scripture.” 44 28'(,1 is an impersonal phrase that, to simplify, may mean either “one should not” or “it is not necessary”; and in this context, it must be the latter. 45 Klijn, “Apocryphal Correspondence,” 17.

162

Chapter 4. Third Corinthians

such that Klijn for example infers that 3 Corinthians was written not so much against a doctrine as against a “tendency” toward Gnosticism, understood to include the likes of Simon Magus. 46 Apparently the idea for such scholars is that, even though the theology is “negative,” the negations themselves are positive, insofar as the denials assert what the opponents affirm. And this, I admit, is obviously so for the final denial, where its opposite is clearly stated: “the cosmos is not of God – but rather [is] of angels” (2:15). 47 So it is understandable why scholars are inclined to posit actual, historical opponents for 3 Corinthians: after all, two individuals, Simon and Cleobius, are explicitly cited by name, and the summary in 2:10–15 is described as what they say and teach (2:9), even provided in the form of a direct quotation (“It is not necessary,” they say … ). However, there is a different way to understand the negative quality of the opponents’ teachings – one that does not use the denials as affirmations about something else. To understand the negative quality of the opponents’ teachings differently, consider the following thought experiment. Imagine reversing the value of the opponents’ teachings, changing their “negative” statements to the “positive” ones and vice versa: 48 “It is necessary,” they say, “to use the prophets, and for God to be almighty, and for resurrection to be of the flesh, and for the formation of humans to be by God, and that the Lord entered into the flesh, and that he was born from Mary, and that the cosmos is of God – and [is] not of angels.” (3 Cor 2:10–15, with reversed values)

As is made clear by the righthand side of Figure 4.3 (p. 158 above), the result of this imaginative reversal is none other than the kind of apostolic tradition affirmed in Paul’s reply to the Corinthians. On the basis of this thought experiment, how should the teachings of “Simon and Cleobius” be understood? – Must it be the case that these statements represent the positions of historical individuals? I propose that the teachings in 3 Cor 2:10–15 do not present the negative theology of “Simon and Cleobius” (2:2, 9); rather, the alleged quotation by the “Corinthians” (3 Cor 2) is simply a list of antitheses to what the author(s) of 3 Corinthians have accepted to be apostolic tradition. That is, rather than understanding “Paul’s” letter to be a separate reply to these teachings, we should instead understand the teachings ascribed to “Simon and Cleobius” as the reversals or denials of what is advocated in 3 Cor 4. On such a read46

Ibid., 22–23. Still, it is possible that author deployed his own category of “angels” to represent the opposition’s assertions about one or more beings that form the cosmos. 48 In Greek, this would mean omitting the negative particle 28 in 3 Cor 2:10, substituting .$, for 28'(() in 2:11–15, and omitting $//$ and adding .$, 28 in 2:15 before $**(/:1. 47

4.1. “Opposition” of 3 Corinthians

163

ing, what may be inferred from the teachings attributed to opponents is less what the teachers “Simon and Cleobius” denied than what the author(s) of 3 Corinthians affirms. To strengthen this proposal, consider how the names “Simon” and “Cleobius” are used in 3 Corinthians. With language reminiscient of 2 Tim 2:18c, 3 Cor 2:2 explicitly names the people who are the source of the Corinthians’ concerns: “There have come up to Corinth two men, a certain Simon (6LYPZQ) and Cleobius (.OHRYELR), who are upsetting the faith of some (WKQWLQZQSLYVWLQDMQDWUHYSRXVLQ) with corruptive words (ITRULPDLY RLORYJRL).” Scholars have debated who precisely this “Simon” and “Cleobius” are, and – as I have done so far in this chapter – many scholars simply set aside the appellations when identifying the imagined opponents of 3 Corinthians. However, it is important to note that in at least two other writings, the names “Simon” and “Cleobius” appear together in similar contexts: “After James the Just had suffered martyrdom for the same reason as the Lord, Symeon his cousin, the son of Clopas, was appointed bishop, whom they all proposed because he was another cousin of the Lord. For this cause, they called the church virgin, for it had not yet been corrupted by vain messages, but Thebouthis, because he had not been made bishop, begins its corruption by the seven heresies (DL-UHYVHL), to which he belonged, among the people. Of these were Simon, whence the Simonians, and Cleobius, whence the Cleobians, and Dositheus, whence the Dosithians, and Gorthaeus, whence the Gortheni and the Masbothei. From these come the Menandrianists and the Marcianists and the Carpocratians and the Valentinians and the Basilidians and Saturnilians; each of these puts forward in its own peculiar way its own opinion, and from them come the false Christs and false prophets and false apostles who destroy the unity of the church by their poisonous doctrine (ITRULPDLYRL ORYJRL; cf. 3 Cor 2.2) against God and against his Christ.” (a quotation ascribed to the late 2d-cent. author Hegesippus, 49 in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.22.4–6; LCL translation) Now the origin of the new heresies began thus: the devil entered into one Simon, of a village called Gitthae, a Samaritan, by profession a magician, and made him the minister of his wicked design. … But when we [Peter 50 and the other apostles] went forth among the Gentiles to preach the word of life, then the devil wrought in the people to send after us false apostles to the corrupting of the word; and they sent forth one Cleobius, and joined him with Simon, and these became disciples to one Dositheus, whom they despising, put him down from the principality. Afterwards also others

49 The X-SRPQKYPDWD (“Memoirs”) of Hegesippus, apparently written in Rome ca. 174– 189 C. E. (i.e., under bishop Eleutherus), are preserved fragmentarily in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.23.3–18; 3.20.1–6; 3.32.1–8; 4.22.4–7. As with all matters Eusebian, the quality of preservation is questionable. For discussion, see for example Alain Le Boulluec, Le Notion d’hérésie dans la littérature grecque, IIe–IIIe siècles (2 vols.; Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1985) 1:93–110. 50 Note that the Apostolic Constitutions uses Peter rather than Paul.

164

Chapter 4. Third Corinthians

were the authors of absurd doctrines: Cerinthus, and Marcus, and Menander, and Basilides, and Saturninus. (Const. Apost. 6.7–8; translation, ANF 7.452–53) 51

In both texts “Simon” and “Cleobius” are characterized as false apostles who corrupt the true apostolic doctrines and teach false ones. Moreover, the two are described, as Simon Magus appears to be by Irenaeus (see Adv. haer. 1.23; cp. 1.27.4; 2.praef.1), 52 as the first in a genealogical descent of heretics, whose “father” is the Devil (compare John 8:44). 53 Therefore, whether or not the “Simon” and “Cleobius” described by (Eusebius’s) Hegesippus and the Apostolic Constitutions were actual historical individuals from the first century, they nevertheless appeared and functioned together in a particular kind of apologetic: namely, a discourse that posits an originally pure and unified apostolic tradition that is later contaminated by heresy, whose human progenitors are Simon and Cleobius. Whoever and whatever else they might be, “Simon” and “Cleobius” are therefore role players in a particular origins-genealogy polemic. 54 The question may therefore be posed as to whether 3 Corinthians, when it groups together “Simon” and “Cleobius,” also uses them as rhetorical constructs in a polemic against heresy. Third Corinthians uses precisely the ideology and rhetoric of this origins-genealogy polemic, except for being limited to the Corinthian assembly and for not including heresiological vocabulary (e.g., “heresies,” 51

The principle source of the Apostolic Constitutions (Const. Apost.) is the Apostolic Teaching (Did. Apost.), which was apparently written in Syria around the beginning of the 3d cent. C.E. See further n. 133, p. 185 below. 52 D’Anna, who also emphasizes the heresiological trope of Simon and Cleobius (“La pseudepigrafa Corrispondenza ,” 120–21), reminds us that Justin may be understood as a predecessor of Irenaeus’s grouping of heretics: see 1 Apol. 26.1–8; 56.1–2; 58.1–3; Dial. 35.1–6. Concerned with the trope’s origin (as I am not), D’Anna suggests that the model of “la nascita delle eresie” may even be derived from 3 Cor. 53 By the late second century, heresiologists often parallel a genealogy of heresy to a genealogy of orthodoxy, though the latter may occur without the former (see also pp. 28– 30 above). In addition to Irenaeus, who may preserved part of Justin Martyr’s otherwise lost work, genealogies are also offered, for example, by Hippolytus, Pseudo-Tertullian, and Epiphanius. Williams (Rethinking “Gnosticism,” 34–35) offers a table that summarizes the groups identified as heresies by these authors. 54 For a helpful discussion of this polemical strategy, see King, What is Gnosticism?, 31–38. (Note also that a genealogy of orthodoxy is implied by 3 Cor 2:4–5; 4:4, 35.) The provenance of Hegesippus is unknown, but he may originate from somewhere in the fertile crescent (e.g., Syro-Palestine) as he is sometimes referenced as a “Hebrew,” in a linguistic if not ethnic sense, and is said to have travelled through Corinth en route to Rome. Did. Apost., which undergirds Const. Apost., is commonly understood to originate in western Syria in the early 200s C. E. These data imply, if not the provenance of the “Simon and Cleobius” origins-genealogy polemic, at least its flourishing in western Syria in the late 2d to early 3d cent. Whether such provides a plausible context for the composition of 3 Cor is a “chicken-or-egg” problem.

4.1. “Opposition” of 3 Corinthians

165

“knowledge falsely-so-called,” “orthodox,” “catholic,” etc.). As in the two passages above, in 3 Corinthians “Simon” and “Cleobius” are portrayed as people who are teaching “corruptive words” (2:2) 55 that are different from the apostolic tradition the Corinthians received (2:4; see also 4:37). These teachings cause disunity among the Corinthians by upsetting the faith of some (2:2, 16; cp. 2 Tim 2:18c), because they mischaracterize the sayings (ORYJLD) of the Lord Jesus Christ (4:3) 56 and teach the doctrines (GRYJPDWD) of the Evil One (SRQKURY , “good-for-nothing, useless, worthless”; 4:2). Apparently because of this relation to the Evil One (also called the D>UFZQ, “Ruler,” but not explicitly the Slanderer [GLDYEROR] or Accuser [VDWDQ (D)]), who was often identified by proto-catholics with the crafty and allegedly evil serpent in the Garden of Eden (see Genesis 3:1–19), 57 Simon and Cleobius and their ilk are thus identified as “children of wrath” with “the accursed faith of the snake” (4:19–20) and as “godless” “children of vipers” (4:37–38; cp. Polycarp, Phil. 7:1–2). This may be especially so if I am correct in reconstructing that final appellation WHNQKYPDWD (a nonsensical term in P. Bodm. 10) not as the “children (JHQQKYPDWD) of vipers” but as their “artificed products” (WHFQKYPDWD). 58 Such people were to be 55 Compare Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.28, where the DL^UHVL of the Encratites is described as “beginning to sprout and introducing foreign and corruptive teachings for life” (TXYHLQDMUFRPHYQKQ[HYQKQWHNDLITRULPDLYDQ\HXGRGR]LYDQHLMVDYJRXVDQWZ ELYZ ). 56 The verb SDUDFDUDYVVZ, which according to LSJ is “re-stamp, re-value,” basically means to re-carve. Perhaps “re-inscribe” is a better rendition, if the author means literally to change the ORYJLD of Jesus. In any case, it is interesting that, in addition to his role as savior of the flesh (VDYU[), in 3 Cor Jesus is a teacher of sayings. Compare, for example, the portrait of Jesus in the Synoptic Sayings Source “Q” (an abbreviation of the German Quelle, “Source”) and in the Gospel of Thomas (a collection of what scholars reckon as 114 ORYJLDof Jesus); also relevant may be so-called “Gnostic” dialogues with the Savior, that alleged “genre” of post-resurrection dialogues in which Jesus is a communicator of esoteric teaching (see Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels). Among “Acts of Paul,” the Ephesus Act and Acts of Paul and Thekla are also interested in ORYJLDof Jesus, either through an oral or written sayings collection or mediated through a written gospel such as Matthew. 57 Other early Christian interpretations of Gen 3 understood the serpent positively, for example as a revealor of knowledge (see the Testimony of Truth, NHC IX, 3); see now the study by James H. Charlesworth, The Good and Evil Serpent: How a Universal Symbol Became Christianized (AYBRL; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2010). 58 No one has yet proposed this emendation. While I agree with the ideological parallel to Matt 12:33–37, at least for later scribes of 3 Cor, I prefer my emendation since it explains the non-sensical variant more simply as a one-grapheme error (F to N) that may be understood either as (intentional or unintentional) assimilation toward WHYNQRQ, “child,” or as an aural error based on local pronunciation of palatals. A WHYFQKPD is a skilled, artful production – that which is produced through WHYFQK, “art, skill” – especially by hand. One implication might be that, just as God the Father formed humanity in

166

Chapter 4. Third Corinthians

turned away from and their teachings fled (4:21, 39). This kind of rhetoric and conceptuality could not be more closely paralleled in the originsgenealogy apologetic of heresiological literature (e.g., Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 1). Indeed, even the heresiological strategies of critiquing one’s opponents for not using all and only the right scriptures, of not understanding the scriptures that are used (i.e., misinterpreting them, if not also changing their words), and of being under the control of pleasure (K-GRQKY) are paralleled in 3 Corinthians (see esp. 4:10–11, 15, 24–32). 59 While assuming a genealogy of true doctrine – from God through Spirit and Christ, to the first apostles, to Paul, to the Corinthians – 3 Corinthians thus presents “Simon” and “Cleobius,” children of the Evil One, as the human progenitors of heresy, whose teachings are antithetical to received apostolic tradition.60 4.1.3. Reconstructing 3 Corinthians: Revaluating Its Structure With its use of this origins-genealogy polemic, the structure of 3 Corinthians as a whole should be revaluated. As explained above, reading the text’s two letters as if they present point and counterpoint in a theological debate tends to reify the understanding that the letters were written by two different authors (the Corinthians and Paul) and express three different perspectives (from the Corinthians, the opponents, and Paul). Particularly if the letters were authentic, that would be one acceptable reading. But if 3 Corinthians is pseudonymous, it is more plausible that the letters were written by one person (or group of people) as inseparable parts of a unified whole. On such a scenario, the “parts” of 3 Corinthians should be read not separately for several opinions but together as a whole for one. To determine what its overall message might be, let us therefore reconsider 3 Corinthians as a single, unified text. In the letter of “the Corinthians” to “Paul” (3 Cor 2), the Corinthians ask Paul, since he is still present in the flesh and can therefore reply in person or by letter, to test the teachings of “Simon and Cleobius” in order to evaluate their conformity with apostolic tradition. Paul begins his response (3 Cor 4) by recounting the apostolic tradition that he received from those who were apostles begeneral, so the Evil One re-forms (or de-forms) heretics in particular. P. Heid. is absent here; BL progenies uiperarum; MP genera uiperarum; Z is absent here. 59 Compare the strategies adduced and summarized by Brakke, Gnostics, 132–33. 60 D’Anna (“La pseudepigrafa Corrispondenza,” 121–22) also notes this twofold genealogy, and he does well to describe it in the genre of GLDGRFDLY, “successions.” In addition to the well-known parallels in (m.) Avot, I suggest also conferring Diogenes Laertius, Lives and Opinions of the Eminent Philosophers, who presents a twofold genealogy of philosophy. Indeed, I would argue that there are numerous parallels between 3 Cor and contemporary Epicurean philosophy, with its cult-like devotion to Epicurus, remembrance of his teachings, and preservation of his letters (see esp. Diogenes Laertius, Lives, book 10).

4.1. “Opposition” of 3 Corinthians

167

fore him: first, in verses 5–6, he recounts the tradition of Christ’s incarnation and the WXYSR (“type,” “model,” “form”) of his fleshy resurrection; and then in verses 7–18 Paul recounts the tradition of God forming and then saving humans (esp. their flesh) through Christ. The end of Paul’s response even further authorizes such “apostolic” tradition: in verses 36– 39 he offers blessings and curses based on whether one endures in what was received. Between these bookend affirmations of apostolic tradition, a threefold defense of the resurrection of the flesh is offered, which is meant to strengthen belief in such, first through the proper interpretation of the “parable” of the seeds used in 1 Cor 15 (which the opposition “does not understand,” 4:26, 28) 61 and then through two a minori ad maius arguments from the prophets Jonah and Elisha (compare 2:10). 62 In other words, in response to the Corinthians’ concerns, Paul does not visit the Corinthians while he is present “in the flesh”; 63 rather, through the medium of a letter he reinscribes, reauthorizes, and defends the pure and unified apostolic tradition that had been handed down to the Corinthians – and he does so without arguing against the teachings of Simon and Cleobius. So, even though he responds to the Corinthians’ concerns about resurrection of the flesh (VDYU[), which derived from 1 Cor 15’s discussion about resurrection of the body (VZ PD), 64 Paul explicitly commands the Corinthians not to

61

Paul’s defense of the resurrection begins in 3 Cor 4:24 with the claim, “They say to you, ‘There is no resurrection of [the] flesh.’ ” This is analogous to 1 Cor 15:12 and also to a lesser degree to 1 Cor 15:35, which introduces Paul’s seed analogy. Vetter and Rordorf have argued that one or more rabbinic traditions rather than 1 Cor 15 undergird the seed analogy in 3 Cor (e.g., b. Sanhedrin 90a–b; b. Kethubboth 111b). But even if this appears to be so in phrasing, and even if we were to ignore the anachronism of such argumentation, 1 Cor 15 must be in mind here. As the heresiologists noted (including for example Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 5.9), 1 Cor 15:50, which says that “flesh and blood cannot [or ‘will not’] inherit the kingdom of God,” was interpreted in various ways for numerous ends. That the interpretation of 1 Cor 15 is being considered in 3 Cor 4 may be implied in a convoluted fashion from 4:3 and 4:20; but it is also made fairly explicit in 4:26: “For not at all, men of Corinth, do they perceive (RL>GDVL) … ” what is called in 4:28 “the parable from the seeds.” One of the marks of 3 Cor’s pseudepigraphy, whether intentional or otherwise, is its lack of imitation of the vocabulary and style of the undisputed letters. 62 Note for example the shift from verse 26, “they do not perceive,” to verse 29, “you know.” Also, note that GHL as used in 4:28 is an explicit contrast with RXMGHL Q in 2:10, both referring to the necessity of the prophets. 63 It may be appropriate to mention that several epistolary theorists understood the function of letters, at least of certain kinds, to provide presence in absence. See for example Cicero, Ad Fam. 2.4.1; Seneca, Ep. 75.1; Pseudo-Libanius 2.58. Undisputed Pauline letters such as 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians evince the same concern. 64 For example, Treatise on the Resurrection (NHC I, 4) explictly appeals to Paul (“the apostle,” 45,23) to argue for a resurrection of spirit over and against resurrection of flesh, as if defending the pneumatic body of 1 Cor 15:42–49; and the Gospel of Philip

168

Chapter 4. Third Corinthians

torture him with whatever other traditions they might receive (4:36). Paul’s reply, in short, is: “Endure in the apostolic tradition you received, or be damned if you don’t.” 65 To put it simply, the rhetorical function of “the Corinthians” asking about the teachings of “Simon and Cleobius” is thus to give “Paul” the opportunity not only to flesh out the nature of resurrection but also to address the concern of heresy and heretics. How “he” does so, I shall discuss in the next section. But here let me offer some concluding remarks on reconstructing the “opposition” in 3 Corinthians. As I have argued, based on the structure and rhetorical function of 3 Corinthians, it is questionable whether the teachings attributed to “Simon and Cleobius” are the positions of actual historical people. If these teachings are not in fact the theological positions of historical individuals, then a common method for reconstructing the social circumstances behind 3 Corinthians – namely, identifying the text’s opponent(s) in order to provide parameters for 3 Corinthians’s author(s), audience, date, provenance, and Sitz im Leben – may not carry the weight or significance it otherwise would. Indeed, if 3 Corinthians instead offers a means for dealing with “nonapostolic” traditions in general, such parameters are no longer available, at least not in the form in which they were previously. It is therefore even more important to study the “orthodoxy” that is advocated in 3 Corinthians. For, if a text may not be situated on the basis of “against whom” it was written, the “for whom” is all the more significant. 66

4.2. The “Orthodoxy” of 3 Corinthians 4.2. “Orthodoxy” of 3 Corinthians Third Corinthians portrays Paul as a teacher who reinscribes and defends an apostolic tradition that is presupposed by the Corinthians (see 3 Cor 2:5) but opposed by Simon and Cleobius. To better understand and appreciate the “orthodoxy” of this Paul – and hence the author(s) of 3 Corinthians – let us consider some of the text’s pseudepigraphic characteristics. 67

(NHC II, 3) includes a section that explicitly discusses differing interpretations of 1 Cor 15:50 (56,26–57,22), deciding on resurrection of “flesh” that is not normal human flesh. 65 On endurance (X- SRPRQKY, patientia), see Shaw, “Body/Power/Identity: Passions of the Martyrs.” 66 I thank Helmut Koester for helping me to put this clearly and succinctly. 67 Rist (“III Corinthians,” 53) notes that the addition of sections 1 and 3, but especially section 1’s setting of 3 Cor in a Philippian imprisonment, adds an element of verisimilitude.

4.2. “Orthodoxy” of 3 Corinthians

169

4.2.1. Pseudonymous Letter-Writing Pseudepigraphy constitutes a diverse set of practices, and pseudonymous letter-writing in particular was relatively common in early Christianity. 68 In the ancient Mediterranean, writing letters in someone else’s name was part of Greek- and Latin-language education: with a pedagogue and in early grammar school, epistles would be copied simply to practice forming the letters of the alphabet; in rhetorical training, epistles might be copied to learn an author’s style or rhetorical tactics; and in philosophical instruction, letters would be produced to demonstrate mastery of reasoning or tenets. 69 So it is not surprising that disciples of Marcion, for example, would produce letters in Paul’s name; 70 and it was to be expected that a 68

For early Christian literature, see esp. Hans-Josef Klauck, Ancient Letters and the New Testament: A Guide to Context and Exegesis (with the collaboration of Daniel P. Bailey; Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006), at 399–406; this is a revised and expanded version of the German original, Die antike Briefliteratur und das Neue Testament: Ein Lehr- und Arbeitsbuch (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1998). See also for example Kurt Aland, “The Problem of Anonymity and Pseudonymity in Christian Literature in the First Two Centuries,” JTS 12 (1961) 39–49; Bruce M. Metzger, “Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha,” JBL 91 (1972) 3–24; David G. Meade, Pseudonymity and Canon: An Investigation into the Relationship of Authorship and Authority in Jewish and Earliest Christian Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986); Stanley K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (ed. Wayne A. Meeks; Library of Early Christianity 5; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986); David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (ed. Wayne A. Meeks; Library of Early Christianity 8; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987) 158–225; Jean-Daniel Kaestli, “Mémoire et pseudépigraphie dans le christianisme de l’âge post-apostolique,” RTP 125 (1993) 41–63. A useful anthology of primary sources, with discussion, is Abraham J. Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists (Sources for Biblical Study 19; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1988). On scribal practices in general, see esp. Gamble, Books and Readers; Kim Haines-Eitzen, Guardians of Letters: Literacy, Power, and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); H. Gregory Snyder, Teachers and Texts in the Ancient World: Philosophers, Jews, and Christians (Religion in the First Christian Centuries; New York: Routledge, 2000); Derek Krueger, Writing and Holiness: The Practice of Authorship in the Early Christian East (Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004). See now also the recent publications on “forgery” by Bart D. Ehrman, which I have not yet consulted. 69 See for example the pseudo-Pythagoras letters dating roughly from the 2d–5th cent. C . E. or the so-called Cynic epistles from the 1st cent. B. C. E.–3d cent. C. E., written especially in the names of Diogenes and Crates (see for example Abraham J. Malherbe, The Cynic Epistles: A Study Edition [Sources for Biblical Study 12; Missoula; Scholars Press, 1977]; Klauck, Ancient Letters, 174–82). Pseudonymous letters were also produced in the Hippocratic medical corpus, and in the names of Plato, Isocrates, and Demosthenes, to name but a few. 70 Any reference to a non-extant letter was invitation for a “disciple” of one kind or another to (re-)produce that letter. Thus the reference in Col 4:16 to an otherwise unknown letter to Laodicea apparently resulted not only in Marcion identifying the letter we

170

Chapter 4. Third Corinthians

philosophical exchange like the Correspondence of Paul and Seneca would be written. 71 Indeed, it makes eminent sense that a text like Laodiceans, basically an anthology of some of Paul’s letters, was eventually produced and incorporated into Latin Bibles. 72 But the production of letters in Paul’s name is attested even earlier.73 The authenticity of practically all of the canonized Pauline letters has been questioned, and today it is common to designate six of the thirteen letters as disputed: the “deutero-Pauline” epistles 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians; and the “Pastoral” epistles 1–2 Timothy and Titus. Some of the criteria used to dispute their authorship will be discussed below; and it is instructive to compare each of these letters with the others and with the undisputed letters on topics such as eschatology, the kingdom, resurrection, sex and marriage, patriarchal “subordinates” (women, children, and slaves), institutional structure, and QRYPR. But in general, it is worth noting – no matter which letters one considers to be authentic – that each of the “disputed” letters is interested in one or more matters of orthodoxy or orthopraxy. That is, in each of the inauthentic letters (canonized or otherwise), Paul’s name was being used to legitimate what the author deemed to be right, good, and true; in contrast to extant counter-narratives about

call “Ephesians” as “Laodiceans” but also in his disciples composing a pseudonymous letter titled Laodiceans. For, in the Muratorian fragment, whose dating to late secondcentury Rome or the fourth century is much debated, there are references to Marcionite compositions to the Laodiceans (probably not identical to the Laodiceans that occurs in many Vulgate manuscripts) and to the Alexandrians, as well as to “several others, which cannot be received in the catholic church.” For what it is worth, other interpretations of Col 4:16 were also offerred. For example, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret of Cyrus understood Col 4:16 to refer to a letter by the Laodicieans, while others understood it as a reference to a letter written by Paul from Laodicea (e.g., John of Damascus proposed 1 Timothy). 71 Indeed, it is often argued that Seneca’s own letters were composed intentionally and programmatically not simply for his addressee Gaius Lucilius (Iunior) but for posterity; see Klauck, Ancient Letters, 166–74. According to Rist (“III Corinthians,” 55–56) Augustine and Jerome – notably, Latin speakers – accepted the Correspondence between Paul and Seneca as authentic. Both the Correspondence and Laodiceans (apparently) were written in Latin. 72 The Laodiceans in question (which has sometimes been wrongly identified as the Marcionite composition cited in the Muratorian fragment) is included in the Vulgate, albeit at the end with other writings of questionable authority. See n. 70 above. 73 Note that the authenticity of the named “Catholic” epistles (i.e., James, 1–2 Peter, and Jude) has also been questioned. Equally important are non-canonized letters, including some of those attributed to Ignatius as well as the ones ascribed to Barnabas and Titus (alleged followers of Paul in some traditions).

4.2. “Orthodoxy” of 3 Corinthians

171

Paul, 74 there are no known instances of someone forging a letter to malign Paul. Therefore the literary form of 3 Corinthians is significant: as an epistolary exchange between the Corinthians and Paul, 3 Corinthians includes a Pauline letter, and thus it participates in one or more kinds of authority already attributed to Paul’s writings. We know of this authority not only from pseudonymous letters but also, and perhaps more importantly, from collections of letters (authentic and/or inauthentic) that were circulating in Paul’s name. 75 By the end of the second century, there were at least three main collections in circulation: 76 Marcion’s edition of “ten” letters (Galatians, 1–2 Corinthians, Romans, 1–2 Thessalonians, Laodiceans [= Ephesians], Colossians [perhaps with Philemon], and Philippians), which was probably based on a prior collection of letters to the seven churches organized in decreasing lengths; 77 a collection of thirteen letters (the 74 Counter-narratives about Paul include certain recensions of (the Acts of) Toledoth Yeshu; Epiphanius, Pan. 30.16.6–9; and apparently some Pseudo-Clementine literature (Ps.-Clem., Hom. 2.16–17; 11.35.5–6; 17.13–19; Recogn. 17.13–19; see also the socalled Letter of Peter to James). 75 Several important studies have been done on collections of Paul’s letters, among which are John J. Clabeaux, A Lost Edition of the Letters of Paul: A Reassessment of the Text of the Pauline Corpus Attested by Marcion (CBQMS 21; Washington: Catholical Biblical Association, 1989); Haines-Eitzen, Guardians of Letters; Lindemann, Paulus im ältesten Christentum; Rensberger, “As the Apostle Teaches”; E. Randolph Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition, and Collection (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004); David Trobisch, Die Entstehung des Paulusbriefsammlung: Studien zu den Anfangen christlicher Publizistik (NTOA 10; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989); idem, Paul’s Letter Collection: Tracing the Origins (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994); Warren, “The Text of the Apostle in the Second Century.” Also helpful are the tables prepared by Pheme Perkins, “Gnosticism and the Christian Bible,” in The Canon Debate (ed. Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002) 355–71, at 366–69. 76 My own study indicates that further work should be done on collections of Paul’s letters, particularly prior to the end of the second century: some early authors like 1 Clement knew only 1 Corinthians (cp. Justin Martyr), while others appear to have known a small collection (Romans, 1–2 Corinthians, and Ephesians). Particularly in the first few centuries, it is hasty to conclude, on the basis of a few parallel phrases or even citations or quotes, whether someone did or did not know “Paul’s letters” as an imagined whole; it is much more useful to state clearly and explicitly which letters were – and may or may not have been – known by a particular author, as I do for each tradition in Acts of Paul. For, as with gospels, during at least the first two or three centuries it is probable that various ad hoc collections of Paul’s letters would have been available locally. 77 Compare the seven letters in Rev 2:1–3:20, as well as the seven undisputed letters of Ignatius. Note that the earliest extant manuscript of the Pauline letters, P 46, seems to have included a similar list, only including Hebrews and, with its lacunae, lacking 2 Thessalonians and Philemon (not to mention the Pastorals, 1–2 Timothy and Titus). With regard to Hebrews as a Pauline letter, opinions were mixed: Clement of Alexandria

172

Chapter 4. Third Corinthians

above, plus 1–2 Timothy and Titus); and a collection of fourteen letters (adding Hebrews, particularly in Alexandria and environs). Despite the fact that the second century may be too early to discuss whether or not there was a canonized list of writings made widely available (even for a coalition of proto-catholics), it is clear that Paul and his letters were widely regarded by diverse local assemblies for a variety of reasons (e.g., Paul’s allegedly foundational role in their congregation, his martyrdom, his doctrine, etc.). Therefore it is probable that the author of 3 Corinthians, by writing a letter in Paul’s name, was intentionally appropriating Paul’s authority in order to produce a correspondence apparently occasioned by references in Paul’s other letters to the Corinthians (see, e.g., 1 Cor 5:9; 7:1; 2 Cor 2:3–4, 9; 7:8, 12). 4.2.2. Intertexts (“Sources”) and Style But did the author(s) indeed write like Paul? In order to represent orthodoxy in Paul’s name, the author presumably would have also needed to sound like Paul in order to convince anyone of authentic authorship – if such was the goal. One way to do so would be to use Pauline intertexts. 78 The author’s defense of the resurrection of the flesh quotes or otherwise refers to at least three writings: 1 Corinthians, Jonah, and 2 Kings. Several close parallels, including a verbatim parallel to 2 Tim 2:18c, also make it probable that the author knew 2 Timothy, Galatians, and Philippians. Also likely is the use of Romans and Ephesians. But there is only the scantest evidence for 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, or 1 Timothy. (Entirely absent are references to Acts, 2 Corinthians, Colossians, or Titus – or Hebrews.) 79 While some parallels may be drawn to the canonical form of Matthew, it is more probable that the author knew a collection of sayings (ORYJLD, 3 Cor 4:3) similar to the Synoptic Sayings Source “Q.” 80 So maintained that the letter was Paul’s, while Tertullian said it was from Barnabas; Origen summed up the opinion of many when he wrote that, regarding its authorship, God only knows. Nonetheless, in historical retrospect, the attribution of Hebrews to Paul appears to be a tradition affiliated with Alexandria, Egypt. 78 Dunn (“The Acts of Paul”) argues that sources 3 Cor “certainly” used are 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, and 2 Timothy; a source “probably” used was Romans; and there is “negligible” evidence that 3 Cor used other Pauline materials, though Dunn apparently considers there to be some evidence that 3 Cor used Philemon and Ephesians. See also Hills, “The Acts of the Apostles in the Acts of Paul,” Appendix ad loc. 79 Note that 3 Cor does not know the hierarchicalized proto-catholic writings Titus and 1 Timothy; but like the Martyrdom of Paul, it does know 2 Timothy. Its absence of references to 2 Corinthians and Acts is also notable. 80 3 Cor 4:36’s reference to “the holy gospel” probably does not refer to a text but rather to what Paul preached, as in 1 Cor 15. The Ephesus Act and Acts of Paul and Thekla also display interest in ORYJLD of Jesus.

4.2. “Orthodoxy” of 3 Corinthians

173

there is evidence that the author of 3 Corinthians was acquainted with some Pauline material, using certain phrases, vocabulary, and theology from known letters. But with those intertexts, did the author(s) produce a text with Paul’s style? Valuations of style, like the production of pseudepigraphy, depend on the data base(s) used and can range from simple to complex, based on a scholar’s “feel” and/or on statistical analyses of connectives, phrase construction, etc. Several scholars have studied the style of 3 Corinthians in comparison with Paul’s undisputed letters, and (pace Wilhelm Friedrich Rinck) 81 the consensus is that the styles differ markedly. As Martin Rist says, “The author of [3 Corinthians] had some acquaintance with Paul’s letters. However, it appears to be unlikely that his indistinct echoes of Paul’s words were designed to give his composition an appearance of authenticity. If he used them for this purposes he was not very convincing.” 82 Among these discrepancies, I would simply note that the greeting and closing of 3 Cor 4 are not characteristically Pauline, that the phrasing of 4:4–18 is more complex than one typically finds in the undisputed Pauline letters (more closely resembling Eph 1:3–14, for example), and that the letter is lacking many of the argument types and tropes one would expect. In any case, 3 Corinthians would not have been a persuasive work of pseudepigraphy in the original Greek – despite its widespread reception in several versions (esp. Syriac and Armenian). 4.2.3. Vocabulary and Theology Vocabulary and theology, which are difficult to analyze separately, represent distinct and significant aspects of the presentation of 3 Corinthians’s orthodoxy. We have already noted that in 3 Corinthians there is an absence of apologistic and heresiological technical terminology (e.g., “heresies,” “knowledge falsely-so-called,” “orthodox,” “catholic,” etc.). But whether such absence is due to the archaizing genre of a Pauline epistle, to composition prior to heresiological literature, to a different provenance, or to some other factor is not entirely clear. Regardless, the absence of such terminology is noteworthy, given the heresiological ideology and argumentation in 3 Corinthians. Present in 3 Corinthians, however, is vocabulary and theology that is comparable to the writings of the so-called “apostolic fathers” in the early

81

See Rinck, Das Sendschreiben. Rist, “III Corinthians,” 55. Rist also argues that the use of names is nonhistorical. See also his earlier discussion, “Pseudepigraphic Refutations of Marcionism,” JR 22:1 (1942) 39–62. 82

174

Chapter 4. Third Corinthians

second century. 83 It is difficult, maybe impossible, to know whether any of these writings were used as intertexts for 3 Corinthians. But by comparing what is and is not affirmed in Paul’s letter (for references to 3 Cor 4, see the righthand column of Figure 4.3, p. 158 above) with the attested positions of other early Christians, we are able to locate some similarities. For example, there are a number of affinities with 1 Clement (allegedly written from Rome to Corinth, ca. 100 C.E.), the letters of Ignatius of Antioch (Syria), and the letter(s) from Polycarp of Smyrna (Asia Minor) to the Philippians. 84 More broadly, the theological positions of 3 Cor 4 have also been compared with early Christian rules of faith (NDQZYQ; see 3 Cor 4:36), such as the ones preserved in Irenaeus (e.g., Adv. haer. 1.10; 1.22; 3.4.1), Tertullian (Ad. Prax. 2; De praes. haer. 13.1–6; De virg. vel. 1.3), Hippolytus (Contra Noetum 17–18), Cyprian (Ep. 73.5.2), and the Didascalia Apostolorum (15 and 26). 85 In order to describe the “orthodoxy” that is presented in Paul’s name, it is not necessary to provide a thorough analysis of 3 Corinthians’s theology, 86 but some of its issues are important for comparative purposes and noteworthy for trying to identify the text’s composition. First, and most obviously, is 3 Corinthians’s concern about resurrection of the flesh (VDYU[). As the inscription to this chapter shows, Paul once wrote to the Corinthians that “flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 15:50). 87 Because he wrote this in context of defending resurrection 83 Use of 2 Timothy may provide a similar comparand, but once the category of “Pastorals” is critically examined, it is clear that 2 Timothy need not be dated on the basis of Titus or 1 Timothy. For, whereas 1 Tim is in the trajectory of Tit, which it may have used as an intertext (or “source”), 2 Tim is unrelated and may have a distinct provenance and date as early as the 70s or 80s C.E. 84 For example, Rordorf cites Polycarp, Phil. 7:1–2; and Ignatius Eph. 7:1; 11:2; 16:2; 17:1; 18:2; 19:2; 19:3; Trall. 6:2–7:1; 9:2; Smyrn. 1:3; 4:1; 11:2; Magn. 1:2; 8:2; 9:2; Phil. 2; 6:2. I have prepared an annotated translation that is not included in this work; according to my analysis, parallels to 1 Clement include 1 Clem. 24:5; 30:8; 44:5; 49:6. I should mention in particular that 1 Clement’s discussion of resurrection (esp. 1 Clem. 24–26) includes references to the flesh (e.g., 25:3 on the flesh of the phoenix, and 26:3 citing Job 19:26). 85 For a helpful collection of these and other such rules, see R. P. C. Hanson, Tradition in the Early Church (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962) 86–91. Note how Rome-based most of the examples are. Also interesting is Liuwe H. Westra, “Regulae fidei and other credal formulations in the Acts of Peter,” in The Apocryphal Acts of Peter (ed. Bremmer) 134–47. 86 The most thorough theological exposition remains Rinck, Das Sendschreiben. 87 Here I am electing the textual variant most widely attested by the parties in question: RXMNOKURQRPKYVRXVLQ, “will not inherit.” More widely attested are variants that, in the singular or plural, say “flesh and blood are not able to inherit the kingdom of God.” Walter Bauer (Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity [ed. Robert A. Kraft and Gerhard Krodel; various editions] passim) reminds us that 1 Cor was probably the most

4.2. “Orthodoxy” of 3 Corinthians

175

of the body (VZ PD), the question naturally arose as to whether, by denying the presence of “flesh and blood” in the kingdom of God, Paul was denying the resurrection of two ontological constituents: flesh, and blood. 88 For many early Christians, and indeed for some today, this is precisely what Paul meant: that the human body, when raised, will not include either flesh or blood. Indeed, the heresiologists Irenaeus of Lyons and Tertullian of Carthage report, to their dismay, that this passage “is adduced by all the heretics in support of their folly,” 89 who insist on this ontological interpretation; 90 and primary texts such as the Treatise on the Resurrection (NHC I, 4) apparently confirm the report. 91 Third Corinthians was written in part to address this interpretation of 1 Cor 15:50 but also to discuss the topics of resurrection and flesh more generally. Resurrection (DMQDYVWDVL, probably better rendered “uprising”), 92 like so many other ideas in early Christianity, is a topic that is occasionally dis-

widely used Christian text in the second century, and Caroline Walker Bynum (The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christendom, 200–1336 [New York: Columbia University Press, 1995]) has structured her discussion of resurrection around the seed metaphor employed in 1 Cor 15. 88 It should be noted that Paul explicitly discusses flesh, albeit elliptically, at 1 Cor 15:39. There it appears to function as the equivalent of body, such that it may not be identical to the use at 1 Cor 15:50. First Corinthians 15:39 does, however, provide precedent for 3 Cor’s discussion of flesh as if it were body. 89 Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 5.9.1 (ANF translation). 90 See for example Irenaeus, Adv. haer. Book 5, esp. 5.9.1–4; Tertullian, De res. carn., esp. 48–55. For a short discussion of these and related passages, see Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975) 85–86. It is interesting that Irenaeus and other proto-catholic writers, rather than denying an ontological reading of 1 Cor 15:50, often affirm that flesh will not be resurrected, arguing that Paul means “flesh-as-it-currently-is.” What will rise, for Irenaeus, is flesh that is refined, purified, etc. – flesh restored to its original condition. Among other things, this meant for Irenaeus that the flesh would be imbued with spirit (5.9.2–4; see also 5.10.2; 5.12.3). 91 See also for example Gos. Phil. 56.26–57.22 (NHC II, 3) for a mini-debate about 1 Cor 15:50. 92 On resurrection, the most helpful monographs in English are: Jon D. Levenson, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2006); George W. E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (Harvard Theological Studies 26; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972); Alan F. Segal, Life after Death: A History of the Afterlife in the Religions of the West (New York: Doubleday, 2004); Claudia Setzer, Resurrection of the Body in Early Judaism and Early Christianity (Boston: Brill, 2004); Bynum, Resurrection of the Body; A. J. M. Wedderburn, Baptism and Resurrection: Studies in Pauline Theology against Its Graeco-Roman Background (WUNT 44; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987); N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God 3; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003).

176

Chapter 4. Third Corinthians

cussed and debated in its own right but is also used to think about other topics. Discourse about resurrection was used to define personal and communal identities, to discuss understandings of history and the cosmos (esp. eschatology), and to delimit practices and behaviors – to name only a few of its uses. 93 But resurrection was also discussed for its own sake, as when raised by texts like 1 Cor 15. 94 When it was discussed for its own sake, early Christians were taking part in broader discussions about human nature – its formation, constitution, etc. – and the problem of death. In the ancient Mediterranean, a diversity of opinions was available for early Christians “to think with.” Such opinions included not only Israelite traditions appropriated by Christians but also those from a wide variety of contexts, including Babylonian myth, Greek epic, Hellenistic philosophy, and so forth. Indeed, we must remember that “converts” would bring into Christian tradition their local cultures and customs: there was no general “Christianity”; there were only localized and particular Christianities. Christians could, and did, come up with a variety of ways to think about “resurrection” – a theoretical problem that had been handed down to them, among other ways, by traditions of Jesus’ resurrection (see 1 Cor 15:1–34, esp. vv. 11–12). It was, therefore, only among certain individuals in particular times and places that resurrection was associated with the flesh. Frankly, it is difficult to know how exactly resurrection and flesh came to be discussed together. 95 Unless Paul is taken as a witness, they first appear together in the Gospels according to John and Luke, which tend to dated to the late first or early second century; but here the concerns are primarily with Jesus’ resurrected body. For other humans, in general or for the faithful in particular, resurrection and flesh seem not to have been discussed together until the second century, perhaps in the early part of the

But see also the bibliography and discussion in these sources. I am especially influenced by the approaches of Levenson, Setzer, and Walker Bynum. 93 Setzer discusses resurrection in a similar way when she uses Anthony Cohen’s understanding of “symbol” and Ann Swindler’s theory of culture as a “tool-kit” (Resurrection of the Body, 4–5). 94 Note that 1 Cor 15 itself uses resurrection to discuss all three topics: personal and communal identity (15:49 et passim), understandings of history and the cosmos (15:20– 28, 45–49, 51–55), and practices and behaviors (15:29, 34, 58). 95 But see for example John G. Gager, “Body-Symbols and Social Reality: Resurrection, Incarnation, and Asceticism in Early Christianity,” Religion 12 (1982) 345–63; J. G. Davis, “Factors Leading to the Emergence of Belief in the Resurrection of the Flesh,” JTS n.s. 23 (1972) 448–55. Also notable is the argument of Elaine Pagels (The Gnostic Gospels [New York: Random House, 1979], esp. 3–27) that the argument for Jesus’ physical resurrection is linked to institutional claims of apostolic succession.

4.2. “Orthodoxy” of 3 Corinthians

177

century by Ignatius of Antioch and definitely by the end in the works of Irenaeus and Tertullian for example. 96 Consider Ignatius of Antioch for example. Resurrection and flesh are discussed together in the Syrian bishop’s (proto-)credal material (esp. Eph. 7:1–2; 18:2; 19:1; 20:2; Trall. 9:1–2; Magn. 11; Smyrn. 1:1–2). The two are also linked in his statement on Christ’s fleshly resurrection (Smyrn. 3), which was written within a polemic against those who argue that Christ only appeared (GRN-) to suffer (Smyrn. 2; compare Trall. 10). But Ignatius does not yet call these people “docetists,” nor does he speak of “docetism”; indeed, it is difficult to discern what was asserted or denied by those whom he considered “atheists” and “unfaithful” (or “nonbelievers,” D>SLVWRL). 97 Nonetheless, it is clear that for Ignatius himself, Christ’s suffering in the flesh is important not only for human salvation but also, and perhaps more importantly, as a model to be imitated by those who would become “disciples” of his suffering. Exhibiting what appears to be a “martyr’s mentality” (esp. Rom. 4.1–3, quoted on p. 27 above), Ignatius even equates his suffering and imminent death in Rome with his own salvation: martyrdom is resurrection. Although it is doubtful that such had anything to do with 3 Corinthians’s discussion of resurrection of the flesh (see 3 Cor 4:34–35), 98 such a correlation between martyrdom and fleshly resurrection may be one of the reasons why 3 Corinthians was later incorporated into Acts of Paul. In 3 Corinthians, discourse about resurrection of the flesh is concerned with resurrection itself. 99 Assuming that resurrection will occur (cp. 1 Cor 15), it asks the question: What kind of resurrection will occur for humans? – Will it include resurrection of the flesh (VDYU[) or not? Even if this question is discussed with regard to Christ in some “Johannine” and “Lukan” literature, and even if it is hoped for in Ignatius’s quest for martyrdom, the 96

Depending on the dating, see also (Pseudo-)Justin, De res. (ANF 1:294–99) and (Pseudo-) Athenagoras, De res. (ANF 2:149–162); also Thephilos of Antioch, Ad Auto., and Minucius Felix, Oct. For discussion, see Setzer (Resurrection of the Body, ch. 4) and Walker Bynum (Resurrection, ch. 1). 97 From Ignatius’s own emphases, it may be that the “atheists” (also “unfaithful”) in question were simply naysayers to the kind of martyrdom advocated by Ignatius. 98 Rordorf (“Hérésie et orthodoxie,” 424–25), with comparisons to Ignatius, is inclined to locate martyrdom ideology in 3 Cor 4:34–35. Walker Bynum (Resurrection, esp. 43–51) attributes Ignatius’s ideology also to writers such as Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Minucius Felix. For discussion of suffering as imitatio Christi in martyrdom literature, see Moss, The Other Christs, esp. chs. 1–3. 99 For the phrase “resurrection of the flesh,” see for example Justin, Dial. 80. For Setzer (Resurrection of the Body, 74–86), who tentatively accepts De res. as authentic, Justin’s references make clear how resurrection is “symbol and strategy”: resurrection “condenses a worldview,” “draws boundaries,” “constructs community,” “confers legitimacy on those who profess it,” “solves a set of problems,” and “allows people to live in the world as it is.”

178

Chapter 4. Third Corinthians

topic for humanity in general does not otherwise become discussed among proto-catholics until the mid- to late second century. Then apparently it does so only in relation to the positions of certain Valentinians and others who denied resurrection of the flesh not simply on the basis of different interpretations of passages such as 1 Cor 15:50 but more on the basis of differing anthropologies – that is, different understandings of the ontological structure of humans. Whether and how these differences had anything to do with lived social circumstances such as localized persecution (including taxation, social ostratization, etc.) is difficult to know. 100 What we do know, however, is that 3 Corinthians develops a Christology of incarnation. 101 Third Corinthians is particularly interested in arguing that human flesh is saved – or rather, that the flesh of those faithful to apostolic tradition will be saved – because Christ saved his own human flesh (esp. 3 Cor 4:6). 102 Whatever else the text may be doing with Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection, 3 Corinthians thus presents an ontological model of human salvation. It is not interested in atonement for sins, forgiveness of trespasses, and so forth. In 3 Corinthians it is not even Sin (D-P DUWLYD, as in Romans) but Pleasure (K-GRQKY) that is the problem for humans: it is through Pleasure in the flesh that the Evil One rules humans as they perish (esp. 4:15). 103 Therefore, it is Christ’s enfleshment that is important: it is in the flesh that Christ conquers the Evil One. 100 I sympathize with Setzer’s more cautious thesis that such circumstances occasion discussion of resurrection (Resurrection of the Body); Walker Bynum, before Setzer, characterized this opinion as one that “historians have long recognized” (Resurrection, 47), and then argued for the stronger position. 101 Apart from incarnation, Klijn for example suggests that “we might speak of ‘pneumatic christology’ or ‘Geistchristologie’ ” (“Apocryphal Correspondence,” 17), meaning that the Spirit of Christ – somehow also the prophetic Spirit – preexists incarnation. However, since the text does not discuss Spirit after incarnation (e.g., “Holy Spirit” in the faithful), it is difficult to know what pneumatology is offered and how that compares to Paul’s. Possible parallels to this Christology include 2 Clem. 9 and Hermas, Sim. 59 (V.6), esp. 5–8. 102 Note that in the “undisputed” Pauline letters, and even in the disputed canonical letters, it is always God who raises both Christ and the dead; in 3 Cor, it is apparently Christ who raises the dead. 103 As noted below, the “problem” of the body’s passions was also a hot topic in philosophical and medical debates (and, figuratively, in political ones as well). Indeed, I would argue that what unites those who consider themselves Stoics – typically divided by scholars into the early, middle, and late (Roman) Stoics – is concern over precisely this topic, not any alleged adherance to Zeno, materialist cosmology, etc. Whether a similar claim may be made about those who (according to Layton and Brakke) considered themselves “Gnostics” – or, to the extent that it differs, those whom scholars such as John Turner consider “Sethians” – is worth considering, since many of the primary texts grouped into this subcategory are concerned with the problems of embodied existence,

4.2. “Orthodoxy” of 3 Corinthians

179

Christ’s incarnation is confirmed by 3 Corinthians in two ways. The first is by emphasizing Christ’s birth from Mary (3 Cor 2:14b; 4:5–6, 13[– 14]). The text of P. Bodm. 10, which seems to represent the shortest recension of 3 Corinthians, does not discuss Mary’s virginity, the annunciation, her conception, her delivery, or any other such “Mariological” tenets (contrast, for example, Luke and the Protevangelium of James). 104 Apart from some nondescript references to Mary being of the seed of David and to her being a Galilean, 105 both of which function as designators, the text’s only concern is with Mary’s birthing Christ – the point of which, it seems to me, is that Christ obtained his flesh from her (see 4:5–6, with 4:14: the Spirit [of Christ] enters into her flesh and thus acquires it). 106 Although later manuscripts of 3 Corinthians capitalized on these references and added further Mariological materials, Mary’s original function in 3 Corinthians is simply to provide Christ with the flesh by which he saves humanity. Such incarnation is also set within a broader understanding of God’s providence (SURYQ RLD, 3 Cor 4:19), as 3 Corinthians presents what would be called a “salvation history” by theologians or a “myth,” “meta-,” or “master narrative” by others. 107 Although it is only a brief history of hu-

especially the passions, of which sexual desire is foremost. In any case, on “perishing” humanity, see for example 1 Cor 1:18; 2 Cor 2:15; and on making or being made alive (]ZRSRLHYZ), see Rom 4:17; 8:11; 1 Cor 15:22, 36, 45; 2 Cor 3:6; cp. Gal 3:21. 104 Remember that the Protevangelium of James (P. Bodm. 5, called “The Nativity of Mary: The Apocalypse of James”) is the text that immediately precedes 3 Cor (P. Bodm. 10) in the Bodmer codex (Mackay, “Content and Style,” 221; Testuz, “Correspondance apocryphe,” 219). Also, it may be important to note that Acts of Paul 13 (Travel from Corinth to Italy) includes a description of Mary, which may have influenced some of the variants here. 105 Compare Rom 1:3 and Gal 4:4. To denote Mary as a “Galilean” may distinguish her from being a “Judean” (see, e.g., the geopolitical polemic against ,RXGDL RL in the Gospel according to John), or it may denote one of several groups of ,RXGDL RL otherwise conceived. For example, Hegesippus (writing after the events of 135 C.E.) distinguished seven schools of thought among ,RXGDL RL: Essenes, Galileans, Hemerobaptists, Masbothaei, Samaritans, Sadducees, and Pharisees (see Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.23; 3.2; 3.35; 4.8; 4.22). 106 For comparative material, see for example Ascension of Isaiah 11.2–5 and the protocredal material in Ignatius, Eph. 7:1; 18:2; 19:1; 20:2; Trall. 9:1–2; Magn. 11; Smyrn. 1:1–2. D’Anna (“La pseudepigrafa Corrispondenza,” 124 n. 44) also notes the discussions in Justin, Dial. 43.1; 45.4; 68.6; 78.3; 100.3; 100.5; and he provides an interesting discussion of Ignatius, Trall. 9:1–2 in relation to 3 Cor (ibid., 125–26). My exact proposal, that Christ receives flesh from Mary, is explicit in Aristides, Apol. 15.1: NDL HMNSDU THYQRXVDYUNDDMQHYODEH.  107 Rordorf (“Hérésie et orthodoxie,” 417) phrased it best: “Il s’agit d’un véritable précis d’une théologie de l’histoire du salut.” Excluding a protology, 3 Cor describes

180

Chapter 4. Third Corinthians

manity, the text tells the story of a God who makes heaven and earth and forms humanity (4:7, 9, 19). Humanity, somehow in a state of perishing that is ruled by the Evil One through the Pleasure of the flesh (4:8, 11, 15), is then sought by God, first by apportioning the Spirit of Christ into the prophets of Israel (“the foremost ,RXGDL RL”) to excise their sins (4:9– 10) 108 and then by sending the Spirit into Mary (4:14) in order to conquer the Evil One in the flesh (4:15). Thus is presented the story of God in Christ saving human flesh 109 – a story of the providence of God almighty (SDQWRNUDYWZU). 110 What is interesting about this story is that it parallels, now in terms of flesh, a myth that apparently undergirds Paul’s discussions of death and resurrection in 1 Cor 15 (and later, also Sin in Rom 5). 111 Thus, the author cosmogony and anthropogony together – topics that were sometimes considered separately (Gen 1–3; Plato, Timaeus; etc.). 108 Based on the text’s use of DMSRVSDY]RPDL (contrast epispasm) as well as its discussion of the Evil One ruling the flesh through passions (4:10–11), it is probable that circumcision is understood positively as excising one’s passions – or at least as symbolic of what the prophetic message accomplishes. However, at no point does 3 Cor explicitly or clearly discuss QRYPR. To the prophets, however, are attributed a portion of the Spirit of Christ (4:10; see also 4:28–31, 32, 36). 109 Luttikhuitzen (“Apocryphal Correspondence,” 89) has rightly noted that “the present argument can be read as a theological underpinning of Paul’s preaching of continence.” For, an implication of the story is that the Evil One may and should be combatted through battle with Pleasure. If I am right that the same story undergirds Paul’s defense of resurrection in 1 Cor 15 (see also Rom 5), then we have located in Paul’s thought a “missing link” between his ideologies of HMJNUDYWHLD (“self-control,” “discipline,” or ascetic “empowerment”) and resurrection: control of the body’s passions now is a foretaste of resurrected life in the future, when the body is restored to its original, uncorrupted condition. In this regard, it is interesting to note that Acts of Paul and Thekla describes Paul’s preaching as ORYJRTHRX SHULHMJNUDWHLYDNDLDMQDVWDYVHZ, “the word of God about enkrateia and resurrection” (compare Acts 24:25). For similar analysis in the “Lion Cycle” (a phrase I introduce in chapters 5 and 6 below), see Willy Rordorf, “Quelques jalons pour une interprétation symbolique des Actes de Paul,” in Early Christian Voices in Texts, Traditions, and Symbols: Essays in Honor of François Bovon (ed. David H. Warren, Ann Graham Brock, and David H. Pao; Biblical Interpretation Series 66; Boston/Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2003) 251–65. 110 Setzer (Resurrection of the Body, passim) argues that the proto-catholic, including Irenaeus and Tertullian, often characterize lack of belief in resurrection of the body/flesh as lack of belief in the power of God. As with the author of 3 Cor (see 4:24–25), the heresiologists generalized this point by saying that those who did not believe in resurrection of the body/flesh were not true believers. For interesting uses of 3$172.5$7:5 in this regard, see for example Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 2.1.5; 2.6.2; Theophilus, Ad Auto. 1.4; Origen, De Princ. 1.2.10; see further Klijn, “Apocryphal Correspondence,” 19–20. 111 Rordorf (“Hérésie et orthodoxie,” 416) also notes parallels to Rom 8. For a useful discussion of this physiological myth, see now Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011).

4.2. “Orthodoxy” of 3 Corinthians

181

of 3 Corinthians seems to have made explicit – or, at least, to have made more explicit – what is assumed by Paul’s own arguments, themselves apparently based on a reading of material represented in the early chapters of Genesis (or one of its “parallels” such as 1 Enoch). 112 While this myth is interesting in its own right, for example evincing an early interpretation of Romans from an ontological perspective, 113 it also demonstrates how important it was for early Christians to offer a story of salvation that attempts to make sense from beginning to end, helping them to form the identity of communities who trust in God’s providence despite the presence of evil. 114 The Evil One (R-SRQKURY ) also makes an appearance in 3 Corinthians. 115 It is not clear who or what this is, where he came from, or what his fate is – apart from defeat through Christ’s death and resurrection. All that is known is that the Evil One rules humanity’s perishing flesh through Pleasure and teaches doctrines (GRYJPDWD) that are opposed to apostolic tradition (4:2). If the reconstruction of P. Bodm. 10 is right at 3 Cor 4:11, then the Evil One apparently wants to be God and is generally unrighteous and dominating (4:11, 15). However, it is not at all clear what kind of being he is or whether there are others working with or against him. 116 Thus he is similar to the Ruler (R-D>UFZQ) of Ignatius, who may in turn be related to

112 Note that Genesis 1–11 is itself “rewritten Scripture”: even the simplest form of a documentary hypothesis understands the J and P sources to have been edited by some later Redactor, and many regard the P source to have known and intentionlly offered stories that differed from J’s (if not also its no longer extant parallels in E). 113 Contra, for example, the influential reading of Stanley K. Stowers, A Rereading of Romans: Justice Jews, and Gentiles (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1994). 114 Karen L. King has argued that the Apocryphon of John is the first Christian text to provide a myth thoroughly from beginning to end; see eadem, The Secret Revelation of John (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2006). 115 On an “Evil One,” compare the Martyrdom of Paul in chapter 1 above, pp. 41, 62, and 64. 116 Here we are discussing the ideology of 3 Cor’s author. Thus, while it is clear that the author denies the creation of the cosmos by angels (see 2:15), it is unclear whether the author accepts their existence and if so, what their character and role might be. Here is the one place where we may actually learn something about an “opponent” of 3 Cor, however vague and loosely defined: namely, that someone was advocating creation of the cosmos by angels. This, we know, was done by a number of Christians in different ways – not only on the basis of the heresiologists, but also from primary texts like the ones from Nag Hammadi. Most impressively, see the Apocryphon of John; for analysis, see for example King, Secret Revelation of John, esp. 95–121. But in general, consider figures such as Ialdabaoth and Sabaoth (variously named): several texts from Nag Hammadi attribute enfleshment and/or the passions to a negative figure who imprisons the spiritual component of humans with such. As in the quotation from Polycarp provided above, the author of 3 Cor may be working in a theological context that requires distinguishing between and separating flesh and passions.

182

Chapter 4. Third Corinthians

readings of “the ruler of this world” in the Gospel of John (12:31; 16:11). Compare Polycarp’s warning to the Philippians: For anyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is an antichrist [1 John 4:2–3]; and whoever does not confess the witness of the cross is from the devil (GLDYEROR [1 John 3:8]); and everyone who distorts the words of the Lord (WD ORYJLDWRX  NXULYRX) for his own passions (SURWDLMGLYDHMSLTXPLYD), saying that there is neither resurrection nor judgment – this one is the firstborn of Satan (SUZWRYWRNRYHMVWLWRX VDWDQD ). 117 (Phil. 7:1, Ehrman’s LCL translation)

What is odd in all of this is that 3 Corinthians’s discussion of the flesh (VDYU[) barely differs from a discussion of body (VZ PD): not much would be lost if “body” were substituted for “flesh” throughout the text. 118 For, even though the text uses “flesh” where we find “body” in 1 Cor 15, 3 Corinthians does not flesh out the problem that was raised by alternative interpretations of 1 Cor 15:50: it does not consider the issue of flesh as one of several ontological constituents. Rather, it takes the Pauline idea of “flesh” 119 as the locus of passions – an idea paralleled, for example, in certain Hellenistic philosophies of body (esp. Platonism and Stoicism) 120 – and then creates a scenario in which the flesh can be raised without the passions. How it does so is by attributing Passion (with a capital P – #+GRQKY) 121 not to human flesh per se but to the Evil One (R-3RQKURY). 122 117 Note that the phrase R-SUZWRYWRNRWRX VDWDQD  is used of Marcion in the Martyrdom of Polycarp (Moscow Codex, Epilogue 2). 118 So also, for example, 2 Clem. 9:1–6. For 3 Cor, the lack of explicit contrast between body and flesh precludes theological nuance for the ontological identity and status of the latter. 119 For discussions of the related rabbinic ideology of the “(evil) inclination,” see for example Solomon Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology: Major Concepts of the Talmud (New York: Schocken, 1961) 242–63; Efraim Elimelech Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (2 vols.; trans. Israel Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1975) 1:471–83. 120 For Hellenistic philosophies of the passions, see for example John M. Rist, Stoic Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977); A. A. Long, Hellenistic Philosophy: Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics (2d ed.; Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1986); Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality (3 vols.; trans. Robert Hurley; New York: Vintage Books, 1988–1990); Pierre Hadot, Philosophy as a Way of Life: Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault (ed. Arnold Davidson; trans. Michael Chase; New York: Blackwell, 1995); Martha C. Nussbaum, “Stoics on Extirpation of the Passions,” Apeiron 20 (1987) 129–77. 121 P.Bodm. 10 .$,7+13$6$16$5.$$145: 3: 13526+'21+1('(= 0(8(1. The variants here are interesting: P.Heid. DI>PRWRSD) and impious (GXVVHEK ), these writings are neither apostolic in phrasing nor truly orthodox, and hence not one has been cited (so claims Eusebius) by the succession ofHMNNOKVLDVWLNRLY. In contrast to these “heretical” works (e.g., the Acts of Andrew), “The Acts of Paul” is therefore given a rather privileged status: it is, if I may gloss Eusebius’s category of DMQWLOHJRYPHQD, “well-received.” So what are “The Acts of Paul” that were well- but not unanimously received by Eusebius’s authorities? As with so many of the references we are about to discuss below, Eusebius simply does not tell us what form of “the” text he attests (if indeed he had ever read one). Based on his references to Paul’s martyrdom and to Origen, it would be reasonable to infer that Eusebius was familiar with some form of the Passion Narrative; but even this would be conjectural. All we know is that by the second quarter of the fourth century, at least some form of “The Acts of Paul” was well known and valued among “catholic,” “orthodox” historians such as Eusebius.

63 Because the preceding contrast implies that Revelation should rightly be considered R-PRORJRXYPHQD and “moved up,” Eusebius’s contrast may imply that the Gospel according to the Hebrews should rightly be “moved down” to the “unknown.” 64 WDD>OOZSDUDWDX WDRXMNHMQGLDTKYNRXPHQDMOODNDLDMQWLOHJRPHYQDR^PZGH SDUDSOHLYVWRLWZ QHMNNOKVLDVWLNZ QJLYZVNRPHYQD(Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.25.6).

240

Chapter 6. Remembering “Acts of Paul”

6.2.2.2. Receptions of Thekla As discussed in §3.0, Thekla was a widely known figure in the fourth century. Late in the fourth century, the female pilgrim Egeria attests to some form of the Thekla text (Itinerarium Egeriae seu Peregrinatio ad loca sancta, 22.1–23.6). 65 On her route back to Constantinople from Jerusalem, Egeria travelled through Tarsus in Cilicia – the hometown of Paul, according to the book of Acts. As part of her pilgrimmage, Egeria decided to travel to Seleucia, where she visited Thekla’s martyrium in May 384 C.E. (Note the connection between sites dedicated to Paul and Thekla; see §3.5 above.) The site as she describes it included not only a beautiful church, with walls around the martyrium, but also cells on a nearby hill for male monks and female apotactites or virgins. Egeria stayed at the site for several days, visiting with both males and females, and participated in prayer and a Eucharist. But it is her first visit to the martyrium that is significant for our purposes: at that time, “we had a prayer at the martyrium and even read the Acts of Saint Thecla (lectione actu sanctae Teclae).” 66 By the late fourth century, at least in Seleucia, the text that Egeria reads is referenced not as “Acts of Paul” – with or without the definite article – but by a title attested in most of the manuscripts of the Acts of Paul and Thekla: “Acts of Saint Thekla.” Unfortunately, on the basis of what she says, we do not know which form of the story Egeria had in hand (see further §6.2.3 below). Perhaps around the same time, if not earlier, the Manichaean PsalmBook attests to the Thekla story. In one of the \DOPRLVDUDNZWZQ (“psalms of travelling”), Thekla is remembered as an example of someone who endured bodily suffering for the sake of purity. 67 This “Psalm of Endurance” is one of at least two Manichaean psalms 68 that have been used to confirm the circulation of the five apocryphal acts among the Manichaeans, 69 and by the end of the fourth century Augustine’s anti-Manichaean treatise Contra Faustum (of Milevis) intimates the same. Peter Nagel has argued that, even with the evidence from Faustus, the Manichaean psalms

65 For edition, see CPL 2325, 22.1–23.6; see also Pierre Maraval, ed., Journal de voyage, itinéraire: Egérie (rev. ed.; SC 296; Paris: Cerf, 2002) 226–30. For English translation, see John Wilkinson, ed., Egeria’s Travels (3d ed.; Warminster: Eris and Phillips, 1999) 140–41. 66 Egeria’s thankfulness for hearing the text may imply that she was previously unacquainted with the story, at least in the form that was read at Seleucia in 384 C.E. 67 Allberry, A Manichaean Psalm-Book, part II, vol. 2, 143.5–10; the psalmist calls this S\DOPRV1W+XSRPRQK, “the Psalm of Endurance” (143.32). 68 See also ibid., 192.25–193.3, where Thekla is also mentioned. 69 For discussion, see Schäferdiek, “The Manichaean Collection.”

6.2. Other Witnesses

241

only attest definitely to the Acts of Paul and Thekla. 70 But Knut Schäferdiek, incorporating the anti-Manichaean testimony of Philaster of Brescia (De haer. 88.6, ca. 390 C.E.), has replied that Philaster’s description of acts that contain pecudes (tame animals) and bestiae (wild animals) must entail knowledge of the lion story attested in the Ephesus Act. 71 If this is so, then by the late fourth century the Manichaeans attest to what I have called the “Lion Cycle.” By the end of the fourth century, Jerome also testifies to SHULRYGRX Pauli et Theclae et totam baptizati leonis fabulam, “(the) Travels of Paul and Thecla and the whole fable of the baptized lion” (De vir. illust. 7). As discussed in §6.1.3 above, Jerome’s reference is to a “Lion Cycle” that includes the Ephesus Act and the Acts of Paul and Thekla, plus perhaps one or more hypothesized acts in between; but it is not a general reference to “Acts of Paul.” 72 To date, there are no extant manuscripts that attest to all and only these materials; but with the earlier independent circulation of both main parts of the story, with possible evidence from the Manichaean psalms, and with my analysis in §6.1.3, it is plausible that the stories in their extant forms may have been written together – in stages 73 or all at once – as a distinct sequence of acts. At least, it is understandable why Jerome groups the two together; and perhaps it is due to their symbolism that he considers these acts “apocrypha.” Not to digress too much, but Jerome’s reference also provides an interesting addendum to Tertullian’s testimony about the presbyter who allegedly composed “acta Pauli” (Tertullian, De bapt. 17.5 [Codex T]).

70 Peter Nagel, “Die apokryphen Apostelakten des 2. und 3. Jahrhunderts in der manichäischen Literatur,” in Gnosis und Neues Testament (ed. Karl-Wolfgang Tröger; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1973) 149–82, at 154. 71 Schäferdiek, “The Manichaean Collection,” 90; 96 n. 27; 97 n. 48. For counterargument, note the “tame” lioness in the Acts of Paul and Thekla who battles a “wild” bear and lion (Acts of Paul 4.33); see §6.1.3. 72 It may be worth noting that in the 13th cent., Nicephorus Callistus (Ecclesiastical History, 2.25) cites Jerome and provides a short description of the Ephesian lion story Jerome condemned, then he lists a subsequent itinerary for Paul: Macedonia, Greece, Macedonia, Troas, Miletus, Jerusalem (compare Acts 18:23–21:16). Nicephorus thus situates the lion story within Paul’s “third missionary journey,” even claiming ‘in the spirit’ that by God’s providence the story has been saved despite Luke’s ignorance. 73 For example, it is possible that a simpler form of the Ephesian lion story was written first, emphasizing the themes and functions that are paralleled in Androclus and the Lion; then, at a later period, someone may have expanded the Ephesus story (e.g., by using the lion also to symbolize the “Lion Cycle’s” baptismal ideology) and composed the Acts of Paul and Thekla in their current form (using one or more literary sources to do so). But other possibilities are discussed above.

242

Chapter 6. Remembering “Acts of Paul”

For his second argument against the authenticity of the “Lion Cycle,” Jerome appeals to Tertullian: 74 Sed et Tertuliianus, vicinus illorum temporum, refert presbyterum quendam in Asia, VSRXGDVWKYQ apostoli Pauli, convictum apud Iohannem quod auctor esset libri et confessum se hoc Pauli amore fecisse, loco excidesse. Moreover, Tertullian, who lived close to those times, mentions a certain presbyter in Asia, an adherent of the apostle Paul, who was convicted by John of having been the author of the book, and who, having confessed that he had done this for love of Paul, resigned his office of presbyter. (De vir. ill. 7.3) 75

It is difficult to know in some cases whether Jerome has made an interpretive decision or whether he received additional data: in particular, Jerome states that Tertullian lived in temporal proximity to the presbyter, and he understands Tertullian’s adverbial phrase “in Asia” to refer to the presbyter rather than to the (female) readers. And whereas Tertullian simply describes the presbyter as qui eam scripturam construxit (“who compiled/ composed the writing”), Jerome explicitly says that the presbyter was a VSRXGDVWKY (“adherent, zealot, devotee”) and that auctor esset libri (“he was author of the book”). These additions, if they are not simply Jerome’s interpretations, provide confirmation of the claim that the text was written hagiographically “out of love for Paul” (a phrase replicated by Jerome: Pauli amore). Most interesting, however, is an historical claim that is not present in Tertullian: that the prebyter was convictum apud Iohannem, “convicted by John.” So, where Tertullian phrases the presbyter’s events impersonally and may indicate the presbyter’s resignation, 76 Jerome adds a name. But which John? When? And where in Asia? Jerome’s addition to the testimony of Tertullian renders its historical claim at once more precise and more difficult to analyze. So let us remember that the claim convictum apud Iohannem does not occur in Tertullian but about two centuries later in Jerome’s reference to Tertullian. The question is therefore whether the claim is rightly attributed to Tertullian (and hence, on one reading, to historical events) or whether it is a later accretion of tradition. 77 74

Jerome uses Tertullian’s narrow testimony about “acta Pauli,” which only definitely refers to the Acts of Paul and Thekla, to argue against the broader “Lion Cycle.” 75 English translation: Thomas P. Halton, Saint Jerome, On Illustrious Men (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1999) 16. 76 See n. 126, p. 136 above, on the translation of Tertullian. 77 Jerome may have accepted the fourth-century claim that a certain Leucius (Gr. Leukios [Charinos]), an alleged disciple of John the apostle, composed the “apocryphal” (to use Jerome’s term) acts; for discussion of the issue, see Schäferdiek, “The Manichaean Collection.” On this interpretation, Jerome would be claiming that the apostle John (associated with Ephesus) condemned the author in question; and that would have the interesting upshot of dating both the text and the event (according to the conflated “John”

6.2. Other Witnesses

243

6.2.2.3. Canons and Stichometries Other witnesses to the fourth century may include the Muratorian fragment (on a late dating) and the so-called “canon list” in Codex Claromontanus (on an early dating). The date and provenance for the text of the eighthcentury Muratorian fragment have been much debated: due in part to interpreting the fragment’s phrase nuperrime temporibus nostris (lines 73–77) as chronologically proximate to Hermas and hence bishop Pius I (mid-140s to mid-150s C.E.), many have argued that it is from Rome in the late second century, while some have argued for the text’s composition in the emerging Byzantine Empire in the fourth century, 78 and some negotiate in between. 79 For our purposes, since Acts of Paul is neither named nor evaluated, the dating of the fragment’s text is not particularly important; of significance is rather its reference to various acts: Acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scripta sunt. Lucas “optimo Theophilo” comprendit, quae sub praesentia eius singula herebantur, sicuti et semota passione Petri evidenter declarat, sed et profectione Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis. But the Acts of All the Apostles was written in one book. Luke summarizes for “most excellent Theophilus” discrete events that occurred in his presence, as the exclusion both of Peter’s passion clearly declares but also, after Paul’s departure from the city [of Rome], his setting out to Spain. (Muratorian fragment, lines 34b–39a)

After highlighting “Luke’s” omissions, the author of the Muratorian fragment proceeds to explain how the thirteen letters of Paul may be used to supplement the story in Acts (e.g., Rom 15’s anticipation of a trip to Spain). But the “omissions” are what I find interesting and what appeal to some scholars of Acts of Paul. For, the author of the Muratorian fragment, whenever and wherever it was composed, seems to have accepted on par with the Acts of the Apostles the story preserved in the Actus Vercellenses manuscript of the Acts of Peter – Paul’s trip to Spain (see also the Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena). Noticeably absent, however, is what we would want or perhaps even expect: any reference to the Martyrdom or broader Passion Narrative of Paul.

tradition) during the reign of Trajan (98–117 C.E.). Apart from the well known conflation of “John” traditions, the difficulty with this proposal is understanding in what sense Tertullian would have lived proximately to the event (cp. De vir. ill. 53). 78 See esp. Albert C. Sundberg, Jr., “Canon Muratori: A Fourth-Century List,” HTR 66 (1973) 1–41; and Geoffrey Mark Hahneman, The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992). 79 Most recently, see Jonathan J. Armstrong, “Victorinus of Pettau as the Author of the Canon Muratori,” VC 62 (2008) 1–34; an appendix (ibid., 32–34) reproduces the 1902 edition of Hans Lietzmann.

244

Chapter 6. Remembering “Acts of Paul”

But Codex Claromontanus (D 06, Paris. graec. 107), a sixth-century manuscript of the Pauline epistles in Greek and Latin, refers explicitly to a text called “Acts of Paul.” 80 Between its text of Philemon and Hebrews, Codex Claromontanus includes a stichometry in Latin (fol. 467v–468v). The contents and order of the stichometry imply that it represents some kind of “canon list,” for example beginning with the phrase versus scribturarum sanctarum (“lines of sacred writings”). The list is remarkable in several regards, but I should restrict my comments to its end. There, after listing four gospels and twelve “epistulas Pauli” 81 (fol. 468r), it mentions James, 1–3 John, Jude, the Epistle of Barnabas, Revelation, Acts of the Apostles, the Shepherd of Hermas, Acts of Paul, and the Apocalypse of Peter (fol. 468v). Apart from some notable omissions, 82 the distinctly Christian part of the list in Codex Claromontanus therefore parallels the collective contents of R-PRORJRXYPHQDand DMQWLOHJRYPHQD in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.25. For the text in question, the list simply states: Actus Pauli ver. IIIDLX (“Acts of Paul, 3560 lines”). Compared to its accounting of Actus apostolorum (2600 lines), the Codex Claromontanus therefore attests to a form of “Acts of Paul” that was significantly longer than the canonized Acts. Therefore, whether we date the Codex’s list to the fourth or sixth century, and whether we assign it to the east or west, may significantly affect our understanding of how and where Acts of Paul developed – at least, in the form attested by Codex Claromontanus. For, based on the preceding data, its stichometry is significantly longer than one would expect. How and why did so much material become collected under the title “actus Pauli”? 6.2.2.4. On Later Canons and Stichometries Similar questions may be asked of later stichometries and “canon lists” that refer to Acts of Paul, for example the Decretum Gelasianum.83 The Decretum Gelasianum (4th–6th cent., at least late 5th in final form) is a long and rather complicated work, in part reflecting a lengthy composi80

See for example Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, 2.1:157–72. The list of twelve omits Phil and 1–2 Thess; and its final two references are “ad Petrum prima CC” and “ad Petrum II ver. CXL” – two letters of Paul to Peter (versus “Petri,” two letters from Peter). In this regard, it is interesting that the list, which does not include explicit reference to “(To the) Hebrews,” is preceded by Philemon and followed by Hebrews. Did the scribe, or a Vorlage, understand Hebrews to be a letter of Paul to Peter? 82 In addition to Phil, 1–2 Thess, and 1–2 Pet, Codex Claromontanus also omits the Didache – unless, perchance, it understood the Didache as Paul’s second letter to Peter (see previous note). 83 Ernst von Dobschütz, Das Decretum Gelasianum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1912), esp. 3–13. 81

6.2. Other Witnesses

245

tional and redactional process. But after prescribing a canon list (including the 27 books of the New Testament) and after listing one group of authors condemned at various councils and another that is blessed, the document continues: The remaining writings, which have been composed (conscribo) or recommended (praedico) by heretics or schismatics, the catholic and apostolic Roman church does not in any way accept (recipio); from among these, we have thought it right to cite below a few that have come to mind (venio ad memoriam) and which are to be shunned by catholics. 84

The list begins with the Pseudo-Clementines and the Acts of Andrew, Thomas, Peter, and Philip (the phrasing is: Actus nomine [genitive of the apostle’s name, e.g., Petri] apostoli – apocryphi; lines 265–68). Noticeably absent in this section is mention of an equivalent for Acts of Paul before the list continues with various gospels. Later, however, in line 289 the list includes Liber qui appelatur Actus Theclae et Pauli – apocryphus, “Book that is called Acts of Thecla and Paul – Apocryphal.” What is condemned is therefore some form of the Acts of Paul and Thekla. It is not necessarily the case, therefore, that the author knew or condemned other traditions that have been ascribed to “Acts of Paul.” To the contrary, it may be worth noting that earlier in the document, Jesus’ declaration to Peter (Matt 16:18–19) is read together with Acts to the effect that Peter and Paul establish the church in Rome; 85 and in this context, the text describes how the two were crowned with glorious death in Rome under Nero and thus consecrated all the churches in the whole world (lines 139–44). The Decretum Gelasianum, in other words, appears to use stories that we know from the Passion Narrative (Acts of Paul 12–14) and, ironically, from the Acts of Peter that the Decretum condemns. The Decretum Gelasianum may therefore know and even approve of some of the traditions in other “Acts of Paul” (abstractly conceived), even as it condemns some form of the Acts of Paul and Thekla. Matters are simpler with the Catalogue of Sixty Canonical Books (7th cent.) 86 and the Stichometry of Nicephorus of Constantinople (9th cent.).87 The Catalogue of Sixty Canonical Books has a tripartite listing: first it lists “the sixty books” (= 60, without Revelation), then NDLR^VDH>[ZWZ Q[' (“also as many as are outside the sixty” = 9), and finally NDLR^VDDMSRYNUXID (“also as many as are apocryphal” = 25). In contrast to some of the other categorizations I have described, it is not at all clear that the third category of the Catalogue is negative. For, the second category includes texts like 84

von Dobschütz, Das Decretum Gelasianum, 11. Ibid., 7 (lines 127ff.). 86 Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, 2.1:289–93. 87 Ibid., 295–301. 85

246

Chapter 6. Remembering “Acts of Paul”

Esther and the Wisdom of Solomon, while the third includes texts like the Psalms of Solomon and Apocalypse of Peter, as well as a group of texts that may parallel modern collections of “apostolic fathers” (e.g., the Epistle of Barnabas and the “teaching” of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp). The third category, in other words, appears to consist of texts used, among other purposes, for catechetical instruction. 88 Numbered nineteen among these twenty-five works is a text titled 3DXYORXSUD [L, “An Act of Paul.” 89 It is impossible to know whether this was the Ephesus Act, the only material otherwise attested as using that singular title earlier (P. Bodm. 41). 90 But it is clear that whatever it was, the text titled “An Act of Paul” was positively, not negatively, valued in this seventh-century list. The Stichometry of Nicephorus is similar but different, like a harmonization of Eusebius’s NDWDYORJR and the Catalogue’s apocryphal list. For, the stichometry begins by numbering the THL DLJUDIDLY that are HMNNOKVLD ]RYPHQDL and NHNDQRQLVPHYQDL, both for the “old testament” and “new testament”; then it distinguishes R^VDDMQWLOHYJRQWDLNDLRXMNHMNNOKVLDY]RQWDL, for both testaments; and finally, it enumerates R^VDDMSRYNUXID for old and new. Therefore it uses three categories for both “testaments.” For the final list, the first text mentioned is 3HULYRGR3DXYORXVWLYFJF', “Paul’s Travel, 3600 lines.” In Jerome, we have seen the plural SHULYRGRL used for the Acts of Paul and Thekla. But like the Catalogue of the Sixty Canonical Books (SUD [L), Nicephorus uses a singular SHULYRGR; and like the Codex Claromontanus (Actus Pauli, 3560 lines), he attests to a lengthy manuscript (3600 lines). So how should the evidence from the “canon lists” and stichometries be interpreted? Based on the evidence for a diversity of collections of “Acts of Paul,” and based on the varying titles in the stichometries and “canon lists,” it is impossible to conclude that all of these witnesses refer to the same text. But because of the similar (and rather positive) valuations given to these texts, and with the similar length between the stichometries in Codex Claromontanus and Nicephorus, let us assume for the sake of argument that these four “canon lists” (omitting the Muratorian fragment) did 88 The texts parallel contemporary deuterocanonical works, as well as select pseudepigrapha and apocrypha. And it is notable that texts regularly condemned (e.g., the Acts of Andrew) are not included in this list. 89 Zahn (Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, 292 n. 4) notes that the manuscripts he used unanimously attest to the singular SUD [L, but that some editors prefer to emend to the plural SUDY[HL. I would add that the manuscripts also unanimously attest to the plural title SUDY[HL(WZ QDMSRVWRYOZQ) for “Acts (of the Apostles).” So in this case, iotacism is improbable. 90 P. Heid.’s title PSUD[LV is a iotacism for PSUD[HLV, as indicated by its assimilated plural definite article; see discussion in §5.2, pp. 207–8.

6.2. Other Witnesses

247

refer to a singular whole Acts of Paul. Even on such an assumption, would it necessarily be the case that such a text was composed in Asia Minor in the late second century? To the contrary, the late and unanticiapted attestation to such a lengthy “Acts of Paul” would just as well imply that the text in question (i.e., a lengthy composite whole Acts of Paul) was composed no earlier than the mid-fourth century. 6.2.3. From Manuscripts to “Indirect Witnesses” The fifth century, among other things, marks the ascendancy of the Thekla cult. 91 Whereas it is unclear what the pilgrim Egeria read when she visited Seleucia in the late fourth century, we know that in the fifth century another written form of Thekla’s story was produced out of and for cultic devotion to Thekla: the Life and Miracles of Saint Thekla (ca. 460s C.E.). 92 The preface to the Life explicitly mentions that the author used a prior written form of the text, 93 and the recent work of Scott Johnson has demonstrated that the Life is a reworking of the Acts of Paul and Thekla that, among other things, paraphrases our story, excises its emphasis on HMJNUDYWHLD, and refocuses the narrative on Thekla. 94 Odd as this may seem, the Acts of Paul and Thekla may therefore have been rewritten as the Life prior to our earliest sizable manuscript for the Acts of Paul and Thekla (i.e., P. Heid. or the sixth-century manuscript at Saint Catherine’s monastery, Mt. Sinai), 91 For Thekla in the fourth century, see Davis, Cult of Saint Thecla, 3–35, esp. 3–6; for a more complete list of references among the Cappadocians, see also Pierre Maraval, ed., Grégoire de Nysse: Vie de Sainte Macrine (SC 178; Paris: Cerf, 1971) 146 n. 2. Johnson (The Life and Miracles of Thekla, 221–26) notes with some hesitation that cultic devotion for Thekla begins to diminish as devotion to Mary the mother begins to increase after the Council of Ephesus (431 C.E.). 92 Dagron, Vie et miracles de Sainte Thècle; Johnson, The Life and Miracles of Thekla. Johnson dates the Life to the 460s, while affirming Dagron’s dating of the Miracles to various levels of redaction beginning sometime 444–448 C.E. and ending 468–476 C . E. Davis (Cult of Saint Thecla, 42) has argued that the alternate expanded endings to the Acts of Paul and Thekla should be dated after Zeno’s building project ca 476 C.E. and situated in Seleucia; for editions of the endings, see Lipsius-Bonnet, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, 269–72; for English translations, Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, 372–74. For our purposes, it may be worth noting that in manuscript G (as edited by Grabe and reproduced in Lipsius-Bonnet) the drunken men who plan to rape Thekla are described as chasing up the mountain after her Z-OHYRQH, “like lions.” 93 Note that the author of the Life’s preface claims Luke-Acts as his literary model, and both prefaces (Life and Miracles) portray Thekla as K-PHJLYVWKPDYUWXUD, “the greatest (female) martyr.” Indeed, she is portrayed throughout the Life and Miracles as the first (female) martyr after Stephen; Davis, Cult of Saint Thecla, 42. 94 Johnson (The Life and Miracles of Thekla) situates the Life within ancient practices of metaphrasis (chs. 1–2) and the Miracles within ancient historiographic practices of wonder-collecting (chs. 3–4).

248

Chapter 6. Remembering “Acts of Paul”

and hence the fifth-century Life is our earliest evidence for the contents of the Acts of Paul and Thekla – as unreliable and “indirect” a witness as it may be. 95 “Indirect” witnesses are particularly important for considering the sixthcentury Coptic manuscript P. Heid. and its relationship to the stichometries. We have already noted that, in terms of manuscript attestation, P. Heid. is important because of the material that it alone includes: the Antioch–Tyre sequence; the apparent insertion of the Acts of Paul and Thekla into that sequence; Philippi material that incorporates 3 Corinthians; and – if we consider the whole over its parts – the stitching together of these narrative materials, together with the Passion Narrative, into one corpus that it calls “The Acts of Paul according to the Apostle.” But now, after our review of other evidence from the third to fifth centuries, I can also say more. Taking into account all of the manuscript and non-manuscript evidence that definitely preceded its composition (which, technically, is from the late fifth to early sixth century), P. Heid. represents a form of the text that collects all of the traditions previously attributed to Acts of Paul, with the exception of the Ephesus Act (Acts of Paul 9 [and perhaps more of the hypothesized “Lion Cycle”]), while adding yet more. In other words, from an historical perspective, the only material that one should expect to find in a “whole” text of Acts of Paul that is not extant in P. Heid. is the Ephesus Act. It is therefore surprising, if not shocking, to find a reference in the stichometry of Codex Claromontanus (late 4th–6th cent.) to a certain “actus Pauli” that has 3560 lines and another reference in the stichometry of Nicephorus (late 9th cent.) to a certain “SHULYRGR3DXYORX” that has 3600 lines. With all that we have learned about Acts of Paul, are these stichometries really referring to the same text that is represented in P. Heid.? If so, and if P. Heid. is basically representative of all the previously attested acts, how, why, when, where, and from whom does “the” text of Acts of Paul receive so much more material – approximately fifth percent more material than all previously attested acts? For scholars who are accustomed to the current research program of reconstructing “Acts of Paul,” this historical question – which works “forward” chronologically, from the earliest attestations until P. Heid. – will seem odd, if not nonsensical. For, as I have mentioned repeatedly, most scholarship works on the assumption that the texts cited in the stichometries of 95

My thanks to François Bovon for the observation on the Saint Catherine’s manuscript. The earliest fragments of the Acts of Paul and Thekla are a 4th-cent. Greek parchment from Antinoopolis (P. Ant. 1.13), and a 5th-cent. Greek vellum leaf from Oxyrhynchus (P. Oxy. 1.6).

6.2. Other Witnesses

249

Codex Claromontanus and Nicephorus are identical to each other and that these two (as one) are representative of an early coherent whole Acts of Paul. In this way, the stichometries – which represent only the title and line count of a text – are taken as the standard for what constitutes Acts of Paul, and then scholars work “backward” chronologically from the late stichometries to the early manuscripts in order to reconstruct “the” Acts of Paul as it was allegedly composed in the late second-century in Asia Minor. In addition to cutting and pasting together once-separate manuscript materials in order to “re-”unite texts that are otherwise unattested as circulating together, such a research project sometimes results in hypothesizing additional acts not only on the basis of references in attested manuscript materials (e.g., an act in Smyrna, based on P. Bodm. 41) but also from “indirect witnesses.” The “indirect witnesses” most commonly used to hypothesize additional acts are Ps.-Pionius, Life of Polycarp (4th cent.), Ps.-Zenas, (Greek) Acts of Titus (late 5th–early 7th cent.), and Nicetas of Paphlagonia, Panegyric to Paul (late 9th–10th cent.). 96 The earliest of these has been used to hypothesize only one act: an act in Smyrna (Acts of Paul 8). For example, Rordorf and Bauckham 97 have argued that, when the Life of Polycarp refers 98 to using earlier texts about a visit of Paul to Smyrna, the author is referring explicitly to using Acts of Paul. But Kasser and Luisier disagree, 99 and, especially with our considerations in mind, it is obvious why: with an absence of parallels or explicit agreement of any other kind between the texts (apart from both texts mentioning a visit of Paul to Smyrna), Ps.-Pionius is no more than possible support for an otherwise tenuous hypothesis. To be sure, for scholars such as Rordorf and Bauckham who participate in the research project to collect materials to reconstruct an early whole Acts of Paul, the reference in Ps.-Pionius may function as “evidence” for the inclusion of such an act: what one seeks,

96

For text and translation of Ps.-Pionius, Life of Polycarp, see Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, 2.3.430ff.; for the Ps.-Zenas, (Greek) Acts of Titus, see Halkin, “La légende crétoise de saint Tite”; Pervo, “The ‘Acts of Titus’ ”; for Nicetas of Paphlagonia, see Vogt, “Panégyrique de St. Pierre; Panégyrique de St. Paul.” 97 Rordorf, “Was wissen wir über Plan und Absicht der Paulusakten?,” 73–74; Bauckham, “The Acts of Paul as a Sequel to Acts,” 118 n. 30. For discussion, see Dunn, “The Acts of Paul,” 26–27. 98 Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 2.3.433 (Greek), 488 (English): the author states that he is beginning with the SDURXVLYD from the blessed Paul to Smyrna, NDTZHX_URQHMQDMU FDLYRLDMQWLJUDYIRL. 99 According to Kasser and Luisier, neither direct nor indirect tradition for Acts of Paul attests to a visit to Smyrna (Kasser and Luisier, “Le Papyrus Bodmer XLI,” 302–3). But CCSA includes it as part of Acts of Paul 8.

250

Chapter 6. Remembering “Acts of Paul”

one finds. But in the absence of such a desired end, would the Life of Polycarp be counted as evidence for Acts of Paul? Probably not. But rather than simply stating my opinion, let me offer an alternate interpretation for the reference to “ancient copies” in Ps.-Pionius: based on the story the author wants to tell, the claim NDTZHX_URQHMQDMUFDLYRL DMQWLJUDYIRL (“just as I have found in ancient copies,” Vita Poly. 1) would not be not very useful – rhetorically speaking – if it were an oblique appeal to an unnamed document. Therefore, rather than being a vague reference to Acts of Paul, the claim is probably an appeal to local church records (however real or imagined, authentic or otherwise). For, in what follows, the author discusses a certain “Strataeas,” whom he identifies as a brother of Timothy, and who is said to have been both a hearer of Paul in Pamphylia (Vita Poly. 2) and the successor of Paul’s teaching after his departure from Smyrna (Vita Poly. 3). This discussion about Strataeas implies that he is the one who has handed down the teaching ascribed to Paul’s Smyrna visit (which happens to be anti-Phrygian and anti-Quartodeciman), and that further material about Strataeas and his successors is available to the author (Vita Poly. 3). With this rhetorical situation in mind, a reference to “ancient copies” may therefore be thoroughly explained in the context of the Life of Polycarp 1–3 as a reference not to Acts of Paul but rather to writings of or about Strataeas. Both the (Greek) Acts of Titus (late 5th–early 7th cent.) and Nicetas’s Panegyric to Paul (late 9th–10th cent.) provide evidence for certain acts of Paul. 100 For our purposes, I am not particularly interested in following the itinerary of both documents, sorting out where each depends on Acts of Paul, on the Acts of the Apostles, and/or on some other document. Both attest to several of the acts of Paul in P. Heid., although neither attests to Myra (Acts of Paul 5); the Acts of Titus only vaguely recalls acts in Tyre and Sidon (Acts of Paul 6–7; Acts of Titus 3), which Nicetas omits completely; and neither clearly attests to the material that was written as the Martyrdom’s Prequel (i.e., the Corinth act and Travel from Corinth to Rome; Acts of Paul 12–13). 101 What is alleged about these texts, when they provide material that is not paralleled in the canonized Acts, is that they are providing an “indirect witness” to otherwise non-extant Acts of Paul. 100

Other indirect witnesses are extant, including various rewritings during the Middle Ages (e.g., Simeon Metaphrastes, Menologion [10th cent.]; Jacobus de Voragine, Legenda Aurea [13th cent.]). Also notable is Nicephorus Callistus (ca. 1256–1335), whose Ecclesiastical History 2.25 (PG 145 col. 822) attests to the Ephesian lion story. But such witnesses are not used today to hypothesize additional material; for James’s use of Nicephorus Callistus, see p. 251 n. 105 below. 101 Put differently, neither attests to the Prequel of the Passion Narrative of Paul (Acts of Paul 12–13); and regarding the sequence Antioch–Tyre, only Acts of Titus may refer to some of those acts, both in Phoenicia (Acts of Paul 6–7).

6.2. Other Witnesses

251

Such hypothetical acts are the following: Damascus 102 (Acts of Paul 1: Nicetas, together with the unpublished John Rylands Library Suppl. 44; cp. P. Bodm. 41; Gal 1; Acts 9; 22; 26); Jerusalem 103 (Acts of Paul 8: primarily Nicetas, secondarily Acts of Titus; cp. Gal 1–2; Acts 11, 15); and Crete 104 (Acts of Paul 8; Acts of Titus; cp. Tit 1:5). In addition, M. R. James once even proposed an act in Athens, based on the twelfth-century sermon of John of Salisbury (Policraticus 4.3), 105 since the sermon was not based on the Areopagus speech in Acts 17. But how should we evaluate the use of these “indirect witnesses” to reconstruct “Acts of Paul”? For each of these proposals, to a greater or lesser degree, it may indeed be reasonable to hypothesize an act that was part of some form of Acts of Paul; and I should state clearly that no scholar of Acts of Paul has taken a position that is so maximalist as to hypothesize an act for every site attested in Acts (e.g., Thessalonica) or in some Pauline letter (e.g., Illyricum). But at least two qualifications should be made about the acts in question. First of all, each of the sites proposed is in fact referenced in Acts and/or one or more Pauline letters. Now, neither the (Greek) Acts of Titus nor Nicetas explicitly cites when and where Acts of Paul is being used (so also for John of Salisbury), nor do they state that they are not using other sources. So when these sources include material that is not present in Acts, it is not necessarily from Acts of Paul: the material may have been derived from or based on some other source, or it may have been composed de novo (at least, to the extent that Acts and Acts of Paul were) – for example, in order to “fill in gaps” in Acts or to “fill out” references in Pauline letters. 102 It is on the basis of John Rylands Library Suppl. 44 that a subsequent act to Jerusalem is hypothesized. To harmonize with the story of P. Bodm. 41, Dunn (“The Acts of Paul,” 17) argues that the Damascus act would not have included an account of Paul’s call/conversion or baptism of the lion in the desert. P. Bodm. 41 seems to indicate that Paul’s encounter with the lion occurred between Damascus and Jericho. 103 Schmidt (Acta Pauli, 30*–36*, at 35*) originally located P. Heid. 60/59, as well as P. Heid. 61–70, between Tyre (P. Heid. 40) and Philippi (P. Heid. 41); Schneemelcher (New Testament Apocrypha, 2:218, 237) has postulated that the leaf belongs prior to Antioch (Acts of Paul 1). 104 For example, James, Rordorf, and Dunn; see Dunn, “The Acts of Paul,” 24–26. Cilicia is proposed in Écrits apocryphes chrétiens and CCSA. 105 Montague Rhodes James was the original editor of Oxford’s Apocryphal New Testament; see the Latin in idem, Apocrypha anecdota (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1893–1897; reprinted Neldeln: Kraus, 1967) 2:56; English translation in The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1924; corrected ed. 1953) 299; reprinted in Elliott, Apocryphal New Testament, 351. Similarly, prior to the publication of either P. Hamb. or P. Bodm. 41, James used Nicephorus Callistus, Ecclesiastical History 2.25 (PG 145 col. 822) to reconstruct the lion story.

252

Chapter 6. Remembering “Acts of Paul”

Second, let us assume for the sake of argument that each of these hypothetical acts was indeed part of the form(s) of Acts of Paul available at the times and places these indirect witnesses were composed ([Greek] Acts of Titus, late 5th–early 7th cent.; Nicetas of Paphlagonia, Panegyric to Paul, late 9th–10th cent.): Would the inclusion of such acts confirm – or in any way address the issue of – whether Acts of Paul was an early coherent whole, written in Asia Minor in the late second century, to which all of the manuscripts and now also these indirect witnesses only partially attest? PKJHYQRLWR. Rather, as I explained in §6.2.2, even if we presume that the stichometries attest to a single and theoretically stable “Acts of Paul” and then we ignore “its” many “omissions” in the sixth-century manuscript P. Heid., there is no evidence for such a composite whole existing prior to the late fourth century. Therefore, even if we were to abstract acts from the “indirect witnesses” (e.g., Damascus, Jerusalem, and Crete) and attribute them to “Acts of Paul,” we should do so for a form of Acts of Paul that is contemporary with or subsequent to the composition of such a whole. Or, to put it more strongly: even if we grant the legitimacy of moving from “indirect witnesses” to Acts of Paul, we must understand that the “indirect witnesses” are witnesses only to the form(s) of Acts of Paul that were known when and where the “indirect witnesses” were produced (i.e., no earlier than the late fifth century). For, hypothetically attributing material from a text (e.g., [Greek] Acts of Titus) to an alleged source (Acts of Paul, abstractly conceived) is one thing; but attributing such material to an earlier time – and hence to a potentially earlier form of the source/intertext – is another. Is it, therefore, possible that that one or more forms of “Acts of Paul” included an act in Damascus, Jerusalem, and/or Crete? Yes, of course it is. But in the absence of mitigating circumstances, if the (Greek) Acts of Titus is our basis for inferring such, our conclusion must concern a form of Acts of Paul from no earlier than the late fifth century; and likewise, if we appeal to Nicetas of Paphlagonia’s Panegyric to Paul, our conclusions should concern a form from the late ninth century. With this in mind, let me rephrase my question about how to identify and interpret our sources for “Acts of Paul,” in order to highlight the assumptions and critique the practice of most scholarly reconstructions of Acts of Paul (abstractly conceived): On what basis should we assume that the sixth-century Coptic manuscript P. Heid., all preceding manuscript and non-manuscript evidence, and the later stichometries are all referring to the same Acts of Paul? That, it seems to me, is the research program of most scholarship: to assume an early coherent whole Acts of Paul, composed in

6.2. Other Witnesses

253

the late second century in Asia Minor, and then to use any and all available data as evidence to reconstruct that “original text.” But why should we do so? With the exception of the Ephesus Act (and, if my hypothesis is correct, other parts of the “Lion Cycle”), P. Heid. includes all of the materials otherwise attested for “Acts of Paul” up to the sixth century. Morever, even if we were to add the Ephesus Act to its text (as if it were among the manuscript’s losses), P. Heid. would be only approximately 2400 lines, which is about 1200 fewer lines than the later stichometries tally. Is it plausible that all of the manuscripts and all other extant data for Acts of Paul through the first five centuries would fail to include, or even reference, a full one third of “the” text? – And then, by the sixth century, another fifty percent of material miraculously appears, under different titles, only to be counted by the stichometries in Codex Claromontanus and Nicephorus? To put it simply: it is anachronistic to reconstruct a late-second-century text on the basis of “indirect witnesses” from the late fourth to perhaps early tenth century. Granted, given the paucity of available data, that may seem to be a reasonable practice for reconstructing “Acts of Paul” when it is assumed to be a late-second-century composition from Asia Minor. After all, theory and evidence, presupposition and conclusion, go hand in hand: if Acts of Paul was written in the late second century, then later evidence may help to reconstruct the original. 106 But what if it is that theory itself – with its presupposition(s), criteria, and method – were at fault? 107 What if “Acts of Paul” is not a coherent whole that was composed in Asia Minor in the late second century? Is there another theory to explain the relevant data?

106

Then again, even the canonized gospels, whose compositional processes were more regulated, sometimes expanded: for example, the Gospel of John is (in)famous for its inclusion – in particular manuscripts – of the pericope on the woman caught in adultery. Consider this “thought experiment”: What if we had only two early manuscripts of John, neither of which included the story of the woman caught in adultery, plus a stichometry from the 9th cent. that was slightly longer than our extant manuscripts, plus an 11th cent. sermon that referred to the story of the woman caught in adultery? Would be be right to conclude that the original text of John included that pericope? Arguments based on a paucity of sources may be used to argue for or against either of the theories I am considering. 107 Methodological reflection: Shouldn’t a theory be used that best accounts for the data? Yes, it is partly a theory that determines what counts as data. But often it is the case that several theories may explain roughly the same data – but on different presuppositions, with different criteria, and a different method. On occasion the data themselves question a particular theory by posing “internal conceptual problems.” Sometimes these problems are explainable and/or resolvable; other times, internal conceptual problems occasion the reassessment, redevelopment, or exchange of a theory.

254

Chapter 6. Remembering “Acts of Paul”

6.3. “Acts of Paul”: Composition and Reception 6.3. “Acts of Paul”: Composition and Reception Based on the manuscript evidence and other extant data from the first five centuries, let me propose a different theory: that the phrase “Acts of Paul” (and its related variants) was used to refer to several distinct sequences of narrative, which at first circulated only independently but later were also assembled into various ad hoc collections. 108 One such narrative was the Martyrdom (Acts of Paul 14), which at first circulated independently and then also as part of a Passion Narrative of Paul (Acts of Paul 12–14). The Passion Narrative, which later incorporated 3 Corinthians (Acts of Paul 10) into some prefixed material from Philippi (Acts of Paul 10–11), was written as part of a “catholic,” “orthodox” narrative to glorify Paul’s witness in Rome as part of God’s RLMNRQRPLYD. Scholarly dialogue normally assumes that the Martyrdom and entire Passion Narrative are part of “the” composite whole Acts of Paul, as opposed to a composite whole Acts (of the Apostles). But it is debated whether this narrative sequence offers an ending that is unrelated but functionally parallel to Acts (e.g., Rordorf), an ending that is chronologically later (esp. Bauckham), or an ending that explicitly and perhaps intentionally contests the (a)political stance in Acts (see Acts 25:8); and to this, we may perhaps add whether the Martyrdom provides vignettes and ideology over and against which Acts is developed (see §1.3). Regarding Acts, the only “parallel” in this sequence is the Patroclus/Eutychus story (Martyrdom [Acts of Paul 14]; Acts 20:7–12). 109 Other “parallels” for the Passion Narrative are with another of the “Acts of Paul” (3 Corinthians [Acts of Paul 10] and the speech at the house of Claudius in Rome [Acts of Paul 13]) and with Acts of Peter (Quo vadis?: Acts of Paul 13 and Acts of Peter 35). Two other distinct narratives are the Ephesus story (Acts of Paul 9) and the Thekla story (Acts of Paul 3–4), which at some point may have been written together and circulated as part of a “Lion Cycle.” Among other things, this sequence used leonine symbolism and an embellished narrative to advocate an ideology not attested in other Acts of Paul: baptism as death to the body’s passions, and hence salvation from sexual temptation. The Ephesus story has several “parallels” to Acts: the form of Saul’s/Paul’s call (Acts 9; 22; 26); the function of the call (18:24–19:7, with 18:1–4 and 18– 23); and the riot in Ephesus (19:23–20:1). But the Thekla story appears to be unrelated to Acts 13–14. 108 Compare the D?TORL of Heracles, which even after the construction of temple of Zeus at Olympia varied in number and identity. 109 But compare also the farewell speeches to the Ephesian prebyters and Corinthian community Acts (Acts 20:17–38; Acts of Paul 12), as well as Spirit’s prophecies of Paul’s end (Acts 21:4–6; 21:8b–14; Acts of Paul 12); see p. 57 and §5.1.2.

6.3. “Acts of Paul”: Composition and Reception

255

Whereas the preceding sequences are attested early and were well known by the third century, one sequence of acts is preserved only in the sixth-century Coptic manuscript at Heidelberg. According to my reading, the sequence would have originally been Antioch-Myra-Sidon-Tyre (Acts of Paul 2, 5–7), perhaps including the Frontina material that is otherwise attributed to Philippi (Acts of Paul 11); 110 but in P. Heid., the Acts of Paul and Thekla (Acts of Paul 3–4) – without other parts of the “Lion Cycle” (e.g., the Ephesus Act [Acts of Paul 9]) – seems to have been interpolated between Antioch and Myra. Setting this interpolation in abeyance, in part because I am open to the possibility that an earlier form of Thekla’s story once occurred within the material set in Antioch (now Pisidian but probably Syrian originally), the Antioch–Tyre sequence portrays Paul in a manner similar to Acts 16–28: he travels, works wonders, preaches, and so forth. Indeed, were it not for Acts 11:26–15:3, one would wonder whether the Antioch–Tyre sequence in P. Heid. was a missing part of Acts. (Compare the regions Saul and Barnabas visit in Acts 9 and 11, and note the manuscript tradition and options for Acts 21:1–3.) Just as individual acts were collected and expanded into short narrative sequences, so were short narrative sequences later collected and written together. The first extant example occurs in the fourth-century Greek manuscript P. Hamb., where the Passion Narrative (Acts of Paul 12–14) was stitched together with the Ephesus Act (Acts of Paul 9), like blocks in a quilt, under the title “Acts of Paul.” Not surprisingly, the texts that were collected as “parts” of a “whole” in P. Hamb. continued to circulate both independently and in short narrative sequences (e.g., the Manichaean Psalm-Book; Jerome, De vir. ill. 7). But the collection that occurs in P. Hamb. is also interesting. For, since the Passion Narrative was composed in the mid-to-late second century, perhaps in Corinth or Rome, and since the Ephesus Act may have been composed earlier and separately from the Acts of Paul and Thekla, perhaps based on early traditions in western Asia Minor, it is possible that P. Hamb. (ca. 300 C.E.) attests to a “western” collection of “Acts of Paul” that dates as early as the midsecond century. The second example of a broader collection occurs in the sixth-century Coptic manuscript P. Heid., where the Passion Narrative (Acts of Paul 12– 14) was expanded with the Philippi material (Acts of Paul 10–11) and was written together with the Antioch–Tyre sequence (Acts of Paul 2; 5–7), including the Acts of Paul and Thekla (Acts of Paul 3–4). Interestingly, P. Heid. does not attest materially to the Ephesus Act (Acts of Paul 9), 110 Consider also earlier forms of the Ephesus Act (Acts of Paul 9) and Thekla’s story in Antioch (Acts of Paul 4), which in theory may have represented an earlier collection of acts that highlighted Paul’s christologized Israelite monolatry and wonder-working.

256

Chapter 6. Remembering “Acts of Paul”

whose composition may have been related to western Asia Minor; but its collection does include 3 Corinthians, which may have been composed in western Syria in the mid-second-century, the Acts of Paul and Thekla, which is often associated with non-western Asia Minor and/or with Syria, and acts that are narratively set in Syria (or Phrygia), Pamphylia (southern Asia Minor), and Phoenicia. So P. Heid. (ca. 500 C.E.) includes the Passion Narrative, which probably originated in Corinth or Rome; but compared to P. Hamb., the other materials in P. Heid. represent an “eastern” collection of “Acts of Paul” that would date no earlier than the late second century and probably later. To the extent that generalizations may be made from so few examples, the extant manuscripts of Acts of Paul, rather than evincing the selection of fewer materials over time through omission and/or deletion, imply that “Acts of Paul” functioned as a site to collect a variety of local traditions about Paul. Therefore, “Acts of Paul” may have continued to grow and develop, adding and expanding for centuries, taking on various local forms according to the traditions received, produced, and reproduced. In this way, the diverse and dynamic practices of composition and reception that produced at least three distinct narrative strands for Acts of Paul may have continued, helping to account for the later and rather significant accretion of traditions that occurred in the name of “Acts of Paul.” 111

111 I am intentionally not discussing the theory that a certain Leucius (or Leutius) [Gr. Leukios (Charinos)] composed Acts of Paul together with other acts of apostles (see Schäferdiek, “The Manichaean Collection,” 87–100). But it is interesting that this claim appears and spreads quickly in the fourth century. Particularly given their interest in baptismal and ascetic practices, it is not surprising that from the traditions abstractly ascribed to “Acts of Paul,” the Manichaeans attest particularly to the Acts of Paul and Thekla and apparently also to the Ephesus Act. These parts of the “Lion Cycle” antedate Mani, but it is not impossible that a Manichaean expansion later occurred (e.g., in the late 3d or early 4th cent.) under the title “Acts of Paul.” (Photius, the 9th-cent. patriarch of Constantinople, refers in cod. 114 of his Biblotheca to SHULYRGRL … 3DXYORX, “Travels of Paul,” allegedly composed by Leucius.) Whether such an expansion would make sense of the positive valuations in the stichometries is another matter, but one expansion (or, perhaps better, one broader collection) does not preclude another – as attested by P. Hamb. and P. Heid.

Conclusion “Acts of Paul” is commonly understood to be a coherent whole whose manuscripts and other extant witnesses attest only partially to a text that was composed in Greek in late second-century Asia Minor. On this presupposition, a research program has been developed to “reconstruct” such a whole by abstracting any and all traditions from manuscripts titled “Acts of Paul” (or an equivalent) and by adducing additional materials from later acts, sermons, etc. Part of my work has been an exposé of this research program: to identify its presuppositions, criteria, and method; and to discuss how and why some of the “data” for Acts of Paul (so understood) is problematic. But the goal of this study has not been to polemicize other scholarship or the category “Acts of Paul”; it has been to remember the traditions preserved in the fourth-century Greek manuscript at Hamburg (P. Hamb.) and the sixth-century Coptic manuscript at Heidelberg (P. Heid.), and to study the composition, reception, and development of these “Acts of Paul.” Having studied the diversity of these traditions in chapters 1–4 and the evidence for “Acts of Paul” in chapters 5–6, we are left the question: Why were these traditions – especially if they originated separately and developed in smaller sequences of acts – variously collected together as “Acts of Paul”? Part of the reason must be “negative”: as a byproduct of local and translocal processes of “canonization,” particularly during the third to fifth centuries C.E., the title “Acts of Paul” must have functioned, with chronological and geographic variation, as a site to collect traditions about Paul that had not been preserved in Acts. But there were also “positive” reasons for how and why some of the traditions were collected as “Acts of Paul.” In particular, the use of several of the traditions in shared worship spaces and/or in common liturgical practices may help to explain some of the collections. We know from the earliest possible reference to “Acts of Paul” (Tertullian, De baptismo 17.5) that the Acts of Paul and Thekla was being used to debate the ideology and practice of baptism, if not for catechetical instruction. From Tertullian (De scorp. 15), we also learn that the Martyrdom was being read for matters of personal piety, if not also for ecclesiastical histories; and, from its manuscripts and later citations, we know that the Martyrdom was also used to

258

Conclusion

commemorate Paul’s feast day (29 June; earlier, 28 December), if not for other cultic remembrances as well. The Ephesus Act and the Acts of Paul and Thekla – as well as some other acts (e.g., the penultimate form of the Martyrdom) – were particularly interested in one or another kind of baptism, as were the Manichaeans who collected and read the “Lion Cycle” ascetically for such purposes. Indeed Thekla, especially in the fourth and fifth centuries, was widely regarded among ascetic and monastic communities, as she received pilgrims in Seleucia and was rumored to travel elsewhere (one of the benefits of lacking bodily remains). By the late fourth century, the female pilgrim Egeria was able to visit a martyrium to Thekla in Seleucia, where she participated in prayer, Eucharist, and the reading of Thekla’s acts – a pilgrimmage that, according to the fifthcentury Life and Miracles of Saint Thekla, often occurred between Tarsus and Seleucia to commemorate Paul and Thekla. The collection, if not the composition and development, of some of the most renowned “Acts of Paul” may therefore be situated within particular practices, even at particular locations, either for catechetical instruction, baptismal ideology and practice, or for remembrance of Paul and/or Thekla. 1 The diverse receptions of these traditions problematizes dichotomous categorizations of “the” Acts of Paul as “noncanonical” (versus canonical), “rejected” (versus accepted), “heretical” (versus orthodox), and so forth. For example, the Martyrdom of Paul – in one form or another – has been used for historical and liturgical purposes by various kinds of Christians, “orthodox” or otherwise, since its composition until today. As such, the Martyrdom is not – nor has it ever been – on par with, much less part of, canonized Scripture (when and where that category is appropriate). But it is orthodox enough to be useful. Conversely, 3 Corinthians is so orthodox that it was included in Bibles not only in the East (e.g., Syria and Armenia) but also in some Latin manuscripts into the Middle Ages; and its manuscript tradition indicates that it was useful enough to be “updated” to legitimate contemporary orthodoxy (especially regarding Mother Mary). The lion story also had a lengthy history of acceptance in the West (e.g., Nicephorus Callistus). And Thekla’s enduring value for the Orthodox is evident to this day. So even though a few authors made some negative comments against part or all of the “Lion Cycle” (e.g., Tertullian, Jerome, anti-Manichaean writers, Decretum Gelasianum), such valuation is more than counterbalanced by the positive receptions of the same and other traditions ascribed to “Acts of Paul.” 1

In Greek literature, compare, for example, the (Ps.-)Homeric Hymns, which were often composed for local cult sites, as well as the so-called “legends” of heroes – especially in the late archaic to classical periods. Particularly interesting are the various D?TORL and SUDY[HL ascribed to Heracles and Theseus.

Conclusion

259

As tiles in a mosaic or blocks in a quilt, the traditions that constitute “Acts of Paul” work together to portray a colorful, three-dimensional Paul. From a general (Martyrdom), to a beast-fighter (Ephesus), to an empowering presence (Acts of Paul and Thekla), to an authoritative teacher (3 Corinthians), to a miraculous healer (Antioch–Tyre), “Acts of Paul” remembers a Paul who was faithful in life, death, and DMQDYVWDVL. A Paul so remembered has a life that surpasses embodiment, continuing to inspire his devotees – not only in the reading of his letters, but in pilgrimmage, petition, and other acts of piety. This is the Paul portrayed in early Christian iconography not only with Christ, Peter, and the apostles, but with Thekla and Theokleia. This is the Paul not only of creed and canon but of the catacombs and cathedrals. To behold such a Paul, let us look not only to the canonized writings but to the variety of artifacts that were produced in and for and even against his name, remembering “Acts of Paul.”

Appendix Abstractly conceived, “Acts of Paul” includes at least three narrative sequences, each of which has its own history of composition and reception: (1) the Passion Narrative of Paul (Acts of Paul 12–14), which had at least two stages of development: first the Martyrdom of Paul (Acts of Paul 14) – or its penultimate written form – was expanded with a “Prequel” (Acts of Paul 12–13), and then later additional materials were prefixed (e.g., 3 Corinthians; Acts of Paul 10[–11]); (2) a “Lion Cycle,” which comprised the Ephesus Act (Acts of Paul 9), the Acts of Paul and Thekla (Acts of Paul 3–4), and some non-extant materials, including the baptism of a lioness; and (3) a sequence from Antioch to Tyre (Acts of Paul 2; 5–7), into which the Acts of Paul and Thekla (Acts of Paul 3–4) was interpolated in P. Heid. – or its Vorlage – even if an earlier form of Thekla’s story used to be there (e.g., in Syrian Antioch). In this Appendix, I have prepared two additional figures to represent the traditions abstractly ascribed to “Acts of Paul.” The first (Figure A.1, p. 262 below) represents traditions that scholars have abstracted from various sources to reconstruct a hypothetical composite whole Acts of Paul (see also Figure 0.1, pp. 4–5). The lefthand column lists alleged geographic locations of acts; the center column identifies an act’s abstract section number(s), as well as its principal witnesses (in parentheses) and commonly used titles [in brackets]; and the righthand column lists significant “parallels” to the canonized Acts. The second (Figure A.2, p. 263 below) represents stages of composition and development for the distinct narrative strands that were collected as “Acts of Paul” until the composition of the Heidelberg manuscript (P. Heid., late 5th–early 6th cent.). The primary means of representation is shapes: circles with solid borders indicate the traditions preserved in extant manuscripts; rectangles indicate distinct sequences of traditions; the triangle indicates material composed as a Prequel to some form of the Martyrdom; and circles with dashed borders indicate traditions that I have hypothesized based on the extant witnesses. Most hypothetical is the “Lion Cycle,” which may have been composed in stages and probably included additional material, such as the baptism of a lioness.

262

Appendix

Figure A.1. “Parallels” between Acts of Paul and Acts Location

Acts of Paul

Acts

Jerusalem?

1 (P. Heid. 60?)

7:58–8:3; 9:1–2

Damascus?

1 (John Ryl. pap.; P. Bodm. 41; Nicetas)

9; 22; 26

Jericho?

1 (John Ry. pap.; P. Bodm. 41)

—

Jerusalem?

1 (P. Heid. 60?)

7:58–8:3; 9:1–2

Antioch

2 (P. Heid.; Acts of Titus 4; Nicetas)

(11:25–26; 13:1–3)

Iconium

3 (P. Heid.) [Acts of Paul and Thekla]

13–14, at 13:51–14:7

Antioch (and Myra)

4 (P. Heid.) [Acts of Paul and Thekla]

13–14, at 13:14–50

Myra

5 (P. Heid.)

(27:5; 21:1 var.)

Sidon

6 (P. Heid.)

(27:3; 21:2)

Tyre

7 (P. Heid.)

(21:3)

Jerusalem?

8 (P. Heid. 60?; Acts of Titus 3; Nicetas)

15

Cilicia?

8 (P. Bodm. 41)

—

Crete?

8 (Acts of Titus 5)

—

Smyrna?

8 (P. Bodm. 41; Vita Poly.)

—

9 (P. Bodm. 41; P. Hamb.) [Ephesus Act]

call: 9; 22; 26; riot: 19:23–20:1; other: 18:18–28; 19:1–7

10 (P. Bodm. 10; P. Heid.) [3 Corinthians]

16:11–40; cp. 20:1–3

Ephesus

Philippi 1

11 (P. Heid.)

(16:11–40; cp. 20:1–3)

Corinth

12 (P. Hamb.; P. Heid.)

18:1–17; cp. 20:1–3

Travel to Rome

13 (P. Hamb.; P. Heid.)

27:1–28:16 (also Acts of Peter 35)

Rome

14 (P. Hamb.; P. Heid.) [Martyrdom]

20:7–12; 28:17–31

“Philippi”

1 The material attributed to Philippi (Acts of Paul 10–11) may represent two acts, particularly since the content in Acts of Paul 11 (Frontina) is not clearly situated in Philippi. Other acts (e.g., Athens) have also been hypothesized; see §§5.2.2 and 6.1.5. But the chart above is a useful representation of current scholarly debate. See also Figure 0.1., pp. 4–5 above.

Appendix

Figure A.2. Traditions Ascribed to Acts of Paul until P. Heid. I

263

Bibliography Achtemeier, Paul J. 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter Ed. Eldon J. Epp. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996. Adamik, Tamás. “The Baptized Lion in the Acts of Paul.” In The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla (ed. Bremmer) 60–74. Aland, Kurt. “The Problem of Anonymity and Pseudonymity in Christian Literature in the First Two Centuries.” JTS 12 (1961) 39–49. Albrecht, Ruth Das Leben der heiligen Makrina auf dem Hintergrund der TheklaTradition. Studient zu den Ursprungen des weiblichen Monchtums im 4. Jahrhundert in Kleinasien. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Allberry, C. R. C., ed. A Manichaean Psalm-Book, part II, vol. 2. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1938. D’Angelo, Mary Rose. “Veils, Virgins, and the Tongues of Men and Angels.” In Off with Her Head. Ed. H. Eilberg-Schwartz and W. Doniger. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995. pp. 131–54. D’Anna, Alberto. “La pseudepigrafa Corrispondenza tra Paolo e i Corinzi: il suo contesto e la sua funzione nella construzione di un’identità dottrinale cristiana.” Annali di storia dell’esegesi 20 (2003) 111–37. –. Terza lettera ai Corinzi. La risurrezione. Letture cristiane del primo millennio 44. Milan: Paoline, 2009. Anson, John. “The Female Transvestite in Early Monasticism: The Origin and Development of a Motif.” Viator: Medieval and Renaissance Studies 5 (1974) 1–32. Armstrong, Jonathan J. “Victorinus of Pettau as the Author of the Canon Muratori.” VC 62 (2008) 1–34. Aspegren, Kerstin. The Male Woman: A Feminine Ideal in the Early Church. Ed. René Kieffer. Acta universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala Women’s Studies, Women in Religion 4. Sweden: Gotab, 1990. Attridge, Harold W. “Genre Bending in the Fourth Gospel.” JBL 121 (2002) 3–21. Aubin, Melissa. “Reversing Romance? The Acts of Thekla and the Ancient Novel.” In Ancient Fiction and Early Christian Narrative. Ed. Ronald F. Hock, J. Bradley Chance, and Judith Perkins. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1998. Aubineau, Michel “Compléments au dossier de sainte Thècle.” AnBoll 93 (1975) 356–62. Aucher, Pasqual. A Grammar, Armenian and English. Trans. Lord George Gordon Byron. Venice: Press of the Armenian Academy, 1819. Auger, Marie-Louise. “La Bibliothèque de Saint-Bénigne de Dijon au XVIIe Siècle: Le Témoignage de Dom Hughes Lanthenas.” Scriptorium 39:2 (1985) 234–64. Aune, David C. “Mastery of the Passions: Philo, 4 Maccabees and Earliest Christianity.” In Hellenization Revisited: Shaping a Christian Response within the Greco-Roman World. Ed. Wendy E. Helleman. Lanham/New York: University Press of America, 1994. pp. 125–58.

266

Bibliography

Aune, David E.. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. Ed. Wayne A. Meeks. Library of Early Christianity 8. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987. pp. 158–225. Aymer, Margaret P. “Hailstorms and Fireballs: Redaction, World Creation, and Resistance in the Acts of Paul and Thecla.” Semeia 79 (1997) 45–61. Babcock, William S. ed. Paul and the Legacies of Paul. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1990. Baldwin, Matthew C. Whose Acts of Peter?: Text and Historical Context of the Actus Vercellenses. WUNT 2.196. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Barrier, Jeremy W. The Acts of Paul and Thecla: A Critical Introduction and Commentary. WUNT 270. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Bartelink, Gerard J. M. “Androclus en de leeuw. De geschiedenis van een literair motief.” Hermeneus 51 (1979) 2–13. Bauckham, Richard. “The Acts of Paul as a Sequel to Acts.” In The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting. Vol. 1 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting. Ed. Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993. pp. 105–52. –. “The Acts of Paul: Replacement of Acts or Sequel to Acts?” Semeia 80 (1997) 159–68. Berendts, A. “Zur Christologie des apokryphen 3. Korintherbriefes.” In Abhandlungen Alexander von Öttingen. Münich: C. H. Beck, 1898. pp. 1–28. Berger, Samuel, and A. Carrière. “La correspondance apocryphe de saint Paul et des Corinthiens. Ancienne version latine et traduction du texte arménien.” RTP 24 (1891) 333–51. Bisbee, Gary A. Pre-Decian Acts of Martyrs and Commentarii. Ed. Margaret R. Miles and Bernadette J. Brooten. Harvard Dissertations in Religion 22. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988. Boese, Helmut. “Über eine bisher unbekannte Handschrift des Briefwechsels zwischen Paulus und den Korinthern.” ZNW 44 (1952) 66–76. Bollók, János. “The Description of Paul in the Acta Pauli.” In The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla. Ed. Jan N. Bremmer. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996. pp. 1–15. Bolyki, János. “Events after the Martyrdom: Missionary Transformation of an Apocalyptical Metaphor in Martyrium Pauli.” In The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla. Ed. Jan N. Bremmer. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996. pp. 92–106. Boughton, Lynne Courter. “From Pious Legend to Feminist Fantasy: Distinguishing Hagiographical License from Apostolic Practice in the Acts of Paul/Acts of Thecla.” Journal of Religion 71 (1991) 362–83. Bovon, François. “Baptism in the Ancient Church.” Sewanee Theological Review 42 (1999) 428–38. –. “Beyond the Book of Acts: Stephen, the First Christian Martyr, in Traditions outside the New Testament Canon of Scripture.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 32 (2005) 93–107. –. “Canonical and Noncanonical Acts of the Apostles.” Reprinted in idem, New Testament and Christian Apocrypha: Collected Studies II. Ed. Glenn E. Snyder. WUNT 237. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2009. pp. 197–222. –. “The Child and the Beast: Fighting Violence in Ancient Christianity.” HTR 92 (1999) 369–92. –. “The Dossier on Stephen, the First Martyr.” HTR 96 (2003) 279–315. –. Luke the Theologian: Fifty-Five Years of Research. 2d rev. ed. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2006.

Bibliography

267

–. “Paul as Document and Paul as Monument.” Reprinted in idem, New Testament and Christian Apocrypha: Collected Studies II. Ed. Glenn E. Snyder. WUNT 237. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. pp. 307–17. –. “The Reception of the Book of Acts in Late Antiquity.” In Contemporary Studies in Acts. Ed. Thomas E. Phillips. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 2009. pp. 66–92. –. “The Synoptic Gospels and the Noncanonical Acts of the Apostles.” HTR 81 (1988) 19–36. –. “Une nouvelle citation des Actes de Paul chez Origène.” Apocrypha 5 (1994) 113–17. Bovon, François, and Pierre Geoltrain, eds. Écrits apocryphes chrétiens. 2 vols. Paris: Gallimard, 1997– . Bovon, François, Bertrand Bouvier, and Frédéric Amsler. Acta Philippi. 2 vols. CCSA 11–12. Turnhout: Brepols, 1999. Bovon, François, et al., eds. Les Actes apocryphes des Apôtres. Christianisme et monde païen. Publications de la faculté de théologie de l’Université de Genève 4. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1981. Bowersock, Glen W. Martyrdom and Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Boyarin, Daniel. Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism. Figurae: Reading Medieval Culture. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999. Bratke, Eduard. “Ein zweiter lateinischer Text des apokryphen Briefwechsels zwischen dem Apostel Paulus und den Korinthern.” TLZ 24 (1892) 585–88. Braun, Willi. “Physiotherapy of Femininity in the Acts of Thecla.” In Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity. Ed. Stephen G. Wilson, et al. Waterloo, Ont.: Canadian Corp. for Studies in Religion, 2000. pp. 209–30. Bremmer, Jan N. “Magic, Martyrdom, and Women’s Liberation in the Acts of Paul and Thecla.” In The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla. Ed. Jan N. Bremmer. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996. pp. 36–59. –, ed. The Apocryphal Acts of Andrew. Studies on the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles 5. Leuven: Peeters, 2000. –, ed. The Apocryphal Acts of John. Studies on the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles 1. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1995. –, ed. The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla. Studies on Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles 2. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996. –, ed. The Apocryphal Acts of Peter: Magic, Miracles and Gnosticism. Studies on the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles 3. Leuven: Peeters, 1998. Brock, Ann Graham. “Genre of the Acts of Paul: One Tradition Enhancing Another.” Apocrypha 5 (1994) 119–36. Brown, Peter Robert Lamont. The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity. Lectures on the History of Religions, New Series, 13. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988. –. “The Notion of Virginity in the Early Church.” In Christian Spirituality: Origins to the Twelfth Century. World Spirituality: An Encyclopedic History of the Religious Quest 16. Ed. Bernard McGinn and John Meyendorff. New York: Crossroad, 1985. pp. 427– 43 –. “The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity.” Journal of Roman Studies 61 (1971) 80–101. Reprinted in idem, Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1982. pp. 103–52. –. “The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity, 1971–1997.” JECS 6 (1998) 353–76.

268

Bibliography

Bundy, David. “The Pseudo-Ephremian Commentary on Third Corinthians: A Study in Exegesis and Anti-Bardaisanite Polemic.” In After Bardaisan: Studies on Continuity and Change in Syriac Christianity in Honour of Professor Han J. W. Drijvers. Ed. Gerrit J. Reinink and Alexander Cornelis Klugkist. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 89. Louvain: Peeters, 1999. pp. 51–63. Burrus, Virginia. Chastity as Autonomy: Women in the Stories of Apocryphal Acts. Studies in Women and Religion 23. Lewiston, N.Y.: E. Mellen Press, 1987. –. The Sex Lives of Saints: An Erotics of Ancient Hagiography. Diviniations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. –. “Mimicking Virgins: Colonial Ambivalence and the Ancient Romance,” Arethusa 38 (2005) 49–88. –. “Word and Flesh: The Bodies and Sexuality of Ascetic Women in Christian Antiquity,” JFSR 10:1 (1994) 27–51. Bynum, Caroline Walker. The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christendom, 200– 1336. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995. Cartlidge, David R. “Competing Theologies of Asceticism in the Early Church.” Th.D. diss., Harvard Divinity School, 1969. Castelli, Elizabeth. “‘I Will Make Mary Male’: Pieties of the Body and Gender Transformation of Christian Women in Late Antiquity.” In Body Guards: The Cultural Politics of Gender Ambiguity. Ed. Julia Epstein and Kristina Staub. London: Routledge, 1991. pp. 29–49. –. Martyrdom and Memory: Early Christian Culture Making. Gender, Theory, and Religion. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004. Ceriani, A. M. La correspondance apocryphe de Saint Paul et des Corinthiens. Paris: 1891. Charlesworth, James H. The Good and Evil Serpent: How a Universal Symbol Became Christianized. The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2010. –, with James R. Mueller. The New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: A Guide to Publications, with Excursuses on Apocalypses. London: ATLA and the Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1987. no. 59. Clabeaux, John J. A Lost Edition of the Letters of Paul: A Reassessment of the Text of the Pauline Corpus Attested by Marcion. CBQMS 21. Washington: Catholical Biblical Association, 1989. Clark, Elizabeth A. “Antifamilial Tendencies in Ancient Christianity.” Journal of the History of Sexuality 3 (1995) 356–80. –. History, Theory, Text: Historians and the Linguistic Turn. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004. –. Reading Renunciation: Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999. Cobb, L. Stephanie. Dying to Be Men: Gender and Language in Early Christian Martyr Texts. Gender, Theory, and Religion. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008. Cohen, Shaye J. D. The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1999. Coleman, Kathleen M. “Fatal Charades: Roman Executions Staged as Mythological Enactments.” Journal of Roman Studies 80 (1990) 44–73. Coles, Revel A. Reports of Proceedings in Papyri. Papyrologica Bruxellensia 4. Brussels: Fondation Egyptologique Reine Elisabeth, 1966. Cooper, Kate. The Virgin and the Bride: Idealized Womanhood in Late Antiquity. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1996.

Bibliography

269

Cowe, S. Peter. “A Typology of Armenian Biblical Manuscripts.” REArm 18 (1984) 63–64. Cox Miller, Patricia. Biography in Late Antiquity: A Quest for the Holy Man. Transformation of Classical Heritage 5. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983. Croy, N. Clayton. “ ‘To Die Is Gain’ (Philippians 1:19–26): Does Paul Contemplate Suicide?” JBL 122:3 (2003) 517–31. Crum,Walter E. “New Coptic Manuscripts in the John Rylands Library.” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 5 (1918–1920) 501. Curley, Michael J. Physiologus. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009. Czachesz, Istaván. “The Acts of Paul and the Western Text of Luke’s Acts: Paul between Canon and Apocrypha.” In The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla. Ed. Jan N. Bremmer. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996. pp. 107–25. –. Commission Narratives: A Comparative Study of the Canonical and Apocryphal Acts. Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha 8. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. Dagron, Gilbert, ed. Vie et miracles de Sainte Thècle: Texte grec, traduction, et commentaire. Subsidia Hagiographica 62. Bruxelles: Société des Bollandistes, 1978. Dassmann, Ernst. Der Stachel im Fleisch. Paulus in der frühchristlichen Literatur bis Irenäus. Münster: Aschendorff, 1979. Davies, Stevan L. “Women, Tertullian, and the Acts of Paul.” Semeia 38 (1986) 139–43. –. The Revolt of the Widows: The Social World of the Apocryphal Acts. Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press, 1980. Davis, J. G. “Factors Leading to the Emergence of Belief in the Resurrection of the Flesh.” JTS n.s. 23 (1972) 448–55. Davis, Stephen J. “Crossed Texts, Crossed Sex: Intertextuality and Gender in Early Christian Legends of Holy Women Disguised as Men.” JECS 10:1 (2002) 1–36. –. “Fashioning a Divine Body: Coptic Christology and Ritualized Dress.” HTR 98:3 (2005) 335–62. –. The Cult of Saint Thecla: A Tradition of Women’s Piety in Late Antiquity. Oxford Early Christian Studies. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. De Bruyne, Dom Donatien. “Un Nouveau Manuscrit de la Troisième Lettre de Saint Paul aux Corinthiens.” RBén 25:1 (1908) 431–34. –. “Prologues bibliques d’origine Marcionite.” RBén 24:1 (1907) 1–16. –. “Un Quatrième Manuscrit Latin de la Correspondance Apocryphe de S. Paul avec Les Corinthians.” RBén 45:3 (1933) 189–95. Delehaye, Hippolyte. Les légendes hagiographiques. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1905. –. The Legends of the Saints: An Introduction to Hagiography. Trans. V. M. Crawford. Intro. Richard J. Schoeck. University of Notre Dame Press, 1961. –. Les passions des martyrs et les genres littéraires. Subsidia Hagiographica 13B. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1921. 2d ed. 1966 (post-mortem). den Dulk, Matthijs. “I Permit No Woman to Teach except for Thecla: The Curious Case of the Pastoral Epistles and the Acts of Paul Reconsidered.” NovT 54:2 (2012) 176–203. Diamond, Eliezer. Holy Men and Hunger Artists: Fasting and Asceticism in Rabbinic Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. –. “Lions, Snakes, and Asses: Palestinian Jewish Holy Men as Masters of the Animal Kingdom.” In Jewish Culture and Society under the Christian Roman Empire. Ed. Richard Kalmin and Seth Schwartz. Leuven: Peeters, 2003. pp. 251–83. von Dobschütz, Ernst. Das Decretum Gelasianum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1912. –. “Der Roman in der altchristlichen Literatur.” Deutsche Rundschau 111 (1902) 87–106.

270

Bibliography

Drijvers, Han J. W. “Der getaufte Löwe und die Theologie der Acta Pauli.” In CarlSchmidt-Kolloquium an der Martin-Luther Universität 1988. Ed. Peter Nagel. Wissenschaftliche Beiträge. Halle-Wittenberg: Martin-Luther-Universitat, 1990) 181–89. Droge, Arthur J. “Mori Lucrum: Paul and Ancient Theories of Suicide.” NovT 30:3 (1988) 263–86. Droge, Arthur J., and James D. Tabor. A Noble Death: Suicide and Martyrdom among Christian and Jews in Antiquity. 1st ed. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992. Duchesne, Louis. Liber pontificalis. 3 vols. Paris: Éditions de Boccard, 1981. Dunn, Peter W. “The Acts of Paul and the Pauline Legacy in the Second Century.” Ph.D. diss., Queens College, Cambridge University, 1996. –. “The Influence of 1 Corinthians on the Acts of Paul.” SBLSP 35 (1996) 438–54. –. “Women’s Liberation, the Acts of Paul, and Other Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles: A Review of Some Recent Interpreters.” Apocrypha 4 (1993) 245–61. Eastman, David Lamont. “The Cult of the Apostle Paul the Martyr in the Latin West.” Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 2009. Published as idem, Paul the Martyr The Cult of the Apostle in the Latin West (SBL Writings from the Greco-Roman World Supplement Series 4; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2011). Egeria’s Travels. Ed. John Wilkinson. 3d ed. Warminster: Eris and Phillips, 1999. Ehrman, Bart D. Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Make It into the New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. pp. 157–59. –. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. –, ed. and trans. The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1. LCL 24; Cambridge, Mass.; Harvard University Press, 2003. Elliott, A. G. The Road to Paradise: Reading the Lives of the Early Saints. Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England, 1987. pp. 145–51. Elliott, J(ames). K(eith). “Review of Vahan Hovhanessian, Third Corinthians.” JTS 52:2 (2001) 854–56. –, ed. The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. Elliott, John Hall. 1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 37B. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Elm, Susanna. “Virgins of God”: The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Elsner, Jás, and Ian Rutherford. Pilgrimage in Graeco-Roman and Early Christian Antiquity: Seeing the Gods. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Engberg-Pedersen, Troels. Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Ephraem. S. Ephraemi Syri commentarii in epistolas D. Pauli nunc primum ex Armenio in Latinum sermonem a patribus Mekitharistis translati. Venice: Typographia Sancti Lazari, 1893. pp. 117–24. –. Srboyn Ep’remi matenagrut’iwnk’ [= “Works of Ephrem”]. 4 vols. Venetik [Venice]: Tparani Srboyn Ghazaru, 1836) 3:116–23. Epp, Eldon J. “The Multivalence of the Term ‘Original Text’ in New Testament Textual Criticism.” HTR 92 (1999) 245–81. –. The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966. Erbetta, Mario. Gli Apocrifi del Nuovo Testamento. 2d ed. 4 vols. Torino: Marietti, 1966– 1981.

Bibliography

271

Esch-Wermeling, Elisabeth. Thekla–Paulusschülerin wider Willen? Strategien der Leserlenkung in den Theklaakten. Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen 53. Münster: Aschendorff, 2008. Evans, Craig A., and H. Daniel Zacharias, eds. Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Fabricius, Johannes Albertus. Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti: Collectus, castigatus, testimoniisque, censuris & animadversionibus. 3 vols. 2d ed. Hamburg: Schiller & Kisneri, 1719. Ferguson, Everett. Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009. Fitzmyer, Joseph A., S.J. The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Yale Bible 31. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1998. Foucault, Michel The History of Sexuality. 3 vols. Trans. Robert Hurley. New York: Vintage Books, 1988–1990. Fraade, Steven D. “Ascetical Aspects of Ancient Judaism.” In Jewish Spirituality: From the Bible through the Middle Ages. Ed. Arthur Green. New York: Crossroad, 1986. pp. 253–88. Friesen, Steven J. Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John: Reading Revelation in the Ruins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. –. Twice Neokoros: Ephesus, Asia, and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Frilingos, Christopher A. Spectacles of Empire: Monsters, Martyrs, and the Book of Revelation. Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. Frow, John. Genre. The New Critical Idiom. London/New York: Routledge, 2005. Gager, John G. “Body-Symbols and Social Reality: Resurrection, Incarnation, and Asceticism in Early Christianity.” Religion 12 (1982) 345–63. Gamble, Harry Y. “The New Testament Canon: Recent Research and the Status Questionis.” In The Canon Debate. Ed. Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002. pp. 267–94. Garnsey, Peter. “Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire.” In Studies in Ancient Society. Ed. Michael I. Finley; Past and Present Series. Gen. ed. Trevor Aston. London: Routledge, 1974. pp. 141–65. Geerard, Maurice. Clavis apocryphorum Novi Testamenti. Corpus Christianorum. Turnhout: Brepols, 1992. Genette, Gérard. Palimpsestes. La littérature au second degré. Paris: Seuil, 1982. English translation: Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree. Trans. Channa Newman and Claude Doubinsky. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1997. Giovannini, Adalberto, and Erhard Grzybek. Der Prozess Jesu. Jüdische Justizautonomie und römische Strafgewalt. Eine philologisch-verfassungsgeschichtliche Studie. Munich: Verlag Ernst Vögel, 2008. Glancy, Jennifer A. “Boasting of Beatings (2 Corinthians 11:23–25.” JBL 123 (2004) 99–135. Goulet, Richard. “Les Vies de philosophes dans l’Antiquité tardive et leur portée mystère.” In Les Actes apocryphes des apôtres (ed. Bovon) 161–208. Gounelle, Rémi. “Actes Apocryphes des Apôtres et Actes des Apôtres Canoniques: État de la recherche et perspectives nouvelles (II).” RHPR 84 (2004) 419–41. Grabe, Joannes Ernestus. Spicilegium SS. patrum ut et haereticorum, seculi post Christum natum I. II. & III. 2 vols. Oxoniae: E Theatro Sheldoniano, 1698–1699.

272

Bibliography

Grant, Robert M. “The Description of Paul in the Acts of Paul and Thecla.” VC 36 (1982) 1–4. Grimm, Veronika. “Fasting Women in Judaism and Christianity in Late Antiquity.” In Food in Antiquity. Eds. John Wilkins, David Harvey, and Mike Dobson. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1996. pp. 225–40. Guéraud, Octave, and Pierre Nautin. Origène. Sur la Pâque. Christianisme Antique 2. Paris: Beauchesne, 1979. Gutschmid, Alfred. “Die Königsname in den apokryphen Apostlegeschichten.” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie n.s. 19 (1864) 161–83. Reprinted in idem, Kleine Schriften. 5 vols. Ed. Franz Rühl. Leipzig: Teubner, 1889–1894. Hadot, Pierre Philosophy as a Way of Life: Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault. Ed. Arnold Davidson. Trans. Michael Chase. New York: Blackwell, 1995. Hägg, Tomas. The Novel in Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983. Hahneman, Geoffrey Mark. The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. Haines-Eitzen, Kim. “Engendering Palimpsests: Reading the Textual Tradition of the Acts of Paul and Thecla.” In The Early Christian Book. Ed. William E. Klingshirn and Linda Safran. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2007. pp. 177–93. –. Guardians of Letters: Literacy, Power, and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Halkin, F. “La légende crétoise de saint Tite.” AnBoll 79 (1961) 241–56. Hanson, R. P. C. Tradition in the Early Church. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962. Harmless, William. Desert Christians: An Introduction to the Literature of Early Monasticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Harnack, Adolf. “Der Korintherbrief.” In Apocrypha IV: Die Apocryphen Briefe des Paulus an die Laodicener und Korinther. KIT 12. Berlin: Bonn, 1931. pp. 6–23. –. Geschichte der altchristlichen litteratur bis Eusebius. 2 vols. in 4. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1893–1904. –. “Untersuchungen über den apocryphen Briefwechsel der Korinther mit dem Apostel Paulus.” SPAW (1905) 3–35. Hayne, Léonie. “Thecla and the Church Fathers.” VC 48 (1994) 209–18. Head, Thomas. “Introduction.” In Medieval Hagiography: An Anthology. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 2000. pp. xiii–xv. Henten, Jan Willem van. “The Martyrs as Heroes of the Christian People: Some Remarks on the Continuity between Jewish and Christian Martyrology, with Pagan Analogies.” In Martyrium in Multidisciplinary Perspective: Memorial Louis Reekmans. Ed. Mathijs Lamberigts and Peter van Deun. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1995. pp. 303–22. Henten, Jan Willem van, and Friedrich Avemarie, eds. Martyrdom and Noble Death: Selected Texts from Graeco-Roman, Jewish, and Christian Antiquity. London/New York: Routledge, 2002. Hilhorst, Anthony. “The Apocryphal Acts as Martyrdom Texts: The Case of the Acts of Andrew.” In The Apocryphal Acts of John. Ed. Jan N. Bremmer. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1995. pp. 1–14. –. “Christian Martyrs outside the Catholic Church.” Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 60 (2008) 23–36. –. “Tertullian on the Acts of Paul.” In The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla. Ed. Jan N. Bremmer. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996. pp. 150–63. Hills, Julian V. “The Acts of the Apostles in the Acts of Paul,” SBLSP 33 (1994) 24–54.

Bibliography

273

–. “The Acts of Paul and the Legacy of the Lukan Acts.” Semeia 80 (1997) 145–58. –. The Epistle of the Apostles. Early Christian Apocrypha. Santa Rosa, Calif.: Polebridge, 2009. –. Tradition and Composition in the Epistula Apostolorum. Harvard Dissertations in Religion 24. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990. Hoek, Annewies van den, and John Hermann, Jr. “Thecla the Beast Fighter: A Female Emblem of Deliverance in Early Christian Popular Art.” Studia Philonica Annual 13 (2001) 212–49. Holzhey, Carl. Die Thekla-Akten. Ihre Verbreitung und Beurteilung in der Kirche. München: J. J. Lentner, 1905. Hopkins, Keith. “The Age of Roman Girls at Marriage.” Population Studies 18 (1965) 309–27. Horsley, Richard A., ed. Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance: Applying the Work of James C. Scott to Jesus and Paul. Semeia Studies 48. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2004. Hovhanessian, Vahan. Third Corinthians: Reclaiming Paul for Christian Orthodoxy. Studies in Biblical Literature 18. New York: Peter Lang, 2000. Howe, E. Margaret. “Interpretation of Paul in the Acts of Paul and Thecla.” In Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to Professor F. F. Bruce on His 70th Birthday. Ed. Donald A. Hagner and Murry J. Harris. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1980. pp. 33–49. Hurtado, Larry W. The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006. James, Montague Rhodes. Apocrypha anecdota. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1893–1897. Reprinted in Neldeln: Kraus, 1967. –. The Apocryphal New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 1st ed., 1924; 2d ed., 1953. Saint Jerome, On Illustrious Men. Ed. Thomas P. Halton. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1999. Johnson, Scott Fitzgerald. The Life and Miracles of Thekla: A Literary Study. Cambridge, Mass.: Center for Hellenic Studies, 2006. Johnston, Steve, and Paul-Hubert Poirier. “Nouvelles citations chez Éphrem et Aphraate de la correspondence entre Paul et les Corinthiens.” Apocrypha 16 (2005) 137–45. Junod, Éric, and Jean-Daniel Kaestli. Acta Johannis. 2 vols. CCSA 1–2; Turnhout: Brepols, 1983. Kaestli, Jean-Daniel. “Mémoire et pseudépigraphie dans le christianisme de l’âge postapostolique.” RTP 125 (1993) 41–63. –. “Les principales orientations de la recherche sur les Actes Apocryphes des Apôtres.” In Les Actes Apocryphes des Apôtres. Ed. François Bovon et al. Publications de la Faculté de Théologie de l’Université de Genève 4. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1981. Kasser, Rodolphe. “Bodmer Papyri.” In The Coptic Encyclopedia. 8 vols. New York: Macmillan, 1991. 8:48b–53b. Kasser, Rodolphe and Philippe Luisier. “Le Papyrus Bodmer XLI en édition princeps. L’épisode d’Éphèses des Acta Pauli en copte et en traduction.” Le Muséon 117:3 (2004) 281–384. Kelley, Nicole. “Philosophy as Training for Death: Reading the Ancient Christian Martyr Acts as Spiritual Exercises.” Church History 75 (2006) 723–47. Kerenyi, Karl. Die griechische-orientalische Romanliteratur in religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung. Tübingen: 1927; reprinted in Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1962. King, Karen L. The Secret Revelation of John. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2006.

274

Bibliography

–. What is Gnosticism? Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003. Klauck, Hans-Josef. Ancient Letters and the New Testament: A Guide to Context and Exegesis. With Daniel P. Bailey. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006. Originally published in German: Die antike Briefliteratur und das Neue Testament: Ein Lehrund Arbeitsbuch. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1998. Klijn, Albertus F. J. “The Apocryphal Correspondence between Paul and the Corinthians.” VC 17 (1963) 2–23. Konstan, David. “Acts of Love: A Narrative Pattern in the Apocryphal Acts.” JECS 6 (1998) 15–36. Kraemer, Ross S. “Women’s Authorship of Jewish and Christian Literature in the GrecoRoman Period.” In ‘Women Like This’: New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World. Ed. Amy-Jill Levine. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. pp. 221–42. Kränkle, E. Jesus der Knecht Gottes. Die heilgeschichtliche Stellung Jesu in den Reden der Apostelgeschichte. Biblische Untersuchungen 8. Regensburg: F. Pustet, 1972. Krueger, Derek. Writing and Holiness: The Practice of Authorship in the Early Christian East. Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. Lalleman, Pieter J. The Acts of John: A Two-Stage Initiation into Johannine Gnosticism. Studies on the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles 4. Leuven: Peeters, 1998. Lampe, Peter. From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries. Ed. Marshall D. Johnson. Trans. Michael Steinhauser. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Layton, Bentley The Gnostic Scriptures: A New Translation with Annotations and Introductions. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Le Boulluec, Alain. Le Notion d’hérésie dans la littérature grecque, IIe–IIIe siècles. 2 vols. Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1985. Levenson, Jon D. Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2006. Levine, Amy-Jill, with Maria Mayo Robbins, ed. A Feminist Companion to the New Testament Apocrypha. Feminist Companion to the New Testament and Early Christian Writings 11. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Lightfoot, Joseph Barber. The Apostolic Fathers. 2d ed. London: MacMillan and Co., 1889. Lindemann, Andreas. Paulus im ältesten Christentum. Das Bild des Apostels und die Rezeption der paulinischen Theologie in der frühchristlichen Literatur bis Marcion. BHT 58. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1979. Lipsius, Richard A., and Maximilien Bonnet, eds. Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha. 2 vols in 3. Lipsiae: H. Mendelssohn, 1891–1903 (1990). Long, A. A. Hellenistic Philosophy: Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics. 2d ed. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1986. Lord, Albert B. The Singer of Tales. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960. Luttikhuizen, Gerald. “The Apocryphal Correspondence with the Corinthians and the Acts of Paul.” In The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla. Ed. Jan N. Bremmer. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996. pp. 75–91. MacDonald, Dennis Ronald. The Acts of Andrew. Early Christian Apocrypha 1. Santa Rosa, Calif.: Polebridge Press, 2005. –. The Acts of Andrew and The Acts of Andrew and Matthias in the City of the Cannibals. Texts and Translations 33, Christian Apocrypha Series 1. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. –. “The Acts of Paul and the Acts of Peter: Which Came First?” SBLSP 31 (1992) 214–24.

Bibliography

275

–. Christianizing Homer: The Odyssey, Plato, and the Acts of Andrew (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994). –. “A Conjectural Emendation of 1 Cor 15:31–32: Or the Case of the Misplaced Lion Fight.” HTR 73 (1980) 265–76. –. The Legend and the Apostle: The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983. –. “Which Came First? Intertextual Relationships among the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles.” Semeia 80 (1997) 11–41. MacDonald, Dennis R., and Andrew D. Scrimgeour. “Pseudo-Chrysostom’s Panegyric to Thecla: The Heroine of the Acts of Paul in Homily and Art.” Semeia 38 (1986) 151– 59. Mackay, Thomas W. “Content and Style in Two Pseudo-Pauline Epistles (3 Corinthians and the Epistle to the Laodiceans).” In Apocryphal Writings of the Latter-Day Saints. Ed. C. Wilfred Griggs. Religious Studies Monograph Series 13. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 1986. pp. 215–40. –. “Observations on P. Bodmer X (Apocryphal Correspondence Between Paul and the Corinthians).” In Papyrologica Bruxellensia 16–19 (1977) 119–28. –. “Response [to S. Davies].” Semeia 38 (1986) 145–49. Malherbe, Abraham J. Ancient Epistolary Theorists. Sources for Biblical Study 19. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1988. –. The Cynic Epistles: A Study Edition. Sources for Biblical Study 12. Missoula; Scholars Press, 1977. –. “A Physical Description of Paul.” HTR 79 (1986) 170–75. Malina, Bruce J., and Jerome H. Neyrey. “Physiognomics and Personality: Looking at Paul in The Acts of Paul.” In iidem, Portraits of Paul: An Archaeology of Ancient Personality. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996. pp. 100–52. Maraval, Pierre, ed. Journal de voyage, itinéraire: Egérie. Rev. ed. SC 296. Paris: Cerf, 2002. –, ed. Grégoire de Nysse: Vie de Sainte Macrine. SC 178. Paris: Cerf, 1971. Marguerat, Daniel. “The Acts of Paul and the Canonical Acts: A Phenomenon of Rereading.” Semeia 80 (1997) 169–83. Marguerat, Daniel, and Walter Rebell. “Les Actes des Paul. Un portrait inhabituel de l’apôtre.” In Le mystère apocryphe. Ed. Jean-Daniel Kaestli and Daniel Marguerat. Essais bibliques 26. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1995. pp. 107–24. Martin, Dale B. “The Construction of the Ancient Family: Methodological Considerations.” JRS 86 (1996) 40–60. –. The Corinthian Body. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1995. –. Inventing Superstition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004. Matthews, Shelly. “Thinking of Thecla: Issues in Feminist Historiography.” JFSR 17:2 (2001) 39–55. McDonald, Lee Martin. “Appendix D: Lists and Catalogues of New Testament Collections.” In The Canon Debate. Ed. idem and James A. Sanders. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002. pp. 591–97. McDonald, Lee Martin, and James A. Sanders, eds. The Canon Debate. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002. McGinn, Sheila E. “The Acts of Thecla,” in Searching the Scriptures: A Feminist Commentary, vol. 2. Ed. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza. New York: Crossroad, 1994. Meade, David G. Pseudonymity and Canon: An Investigation into the Relationship of Authorship and Authority in Jewish and Earliest Christian Tradition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.

276

Bibliography

Meeks, Wayne A. “The Image of the Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity.” Reprinted in idem, In Search of the Early Christians. Ed. Allen R. Hilton and H. Gregory Snyder. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2002. pp. 3–54. Metzger, Bruce M. “Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha.” JBL 91 (1972) 3–24. –. “St. Paul and the Baptized Lion.” Princeton Seminary Bulletin 39 (1945) 11–21. Misset-van de Weg, Magda. “Magic, Miracle and Miracle Workers in the Acts of Thecla.” In Women and Miracle Stories: A Multidisciplinary Exploration. Ed. AnneMarie Korte. Studies in the History of Religion 88. Leiden: Brill, 2001. pp. 29–52. –. “A Wealthy Woman named Tryphaena: Patroness of Thecla of Iconium.” In The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla. Ed. Jan N. Bremmer. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996. pp. 16–35. Mitchell, Margaret M. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1991. Mittelstaedt, Alexander. Lukas als Historiker. Zur Datierung des lukanischen Doppelwerkes. Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 43. Tübingen: Francke, 2006. Momigliano, Arnaldo. The Development of Greek Biography. Exp. ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993. Moraldi, Luidi. Apocrifi del Nuovo Testamento. 2 vols. Classici delle religioni. Torino: 1971. Mosis Chorenensis Historiae Armeniacae Libri III (London: Joannem Whistonum Bibliopolam, 1736). Moss, Candida R. The Other Christs: Imitating Jesus in Ancient Christian Ideologies of Martyrdom. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Musurillo, Herbert, ed. Acts of the Pagan Martyrs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1954. Nagel, Peter. “Die apokryphen Apostelakten des 2. und 3. Jahrhunderts in der manichäischen Literatur.” In Gnosis und Neues Testament. Ed. Karl-Wolfgang Tröger. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1973. pp. 149–82. Ng, Esther Yue L. “Acts of Paul and Thecla: Women’s Stories and Precedent?” JTS 55 (2004) 1–29. Nickelsburg, George W. E. Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism. Harvard Theological Studies 26. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972. Nussbaum, Martha C. “Stoics on Extirpation of the Passions.” Apeiron 20 (1987) 129– 77. Olrik, Alex. “Epic Laws of Folk Narrative.” In The Study of Folklore. Ed. Alan Dundes. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1961. pp. 131–41. Pagels, Elaine The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975. Penny, Donald N. “The Pseudo-Pauline Letters of the First Two Centuries.” Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 1979. Perkins, Judith. The Suffering Self: Pain and Narrative Representation in Early Christianity. New York: Routledge, 1995. Perkins, Pheme. “Gnosticism and the Christian Bible.” In The Canon Debate. Ed. Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002. pp. 355–71.

Bibliography

277

Perry, Ben Edwin. The Ancient Romances: A Literary-Historical Account of Their Origins. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967. Pervo, Richard I. Acts: A Commentary. Ed. Harold W. Attridge. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009. –. “The ‘Acts of Titus’: A Preliminary Translation with an Introduction, Notes, and Appendices.” SBLSP 35 (1996) 455–82. –. Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists. Santa Rosa, Calif.: Polebridge Press, 2006. –. “A Hard Act to Follow: The Acts of Paul and the Canonical Acts.” Journal of Higher Criticism 2/2 (1995) 3–32. –. The Making of Paul: Constructions of the Apostle in Early Christianity. Fortress Press, 2010. –. Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987. Pesthy, Monika. “Thecla among the Fathers of the Church.” In The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla. Ed. Jan N. Bremmer. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996. pp. 150–63. Piñero, Antonio, and Gonzalo del Cerro, eds. Hechos Apócrifos de Los Apóstoles. 2 vols. Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 2004–2005. Pius II, Pope. Commentaries. Ed. Margaret Meserve and Marcello Simonetta. 2 vols. I Tatti Renaissance Library 12, 29. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003. Poupon, Gérard. “L’accusation de magie dans les Actes Apocryphes.” In Les Actes apocryphes des Apôtres. Christianisme et monde païen. Ed. François Bovon et al. Publications de la faculté de théologie de l’Université de Genève 4. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1981. pp. 71–93. –. “Les Actes de Pierre et leur remaniement.” ANRW 25.6 (1988) 4363–83. –. “Encore une fois: Tertullien, De baptismo 17,5.” In Nomen Latinum: Mélanges de langue, de littérature et de civilisation latines offerts au professeur André Schneider. Neuchâtel: Faculté de lettres, 1997. pp. 199–205. Prieur, Jean-Marc. Acta Andreae. 2 vols. CCSA 5–6. Turnhout: Brepols, 1989. –. Actes de l’apôtre André. Présentation et traduction du latin, du copte et du grec. Apocryphes: Collection de Poche de L’AELAC 7. Turnout: Brepols, 1995. Radermacher, Ludwig. “Hippolytus und Thekla. Studien zur Geschichte von Legende und Kultus.” Sitzungberichte, Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaft in Wein. Philosophisch-historische Klasse 182.3 (1916). Raditsa, Leo Ferrero. “Augustus’ Legislation concerning Marriage, Procreation, Love Affairs and Adultery.” ANRW 2.13 (1980) 278–339. Ramsay, William Mitchell. The Church in the Roman Empire before A. D. 170. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1893. Rapp, Claudia. “Holy Texts, Holy Men, and Holy Scribes: Aspects of Scriptural Holiness in Late Antiquity.” In The Early Christian Book. Ed. William E. Klingshirn and Linda Safran. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2007. pp. 194– 222. Reardon, Bryan P. The Form of Greek Romance. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991. –, ed. Collected Ancient Greek Novels. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989. Reitzenstein, Richard. Hellenistische Wundererzählungen. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1906. Rensberger, David K. “As the Apostle Teaches: The Development of the Use of Paul’s Letters in Second-Century Christianity.” Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1981.

278

Bibliography

Rhee, Helen. Early Christian Literature: Christ and Culture in the Second and Third Centuries. Routledge Early Christian Monographs. New York: Routledge, 2005. Rohde, Erwin. Der griechische Roman und seine Vorläufer. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1876. Richards, E. Randolph. Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition, and Collection. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004. Rinck, Wilhelm Friedrich. Das Sendschreiben der Korinther an den Apostel Paulus und das dritte Sendschreiben Pauli an die Korinther in armenischer Übersetzung erhalten, nun verdeutscht und mit einer Einleitung über die Aechtheit begleitet. Heidelberg: C. F. Winter, 1823. Rist, John M. Stoic Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Rist, Martin. “III Corinthians as a Pseudepigraphic Refutation of Marcionism.” Iliff Review 26 (1969) 49–58. –. “Pseudepigraphic Refutations of Marcionism.” JR 22 (1942) 36–62. Robinson, James M., ed. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. 3d, rev. ed. San Francisco, Calif.: HarperCollins, 1990. Rordorf, Willy. “Les Actes de Paul sur papyrus: problèmes liés aux P. Michigan inv. 1317 et 3788.” In Proceedings of the XVIII International Congress of Papyrology (1986). Athens: Greek Papyrological Society, 1988. pp. 453–60. –. “Aux origenes du culte des martyrs.” Irénikon 45 (1972) 315–31. –. “Hérésie et orthodoxie selon la Correspondance apocryphe entre les Corinthiens et l’apôtre Paul.” In idem, Lex Orandi – Lex Credendi. pp. 389–431. –. “In welchem Verhältnis stehen die apokryphen Paulusakten zur kanonischen Apostelgeschichte und zu den Pastoralbriefen?” In Text and Testimony: Essays on New Testament and Apocryphal Literature in Honour of A. F. J. Klijn. Ed. Tjitze Baarda et al.; Kampen, Netherlands: Kok, 1988. pp. 225–41. Reprinted in idem, Lex Orandi – Lex Credendi, 449–74. –. “Die neronische Christenverfolgung im Spiegel der Apokryphen Paulusakten.” NTS 28 (1981–1982) 365–74. Reprinted in Lex Orandi – Lex Credendi. pp. 368–77. –. “Nochmals. Paulusakten und Pastoralbriefe.” In Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament: Essays in Honor of E. Earle Ellis for His 60th Birthday. Eds. Gerald F. Hawthorne and Otto Betz. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1987. pp. 319–25. Reprinted in idem, Lex Orandi – Lex Credendi, 466–74. –. “Paul’s Conversion in the Canonical Acts and in the Acts of Paul,” Semeia 80 (trans. Peter W. Dunn; 1997) 137–44. –. “Quelques jalons pour une interprétation symbolique des Actes de Paul.” In Early Christian Voices in Texts, Traditions, and Symbols: Essays in Honor of François Bovon. Ed. David H. Warren, Ann Graham Brock, and David H. Pao. Biblical Interpretation Series 66. Boston/Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2003. pp. 251–65. –. “Tertullien et les Actes de Paul.” Reprinted in idem, Lex Orandi – Lex Credendi, 475–84. –. “The Relation between the Acts of Peter and the Acts of Paul: State of the Question.” In The Apocryphal Acts of Peter: Magic, Miracles and Gnosticism. Ed. Jan N. Bremmer. Leuven: Peeters, 1998. pp. 178–91. –. “Tradition and Composition in the Acts of Thecla: The State of the Question.” Semeia 38 (1986) 43–52. –. “Was wissen wir über Plan und Absicht der Paulusakten?” In Oecumenica et Patristica: Festschrift für Wilhelm Schneemelcher zum 75. Geburtstag. Eds. Damaskinos Papandreou, Wolfgang Bienert, and A. Schäferdiek. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 1989. pp. 71–82. Reprinted in idem, Lex Orandi – Lex Credendi, 485–96.

Bibliography

279

–. Lex Orandi – Lex Credendi: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum 60. Geburtstag. Paradosis 36. Freiburg-Neuchâtel: Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz, 1993. –. Liturgie, foi et vie des premiers chrétiens. Théologie historique 75. Paris: Beauchesne, 1986. Rousselle, Aline. “Body Politics in Ancient Rome.” In A History of Women in the West I: From Ancient Goddesses to Christian Saints. Ed. P. Schmitt Pantel. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992. pp. 296–336. –. Porneia: On Desire and the Body in Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. Ryan, Granger, and Helmut Ripperger, eds. The Golden Legend of Jacobus de Voragine. New York: Arno Press, 1969. Saller, Richard “Pater Familias, Mater Familias, and the Gendered Semantics of a Roman Household.” CP 94 (1999) 182–97. Satlow, Michael L. Jewish Marriage in Antiquity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. Saxer, Victor. Bible et hagiographie: Textes et thèmes bibliques dans les Actes des martyrs authentiques des premiers siècles. Berne: Lang, 1986. Schäferdiek, Knut. “The Manichean Collection of Apocryphal Acts ascribed to Leucius Charinus.” In Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 2:87–100. Schechter, Solomon. Aspects of Rabbinic Theology: Major Concepts of the Talmud. New York: Schocken, 1961. Schmeling, Gareth, ed. The Novel in the Ancient World. Rev. ed. Mnemosyne 159. Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 2003. Schmidt, Carl. Acta Pauli aus der Heidelberger koptischen Papyrus-handschrift Nr. 1. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1904; second enlarged edition, 1905. –. “Ein Berliner Fragment der alten 3UDY[HL3DXYORX,” SBAW (1931) 37–40. –, with Wilhelm Schubart. 35$;(,63$8/28. Acta Pauli nach dem Papyrus der Hamburger staats- und Universitäts-bibliothek unter Mitarbeit von Wilhelm Schubart. Hamburg: J. J. Augustin, 1936. Schneemelcher, Wilhelm. “Die Apostelgeschichte des Lukas und die Acta Pauli.” In Apophoreta: Festschrift für Ernst Haenchen zu seinem siebzigsten Geburtstag am 10. Dezember 1964. Ed. Walther Eltester and Franz Heinrich Kettler. BZNW 30. Berlin: A. Töpelmann, 1964. pp. 236–50. Reprinted in Schneemelcher, Gesammelte Aufsätze, 204–22. –. Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament und zur Patristik. Analek   22. Thessaloniki: Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies, 1974. –, ed. Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung. 5th ed., based on the collection of Edgar Hennecke. Tübingen: 1987–1989. 2:193–243. See also the forthcoming edition of Hennecke-Schneemelcher, anticipated in 2010. –, ed. New Testament Apocrypha. 2 vols. Rev. ed. Trans. Robert McL. Wilson. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991. Scholer, David M. “ ‘And I Was a Man’: The Power and Problem of Perpetua.” Daughters of Sarah 15 (1989) 10–14. Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment. 2d ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998. 1st ed., 1985. –. “A Response to the Social Functions of Women’s Asceticism.” In Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism. Ed. Karen L. King. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988. pp. 324–38. –. “Rhetorical Situation and Historical Reconstruction in 1 Corinthians.” NTS 33 (1987) 386–403.

280

Bibliography

Schwartz, Daniel R. “The End of the Line: Paul in the Canonical Book of Acts.” In Paul and the Legacies of Paul. Ed. William S. Babcock. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1990. pp. 3–24. Schwartz, Saundra. “The Trial Scene in the Greek Novels and in Acts.” In Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative and Greco-Roman Discourse. Ed. Todd Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele. SBLSP 20. Atlanta: SBL, 2003. pp. 105–37. Scott, James C. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1990. Seeliger, H. R. “Martyrs, Acts of the.” In Dictionary of Early Christian Literature. Trans. Matthew O’Connell. Ed. Siegmar Döpp and Wilhelm Geerlings. New York: Crossroad Publishing, 2000. pp. 405–12. German original: Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1998. Segal, Alan F. Life after Death: A History of the Afterlife in the Religions of the West. New York: Doubleday, 2004. Sellew, Philip. “Laodiceans and the Philippians Fragments Hypothesis.” HTR 87 (1994) 17–28. Setzer, Claudia Resurrection of the Body in Early Judaism and Early Christianity. Boston: Brill, 2004. Shaw, Brent D. “The Age of Roman Girls at Marriage: Some Reconsiderations.” JRS 77 (1987) 30–46. –. “Body/Power/Identity: Passions of the Martyrs.” JECS 4 (1996) 269–312. Sherwin-White, A. N. “Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted? – An Amendment.” Past and Present 27 (1964) 23–27. Smith, Jonathan Z. “Classification.” In Guide to the Study of Religion. Ed. Willi Braun and Russell T. McCutcheon. New York: Cassell, 2000. pp. 35–44. –. “In Comparison a Magic Dwells.” In idem, Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982. pp. 19–35. –. “On Comparison.” In idem, Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990. pp. 36–53. Snyder, Glenn E. “Remembering the Acts of Paul.” Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 2010. Snyder, Graydon F. Ante Pacem: Archaeological Evidence of Church Life before Constantine. Rev. ed. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 2003. Snyder, H. Gregory. Teachers and Texts in the Ancient World: Philosophers, Jews, and Christians. Religion in the First Christian Centuries. New York: Routledge, 2000. Söder, Rosa. Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und die romanhafte Literatur der Antike. Stuttgart: 1932; reprinted in Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1969. de Ste. Croix, G. E. M. “Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted?” Past and Present 26 (1963) 6–38. –. “Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted? – A Rejoinder.” Past and Present 27 (1964) 28–33. Stoops, Robert F., Jr. “The Acts of Peter in Intertextual Context.” Semeia 80 (1997) 57–86. Stowers, Stanley K. Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Ed. Wayne A. Meeks. Library of Early Christianity 5. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986. –. A Rereading of Romans: Justice Jews, and Gentiles. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1994. Streete, Gail P. C(orrington). “Authority and Authorship: The Acts of Paul and Thecla as a Disputed Pauline Text.” LTQ 40 (2005) 265–76.

Bibliography

281

–. Redeemed Bodies: Women Martyrs in Early Christianity. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009. Sundberg, Albert C., Jr. “Canon Muratori: A Fourth-Century List.” HTR 66 (1973) 1–41. Tajra, Harry W. The Martyrdom of St. Paul. WUNT 67. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Talbert, Charles H. “Biographies of Philosophers and Rulers as Instruments of Religious Propaganda in Mediterranean Antiquity.” ANRW 16.2 (1978) 1619–51. Tatum, James, ed. The Search for the Ancient Novel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994. Q(uinti). Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera, I, pars I: Opera catholica; Adversus Marcionem. Ed. Jan W. Ph. Borleffs. CCSL 1.1. Turnhout: Brepols, 1954. Testuz, Michel. “La correspondence apocryphe de saint Paul et des Corinthiens.” In Littérature et théologie Pauliniennes. Ed. A. Descamps et al. Louvain: Desclée de Brouwer, 1960. pp. 217–23. –. Papyrus Bodmer X–XII. Genève: Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, 1959. pp. 6–45. Thomas, Y. “The Division of the Sexes in Roman Law.” In A History of Women in the West I: From Ancient Goddesses to Christian Saints. Ed. P. Schmitt Pantel. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992. pp. 83–137. Thompson, Leonard L. The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Townsend, John T. “The Date of Luke-Acts.” In Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar. Ed. Charles H. Talbert. New York: Crossroad, 1984. pp. 47–62. Treggiari, Susan. Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991. Trobisch, David. Die Entstehung des Paulusbriefsammlung: Studien zu den Anfangen christlicher Publizistik. NTOA 10; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989. –. Paul’s Letter Collection: Tracing the Origins. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994. Tyson, Joseph B. Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 2006. Ullmann, Carl. Über der durch Wilhelm Friedrich Rinck. Aus Armenischer Übersetzung bekannt gemachten. Heidelberger Jahrbücher der Literatur. Heidelberg: Universitäts Buchhandlung, 1823. Urbach, Efraim Elimelech. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs. 2 vols. Trans. Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1975. Ussher, James. In Polycarpianam epistolarum Ignatianarum syllogen annotationum. Oxoniae: H. Hall, 1644. Utro, Umberto. San Paulo in Vaticano. Perugia: Tau, 2009. Vaage, Leif E., and Vincent L. Wimbush. Asceticism and the New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Valantasis, Richard. “Constructions of Power in Asceticism.” JAAR 63 (1995) 775–822. Vetter, Paul. “Der apocryphe dritte Korintherbrief.” TQ 72 (1890) 610–39. –. “Der apocryphe dritte Korintherbrief.” Tübingen Universitätsschrift (1893–94) 42–52, 70–79. –. Der apocryphe dritte Korintherbrief. Vienna: Mechitharisten, 1894. Vielhauer, Philipp “Apokryphe Apostelgeschichten.” In idem, Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1975. Vogt, A. ed., “Panégyrique de St. Pierre; Panégyrique de St. Paul. Deux discours inédits de Nicétas de Paphlagonie, disiple de Photius.” Orientalia Christiana 23 (1931) 5–97. Vorster, Johannes N. “Construction of Culture through the Construction of Person: The Acts of Thecla as an Example.” In The Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture: Essays from

282

Bibliography

the 1995 London Conference. Ed. Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbright. JSNTSup 146; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. pp. 445–73. Vouaux, Léon. Les Actes de Paul et ses lettres apocryphes. Introduction, textes, traduction, et commentaire. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1913. Waddell, H. ed. Beasts and Saints. Reprinted in Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996. (Original 1934.) pp. 3–33. Warren, David H. “The Text of the Apostle in the Second Century: A Contribution to the History of Its Reception.” Th.D. diss., Harvard University, 2001. Warren, David H., Ann Graham Brock, and David H. Pao, eds. Early Christian Voices in Texts, Traditions, and Symbols: Essays in Honor of François Bovon. Biblical Interpretation Series 66. Boston/Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2003. Wedderburn, A. J. M. Baptism and Resurrection: Studies in Pauline Theology against Its Graeco-Roman Background. WUNT 44; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987. Wehn, Beate. “ ‘Blessed Are the Bodies of Those Who Are Virgins’: Reflections on the Image of Paul in the Acts of Thecla.” Trans. Brian McNeil. JSNT 79 (2000) 149–64. Westra, Liuwe H. “Regulae fidei and other credal formulations in the Acts of Peter.” In The Apocryphal Acts of Peter: Magic, Miracles and Gnosticism. Ed. Jan N. Bremmer. Leuven: Peeters, 1998. pp. 134–47. White, L. Michael. “Regulating Fellowship in the Communal Meal: Early Jewish and Christian Evidence.” In Meals in a Social Context: Aspects of the Communal Meal in the Hellenistic and Roman World. Ed. Inge Nielsen and Hanne Sigismund Nielsen. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1998. pp. 177–205. –. The Social Origins of Christian Architecture. 2 vols. Harvard Theological Studies 42. Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1990–1997. Wicker, Kathleen O’Brien. “First Century Marriage Ethics: A Comparative Study of the Household Codes and Plutarch’s Conjugal Precepts.” In No Famine in the Land. Eds. James W. Flanagan and Anita Weisbrod Robinson. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975. pp. 141–53. Wilcox, M. “Luke and the Bezan Text of Acts.” In Les Actes des Apôtres. Traditions, rédation, théologie. Ed. J. Kremer. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979. pp. 447–55. Wilken, Robert Louis. The Christians as the Romans Saw Them. 2d ed. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2003. Williams, Michael A. Rethinking “Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996. Wills, Lawrence M. The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995. Wimbush, Vincent L., ed. Ascetic Behavior in Greco-Roman Antiquity: A Sourcebook. Studies in Antiquity and Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990. Wimbush, Vincent L., and Richard Valantasis, eds. Asceticism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Wright Knust, Jennifer. Abandoned to Lust: Sexual Slander and Ancient Christianity. Gender, Theory, and Religion. New York: Columbia University Press, 2006. Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God 3. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Wright, Ruth Ohm. “Rendez-vous with Thekla and Paul in Ephesos: Excavating the Evidence.” In Distant Voices Drawing Near: Essays in Honor of Antoinette Clark Wire. Ed. Holly E. Hearon. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2004. pp. 227–42. Yarbro Collins, Adela. Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984.

Bibliography

283

Zahn, Theodor. Forschungen zur Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen Literatur. Leipzig: Deichert, 1890. –. Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons. 2 vols. in 4 parts. Erlangen: Deichert, 1888–1891. Reprinted in Hildesheim: Olms, 1975.        A[stua]tschunch’ Matean Hin ew Nor Ktakaranats’ [= Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments]. Venetik [Venice]: Gortsarani S[r]b[o]yn Ghazaru, 1805. Zwierlein, Otto. Petrus in Rom. Die literarischen Zeugnisse. Mit einer kritischen Edition der Martyrien des Petrus und Paulus auf neuer handschriftlicher Grundlage. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009. pp. 426–29.

Index of Ancient Writings 1. Manuscripts Athos 79 (10th–11th cent.)

23

Berlin Papyrus 8502 (4th–5th cent.)

77

Berlin Papyrus 13893 (4th cent.)

23, 204, 223, 236

Codex Bezae (D05: late 4th– early 5th cent.)

10, 12, 60

Codex Claromontanus (D06: 6th cent.)

243–44, 246, 248– 49

Hamburg manuscript (P. Hamb.: 4th cent. Greek)

2, 4–5, 15, 17–20, 23, 38, 65–77, 81, 93, 98–99, 153, 189, 190–207, 208, 211, 213–16, 217, 219–20, 223– 24, 226–27, 234, 236–37, 251, 255– 57, 262–63

Heidelberg manuscript (P. Heid.: late 5th–early 6th cent. Akhmimic Coptic)

2, 4–5, 17, 19–20, 23, 65–66, 99, 100, 119–20, 135– 36, 147–48, 151– 53, 156, 160, 166, 182, 184, 188–89, 190–93, 195–96, 201, 206, 207–16, 217, 219–20, 223–

25, 229, 231–33, 246–48, 250–53, 255–57, 261–63 John Rylands Papyrus (4th cent. Coptic)

4, 214, 251

Muratorian fragment (Canon Muratori: 8th cent.)

170, 221, 243, 246

P46

171

P72

153

Papyrus Antinoopolis 1.13 (4th cent.)

103, 248

Papyrus Bodmer 10 (X: ca. 3d cent.)

2, 150–54, 179, 181–84, 186, 188, 235–36, 262–63

Papyrus Bodmer 41 (XLI: late 4th cent. Lyco-diospolitan Coptic)

2, 5, 9, 11, 15, 18, 66, 71, 74–81, 86– 87, 90, 98, 190, 192–96, 206, 213– 16, 226–27, 231, 234, 236, 246, 249, 251, 262–63

Papyrus Michigan 1317 (4th cent.)

2, 23, 223, 236

Papyrus Michigan 3788 (4th cent.)

2, 23, 206, 223, 236

286

Index of Ancient Writings

Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1.6 (5th cent.)

103, 248

Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1602 (4th–5th cent.)

223, 236

Paris. graec. 107

244

Paris. graec. 769

223

Patmos 48 (9th cent.)

23

2. Greek and Latin Writings Achilles Tatius Leucippe and Clitophon

107

Acta Pauli (et Antonini)

2, 203

Aeschylus frag. 134a Androclus and the Lion (see Apion and Aulus Gellius) Apion Aegyptica

Diogenes Laertius Lives and Opinions of the Eminent Philosophers 10

165

39

Epictetus Diss. 3.22

140

74, 94, 227–28, 241

Heliodorus Ethiopian Story

107

Homer Iliad 23.65–92

43

Odyssey 7.240–97

200

74

Aulus Gellius Attic Nights (Noctes Atticae) 5.14

74, 227

Homeric Hymns, Pseudo-

258

Caesar, Julius De bello Gallico

32

Libanius, Pseudo2.58

167

Longus Daphnis and Chloe

107, 111

Lucian, PseudoThe Ass

107

Manichaean Psalm-Book 143.5–10 143.32 192.25–193.3

255 101, 240 101, 240 101, 240

Chariton Chaereas and Callirhoe Cicero Ad Fam. 2.4.1 Brut. 262

107

167

32

287

Index of Ancient Writings Physiologus 17 31

101, 230, 235 101, 230, 235

Suetonius Domitian 13.2

61

Plato Apology

97, 169 138

Nero 16.2 (with 57)

32, 40, 138

Symposium

180

Tacitus Annals 15.44

32, 40

63

33, 63, 138

Pliny the Elder Nat. Hist. 8.42

228

Theognis 1345–48

39

Pliny the Younger Ep. 10.96–97

64 61–62, 138

Xenophon (4th cent. B.C.E.) Cyr. 1.2.16

97 197

Res Gestae Divi Augusti

197

Seneca Ep. 75.1

170 167

Xenophon of Ephesus (2d cent.) 97 Ephesian Tale 107 1.11.5 96, 197

3. Israelite Writings (Biblical to Rabbinic) Genesis 1–11 1–3 1:1–2:3 2:4–3:24 2:7 3:1–19 7:4 7:12 7:17 12:10–20 20:1–18 26:1–14 50:3

235 181 180, 183 47, 183 47, 159, 183 223 165 200 200 200 130–33, 143 130–33, 143 130 200

21

198

Deuteronomy 9 34:4

200 79

Judges 14

79, 93

1 Samuel 24

221 198, 201

1 Kings 13:20–21 17:17–24

184 188

Exodus 6–9 24:18 34:28

50 200 200

2 Kings 13:20–21

172, 183 184

Numbers 13:25 14:34

221 200 200

Isaiah 64:4

52

Jeremiah

222–23, 235

288

Index of Ancient Writings

Ezekiel 37:1 Jonah

Psalms 21:20–21 33 34

4 Ezra

61

Ascension of Isaiah 11.2–5

179

Odes of Solomon 11

188

Psalms of Solomon

246

Wisdom of Solomon

246

79, 93 155, 167, 172, 183–84

LXX

70 188 188

Job 19:26

174

Ruth

191

Song of Songs

68, 102, 133, 191

Ecclesiastes

191–92, 196

Lamentations

Josephus, Flavius Ant. 14.68 62.29

197 197

60

191

Philo of Alexandria In Flacc. 35

Esther

191, 246

Peshitta

187

Daniel

79, 93, 129, 201, 227, 231, 235

m. Avot

166

b. Sanhedrin 90a–b

167

1 Enoch 6–9 8.1–2 9.6

181 70, 140 70 70

b. Kethubboth 111b

167

Midrash Tehillim 26.7

184

2 Baruch

61 197

Toledoth Yeshu, Acts of

82, 171

2 Maccabees

4. New Testament Matthew

3:11 8:19 8:22 9:8 12:33–37 14:22–33

46, 70, 93, 165, 172, 198–99, 205, 221, 225 143 132 52 43, 60 165 203

16:18–19 26:47–56 27–28 27:57–61

245 75 43 52

Mark 1:13 6:6bff. 8:22

41, 95, 198 200 206 198

289

Index of Ancient Writings 11 14–15 14:1 15:21 15:42–47

198 197 198 117 52

Luke

13–14, 95, 128, 176, 179, 200, 243, 247 200 153 183 75 52 43 49

1:1–4 1:3 21:18 22:47–53 23:50–56 24:1 24:6 John

8:40 8:44 11:25ff. 12:31 16:11 18:36 19:34 19:38–42 20 20:12 20:24–28 21:22 Acts

42, 45, 46, 60, 93, 177, 176, 179, 206, 220, 253 222 164 60 182 182 60 204 52 88 222 204 46

1–7 1–5 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:8 1:12–16 1:23 1:24

13, 32, 128, 137, 257 79, 85 53 153 200 43, 60, 92 50, 85 83 40, 88 92

2:30 2:38 2:41 2:42 2:46

92 92 38 56 56

2:47

90

4; 5 4:5–22 4:6 4:8 4:12 4:29 4:33 4:36–37

131 92 117 60, 92 92 92 92 40, 88

5:14

90

6:7

90

7:55 7:58 7:58–8:3

128 83–84 196, 262

8–12 8 8:1 8:3 8:12

85 156 83–84 83–84 92

9; 22; 26

11, 18, 69, 81–89, 94, 124, 251, 254, 262 77, 86, 94 119, 233 255 85–85, 88, 233 82 82 82, 196, 262 84 196 82 82 73, 82 84 82 82 82 84 85 82–84, 87, 89, 94

9; 22 9–11 9; 11 9 9:1–30 9:1–19 9:1–2 9:1 9:3–25 9:3–19 9:3–5 9:3 9:4 9:6–7 9:6 9:7 9:8 9:9 9:10–18 (and 19b– 21) 9:10–12 9:10–11

84 83

290

Index of Ancient Writings

9:10 9:11–12 9:11 9:13–16 9:13–14 9:15–16 9:17–19 9:17 9:18 9:18a 9:18b 9:19 9:19b–21 9:19b–20 9:22–25 9:22 9:24 9:26–29 9:26 9:27–28 9:29–30 9:30 9:31

84 83 84 83–84 84 84, 204 83 83–84, 90 83 84 84 83, 85 85 82 85 84 84 196 85, 88 82, 85, 88 85 84, 196 90

10–11

233

11 11:25–26 11:25 11:26–15:3 11:26 11:27–30 11:29–30 11:30

233, 251 262 84, 196 255 196 119 196 84

12:1–19 12:25

73 84, 119, 196

13–28 13–14

85 118–19, 233, 254, 262 262 84 84 84 82, 84 118 262 84

13:1–3 13:1 13:2 13:7 13:9 13:13 13:14–50 13:21

13:51–14:7

262

14:1–7 14:15

118 92

15 15:1–35 15:36

119, 233, 251, 262 119 195

16–28 16:5 16:9–18:22 16:9–40 16:9–11 16:11–40 16:19ff. 16:37–38

255 90 195 38, 55, 199 56 195–96, 262 211 40

17

251

18:1–17 18:1–4 18:1–3 18:12–17 18:17 18:18–20:1 18:18–28 18:18–23 18:18–21 18:22 18:23–28:31 18:23–21:16 18:23–20:1 18:23 18:24–19:7 18:24–28 18:25 18:26

262 77, 98, 254 87 91 91 94 98, 262 196, 254 77, 87 94 221 241 57 94 18, 77, 87, 90, 254 77, 90 90 90

19:1–20:1 19 19:1–40 19:1–7 19:1 19:6–7 19:6 19:8–22 19:20 19:21–22

98 10, 76, 94 11 77, 87, 90, 94, 262 90 90 90 90 90 25, 90

291

Index of Ancient Writings 19:23–20:1

19:23–26 19:24 19:29–30 19:29 19:33 19:35–40 19:35–37 19:35 19:38 20:1–21:19 20:1–21:16 20 20:1–12 20:1–6 20:1–5 20:1–3 20:1 20:2–3 20:3 20:5–21:18 20:5–6 20:6 20:7–12

18, 69, 71–72, 81, 90–93, 96, 98, 218, 254, 262 69 92, 95–96 69 92 117 96 69 92 95

20:21 20:22–25 20:23 20:24

39 233 196 10, 60 55, 57 196 262 75, 195–96 196 195 38, 55, 199 56 56, 195–96 10–11, 18, 69, 90, 209, 218, 254, 262 56 56, 92 55 56 55–56 56 57 56 50, 57, 90, 202, 210, 254 92 25 92 92

21:1–3 21:1 var. 21:2 21:3 21:4–6 21:7–8a 21:8b–14

57, 255 262 262 262 57, 202, 254 57 57, 202, 254

20:7 20:9 20:10 20:11 20:12 20:13ff. 20:13–16 20:13 20:17–38

21:13 21:15ff. 21:15 21:37–22:21 21:37–22:16 21:39 21:40

25 57 57 82 82–83 83–84 42, 83

22; 26 22 22:1–5 22:1 22:2 22:3 22:6–16 22:6–8 22:6 22:7 22:9–10 22:9 22:10 22:12 22:12–16 22:13 22:14–15 22:14 22:16–18 22:16 22:17–21 22:17 22:18 22:19–20 22:25–29 22:28

94 83 82 83 42, 83 83–84 82 82 73, 82 84, 92 82 77, 82 82 83 83 83–84 83 83 83 83 85 85 83 85 40 40

23:11

92

24:25

180

25:8 25:9–12 25:10

56, 58, 85, 95, 254 25 40

26 26:1–23 26:1–18 26:4–11 26:9–15 26:9–11 26:12–18

82–83, 86, 94 82 82 82 84 82 82

292

Index of Ancient Writings

26:12–15 26:13 26:14 26:16–18

82 73, 82 84 82–83

27–28 27:1–28:16 27 27:3 27:5 27:33–38 27:35 27:40

27, 38 38, 55, 199, 262 124 262 262 55 56 203

28 28:17–31 28:23 28:28 28:29–30 28:30–31

42, 59, 221 262 38 38 38 38

Romans

26, 31, 60, 93, 116, 171–72, 178, 181, 198 70 179 179 70, 180 183 180 179 79 80 142 24, 50, 221, 243 116 116

1:18–32 1:3 4:17 5 6:12 8 8:11 8:19–23 8:38–39 14–15 15 16 16:12

7:12–13 7:29 8–11 8–10 9:5 11:19 11:23 11:24 11:25 15

15:1–11 15:3 15:12 15:20–28 15:22 15:29 15:31–32 15:32 15:34 15:35 15:36–38 15:36 15:39 15:42–49 15:45–49 15:45 15:49 15:50 15:51–55 15:58 16:15–18 16:19 2 Corinthians

1 Corinthians 1:16 1:18 2:9 3–4 5:9 7 7:1–7 7:1 7:8–9 7:9

9, 148, 171–72, 174 153 179 52 87 172, 209 145, 202, 205, 218 74 172, 209 74, 140 143

1:8–10 1:8–9a 2:3–4 2:4 2:9 2:15 3:6 4:10–11 7:5 7:8

80 101, 139, 223 70 142 202 223 154 74 74 70, 167, 172, 175– 77, 180, 182, 188, 198, 218 186 154 167 176 179 144, 176 70, 74, 80, 94 9, 69, 74, 91, 93, 218 176 167 155 179 175 167 176 179, 223 176 148, 167–68, 174– 78, 223 176 176 153 77 9, 24, 26, 31, 148, 171–72, 198–200, 221 9 91 172, 209 151 172, 209 179 179 86 196 172, 209

293

Index of Ancient Writings 7:12 10:8–9

172, 209 201

Galatians

82, 86, 119, 133– 34, 172 119, 233, 251 82–83, 86, 251 154 82 83 154 154 133, 143 86, 143, 145 144 143 134 143 179 133 133 133 145 143

1–2 1 1:6 1:11–17 1:12–16 1:12 1:17 2:8 2:19–20 2:20 3:26–28 3:27–28 3:28 4:4 4:21–5:1 4:27 5:22–25 5:24–25 5:24 Ephesians 1:3–14 3:1 3:9–10 6:11 Philippians

26, 127, 154, 170– 72, 219 173 154 80 151

1:1–2:30 1:19–26 1:23–26 1:23 2:16 2:27 3:1–4:3 3:7–11 4:3 4:4–30 4:22

24, 28, 31, 60, 151, 171–72, 174, 200, 209, 244 24 24 n. 6 201 151 28 151 24 80 202 24 38, 60

Colossians 1:16 4:14

170–72, 116 80 116–17

4:16

169–70

1 Thessalonians 2:2 4

171, 244 196, 211 218

2 Thessalonians

171, 244

1 Timothy

30, 60, 110, 116– 19, 170–72, 174, 234 96, 117 118, 140 118 118

1:20 2:9–15 3:1–13 5:1–22 2 Timothy

1:1 1:3–4 1:15–18 1:15 2:3–7 2:3 2:15 2:17–18 2:18c 3:10–12 4:6–8 4:9–15 4:9 4:10 4:13 4:14 4:16–19 4:16–18 4:17 4:19 4:21 Titus

9, 24, 28, 30–31, 60, 93–94, 110, 116–19, 170–72, 174, 186, 199, 221 86 25 117 116 25 40 205 117 163, 165, 172 118 25 117 25, 153 28, 38, 117 25 96, 117 70 8–9 70, 218 77, 117 25, 153

1:5

9, 38, 110, 118, 170–72, 174 251

Philemon 1 9 24

171–72, 244 154 154 116

294

Index of Ancient Writings 2 John

31, 238, 244

4:12

171–72, 199, 205, 221, 237–39, 244 222

3 John

31, 238, 244

James

170, 238, 244

Jude

140, 153, 170, 188, 238, 244

1 Peter

31, 61–62, 153, 170, 188, 237–38, 244

Revelation

61, 238–39, 244– 45 171 61 25 61 61 61 61 61 61

Hebrews

2 Peter

31, 25, 28, 62, 153, 170, 188, 238, 244 25

3:15b–16 1 John

31, 42, 45, 238, 244 182 182

3:8 4:2–3

2:1–3:20 2 11 11:1–14 12 13 13:18 17 17:9–11

5. Christian Apocrypha with Nag Hammadi, Hagiography, and Related Writings 3 Corinthians (see “Acts of Paul 10”) Acts of Andrew

14

114 115 19, 38, 45, 46–49, 50, 53, 74, 106, 128, 138–39, 239, 245–46 128

Acts of Barnabas 5 6 8

213, 233 213, 233 213, 233

Acts of Cyprian

37

Acts of John

19, 38, 45–46, 53, 74, 106, 239, 245 129 53 129 46 46 53 46

26–29 87–105 87–93 110 111–12 112–14 113

46 46

Acts of Paul (see §7 below) Acts of Paul and Thekla (see “Acts of Paul 3–4”) Acts of Peter (see also “Actus Vercellenses” in Index of Subjects)

1–3 1 2 5–6 8–11 19–21 32 33 34 35

8, 19, 36, 45–46, 49–53, 64, 74, 77, 93, 106, 139, 156, 174, 197–99, 203– 5, 221–24, 235, 237, 243–245, 254, 262 199 49, 50, 52 50 203 52 129 50–51 50 50 51, 198–99, 203–

295

Index of Ancient Writings

36 37 38 39–40 40–41 40 41

4, 221, 223, 235, 254, 262 51 52 52 52 199, 205 51–52 52

Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, Greek (6th cent.)

34, 36

Acts of Philip

43, 45, 127

Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs

37, 122

Acts of Thomas

159–70

19, 45, 49 n. 90, 88, 106–7, 127, 245 49 n. 90

Acts of Timothy

45

Acts of Titus, Greek (see Zenas, Pseudo-) Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena

50–51, 108, 139, 221, 243

Apocalypse of James 179 n. 104 (see Protevangelium of James) Apocalypse of Paul (Coptic)

79

Apocalypse of Peter (Coptic)

53

Apocalypse of Peter (Greek)

238, 244, 246

Apocryphon of John

181

Apology of Phileas Barlaam and Joasaph

188 123

Burying of the Martyrs

35

Clement, PseudoHomilies 2.16–17 11.35.5–6 17.13–19

82, 123, 171, 245 171 n. 74 171 n. 74 171 n. 74

Recognitions 17.13–19

171 n. 74

Correspondence of Paul and Seneca 11

150, 170

Depositio Martyrum (ca. 336 C . E.)

34

Epistle of Barnabas

238, 244, 246

Epistula Apostolorum 31

82, 185, 206

Gospel of Peter

239

Gospel of Philip 56.27–57.22

167–68, 175

Gospel of Thomas 1 7 22

88, 93, 165, 239 88, 93 88, 93 52

40

154

Hegesippus, Pseudo- (ca. 580 C.E.) Passio (Apost.) 221, 236 Petri et Pauli Laodiceans

170 (cp. 171)

Letter of Peter to James

171, 244

Life of Polycarp (see Pionius, Pseudo-) Life and Miracles 104–5, 146, 247, of (Saint) Thekla 258

296 Life 27.46 Miracle 4.4–5, 9– 10 Miracle 4.9, 12 Miracle 29

Index of Ancient Writings 146 146 146 146

Linus, Pseudo- (4th–5th cent.) Passio Sancti Pauli 34, 236 Apostoli Linus, PseudoMartyrium beati Apostoli Pauli Marcellus, Pseudo(var. 5th–6th cent.) Acta Pauli et Petri

39

122

Passion of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, Latin (6th cent.)

34, 36

Passion of St. Nicephorus

123

Pionius, Pseudo- (4th cent.) Life of Polycarp 194, 215, 234–35, 249–50, 262 1–3 250

236 Preaching of Paul

195, 221, 223–24, 235–36

Protevangelium of James (Jacobi)

179, 188

221

Marcellus, Pseudo- (ibid.) Martyrdom of Peter 52 and Paul Martyrdom of Matthew

45

Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas

37, 127

Martyrdom of Peter

49–53, 221 n. 12

Martyrdom of Pionius

37

Martyrdom of Glorified Saint Thekla the Protomartyr (see “Acts of Paul 3–4”) Martyrs of Lyons and Vienne

Passio Cypriani

37

Nativity of Mary (see Protevangelium of James)

Sibylline Oracles 4.138–39 5.108–10 5.214–27

61 61 61

Story of Simon and Theonoe

45

Testimony of Truth (NHC IX, 3)

165

Treatise on the Resurrection (NHC I, 4)

167, 175

Zenas, Pseudo- (5th–7th cent.) Acts of Titus, Greek 38, 212–15, 234, 249–52, 262 3 79, 250 4 212, 262 5 214, 262

297

Index of Ancient Writings

6. Other Early Christian Writings 1 Clement

5 5:1–7 5:4 5:5–7 6 6:2 7:1 24–26 24:5 25:3 26:3 30:8 32 44:5 49:6 51

9, 25–26, 171, 174, 199, 221–22, 246 26, 201, 219, 221 26 28 9 26 110 26 174 174 174 174 174 26 174 174 26

2 Clement 8:6 9 9:1–6 Aelius Aristides Apol. 15.1

Athenagoras (Pseudo-) De res. 177 Augustine Contra Faustum 30.4

240 102

Sancta virg. 1.44

102

Basil of Caesarea (4th cent.)

122

Book of the Pontiffs (Liber pontificalis)

36

Catalogue of the Sixty Canonical Books

245–46

Clement of Alexandria Paed. II.1.16.1

171–72, 194, 224

142 178 182

179

Strom. IV 5.43 6.5

Ambrose of Milan (4th cent.) Ep. 63.34 102, 133

3

50 194–95, 223–24, 235–36

Cyprian Ep. 73.5.2

174

Cyprian, PseudoDe rebapt. 17

195, 223, 235–36

“anti–Marcionite” prologues

13–14, 170, 187

Aphraat

187, 236 163–64

Decretum Gelasianum

135, 244–45, 258

Apostolic Constitutions (Const. Apost.) 6.7–8 6.30

Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles)

238, 244

164 184

Apostolic Teaching (Did. Apost.) 15 26

13, 164, 236 174 174

Dionysius of Corinth (according to Eusebius) Romans 223–24, 235

298 Egeria Itinerarium Egeriae seu Peregrinatio ad loca sancta 22.1–23.6

Index of Ancient Writings

102, 146, 240, 247, 258

Epiphanius Panarion 30.16.6–9

164

Ephrem Commentary on 3 Corinthians

149, 187, 236 151–52, 156, 188

Eusebius Hist. eccl. 2.praes. 2.22.1–8 2.23 2.23.3–18 2.25 2.25.5 2.25.7 3.1.1–3.3.7 3.1.3 3.2 3.3.1–2 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4–5 3.3.4 3.3.5 3.3.6 3.3.7 3.20.1–6 3.25 3.25.1–7 3.25.1–2 3.25.4 3.25.5 3.25.6 3.26.1 3.32.1–8 3.35 3.39.9 4.8 4.22.4–7 4.22.4–6

146, 237–39

171

237 8 28, 179 163 223, 237 8 34 237–38 8, 235, 237 28, 179 237 237 237 237 237 237–39 237 237–38 163 223, 238–39, 244 238 238 237–39 239 238–39 238 163 28, 179 39 29, 179 163 163

4.22 4.28 5.7 6.20 6.25.1 6.25.3 6.25.3–14

29, 179 165 29 224, 235 238 239 237–38

Mart. Pal. 3 6

122 145 145

Gregory I (590–604 C.E.) Letter 4.30

35 35–36, 127

Gregory of Nazianzus 122 (4th cent.) De vita sua 545–69 102 Exh. ad virg. 87

102

Or. 24.10

102

Praesc. ad virg. 190

102

Gregory of Nyssa (4th cent.) Hom. in Cant. 14 102 Vita Macr. 961–62

102

Gregory of Tours (6th cent.)

46

Hegesippus (see Eusebius) Hist. eccl. 4.22.4–6

28–29, 163 n. 49, 179 163–64

Hermas Sim. 59 (V.6), esp. 5–8

237, 243–44 178

Vis. 16.1ff.

93 140

299

Index of Ancient Writings Hippolytus of Rome Adv. haer. 9.12 Comm. Dan. 3.29

228 60

174

Elench. 7.28

159

Ignatius

174 183 183 174 153

Trallians 6:2–7:1 9:1–2 9:2 10

174 177, 179 174 177

Magnesians 1:2 8:2 9:2 11

174 174, 183 174, 183 177, 179

227, 231, 235

Contra Noetum 17–18

Hormisdas Ep. 77

4:1 5:1 7:2 11:2 13:2

127 28, 37, 62, 93, 154, 170–71, 174, 177, 181, 185–86, 246

Ephesians 4:1–3 7:1–2 7:1 11:2 12 12:1–2 16:2 17:1 18:2 19:1 19:2 19:3 20:2

27 177 174, 179 174 219 26–27 174 174 174, 177, 179 179 174 174 177, 179

Philadelphians 2 5:2 6:2

174 183 174

Romans 4:1–3 4:2 5:2

27, 63, 177 125 110

Smyrnaeans 1:1–2 1:3 2 3

177, 179 174 177 177

Irenaeus of Lyons

3, 13, 29–31, 93, 148, 159–60, 175, 177, 180, 184–85, 188

Adv. haer. 1 1.praef. 1.10 1.22 1.23–31 1.23 1.23.4 1.23.5–24.2 1.24.1–2 1.24.3ff. 1.24.3–5 1.27.4

160, 166 29 29, 160, 174 29, 160, 174 29, 159 159, 164 159 159 159 188 159–60 160, 164

2.praef.1 2.1.5 2.6.2

29, 164 180 180

3.1.1 3.3.1–3 3.4.3 3.4.1 3.12.12 3.13.3–14.1 3.14.1

13 29–30 159 174 13 13 13

5.2.3 5.9

184 167

300 5.9.1–4 5.9.1 5.9.2–4 5.10.2 5.12.3

Index of Ancient Writings 175 175 175 175 175

78.3 80 100.3 100.5

179 177 179 179

Justin Martyr, PseudoDe res.

185

Jacobus de Voragine (13th cent.) Legenda Aurea 127, 250 Jerome Chron. 2

34, 170, 228 223–24

Leo I (5th cent.) Sermon 82

Contra Vigil. 8

35

Martyrdom of Polycarp 2.3 17–18 18.2–3 Epilogue 2

De vir. illust. 7

177

35 37 127 27, 125 35 182

53

135–36, 225–26, 231–32, 241–42, 246, 255, 258 243

Ep. 22.41

102

Melito of Sardis Homily on Passover

John Chrysostom Hom. 25 in Acta apost.

102

Methodius of Olympus (early 4th cent.) Symposium 102

Hom. Eph. 8

127

Minucius Felix (3d cent.) Oct. 177

John Chrysostom, PseudoPanegyric to Thecla 103 John of Damascus

170

John of Salisbury Policraticus 4.3

215, 251

Justin Martyr 1 Apol. 26.1–8 29.1 50.12 56.1–2 58.1–3

164, 171, 177, 185 29 164 140 13 164 164

Dialogue with Trypho 35 223 35.1–6 164 43.1 179 45.4 179 68.6 179

188

Nicephorus Callistus (14th cent.) Church History 2.25 76, 234, 241, 250– 51, 258 Nicephorus of Constantinople (9th cent.) Stichometry 192–93, 217, 245– 46, 248–49, 253 Nicetas of Paphlagonia (9th cent.) Panegyric to Paul 119, 212–15, 234, 249–52, 262 Origen Comm. Gen. (according to Eusebius)

102, 135, 172, 222–24, 235–39 235

Comm. John 20.12

103 103, 222–23, 235

Contra Celsum 3.46

3

301

Index of Ancient Writings De princ. 1.2.3 1.2.10

103, 222, 235 180

Hom. Jer. 20.1

222–23, 235

Homily on Easter 36.6–37.1

223 101, 223, 230, 235

Papias of Hierapolis

39–40

Ad nat. 1.7

32

Ad Prax. 2

174

De app. 1.2–3 2.9

140 140

De bapt. 5.1 17.5

18

219 6, 21, 33, 100–1, 110, 134–36, 145, 224, 226, 230, 234, 241, 257 142

De praes. haer. 13.1–6 21 32 36

174 30 30 30–32, 218

De res. carn. 48–55

175

Philaster of Brescia (ca. 390 C. E.) De haer. 88.6 241 Photius of Constantinople (9th cent.) Bibliotheca cod. 114 107, 256 Polycarp Philippians 1:2 3:1–2 6:3 7:1–2 7:1 9:1–2 Prudentius On the Crown of Martyrdom 12 Simeon Metaphrastes (10th cent.) Menologion

28–30, 37, 174, 181, 183–86, 246 28, 84, 174, 182 13 28 183 84, 165, 174 182 28

34

De scorp. 4–5 5–6 13–14 15

122

15.2 15.3–4

31–33 31 31 31 59, 218, 234–35, 237, 257 32 32

250

De virg. vel. 1.3

174

Tertullian, Pseudo-

164

Theodore of Mopsuestia

170

Theodoret of Cyrus

170

Sulpicius Severus (early 5th cent.) Chronicle 2.29 32 Tatian Diatessaron Tertullian of Carthage

187 25, 30–33, 101, 134–36, 140, 172, 175, 177, 180, 226, 230, 234–37, 242–43, 257–58

Theophilus of Antioch Ad Auto. 177 1.4 180

302

Index of Ancient Writings

7. “Acts of Paul” Acts of Paul 1

4, 214, 251, 258, 261–63

Acts of Paul 2; 5–7 (Antioch–Tyre)

213–15, 250, 255, 261–63

Acts of Paul 2 (Antioch)

119, 207, 212–15, 231–33, 250, 255, 261–63

Acts of Paul 3–4 (Acts of Paul and Thekla; see also “Lion Cycle” in Index of Subjects)

4, 9, 18–19, 33, 48, 50, 54, 56, 63, 75, 79, 92, 98–99, 100–47, 148–49, 165, 172, 180, 189–91, 207, 212– 13, 215–16, 218, 220, 223–24, 226, 228–36, 254, 240– 42, 245–48, 255– 59, 261–63

Acts of Paul 3 (Iconium) 3.1 3.2 3.2ff. 3.2–3 3.3–4 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7–10 3.7 3.8–9 3.8 3.9 3.11 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17

2, 4, 92, 113–14, 120, 131–32, 143, 208, 214, 261–63 114, 117 126 141 204 114 116, 126–27, 140 126–27 127, 139 127, 139, 142 232 124 125 128, 137 137 114, 137, 140 114, 117–18, 125, 137 114, 117, 137 137 114, 137 132

3.18–19 3.18 3.19 3.20 3.21 3.22–25 3.22 3.23ff. 3.23 3.24 3.25 3.26 Acts of Paul 4 (Antioch; Myra) 4.26 4.27–31 4.28 4.29 4.33 4.34–36 4.34 4.36 4.37 4.38 4.39 4.40–41 4.40 4.41 4.42 4.43

126 124, 127, 140 125 124, 127, 132, 137 124, 128, 131–32, 140 132 128–29, 132, 140 141 141 128, 142 35, 114, 131–32, 140, 142–43, 230 114, 131 114, 131, 143, 208, 213–14, 255, 261–63 131–32 131–32 79, 133, 144, 229 144, 211 79, 144, 229–30, 240–41 132 143 116 132 144–45 142, 144 132 129, 131–33, 140, 142–43, 230 129, 131–32, 141– 42, 230 129, 141 129, 144

Acts of Paul 5 (Myra)

4, 35, 92, 119, 207–8, 212–13, 233, 250, 261–63

Acts of Paul 6 (Sidon)

4, 207–8, 212, 233, 250, 261–63

Acts of Paul 7 (Tyre)

4, 92, 207–8, 212, 233, 250, 261–63

303

Index of Ancient Writings Acts of Paul 8

4, 77, 249, 251, 261–63

9.27 9.28

72–73, 76 73, 76

Acts of Paul 9 (Ephesus: Ephesus Act; see also “Lion Cycle” in Index of Subjects)

2, 5, 10–11, 15, 18–19, 58, 65, 66– 99, 100, 110–11, 129, 146–49, 165, 172, 189–95, 198, 206–7, 211, 213– 14, 216, 218, 225– 32, 235–36, 241, 246, 248, 253–56, 258, 261–63 77 77 77 77–78 78 78, 88, 228 86–87 78 86 78–79 79, 87 79, 129 79 80 80, 90 81 70, 80 69–70, 92 81 71–72 71 72 71–72 72–73, 80, 93 71–73 72–73 72–73, 77 73 73, 76, 92 35, 72–74, 76, 80 71–72, 74–75, 80 74, 92 71 71 74–75 75, 195 71, 75

Acts of Paul 10–11 (Philippi)

5, 66, 92, 191, 196, 208–9, 211– 12, 215, 225, 254– 55, 261–63

Acts of Paul 10

5, 92, 199, 207, 220, 254, 261–63

3 Corinthians (= “Acts of Paul 10”)

1–2, 5, 15, 19–20, 65, 70, 91, 147, 148–89, 190–92, 199, 201, 205, 207, 209–11, 216, 220–22, 225, 235– 36, 248, 254, 256, 258–59, 261–63 151 150, 189 160, 189, 209–10

9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5–10 9.5–6 9.5 9.6–7 9.6 9.7–9 9.7 9.8 9.9 9.10 9.11 9.12 9.13 9.14 9.15–19 9.15 9.16–21 9.16–17 9.16 9.17 9.18–21 9.18 9.19 9.20–21 9.20 9.21 9.22 9.23 9.24 9.25–26 9.25 9.26 9.27–28

1–4 1; 3 1 2–4 2; 4 2 2:1 2:2–5 2:2 2:3 2:4–5 2:4 2:5 2:6–8 2:8 2:9–15 2:9 2:10–15 2:10 2:11–15 2:11 2:12 2:13a 2:13b 2:14 2:14b 2:15 2:16

151–52 151–52, 209 153, 159–60, 162, 166 153 157, 160 153, 156–57, 162– 63, 165 153 153, 164 165 168 153 153, 187 154, 157–58 162 159, 161, 187–88 158, 162, 167, 183 162 158 158 158 158 158 179 158, 162, 181 154, 165

304

Index of Ancient Writings

3 3:1 3:2 3:3 3:4

189, 209 151 151 151 151

4

148 n. 1, 153, 160, 162, 166, 173–74, 185, 188 154 157–58, 160, 165, 181 157, 160, 165, 167, 172, 187 154, 173 154 164, 185 154, 167, 179 158, 185, 187 158, 178 154, 167 158, 180, 185 158, 180 154 154 180 154, 158, 180, 183 157–58, 160, 166, 180 158, 180, 183 180–81 158 154 158 179, 187 158 153, 179–80 154, 157–58, 160, 166, 178, 180–81 154, 158 158 154, 165 157–58, 160, 179– 80, 185 157, 159–60, 167 155 157, 160, 166 153 154, 166

4:2–3 4:2 4:3 4:4–18 4:4–8 4:4 4:5–6 4:5 4:6 4:7–18 4:7 4:8 4:9–21 4:9–15 4:9–10 4:9 4:10–11 4:10 4:11 4:12–15 4:12–13 4:12 4:13(–14) 4:13 4:14 4:15 4:16–18 4:16–17 4:19–20 4:19 4:20 4:21(–23) 4:21 4:22–23 4:24–32

4:24–25

4:37–38 4:37 4:38 4:39

155, 157–58, 160, 180, 184 167 155, 158 157, 160, 167 155, 158, 180 157, 160, 167 167 183 158 158, 180, 183–84 153, 187 154 154–55, 177 158, 164 167 155, 158, 168, 172, 174, 180, 183–84 157, 160, 165 155, 165, 184 155 157, 160, 166

Acts of Paul 11 (Frontina)

5, 92, 210–11, 225, 255, 261–63

Acts of Paul 12–14 (see also “Passion Narrative of Paul” in Index of Subjects)

79, 193, 197–99, 206–9, 212, 215– 17, 220–225, 227, 236–37, 245, 254– 55, 261–63

Acts of Paul 12–13 (see also “‘Prequel’ to the Martyrdom of Paul” in Index of Subjects)

66, 197–200, 203, 221–22, 250, 261– 63

Acts of Paul 12 (Corinth)

12.1 12.5

5, 10, 43, 51, 57, 66, 68, 90, 153, 191–99, 203, 206– 7, 210–11, 220, 254, 261–63 199 35

Acts of Paul 13 (Travel from Corinth to Rome;

4–5, 36, 51, 66, 68, 70, 179, 187, 191, 194, 197–99,

4:24 4:26–27 4:26 4:28–31 4:28 4:29 4:30 4:32–33 4:32 4:33 4:34–39 4:34–35 4:35 4:36–39 4:36

Index of Ancient Writings House of Claudius in Rome) 13.6 (see also “Quo vadis?” in Index of Subjects) Acts of Paul 14 (Rome: Martyrdom of Paul)

202–4, 206, 220– 23, 225, 235–36, 254, 261–63 205 14.1–2 14.1 14.2 14.3 2– 5, 8–11, 17–19, 23–65, 66, 68–69, 90, 92, 98–100, 110, 146–48, 155, 189–91, 194–95, 197–99, 202, 204–

14.4 14.5 14.6 14.7 14.13

305 6, 209, 218–22, 225, 234–37, 243, 254, 257–59, 261– 63 39, 55, 90 38, 41 40 32, 40–41, 60, 205–6 41–42 42–43, 202 40, 43 43 60

Index of Modern Authors Adamik, T. 227 Aland, K. 14, 169 Albrecht, R. 130 Allberry, C. R. C. 101, 240 D’Angelo, M. R. 141 D’Anna, A. 150, 153, 157–58, 164, 166, 179, 185 Attridge, H. W. 113 Aubin, M. 106, 120 Aubineau, M. 101 Aymer, M. P. 114, 144 Babcock, W. S. 21, 119 Barrier, J. W. 100, 106 Bartelink, G. J. M. 227 Bauckham, R. 3, 7–12, 50, 69, 77, 86, 117, 194, 249, 254 Berendts, A. 149 Berger, S. 149 Bisbee, G. A. 36–37 Bollók, J. 126 Bolyki, J. 43 Bonnet, M. 2, 23, 103, 104, 127, 247 Boughton, L. 111, 145–46 Bovon, F. 1–2, 4, 14, 16, 21, 23, 27, 43, 45, 63, 75–76, 101, 103, 108, 127, 138, 143, 180, 189, 200, 207, 214, 218, 223, 226, 228, 248 Bowersock, G. W. 37 Boyarin, D. 31 Bratke, E. 149 Braun, W. 106, 140–41 Bremmer, J. 12, 38, 43, 45–46, 49, 51, 101, 115, 126, 135, 150, 174, 227 Graham Brock, A. 63, 120, 180 Brown, P. 27, 111, 124–26, 138 Bundy, D. 149 Burrus, V. 105, 108–11, 113 Bynum, C. W. 175–78, 183

Cartlidge, D. R. 139 Castelli, E. 27, 141 Ceriani, A. M. 149 Clabeaux, J. J. 171 Clark, E. A. 121, 139 Cobb, L. S. 37 Cohen, S. J. D. 116, 142 Coleman, K. M. 137 Cooper, K. 109, 111–12, 120, 124, 138 Cowe, S. P. 150, 183 Cox Miller, P. 106 Croy, N. C. 24 Crum, W. E. 4, 80 Czachesz, I. 11–12, 94, 204 Dagron, G. 104, 146, 247 Dassmann, E. 21 Davies, S. 108–11, 134 Davis, S. 102–5, 140–41, 144, 146, 176, 247 De Bruyne, D. D. 150 de Ste. Croix, G. E. M. 37 Delehaye, H. 36, 120–23, 125 den Dulk, M. 100 Diamond, E. 139, 228 von Dobschütz, E. 106–8, 123, 244–45 Drijvers, H. J. W. 149, 227 Droge, A. J. 24, 36 Dunn, P. 8–9, 21, 48, 69, 79, 80, 82, 110– 11, 117, 138, 143, 150, 172, 184, 214, 221, 249, 251 Eastman, D. L. 24, 33–36, 127 Ehrman, B. D. 26, 28, 150, 169, 182, 185 Ehrman, B. D. 26, 28, 150, 169, 182, 185 Elliott, J. K. 16, 104–5, 150, 215, 247, 251 Elm, S. 141 Elsner, J. 137 Epp, E. J. 12, 61, 152–53

Index of Modern Authors Erbetta, M. 16 Esch-Wermeling, E. 100, 112, 114, 119, 144 Evans, C. A. 103 Fabricius, J. A. 149 Ferguson, E. 73, 142 Fitzmyer, J. 3, 5 Fraade, S. D. 139 Friesen, S. J. 61 Frilingos, C. A. 27, 61 Frow, J. 63, 120 Gager, J. G. 176 Gamble, H. Y. 148, 169 Garnsey, P. 37 Geerard, M. 2, 23, 103, 220–21 Genette, G. 10, 124 Geoltrain, P. 1–2, 4, 16, 23, 103, 127, 207, 214 Giovannini, A. 37 Glancy, J. A. 200 Goulet, R. 138 Gounelle, R. 198 Grabe, J. E. 105, 247 Grant, R. M. 126 Gutschmid, A. 116

307

Kaestli, J.-D. 11, 45, 107–8, 150, 169 Kasser, R. 2, 76–81, 86–87, 90, 152, 194, 249 Kelley, N. 37, 49 Kerenyi, K. 108 King, K. 31, 139, 156, 164, 181 Klauck, H.-J. 169–70 Klijn, A. F. J. 6, 110, 150, 156–57, 159, 161–62, 178, 180 Konstan, D. 109 Kraemer, R. S. 134 Krueger, D. 104, 112, 129, 169 Lalleman, P. J. 45 Lampe, P. 125, 127, 136, 141, 200 Layton, B. 156–57, 160, 178 Le Boulluec, A. 163 Levenson, J. D. 175–76 Lightfoot, J. B. 60, 215, 249 Lindemann, A. 21, 26, 171 Lipsius, R. A. 2, 23, 103–4, 127, 247 Luisier, P. 2, 76–77, 79, 81, 86–87, 90, 194, 249 Luttikhuizen, G. 150, 153–54, 157

Hahneman, G. M. 243 Haines-Eitzen, K. 104, 125, 169, 171 Halkin, F. 215, 249 Hanson, R. P. C. 174 Harnack, A. 97, 123, 149, 157 Hayne, L. 101 Henten, J. W. V. 26, 36 Hilhorst, A. 37–38, 135 Hills, J. V. 3, 7–10, 43, 60, 70, 91–93, 95, 119, 134, 172, 185, 205 van den Hoek, A. 81, 103, 230 Holzhey, C. 101–2 Horsley, R. A. 62 Hovhanessian, V. 150, 152, 156–57, 187 Howe, E. M. 111 Hurtado, L. W. 103

MacDonald, D. R. 10, 21, 40, 46, 51, 57– 58, 60, 69–70, 74, 76, 93–94, 103, 108– 11, 113–18, 199, 227 Mackay, T. W. 134, 150, 156, 158, 179, 187 Malherbe, A. J. 126, 169 Malina, B. J. 126 Marguerat, D. 10–11, 69, 82, 91, 123–24 Martin, D. B. 115, 137, 183, 232 Matthews, S. 105, 112 McDonald, L. M. 148, 171 McGinn, S. E. 111, 133, 144 Meade, D. G. 169 Meeks, W. A. 134, 157, 169 Metzger, B. M. 169, 227 Misset-van de Weg, M. 115–16, 138 Momigliano, A. 106 Moss, C. 26, 31, 41–43, 177 Musurillo, H. 2, 203

James, M. R. 4, 214–15, 250–51 Johnson, S. F. 104, 136, 247 Johnston, S. 187 Junod, É. 45

Nagel, P. 228, 240–41 Ng, E. Y. L. 105, 134–35, 145 Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 175 Nussbaum, M. C. 182

308

Index of Modern Authors

Olrik, A. 110, 114–15 Pagels, E. 175–76 Penny, D. N. 185 Perkins, J. 37, 106 Perkins, Ph. 171 Perry, B. E. 106 Pervo, R. I. 2–3, 7, 10, 12, 14, 21, 38–39, 60, 69, 77, 83, 91, 94–95, 113–14, 197, 215, 249 Pesthy, M. 101 Piñero, A. 16 Poupon, G. 49, 75, 136 Prieur, J-M. 46 Radermacher, L. 106, 108, 113 Ramsay, W. M. 112, 116 Rapp, C. 103 Reardon, B. P. 106–7 Reitzenstein, R. 106–8 Rensberger, D. K. 21, 171 Rhee, H. 36 Rinck, W. F. 149, 156, 173–74 Rist, M. 150, 154, 156, 159, 168, 170, 173 Rohde, E. 106 Rordorf, W. 2, 4, 6–11, 23, 27, 38, 51, 57– 58, 69, 71, 78–79, 87, 89, 91, 93, 101, 103, 105, 109–10, 127, 134–36, 143, 148, 153, 154, 156, 159–60, 167, 174, 177, 179–80, 184, 187–88, 194, 196, 199, 203, 205, 210, 214, 226–28, 231, 249, 251, 254 Rousselle, A. 139 Satlow, M. L. 115 Saxer, V. 129 Schäferdiek, K. 6, 45, 240–42, 256 Schmidt, C. 2, 4–5, 23, 66–67, 73–74, 79, 120, 149, 190–94, 196, 199–205, 207– 10, 214, 217, 223–24, 227, 232, 251 Schneemelcher, W. 3–4, 6–7, 10, 16, 40, 42, 45–49, 54, 57–58, 60, 64, 69–70, 72–73, 76–77, 81, 86, 92, 111–12, 127– 28, 142–44, 160, 202, 204, 212, 214, 219, 222, 230, 251 Scholer, D. M. 141 Schüssler Fiorenza, E. 61, 111, 139, 155 Schwartz, D. R. 119, 233 Schwartz, Sau. 44 Schwartz, Se. 229

Seeliger, H. R. 36 Segal, A. F. 175 Sellew, P. 28 Setzer, C. 175–78, 180 Shaw, B. D. 25, 37, 115, 128, 168, 200 Sherwin-White, A. N. 37 Smith, J. Z. 106 Snyder, G. E. 18, 21, 38–39, 45, 63, 71, 89 Snyder, G. F. 141 Snyder, H. G. 134, 169 Söder, R. 108 Stoops, R. F., Jr. 51, 199 Stowers, S. K. 169, 181 Streete, G. P. C. 27, 135 Sundberg, A. C., Jr. 243 Tajra, H. W. 24–26, 32–33, 38, 43, 52, 218–20, 236 Talbert, C. H. 14, 138 Testuz, M. 2, 149–50, 152, 157, 179, 186, 188, 235 Townsend, J. T. 14, 160 Trobisch, D. 171 Tyson, J. B. 14 Ullmann, C. 149 Utro, U. 34 Vaage, L. E. 139 Valantasis, R. 139 Vetter, P. 149, 156, 167, 187 Vielhauer, P. 107–8 Vielhauer, Ph. 107–8 Vorster, J. N. 138 Vouaux, L. 2, 5, 23, 101, 150, 234, 236 Warren, D. H. 21, 171, 180 Wedderburn, A. J. M. 175 Wehn, B. 130, 133 Wehn, B. 130, 133 Westra, L. H. 174 White, L. M. 139, 141, 157 Wilcox, M. 12 Wilken, R. L. 49, 137 Williams, M. A. 156, 164 Wills, L. M. 106, 112 Wimbush, V. L. 139 Wright Knust, J. 109 Wright, R. O. 232

Index of Modern Authors Yarbro Collins, A. 61 Zahn, Th. 116, 149, 156, 244–46

Zohrapian, H. 149 Zwierlein, O. 23S

309

Index of People and Places Aegeates 47–48 Alexander 30, 91, 96, 114, 116–17, 132, 229–30 Alexandria 13, 102–3, 172 Ammia 78–79, 202, 228 Ananias 82–84, 86, 89–90, 204 Andrew 64, 221 Antioch 3–4, 13, 26, 28, 57, 79, 85, 88, 94, 101, 113–15, 118–19, 132–33, 143– 46, 154, 156, 174, 177, 196, 207–8, 212–16, 218, 220, 225, 229–33, 236, 248, 250–51, 255, 259, 261–63 Apollo 209, 212–14 Apollos 87, 90 Aquila 77–81, 87, 90–91, 98, 117, 146 Aristarchus 91, 95 Artemilla 69, 72–75, 146–47, 228–29, 231 Artemon 198, 203–4 Asia Minor 1, 15, 20, 28–29, 57, 60–64, 69, 102, 110, 116, 145–46, 157, 174, 217, 220, 230, 247, 252–53, 255–57 Athens 195, 215, 251, 262 Barnabas 40, 82–83, 85, 88, 118, 170, 212, 255 Barsabas 39–40, 43 Caesar (see “politics”) Caesarea 14, 82, 196 Carthage 30, 134–35, 175, 236 Cestus (centurion) 41–44, 54, 58–59, 219 Cestus 41–44, 54, 58–59, 219 Cilicia 4, 84, 119, 214, 233, 240, 251, 262 Claudius (imperator) 116 Claudius 4, 36, 70, 194, 198–99, 204, 206, 220–23, 235, 254 Clement 25, 30 Cleobius (3 Corinthians) 153, 156–68, 185–88, 201, 210 Cleobius (Corinth) 153, 201 Damascus 3–4, 9, 77–79, 82–86, 88–89, 94, 170, 196, 214, 234, 251–52, 262

Daphnos 153 Demas 114, 116–17 Demetrius 72, 91, 95–96 Diophantes 69, 71–72, 74 Egypt 11, 50, 74, 102–3, 106, 130, 132, 137, 157, 172, 187, 236 Ephesus 2–5, 9–11, 18, 30, 46, 57, 61, 66– 99, 107, 116–17, 146, 191, 193–94, 207, 209–10, 216, 218, 228, 231–32, 234, 242, 247, 254, 259, 262–63 Eubolos 153 Eubula 69, 71–75 Eucleia 47 Eutychus (3 Cor 3) 209–10 Eutychus (Acts 20:7–12) 10, 18, 39, 55– 58, 60, 90, 92–93, 95, 209, 218, 254 Evil One 41, 62, 64, 154, 165–66, 178, 180–83, 185 – Devil 29, 41, 47, 163–64, 182 – Satan 41, 182 Frontina 5, 210–11, 225, 255, 262 Gaius (3d cent. presbyter) 34, 223 Gaius 91, 95 Gaius Lucilius (Iunior: addressee of Seneca) 170 Galilee 85, 88, 179, 199, 203 Gaul 11, 29, 38, 60, 102 Hermogenes 114, 116–17 Hieronymos 69–76, 80–81, 92, 146, 228 Hymenaeus 117 India 49 Iphidama 48 James 32, 43, 163 Jericho 79, 214, 227, 234, 251, 262 Jerusalem 4, 50, 53, 56–57, 61, 82–86, 88, 90, 92, 94, 118–19, 133, 196, 213–14, 233, 241, 251–52, 262 Joanna 43 John 30, 31, 45–46, 88, 129, 242–43 Judas (Acts 9:11, 17) 84, 87–89, 94

Index of People and Places Judas (Didymus, Thomas) 49, 78, 87–89, 93–94 Judas (Iscariot) 40 Lemma 78–79, 202, 228 Leucius (Leutius, Leukios) [Charinos] 5– 6, 45, 242, 256 Longus (author) 107, 111 Longus (prefect) 41–44, 54, 58–59, 219 Longus 41–44, 54, 58–59, 107, 111, 219 Luke 5, 9, 13–14, 38, 42, 44, 56, 58–60, 117, 119, 219, 225, 243 Macedonia 30, 75, 91, 195–96, 231–32, 241 Marcellus 36, 50, 52 Marcellus, Pseudo- (var.) 52 n. 100, 221, 236 Mark 117 Mary (Mother) 43, 158, 161–62, 179–80, 187–88, 199, 225, 247, 258 Mary Magdalene 43 Maximilla 47–48 Miletus 57, 241 Myra 4, 92, 119, 207–8, 212–14, 231–33, 236, 248, 250, 255, 259, 262–63 Myrta 43, 201–2, 222 Nero (see “politics”) North Africa 11, 30, 33, 102, 134, 236 Onesiphorus 114, 116–17, 126–27, 129, 139, 141–42, 145–46 Orion 39 Parthenius 42–43, 58 Patroclus 10, 18, 38–41, 43–44, 54–60, 90, 92–93, 95, 218–19, 254 Peter 25–27, 30–36, 49–53, 64, 133, 163, 203–6, 221, 224, 245, 259 Pheretas 42–43, 58 Philetus 117 Philip (evangelist) 39 Philippi 3–5, 24, 28, 30, 66, 168, 174, 182, 191–92, 194–97, 199, 206–9, 209– 12, 214–16, 220–21, 225, 236, 248, 251, 254–55, 262–63 Pius I 28, 30, 243 Presbyter in Asia (alleged author of acta Pauli) 5–6, 110, 136, 145, 241–42 Prisc(ill)a 77–81, 87, 90–91, 98, 117, 146 Procla 71, 80, 146 Rome passim Samaria 50, 85, 163, 179

311

Saul (Saoul, Saulos) 73, 77–78, 82–89, 94, 118, 196, 254–55; see esp. 84 n. 88 Seleucia 102, 104–5, 145–46, 218, 240, 247, 258 Sidon 4, 207–8, 212–14, 231–33, 236, 248, 250, 255, 259, 262 Simon (Pseudo-Clem.) 82 Simon 29, 45, 50, 52, 153, 156–68, 185– 88, 210 Simon Peter 206 Smyrna 4, 28, 30, 77, 174, 194, 196, 206, 214, 231, 234, 249–50, 262 Sosthenes 91 Spain 26, 50–51, 221, 243 Stephanos 153 Stephen 27, 32, 85, 128, 247 Strataeas 250 Stratocles 48 Stratonice 209 Syria 13, 19, 23, 26, 57, 59, 85, 91, 94, 102, 114, 119, 143, 145–46, 149, 151– 52, 156, 164, 173–74, 177, 187–89, 207, 212–14, 218, 225, 233, 236, 255– 56, 258 Tarseus (Tarseus) 83–84; see esp. 84 n. 88 Tarsus (Tarsos) 84, 88, 102, 146, 196, 240, 258 Thamyris 101, 114, 116, 125, 128, 132, 140, 230 Thekla (2) 145–46 n. 160 Thekla 2, 4, 9, 15, 18–20, 33, 48–50, 54, 56, 63, 65, 75, 79–81, 92, 98–99, 100– 47, 148–49, 165, 172, 180, 189–91, 202, 207, 212–15, 216, 218, 220, 223– 26, 228–36, 240–42, 245–48, 254–59, 261–63 – as “Sarah” 129–34 – baptism and temptation 142–44 – devotee of Paul 125–29 – manuscripts 103–5 – other relics 103 – reception 101–5, 240–42 – speech 143 – titles of manuscripts 103–5 Theokleia 115, 125, 128–29, 232, 259 Theon 203 Theonoe 45, 153 Theophilus 153, 243 Thessalonica 30, 117, 195, 251 Thomas 49, 88, 204

312

Index of People and Places

Threptus 209–10 Timothy 25, 30, 38, 250 Titus 9, 38, 42, 44, 58–60, 117, 126, 170, 219 Tyre 4, 57, 207–8, 212–16, 225, 229, 231– 33, 236, 248, 250–51, 255, 259, 261–62 wife of Paul 79, 129–34, 202

– Lemma or Ammia 79 – Thekla 129–34 – Myrta 202, esp. n. 44 Xanthippe (Acts of Peter) 51 Xanthippe (Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena) 50, 51 n. 96, 108, 139, 221, 243

Index of Subjects absence – Paul 50, 95, 129–34, 137, 147, 167 n. 63, 189 – Thekla 104 – Corinthians 202 “acts” of apostles 5–12, 45–53, 105–13, 119–20 – definition 196–97 – orality 108–12 Acts (of the Apostles) – author as “Luke” 5, 13–14 – date 14 n. 54 – “B” text 12–15, 94–97, 115 – “D” text 11–13, 94–95, 97 – “Majority” text 84–85, 91 – manuscripts 3 n. 6 – titles 3 n. 6, 66 n. 2, 191 n. 4, 136 n. 127, 196–97 Acts of Paul – author as presbyter in Asia 5–6, 110, 136, 145, 241–42 – author as Leukios/Leucius (Leutius) [Charinos] 5–6, 45, 242 n. 77, 256 n. 111 – definition, working 1–5 – manuscripts (see Index of Ancient Writings §1) – phrase 1–5, 215–16, 234 n. 50 – relations to Acts 13–15, 54–59, 81–98, 118–19, 124, 137, 142, 151 n. 5, 153 n. 14, 156 n. 26, 172, 197–206, 232–33 (see also “comparisons with Acts”) – sections, CCSA 2 n. 5, 4–5, 262–63 – sections, H.-S. 4 n. 8 – titles in manuscripts 2, 19, 66, 76–77, 103, 207, 215–16, 235–36 – titles in other sources 135, 222–27, 230– 31, 234–42, 244–47 Actus Vercellenses (Acts of Peter) 8, 49, 198–99, 203, 221–22, 243

ad bestias 44, 145–46 n. 160, 191 – Paul 69–71, 74–75, 216, 227–28 – Thekla 229–30 archaeological sites for Paul in Rome – Aquae Salvias (“Three Fountains”) 33 – Basilica of Saint Paul 33–35 – Church of Saint Sebastian 35–36 asceticism 35, 37, 46, 50, 53, 74, 79, 87, 90, 98, 106, 109, 113, 138–41, 142–44, 176, 180, 188, 256, 258 – abstenance/virginity 46–47, 53, 74, 101– 2, 104–5, 108–9, 111, 113, 120, 125, 130, 133, 138–41, 145–47, 179, 202, 213, 240 (see also “endurance”) – Inanna/Ishtar/Astarte 140 – renunciation (of externals) 18–19, 47– 49, 98, 102, 139–41, 146–47 (auto)biography 78, 81–83, 89, 94 n. 130, 197, 199–201, 206, 208, 224 baptism 17–19, 33, 42, 58–59, 64, 71–76, 78–81, 83–85, 87–90, 98–101, 110, 129, 133–37, 142–47, 184, 203, 213– 14, 218–19, 224–32, 241, 251, 254, 256–58, 261 – lion 71–72, 74–76, 78–81, 214, 225–32 – lioness 79, 226, 228–32, 241, 261, 263 – seal(ing) 42, 44, 46, 47, 142–43, 230 – water and washing 56, 75, 83, 124, 142– 43, 184, 203–4, 219, 229–30 – and asceticism 142–44 – and temptation 142–43, 228–31, 254 clothing 42, 45–46 n. 79, 47, 55, 61, 72, 104 n. 18, 109, 140–42, 143–44 n. 154, 145 comparisons with Acts of the Apostles 3, 212–15, 232–33 – issues and options in scholarship 5–12 – critique of anachronism 13–15

314

Index of Subjects

– critique of mereological (part–whole) argumentation 13–15, 20, 81–82, 89, 91–92, 95–96 – tradition-by-tradition approach 15–16, 54, 57–58, 96–98 – comparisons by traditions 54–58, 81–89, 89–90, 90–93, 93–98, 197–206 – literary dependence of (part of) Acts on (part of) the Martyrdom 54–58 – literary dependence of (part of) Acts on (part of) Ephesus Act 94–98 comparisons with other “acts” of apostles (see also “Quo vadis?”) – Acts of Andrew 46–49 – Acts of Peter 49–53 – Acts of John 45–46 – Acts of Thomas 49 comparisons with hagiography 118–34 – definition 120–23 – scholarship 123–25 – Acts of Paul and Thekla as hagiography 125–37 – hagiographic practices 126–29 – evidence for hagiographer 134–37 comparisons with martyrdoms 36–44 comparisons with novels 105–120 – categories of novels 106–8 – orality and literacy 108–12 – “data” produced 112–13, 113–20 comparisons with rules of faith 173–74 comparison with “we” materials in Acts 38 n. 53, 55–58, 199 conversion/call 81–90, 94, 214, 228, 251 – GLZYNZ 78, 82, 86 – stages of conversion or initiation 18, 64, 78 n. 57, 80 nn. 67–68, 86–90, 103, 140 n. 140, 219, 228, 246, 257–58 – blindness 83–84, 86, 89, 94, 212 – description of calls in Acts (9; 22; 26) 82–86 – comparison with calls in Acts (9; 22; 26) 86–89 – function of Judas 86–89 – other conversions 47–48, 49 n. 90, 50– 51, 52, 55, 59, 70 n. 15, 76 n. 44, 79– 80, 142–44, 147, 153, 176, 228 – socioeconomics 80, 96, 115, 129, 142, 145

cultic practice (see also “baptism” and “meal”) – by Paul 42 – for Jesus 166 – for Paul 19, 23, 33–36, 64, 125, 126–29, 145, 213, 258 – for Thekla 101–5, 145–46, 247–48 – heroes (e.g., Heracles) 35, 94, 197, 218, 254, 258 – idols, idolatry 18, 31, 49, 70, 72, 80, 91, 98–99, 258 – imperial cult 53, 61, 114 death of Paul – decapitatio 8, 32–33, 40–44, 60, 65, 202 – milk 42–43, 201 – post-mortem appearances 43–44, 58–59, 64, 198, 202, 219–20, 222 description of Paul 126–27 endurance 25–26, 28, 33, 101, 118, 128– 29, 142, 155, 167–68, 185, 200–1, 224, 240 – and asceticism 101, 118, 128–29, 142, 240 – and teaching 155, 167–68, 185 fasting 50, 75, 85, 141, 198, 201, 203, 210 – with mourning 75 – with joy 210 – with prayer 50, 141, 198 – with nightwatches 203 – then Eucharist 201 festival for Paul 23, 64, 258 genre 19, 24 n. 3, 63 105, 113, 120–23, 150, 160, 165 n. 56, 166 n. 60, 173, 196–97, 211 Hamburg manuscript (P. Hamb.) – contents 191–95, 195–97, 206–7, 225 – date 4 – pagination 5, 66–68 – scribes 194–97, 199, 204 – subheadings 194–95, 197, 211, 220 – title 2, 66 Heidelberg manuscript (P. Heid.) – contents 207–8, 215, 233–34, 248, 251– 53

Index of Subjects – contents attested only in P. Heid. 4–5, 248, 262 – date 4, 207, 236 – pagination 4–5 – subheadings 208, 211–15 – title 2, 207, 236 historical (re)situation of traditions ascribed to “Acts of Paul” 254–59, 261, 263 – Martyrdom of Paul 53, 54–65, 197–206, 219–225 – Passion Narrative of Paul 197–206, 219–225 – 3 Corinthians 186–87 – Ephesus Act 81–90 – Acts of Paul and Thekla 145–46 – “Lion Cycle” 225–32 holidays – Lord’s day 71 n. 17, 73 n. 26 – Pentecost 69, 71, 77 – Preparation 71–72, 202 – Sabbath 71–73 – Sunday 46 – untitled 78 intertexts 17, 99, 118, 120, 129–34 – Genette’s model of intertextuality 10– 11, 124 – other models of intertextuality 55 n. 108, 91 n. 118 – Martyrdom of Paul 43, 59–60, 220 – 3 Corinthians 172–74 – “Prequel” to the Martyrdom of Paul 198–99, 220–21 – Ephesus Act 79 n. 63, 93–94, 232 n. 42 – Acts of Paul and Thekla 140 n. 140, 145 – “Lion Cycle” 232 n. 42 letters – collections of Pauline letters 171–72 – letters of Paul to Peter 244 n. 81 – pseudonymous writing in 3 Cor 172–73, 178, 185–86 (see also “ ‘opponents’ in 3 Corinthians) light (see “):6”) lion(s), lioness 19, 69, 71–72, 74–76, 79, 81, 87, 90, 129, 146, 214, 218, 225–32, 235–36, 241, 247, 250–51, 254, 258, 261 (see also “Lion Cycle”)

315

“Lion Cycle” 180, 225–26, 231–33, 241– 42, 248, 253–56, 258, 261–63 logia (“sayings” collection) 70, 88, 93, 154, 165, 172 Manichaeans 6 n. 16, 45–46, 101, 107 n. 28, 240–41, 255–56, 258 martyrdom 23–65, 71 n. 16, 102–3, 120– 29, 163, 172, 177, 220, 221 n. 12, 235, 236 n. 56 (see also Index of Ancient Writings §5) – Acts of Andrew 46–49 – Acts of Peter 49–53, 221 n. 12 – Acts of John 45–46 n. 79 – Thekla 120–29, 144, 146, 240, 247 n. 93, 258 – Ignatius 26–27, 177 meal – agape 78, 90 – baptismal 85, 142 – bread 27, 35, 46, 55, 142, 202 – bread and water 50, 74 – bread, vegetables, and water 142 – bread, wine, and fish 35 – Eucharist 35, 87, 102, 184, 198, 201, 240, 258 – wine 35, 39, 114 missionary journeys in Acts (see also Index of Ancient Writings §4: Acts 9– 11; 13–14/15:35; 15:36/16:9–18:22; 18:23ff. ) – pre-“first” 233 n. 48 – “first” 118–19, 233 – “second” 195 – “third” 57, 94, 98, 241 “opponents” in 3 Corinthians – proposals in scholarship 155–57 – critique of scholarly practice 157–61 – heresiological opposition(s) in 3 Corinthians 161–68 orthodoxy 19, 28 n. 18, 97, 239, 254, 258 – heresiological argumentation 28–31, 45, 155, 160, 163–64, 166, 172–73, 175, 185, 239, 245 – function of pseudonymous letter writing 168–72, 185–86 – heresiological trope in 3 Cor (2:10–15) 161–68, 185–87

316

Index of Subjects

Papyrus Bodmer X (P. Bodm. 10) – contents 148–53 – date 152, 157, 186, 235 Papyrus Bodmer XLI (P. Bodm. 41) – contents 76–77 – date 76, 236 – scribes 78–79 – title 2, 76–77, 236 Passion Narrative of Paul (Acts of Paul 12–14) 51, 66, 79, 197–202, 204, 206– 7, 209–12, 215–17, 219–25, 227, 232, 233, 235–37, 239, 243, 245, 248, 250, 254–55, 261–63 “Pastorals” (1–2 Timothy; Titus) – distinctness of 2 Timothy 60, 93–94, 110, 116–19, 174 (see also Index of Ancient Writings §4) patronage (see also “conversion: socioeconomics”) – Onesiphorus for others 141–42, 145 – Peter and Paul for Rome 35 – Procla for Ephesians 80, 146 – Tryphaena for Thekla 115–16, 141–42, 145 – various benefactions 131–32 politics – Caesar 32–33, 38–41, 43, 57, 59, 61–62, 64, 218 – Empire 11, 24, 27, 32, 36–37, 61–62, 70, 112, 116, 138, 218, 221, 229, 243 – imperator 17, 23, 43–44, 52, 58, 61–62, 64, 98, 114, 116 – Nero 17–18, 23, 32, 36, 38–44, 50–53, 55, 58–65, 98, 138, 223, 245 – Roman citizenship 32, 40, 42 – Romans 11, 23–27, 32, 34, 36–38, 40– 42, 44, 47–54, 56, 59–64, 69–70, 76– 77, 80–83, 95–96, 105, 110, 114–16, 133, 137–39, 211, 219, 223–24 prayer 42, 46, 50, 52–53, 71–74, 76–77, 79, 102, 116, 128–29, 133, 141, 144, 198, 200, 201, 203, 211, 230, 240, 258 “Prequel” to the Martyrdom of Paul (Acts of Paul 12–13) 51, 198–200, 203–6, 211, 220–22, 250, 261–63 proclamation 38–42, 70–71, 78–80, 139– 41, 175–81, 199–201 – asceticism (q.v.) – endurance (q.v.)

– fire 40–41, 44, 70–71, 78–80, 143–44 nn. 153–54, 184 – resurrection (q.v.) Quo vadis? 51, 198–99, 203–4, 221, 223, 235, 254, 262 reconstruction of “Acts of Paul” – alternate explanation 254–56 (see also 219–34 et passim; and “comparisons with Acts”) – material evidence, description of 191– 95, 207–9, 215 – material evidence, evaluation of 219–34 – materials, additional hypothesized 4–5, 212–15, 233–34, 262 (see also Acts of Paul 1 and 8 in Index of Ancient Writings §7, plus site names in Index of People and Places) – research program, critique of 248–53 (see also 13–16 et passim) – research program, description of 234–48 relics of Paul 141 – chains 34, 127 – sudarium (shroud of Plautilla) 34 – sarcophagus with inscribed slabs 34–35 resurrection 11, 17–19, 27, 39, 42, 55, 59, 117, 139, 142–44, 178 n. 102, 188, 211–12, 218, 220 – raising up “Barnabas” 212 n. 77 – “raising up” in Ephesus Act 73, 80, 87 – resurrection in ‘angelic’ bodies in the Acts of Paul and Thekla 126–27, 139, 144 – resurrection of flesh in 3 Cor 154–55, 158, 161–62, 165–68, 172, 174–85, 188, 210 – – without passion 182 scribes and scribal practices 13 n. 52, 96– 97, 169 – 3 Corinthians 165, 184, 186 – Acts 40 n. 60 – Acts of Andrew 47 – Acts of Paul and Thekla 125 – Codex Claromontanus (D 06) 244 – P. Bodm. X (10) 153–54 – P. Bodm. XLI (41) 78–79 – P. Hamb. 194–97, 199, 204 – Passion Narrative of Paul 198

Index of Subjects scribal subheadings – P. Bodm. X (10) 153–54 – P. Hamb. 192, 194–95, 197, 220 – P. Heid. 4, 136, 208, 211–15, 220, 225, 263 – and location of Acts of Paul and Thekla in P. Heid. 212–15, 231, 233 seals (animals) 144 (S)pirit 46–48, 52, 57, 79, 84, 88, 90, 133, 153, 166–67, 175, 178–81, 184–85, 199, 201–2, 205, 210, 225, 241, 254 stages of composition 254–59, 261, 263 (see also “historical (re)situation”) – Martyrdom of Paul 54–58, 63–64, 197– 206, 219–225, 236 – 3 Corinthians 187–89 – Philippi 191–97, 209–12, 225

317

– Ephesus Act 74–74, 77, 80, 82, 225–32– Acts of Paul and Thekla 103–5, 145– 47, 225–32, 240–42 temptation (19,) 47, 142–43, 228–31, 254 trials – Paul 17, 26, 37, 41, 44, 47, 53, 71, 77, 81, 91, 98 – Thekla 114, 115, 122, 131, 142–44, 146, 230 tradition(s) 1, 218 widows 51, 78, 108–10, 115–16, 133, 188, 202, 288 ):6 (“light/man”) 55–56, 73, 82, 88 n. 106, 129, 143 n. 153, 144, 204