Dr. Jeremy W. Barrier, The Acts of Paul and Thecla

I just received my complimentary copy of Jeremy W. Barrier, The Acts of Paul and Thecla, WUNT 2 reihe, 270.  Thanks Jeremy.  And congratulations

The Acts of Paul and the Acts of Peter: Christine Thomas vs. Christine Thomas

In Apocrypha 3 (1992) 155, Christine Thomas wrote regarding the Quo Vadis scene in the Acts of Peter and the Acts of Paul (:

The points of contact between the two acts, however, betray in only one detail the exactness one would assume from teh use of a written source. … Despite possible redactional alterations, however, nothing suggests literary dependence.  To assume literary dependence upon this basis betrays a literate bias.

Then in 2003, Christine Thomas wrote in her monograph, The Acts of Peter, Gospel Literaure, and the Acient Novel, 39:

The quo vadis story appearing the Acts of Paul is not a citation.  Rather the Acts of Paul borrowed the narrative unit from the Acts of Peter and recast it in a different manner.  The relationship between the Acts of Peter and the Acts of Paul thus form an analogy to that between the Acts of Peter and the Acts of the Apostles.  The relationship between the two documents is not close enough to indicate an explicit allusion.  The early point of contact is a substantive one; the Acts of Paul borrow the quo vadis sotry in filling out its own narrative.

Thomas thus vacillates between insisting on the importance of orality and falling into a trap which she calls a “literate bias”.  As I had mentioned before, Dennis R. MacDonald contradicts himself similarly in regard to the Patroclus/Eutychus story.  Like Thomas, he says bias leads to the suggestion of literary dependence (“Only our Western prejudice for written dependence would make us think the author [of the Acts of Paul] picked this story out of a book and not out of the tale-rich air.”), and then changed his mind.

The parallels between the Acts of Paul and other apocryphal acts and the Acts of the Apostles is, in my view, evidence of oral tradition units that the author used to create his narrative, not from thin air or from the pillaging other acts, but from “the tale-rich air”.

Paul’s nighttime departure from Damascus

Commenting on Paul’s discourse in Ephesus (Acts of Paul IX, 7), Schneemelcher writes in NTA (rev. ed.) 2.218:

Paul further relates in Ephesus that he departed from Damascus – the reasons are not stated, but his departure took place by night, cf. Acts 9:25 – and marched in the direction of Jericho.

This reference to Acts 9.25, however, is not the best explanation of this late departure.  It says (RSV, starting at 9.23):

When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, ^but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night, to kill him; but his disciples took him by night and let him down over the wall, lowering him in a basket.

Paul leaves Damascus under threat of persecution; while second-century Christians did things at night to avoid persecution, that was not the only reason.  Certain events took place at night or at early dawn as a matter of tradition.  One such important Christian ritual that took place at the break of day was baptism.  Everett Ferguson writes in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity (s.v., baptism, 132):

Second-century sources indicate a period of moral instruction, prayer, and fasting prior to the baptism (Did. 7; Justin, 1 Apol. 61).  The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, supplemented by references in Tertullian, provides an account of a developed ceremonial by A. D. 200.  After a period of instruction that could last three years, the candidate was examined and prepared for the baptism to occur on the night be Easter Sunday. … Standing in the water, the candidate confessed faith in each person of the Trinity and was immersed three times, once after each confession.

Paul’s departure at night sets up the narrative for the baptism of the lion whom Paul will immerse in water three times (cf. IX, 9) at the dawn following his departure from Damascus (see IX, 7).  Later, the Acts of Paul will recount the baptism of Artemilla at dawn (IX, 21).  It is unnecessary to assume that the events in Acts 9 have anything to do with Paul’s nighttime departure in the Acts of Paul as the suggestion of Schneemelcher.  Indeed, Paul leaves the agape in peace (IX, 7).  It is rather the desire to have the lion receive his baptism at the right time of day.

Damascus vellum

Schneemelcher in NTA (rev. ed.; so also the 1st English edition, 2.327) 2.218 wrote:

The beginning of the APl has not survived, but C. Schmidt has made the first episode available from some fragments.  A small Coptic fragment (Ry) contains some lines of a narrative from the life of Paul.

Schneemelcher leaves us to search for ourselves where Schmidt made the Coptic fragment available.  The John Rylands fragmant at Manchester was first announced by W. E. Crum, and there is, to my knowledge, no editio princeps, except what Pierre Cherix has prepared for his forthcoming volume of the Coptic Acta Pauli for the Corpus Christianorum Series Apocryphorum.  In his PRAXEIS PAULOU, Schmidt says that Crum sent to him an photograph of the leaf which he collated anew but could add no new readings; he did not make the Coptic text available but did provide the following German translation of the decipherable bit of this fragment  (117) :

“Gehe nun hinauf nach …. in der .. [Feier] des Fastens.”  Darauf flogen die Worte:  “Als nun Paulus dieses gehoert hatte, ging er in grosser Freude nach Damaskus.  Als er aber hineingegangen war, fand er sie …. in der …. [Feier] des Fastens.”

For the sake of convenience, I append a jpg of W. E. Crum, BJRL 20: 501:

W. E. Crum, BJRL 20 (1920) 501

Open Thread: State of the the question

David Lincicum wrote the following suggestive comment:

Thank you all for such an interesting and informative site. It is quite helpful – especially the uploaded theses and articles. As one who is just completing a doctoral thesis in Paul but interested in expanding my knowledge about the Pauline legacy, I wonder if I could register a personal desideratum that might be useful to others as well: a post or perhaps series of shorter posts with some recommendations for entering the scholarly fray on these Acts. Having read, e.g., Klauck’s intro to the apocryphal Acts, I’m not necessarily asking for a full-blown introduction to the Acts of Paul, but more of an insider’s perspective on things to look at and things to avoid on certain issues – maybe some broad brush state-of-the-question type remarks on things like text, provenance, theological hot-buttons, relationship to canonical traditions, etc. (Perhaps including some positions one might encounter in the older scholarly literature but are now considered passé?) Obviously you have already discussed a lot of these on the blog already, but general orientating remarks would be equally welcome.

No pressure – just a thought

Thanks David for your interest in Acta Pauli. I open this thread to discuss the “state of the question” of the Acts of Paul, and we can add new posts as needed. I am curious about the subject of your PhD thesis (and where you study).

Review of Elisabeth Esch-Wermeling, Thekla – Paulusschülerin wider Willen? Strategien der Leserlenkung in den Theklaakten, by Richard Pervo

Richard I. Pervo has sent me this link to his review of Elisabeth Esch-Wermeling.  Thekla—Paulusschülerin wider Willen? Strategien der Leserlenkung in den Theklaakten. Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen 53.  Münster: Aschendorff, 2008. Pp. 376. Hardcover.  €56.00. ISBN 3402114364.

Pervo writes:

The most complete text of the Acts of Paul is to be found in Willy Rordorf et al., “Actes de Paul,” in Écrits apocryphes chrétiens 1 (ed. F. Bovon and P. Geoltrain; Paris: Gallimard, 1997), 1115–77, supplemented by Rodolphe Kasser and Philippe Luisier, “Le Papyrus Bodmer XLI en Édition Princeps l’Épisode d’Èphèse des Acta Pauli en Copte et en Traduction,” Le Muséon 117 (2004): 281–384. This translation is a preview of Rordorf’s forthcoming edition.

Kasser-Luiser text is the editio princeps of the Coptic Bodmer Papyrus of the Ephesian Episode; Pierre Cherix will be providing a fresh look at Bodmer Papyrus XLI in his text for the CChrSA, which will contain with some differences from the Kasser-Luiser translation and text.  Pervo is correct to say that the translation of Rordorf in Écrits apocryphes chrétiens is a preview of the coming edition, because it is based upon the Greek text which Rordorf has not yet published.

As Esch-Wermeling demonstrates, chapters 3 and 4 have different theological, ethical, and ecclesiological orientations. They rely upon different literary models. With the brief and partial exception of Paul, they share one major character. That character, Thecla, is, to a large degree, two different persons who happen to share the same name.

This point alone will make the monograph of Esch-Wermeling worth reading.  I wonder to what degree it would be an elaboration of Anne Jensen’s view that the Antiochean episode is the more historical unit.

If ecclesiology were the basis for dating Acts of Paul, they would be considered earlier than the canonical Acts, for church officers do not exist. The local house church appears to be an independent entity. One of its functions is to serve as a base for itinerant missionaries, including Titus, Paul, and, to at least a degree, Thecla.

I’ve used  the ecclesiological argument to say that the Act of Paul is earlier (100-125) than most scholars have previously admitted.  That date I think is earlier or at least contemporaneous with Pervo’s date for Acts.  Now I would be interested to know if Pervo now believes that Acts is later than Acts of Paul.  I argued the contrary at the Ottawa Workshop two years ago, and I hold an early date for Acts.  But I wonder now, Richard, if you would still insist that the Acts of Paul has the intention of supplanting Acts?

Thanks Richard for reviewing this book and signalling it to me for addition here.  I look forward to receiving a copy and working through Esch-Wermeling’s work.  Cheers.

Does the author of the Acts of Paul conflate Hermogenes, Hymenaeus, Alexander, Demas, Phygelus, and Philetus into two people? By Richard G. Fellows

Note:  Richard Fellows is a specialist in personal names in the New Testament.  He has a website devoted to Name changes and aliases in the New Testament.  He has published the following articles:  “Was Titus Timothy?” JSNT 81 (2001): 33-58; “Renaming in Paul’s churches: the case of Crispus-Sosthenes revisited” (pdf), Tyndale Bulletin 56 (2005) 111-130; and “Protective silences in Acts and Paul’s letters” (as guest blogger at Chris Tilling’s Christendom), March 2007. I’m now happy to post his thoughts on Demas and Hermogenes in the Acts of Paul.  PWD

Does the author of the Acts of Paul conflate Hermogenes, Hymenaeus, Alexander, Demas, Phygelus, and Philetus into two people? By Richard G. Fellows

Here the the most important texts:

2 Timothy

2 Tim 1:15 “You are aware that all who are in Asia have turned away from me, including Phygelus and Hermogenes.”

2 Tim 2:16-18 “Avoid profane chatter, for it will lead people into more and more impiety, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth by claiming that the resurrection has already taken place. They are upsetting the faith of some.”

La folie de Wikipédia: Actes de Paul et Thècle (Une critique et une note)

This is the French version of the previous post.

Pour Anonymous Dissident (qui a enlevé mon lien vers Acta Pauli de l’article ci-après critiqué)

Compte tenu de la correspondance que j’ai pu avoir avec Anonymous Dissident, un éditeur de Wikipedia, j’ai décidé de commencer à critiquer les articles liés aux Actes de Paul chez Wikipedia. Commençons avec le français. S’il vous plaît, gardez à l’esprit que je fais l’évaluation de l’article tel qu’il est examiné aujourd’hui, mais qu’il peut changer à tout moment.

Titre: Actes de Paul et Thècle – Je ne vois rien d’inexact avec le titre de l’article. Passons donc à la ligne 1.

Première partie: Origine du texte

Ligne 1: Les Actes de Paul et de Thècle sont une histoire apocryphe “de l’influence de Paul sur une jeune vierge nommée Thècle et la vie romancée de celle-ci.” Les Actes de Paul et de Thècle ne sont pas une “vie” romancée de Thècle, parce qu’ils ne racontent que ses deux expériences de martyre à Iconium et à Antioche ; il y a un court résumé de comment elle s’est rendue à Séleucie (IV, 18), a  illuminé de nombreuses personnes, et  s’est endormie dans un beau sommeil. Par contre, le texte du 5e siècle Ps. Basile est intitulé, “Vie et Miracles de Thècle”.  Une partie de ce texte est présentée chez “Le Champ du Midrash” comme s’il s’agissait du texte du deuxième siècle (voir le lien externe). Le bon titre en grec, cependant, est ΠΡΑΞΕΙΣ, “Actes” (Voir texte chez Dagron, titre).

Wikipedia Follies: Actes de Paul et Thècle (A critique with a grade)

[Cet article est aussi disponible en français]

For Anonymous Dissident (who removed my link to Acta Pauli from the article herein critiqued)

In view of the extended correspondence that I’ve been able to have with Anonymous Dissident, a Wikipedia editor, I’ve decided to begin to critique the Acts of Paul related articles in Wikipedia.  Let’s start with the French.  Please bear in mind that I am evaluating the French article as it looked today but that it can change at any time.

Title: Acts of Paul and Thecla (Actes de Paul et Thècle) — I suppose there is nothing wrong with the title of the article.  Shall we move to line 1?

Part One: Origine du texte

Line 1:  The Acts of Paul is an apocryphal story “of the influence of Paul on young virgin named Thecla and the novelized life of the girl” (de l’influence de Paul sur une jeune vierge nommée Thècle et la vie romancée de celle-ci.)  The Acts of Paul and Thecla is not a novelized “life” of Thecla, because it only recounts her two martyrdom experiences in Iconium and Antioch, with a short summary of how she went down to Seleucia (IV, 18), illumined many and slept a beautiful sleep.  However, the 5th century text of Ps. Basil is entitled, “Life and Miracles of Thecla”.  A part of this text is presented at “Le Champ du Midrash” as though it were the second century text (see the external link).  The proper title in Greek, however, is ΠΡΑΞΕΙΣ, “Acts” (See text in Dagron, title).

Wikipedia Follies: Response to Anonymous Dissident

Anonymous Dissident wrote a very kind and pertinent reply to my complaint that he had taken down the links to Acta Pauli that I put in articles in the French and German Wikipedia on Acts of Paul and Thecla (etc).  I reproduce his reply, which shows that he is a thoughtful young man with a great future:

Anonymous Dissident Says:
May 1, 2009 at 9:55 pm

The action I took in removing links to this site was not the result of the ill-discretion of a twelve year old (who is now approximately two years older than posited by this entry — while you may possess PhDs, you’ve neglected to review your sources and their dates of publishing properly here), but rather one prescribed by Wikipedia policy. See [this link] for more, with particular attention to the recommendation for blogs in the “links to be avoided” section. Posts like this one, which does not concern anything remotely educational or pertinent to an encyclopedia, lead me to believe that this blog does not meet the criterion thereat explicated.

My Wikipedia related-posts are a signal to scholars and others interested in the Acts of Paul that Wikipedia will be unhelpful if they want reliable information on Acts of Paul related subjects–I could spend the time to critique its articles line by line, but the rapidly changing content of that platform creates a significant challenge.  Why provide a critique against something that could soon be gone?

Timothy and Titus

Richard Fellows commented on my last post, and I want to start a new thread to discuss it.  I was attempting to create a press release  shamelessly promoting my Committee.  In doing so, I my have included certain inaccuracies so that the mainstream media could use it as their own.  Unfortunately, according to Jim Leonard, I was not nearly inaccurate enough.  However, here I will try to answer seriously Richard’s comment, which is as follows:

Peter,

there is no strong evidence that Timothy was younger than Paul, though he may have been. People’s perception of Timothy is conditioned too much by the PE, unfortunately.

We should explore the possibility that the Presbyter claimed or implied that Titus (or Titus-Timothy) was his source of information. This would explain why Titus features so strongly in the extant portions (and probably in the non-extant portions, judging from the “Acts of Titus”). Am I correct in deducing from the “Acts of Titus” that Titus was present in the Panchares incident in the Acts of Paul and perhaps even earlier in the book? Also, Titus appears along with Luke in the last sentence, doesn’t he? The Presbyter has to bring Titus back from Dalmatia to place him in Rome. Therefore perhaps we should see the mentions of Titus in the Acts of Paul as a kind of inclusio, i.e. a device whereby Titus frames the whole text to indicate that he is the authoritative source of the information (See Bauckham’s “Jesus and the eyewitnesses”). By mentioning both Titus and Luke at the end the Presbyter may be implying that Titus was the authoritative eyewitness for his work, just as Luke was for the Acts of the Apostles. Intriguingly Titus plays the role of witness for Paul in the Thecla episode.

Let me know if this has all been explored before.

Richard:

Thanks for your response.

Paul told Timothy Μηδείς σου τῆς νεότητος καταφρονείτω (1 Tim 4.12). Timothy was evidently a young man when Paul took him as a disciple, such that many years later, Paul would refer to his youth. I don’t know why it would be unfortunate that our view of Timothy would be conditioned by the PE; the image is consistent with Phil 2.22; 1 Cor 4.17.

Also there is insufficient evidence that Acts was known to the author of the Acts of Paul.  I will be showing that in my forthcoming paper on the NT in the Acts of Paul, buttressing arguments I made in my dissertation (ch. 2).  So I wouldn’t say that the appearance of Luke and Titus together would say anything about authorship.  Finally, I am not certain that the Acts of Titus are evidence of a lost episode in Crete; that may be possible (argued by Rordorf, see dissertation, p. 24).  I don’t recall Titus appearing in the episode II of the Coptic fragments.  This is to say, that the information in Acts of Titus is not always a certain indicator of the contents of the Acts of Paul.  I wonder if it counts as an inclusio in a strict sense if Titus appears somewhere in the middle of the Acts of Paul.

I don’t know that anyone has suggested a special relationship between Acts of Paul and Titus.  It is interesting but of course speculative, being based partially upon the secondary witness of the Acts of Titus.  But I don’t suppose you would propose Titus/Timothy as the actual author, would you?

Cambridge-trained scholar calls for Extension of the New Testament Canon

Press Release

Note to News agencies :  {} mark field to be filled in before use.

Cambridge-trained scholar calls for Extension of the New Testament

{name of news agency, date and author here}

{Acta Pauli press release} Toronto, Canada. Christians around the world were shocked and the bedrock of confidence in the Bible was shaken when Peter W. Dunn, PhD, announced the formation of the “Committee for the Inclusion of the Acts of Paul in the New Testament Canon” on the website Acta Pauli on April 23, 2009. The echoes resounded around the world and the buzz on the street has been nothing less than astonishing. In Perth, Australia, Martin Foord, Senior Lecturer in Systematic Theology and Church History at Trinity Theological College calls it, “The discovery of the millennium.” Dunn has devoted the better part of a decade to the study of this ancient book. Many of his findings are in his newly published doctoral dissertation, “The Acts of Paul and the Pauline Legacy”, for which he was awarded a PhD at the University of Cambridge in 1996. The Acts of Paul recounts Paul’s missionary experience from the time of his commission to preach and ends with his martyrdom. During his missionary trips, Paul even converts and baptizes a wild lion.

Committee for the Inclusion of the Acts of Paul in the New Testament Canon

This is for purely selfish motives for those of us who have studied the Acts of Paul.  I mean if tomorrow suddenly there was an Ecumenical Council which declared the Acts of Paul part of the New Testament canon, the few of us who have devoted any real time to studying the book would have sudden status in the community of New Testament scholars.  Consider how Rodolphe Kasser, an otherwise obscure Swiss Coptologist, became a superstar overnight when the news media proclaimed the Gospel of Judas just as accurate as the New Testament.  I am virtually unknown in the world of New Testament scholarship; all people ever seem to talk about is N.T. Wright this, N.T. Wright that.  What if I changed my name to N.T. Dunn?  Actually, James D. G. Dunn has a nice ring to it too.

Acts of Paul scholars are often discriminated against because our book is not in the canon.  When I embarked on this scholarly journey I remember vividly how the Warden of Tyndale House pointed to the late Colin J. Hemer’s study of Acts and said, “Here is a work worthy to take to heaven”–thus, implying that a study of the Acts of Paul would fail to make the grade.  He also predicted, nay prophesied, that I wouldn’t find a job, which turned out to be true, and so I have had to travel to the remotest part of the world, usually on my own dime, to Bangui (rated the 2nd worst city in the world) to teach pro bono in extreme heat and humidity.  And besides, no one knows whether I should teach New Testament or church history (which has been a disaster because my knowledge becomes sketchy after about the year 200).  In all fairness, then, the Acts of Paul should be included.  I mean in our committee we could discuss the merits of the book itself, its catholicity, its apostolicity, and its conformity to the Rule of Faith.  But for crying out loud, people should consider how unfair this situation is for Acts of Paul scholars.  We deserve equal rights.

Well, I think Dr. Jeremy Barrier might join the committee.  I broached the idea with Prof. Jean-Daniel Kaestli a few years ago in Switzerland and he suggested that since I lack a complete text of the Acts of Paul I should just forget it.  I admit that that is an encumberance for my committee, but if a complete papyrus should be found, who knows?  Is there anyone out there in the blogging world interested in joining my committee?

Wikipedia Follies-Anonymous Dissident

I’ve learned that Anonymous Dissident, who removed my links from the French and German articles on the Acts of Paul and Thecla, is 12 approximately 14 years old.  Wow, that’s pretty cool Wikipedia!  A 12 approximately 14 year old is able to eliminate a link to this site which is being published by people with PhDs.  Now I’m sure that Anonymous Dissident is very mature for the age of 12 approximately 14, but it does lower the status of Wikipedia considerably when scholars can’t even add a little insignificant link to your so-called encyclopedia.

The French article in question (you will have to find it yourself because I will not be linking to Wikipedia anymore), includes a external link to Le Champ du Midrash.  Anonymous Dissident has insufficient ability to discern between what is a scholarly site for the study of the Acts of Paul and a site that obviously not at the same level.  What Le Champ du Midrash presents a “texte du travail” for the Acts of Paul and Thecla is actually a translation excerpt of Ps. Basil of Seleucia’s Life of St. Thecla, a fifth century text (at least the part that I checked).  Well, it would be nice if Le Champ du Midrash would inform its readers of that little bit of trivia, instead of providing the French of what is supposed to be a second-century text.  Very shoddy indeed.

I read once that blogs are, “The uninformed writing to the ill-informed.”  The people in the Wikipedia hierarchy don’t seem to be able to tell what is credible and what is not.  Yet Wikipedia is given high priority in just about every google search ever done on any subject.

Wikipedia Follies, auf Deutsch

A user called “Anonymous Dissident” removed from “Thekla (Heilige)” the link to Prof. Annette Merz’s post, “Thekla und Timotheus beraten Paulus bei der Abfassung des Römerbriefs“, which is by far the most popular article on Acta Pauli to date.

I deeply question the merit of a so-called Encyclopedia, when a valid link to a scholarly site can be removed by some moron who does not know the first thing about the subject.