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”.

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.

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

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).

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.

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.”

2 Tim 4:10 “for Demas, in love with this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica”

2 Tim 4:14 “Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will pay him back for his deeds.”

Acts of Paul and Thecla:

“1 When Paul went up unto Iconium after he fled from Antioch, there journeyed with him Demas and Hermogenes the coppersmith, which were full of hypocrisy, and flattered Paul as though they loved him. But Paul, looking only unto the goodness of Christ, did them no evil, but loved them well, so that he assayed to make sweet unto them all the oracles of the Lord, and of the teaching and the interpretation (of the Gospel) and of the birth and resurrection of the Beloved, and related unto them word by word all the great works of Christ, how they were revealed unto him”

4 And when Paul saw Onesiphorus he smiled, and Onesiphorus said: Hail, thou servant of the blessed God. And he said: Grace be with thee and with thine house. But Demas and Hermogenes were envious, and stirred up their hypocrisy yet more, so that Demas said: Are we not servants of the Blessed, that thou didst not salute us so? And Onesiphorus said: I see not in you any fruit of righteousness, but if ye be such, come ye also into my house and refresh yourselves.”

“11 But Thamyris leapt up and went forth into the street and watched them that went in to Paul and came out. And he saw two men striving bitterly with one another, and said to them: Ye men, tell me who ye are, and who is he that is within with you, that maketh the souls of young men and maidens to err, deceiving them that there may be no marriages but they should live as they are. I promise therefore to give you much money if ye will tell me of him: for I am a chief man of the city.

12 And Demas and Hermogenes said unto him: Who this man is, we know not; but he defraudeth the young men of wives and the maidens of husbands, saying: Ye have no resurrection otherwise, except ye continue chaste, and defile not the flesh but keep it pure.

13 And Thamyris said to them: Come, ye men, into mine house and refresh yourselves with me. And they went to a costly banquet and much wine and great wealth and a brilliant table. And Thamyris made them drink, for he loved Thecla and desired to take her to wife: and at the dinner Thamyris said: Tell me, ye men, what is his teaching, that I also may know it: for I am not a little afflicted concerning Thecla because she so loveth the stranger, and I am defrauded of my marriage.

14 And Demas and Hermogenes said: Bring him before Castelius the governor as one that persuadeth the multitudes with the new doctrine of the Christians; and so will he destroy him and thou shalt have thy wife Thecla. And we will teach thee of that resurrection which he asserteth, that it is already come to pass in the children which we have, and we rise again when we have come to the knowledge of the true God.

15 But when Thamyris heard this of them, he was filled with envy and wrath, and rose up early and went to the house of Onesiphorus with the rulers and officers and a great crowd with staves, saying unto Paul: Thou hast destroyed the city of the Iconians and her that was espoused unto me, so that she will not have me: let us go unto Castelius the governor. And all the multitude said: Away with the wizard, for he hath corrupted all our wives. And the multitude rose up together against him.

16 And Thamyris, standing before the judgement seat, cried aloud and said: 0 proconsul, this is the man-we know not whence he is-who alloweth not maidens to marry: let him declare before thee wherefore he teacheth such things. And Demas and Hermogenes said to Thamyris: Say thou that he is a Christian, and so wilt thou destroy him. But the governor kept his mind steadfast and called Paul, saying unto him: Who art thou, and what teachest thou? for it is no light accusation that these bring against thee.”

Bauckham’s theory of conflation

The Acts of Paul mention “Demas” and “Hermogenes”. 2 Timothy also mentions them, but includes 4 other names of apostate Christians (Phygelus, Philetus, Hymenaeus and Alexander). Bauckham (The Book of Acts in its Ancient Literary Setting, p. 128-130) argues that the presbyter conflated the following three pairs of opponents: Phygelus and Hermogenes; Hymenaeus and Philetus; Demas and Alexander, to make two individuals (“Demas” and “Hermogenes”). Here is his main evidence:

In 2 Tim 4:14 Alexander is a coppersmith, but in the Acts of Paul “Hermogenes” is a coppersmith.

In 2 Tim 2:18 Hymenaeus and Philetus were claiming that the resurrection had already taken place. In the Acts of Paul “Demas” and “Hermogenes” do the same thing.

In 2 Tim 4:10 Demas “has deserted me” and in 2 Tim 1:5 Phygelus and Hermogenes “have turned away from me”. This may have encouraged the presbyter to equate Demas with Phygelus.

Further evidence

The following arguments were not given by Bauckham, but support his hypothesis:

The “Lexicon of Greek Personal Names” provides statistics for 6 volumes. Volume 5a covers coastal Asia Minor from Pontus to Ionia and includes Ephesus. The proportion of people in this volume that are called “Demas” is 5.8 times higher than it is in the other 5 volumes. The corresponding figure for Hermogenes is 7.7 and for both “Alexander” and “Philetus” it is 2.1. For Hymenaeus the number is 0.9. So, at least until we get further volumes of the Lexicon, the names “Demas” and “Hermogenes” seems characteristically from the province of Asia. This may have encouraged the presbyter to conflate Demas with Phygelus, who was from Asia according to 2 Tim 1:15. The Asian character of the names Demas and Hermogenes would have convinced the presbyter that these were their birth names, and this may explain why he uses them.

It was common in the ancient world for philosophers and public religious figures to be given new names in keeping with their role. Sometimes two new names were given (e.g. James-the Just-Oblias, Peregrinus-Proteus-Phoenix, Sames-Theosebes-Dikaios, Ptolemy-Euergetes-Physcon, Ptolemy-Soter-Lathyros, Demosthenes-Batalus-Argas, Ammonius-Saccas-Theodidaktos, Malchus-Basileus-Porphyrius). There the presbyter might have hypothesized that Phygelus, Philetus, Hymenaeus and Alexander were new names given to Hermogenes and Demas. Let us examine each of these four names in turn.

“Phygelus” is almost unattested as a name. It means “fugitive”, which would be a strange birth name, but could work as a new name/epithet for a Christian who had had to flee persecution.

The name “Philetus” means “amiable, beloved” and in the ‘Acts of Paul’ Paul loved Demas and Hermogenes. This may be the presbyter’s explanation for the name Philetus.

In the Acts of Paul Demas and Hermogenes value marriage and child bearing and oppose Paul’s support for chastity. The name “Hymenaeus”comes from “Hymenaios”, the god of marriage ceremonies. Thus the presbyter may have imagined that Hymenaios was a nickname given to Hermogenes in keeping with his philosophy. The presbyter calls Thecla’s fiance ”Thamyris”, which was a very rare name and that of a figure in Greek mythology who schemed to have sex with all the Muses (according to one version) or of marrying one of them (according to another).

The name “Alexander” means “defender of men” or something similar. It was common for names in this semantic field to be given to leading believers in the church. Thus Simon is named “Cephas/Peter” because he was to be rock on which the church would be built; James the Just was named “Oblias” (bulwark of the people); Crispus was names “Sosthenes” (saving strength); and a Mary was probably named “Magdelene” (fortress). The presbyter may therefore have seen “Alexander” as an honorary new name rather than as a birth name.

In the ancient world new names often had a phonetic resemblance to the original name. Philetus sounds like Phygelus; and Hymenaeus like Hermogenes. This may have encouraged the presbyter to (rightly or wrongly) conflate these persons.

The presbyter’s awareness of multiple naming and his interest in the meaning of names is further demonstrated by the case of Timotheos-Strataeas, discovered by Peter Dunn [see dissertation, p. 26-27]. Given his awareness of the meanings of names, it is understandable that he called them “Demas” and “Hermogenes”. He would not have wanted to honor them by calling them “Philetus” or “Alexander”.

2 Tim 4:14 says that Alexander did Paul great harm, and this role is taken by Demas and Hermogenes in the Acts of Paul. In 2 Tim 4:14 Alexander appears to be in Ephesus since 2 Timothy hints that Timothy is in Ephesus. This may have further encouraged the presbyter (rightly or wrongly) to equate Alexander with Hermogenes.

In conclusion, the presbyter seems to have (correctly or incorrectly) conflated Phygelus, Hermogenes, Philetus, Hymenaeus, Demas and Alexander into as few as two people. He probably saw Hermogenes-Hymenaeus-Alexander as one person, and he may have seen Demas-Phygelus-Phelitus as another.

Richard Fellows

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).

Ligne 2: “Le texte date probablement au IIe siècle.” C’est vrai. Comme Tertullien les a mentionnés en environ 205, ils doivent avoir existé avant cette mention. Mais je ne connais aucun savant qui les date avant 100. Ainsi, le texte est du deuxième siècle sans aucun doute raisonnable.

Ligne 3: “Il fait parti [sic] d’un ouvrage en copte apocryphe connu sous le nom d ‘Actes de Paul, comprenant, outre le récit sur la vie de Thècle, la troisième épître aux Corinthiens et l’ Épitre des Corinthiens à Paul.” Dire qu’ils étaient connus en copte sous le nom de Actes de Paul est une affirmation en dessous de la vérité. Ils étaient aussi connus sous ce nom dans l’église grecque. L’article ne mentionne pas aussi le Martyre de Paul, qui était une partie des Actes de Paul originaux. Le Wikipédia français répète l’erreur du Wikipédia anglais en faisant la distinction entre 3 Corinthiens et «L’Épître de Paul aux Corinthiens». Le nom complet de cet apocryphe est «La correspondance apocryphe entre Paul et les Corinthiens» : les chercheurs ont appelé les deux “lettres” “3 Corinthiens“. Pourtant, ils ne doivent pas avoir deux articles chez Wikipédia, car nous avons affaire à un seul texte littéraire. Le titre donné à la lettre des Corinthiens, “L’Épître des Corinthiens à Paul”, est faut. Nous savons d’ 1 Cor que les Corinthiens avaient écrit au moins une lettre à Paul. Mais le contenu de cette lettre, qui peut être déduit de ce que Paul dit à ce sujet, ne correspond pas du tout à ce que Wikipedia a nommé “L’épître”; dans le meilleur des cas, elle est« une épître de Paul aux Corinthiens ». Mais il s’agit d’une correspondance apocryphe et donc elle n’est pas authentique.

Ligne 4: “Selon Tertullien, cet ouvrage est un faux écrit vers 160 à la gloire de Paul par un presbyte d’Asie mineure dont la fraude a été découverte.” Dans Bapt. 17.5 (l’article omet la référence à la source primaire), Tertullien affirme que l’auteur était un prêtre qui a composé le texte et a démissionné de son poste de presbytre (prêtre). Tertullien implique une fraude. La principale erreur, c’est que Tertullien ne fournit aucune date, et l’auteur de la ligne de toute évidence n’a pas lu Bapt. 17.5 que je reproduis ici de la traduction de ANF:

Mais si les textes qui circulent à tort sous le nom de Paul réclament l’exemple de Thècle comme une licence pour que les femmes enseignent et baptisent, qu’ils sachent qu’un presbytre d’Asie qui a composé cet écrit,  comme s’il augmentait la renommée de Paul de son propre magasin, après avoir été reconnu coupable, et avouant qu’il l’avait fait par amour de Paul, a été enlevé [decisse = a démissionné] de son poste.

Ligne 5: L’auteur a reconnu sa falsification, et il a été condamné et “déchu” de son poste. “Decisse” veut dire “démissionner”, alors que “déchu” est ambigu mais surtout signifie, “déposé”.

Ligne 6: “Cependant de nombreuses versions furent diffusées en grec, syriaque, arménien et même en latin, ce qui explique que nombre d’ouvrages des Pères de l’Église y fassent allusion”. L’expression “nombreuses versions” est imprécise. Typiquement , une “version” est une traduction du texte. Une “recension” est une autre forme du texte. Il y a différents groupes pour le texte grec des Actes de Paul et de Thècle (W. Rordorf, prochaine édition du CChrSA), mais il n’est sans doute pas bon de les appeler “recensions”. Il existe des versions proprement dites en latin, syriaque, arménienne ; mais pourquoi l’article dit, “même en latin”, comme si le latin était une langue obscure ? Cela me dépasse. Von Gebhardt a identifié cinq traductions indépendantes de latin. Le grec n’est cependant pas une version, mais la langue originale. Wikipédia ne mentionne pas qu’il y a un papyrus copte important des Actes de Paul, y compris la partie qui s’appelle les Actes de Paul et Thècle.

Deuxième partie: Le récit

ligne 7-8: plusieur jours: en fait trois jours et trois nuits.

ligne 9: Paul enseigne que l ‘on “ne doit vénérer qu’un seul Dieu et vivre chastement.” En fait, le contenu de l’enseignement de Paul est une série de béatitudes sur la continence sexuelle et de la résurrection.

Ligne 10-11: Ok.

Ligne 12: Thècle écoute Paul enseignant “toute la nuit, le récit des miracles de Jésus”: le texte grec ne précise pas le contenu de ce que Thècle apprend, excepté les “grand actes de Dieu”.

Ligne 13-15: Ok.

Ligne 16: “Thècle rejoint Paul à Antioche.” Pas tout à fait.  Elle le retrouve dans un tombeau ouvert sur la route de Iconium à Daphné.

Ligne 17-22: ok

Ligne 23: “Thècle revint à Iconium et finit ses jours dans un petit ermitage qu’elle créa.” Cette information est peut-être basée sur Ps.Basile, “Thècle choisit pour sa demeure le sommet d’une montagne près de cette ville, ainsi qu’ Elie et Jean-Baptiste avaient choisi pour leur résidence, l’un le Carmel, et l’autre le désert … ” (trad. de l’Encyclopédie théologique, voir ci-dessous). Mais bien sûr, cela se passe à Séleucie d’Isaurie pas à Iconium. Tous les manuscrits en grec que nous avons disent que Thècle a vécu ses jours non à Iconium mais à Séleucie.

Partie 3: Sa signification – Pas d’erreurs dans cette section, mais c’est parce que elle est vide.

Partie 4: Notes et références

L’article présente un livre de Bart Ehrman intitué Les christianismes disparus. Ehrman est un spécialiste notable de la critique textuelle du Nouveau Testament, mais il n’est pas un spécialiste des Actes de Paul. Ce n’est pas le début d’une bonne liste de références pour les Actes de Paul. Le premier travail en français qui devrait être dans une telle liste est la suivante: Willy Rordorf, “Actes de Paul”, Ecrits Apocryphes Chrétiens, vol. 1, Bovon et Geoltran, éditeurs, 1117-1188.

Partie 5: Liens externes

Sur le site Le Champ du Midrash:  Ce lien donne accès à une recherche Google avec les termes, “Actes de Paul et Thècle.”  Le premier touché est Le champ du Midrash, une page qui contient un extrait du Ps. Basile de Seleucie d’Isaurie, du 5e siècle, ce qui est une réécriture et une élaboration des Actes de Paul et de Thècle. Ce texte est plagié sans crédit de Encyclopedie théologique, Migne, vol 28 961s., qui indique expressément que le texte est censé être de Basile, évêque de Séleucie à peu près au début de la 5e siècle. Ainsi, un lien envoie le lecteur à un site qui a fait du plagiat et présente un texte du 5ème siècle, comme s’il était les Actes de Paul et de Thècle du 2e siècle.

Evaluation: Si j’avais à évaluer cet article comme un devoir au niveau de la première année Universitaire (de 100%), je le ferais ainsi :

Exhaustivité: 70%.  Un certain nombre de graves omissions rend cet article défectueux. Par exemple, il est peut-être intéressant de savoir que Carl Schmidt a publié en 1904 une édition d’un papyrus d’Heidelberg copte qui a rendu clair que les Actes de Paul et de Thecla appartennaient à l’ancienne Actes de Paul, connu par Origène et Eusèbe de Césarée. Il s’agit de l’une de nombreuses trouvailles intéressantes de manuscrits qui améliorent la connaissance critique de cet ancien texte chrétien.

Précision: 50%:  L’article cite Tertullien comme disant que l’écrit provient d’environ AD 160, et ne donne pas de référence. Il donne l’impression que les Actes de Paul et de Thecla ont été initialement écrits en copte. Deux fois, l’article transmet des erreurs factuelles dans le résumé de l’histoire elle-même (contenu de l’enseignement de Paul à Thècle en prison ; où Thècle retrouve Paul) ; mais toute personne qui a lu l’histoire devrait pouvoir la résumer sans faire d’erreurs de cette espèce. L’article identifie incorrectement 3 Cor comme deux textes avec deux articles distincts chez Wikipédia .

Sources: 10%: L’article cite une source secondaire qui est marginales (Ehrman), tout en omettant l’introduction la plus séminale écrite en français (Rordorf). Il ne cite aucune autre source.

Liens: 0% L’article donne un lien vers un site Web qui fait du plagiat et identifie incorrectement un texte du 5e siècle comme s’il était les Actes de Paul et de Thècle du 2e siècle

Langue et organisation: 83% Pas de graves erreurs en français (pour moi, qui ne suis pas francophone). Une catégorie est laissée vide, ce qui est gênant. En dehors de cela il n’y a pas de grave erreur d’organisation.

Total: 213/500 = 43%, echec (ou 8/20)

J’aimerais remercier le Dr. Moussa Bongoyok qui m’a aidé avec la correction de ce texte en français.

[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).

Line 2:  The probable date is 2nd century. This is true.  It is cited by Tertullian by about 205 so it must have existed before then.  But I know of no scholars who would date it before 100.  Thus, the text is second century beyond a reasonable doubt.

Line 3:  It was part of an apocryphal writing known in Coptic as the Acts of Paul, which included, in addition to the story of the life of Thecla, the third epistle to the Corinthians and the Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul. (Il fait parti d’un ouvrage apocryphe connu en copte sous le nom d’Actes de Paul comprenant, outre le récit sur la vie de Thècle, la troisième épître aux Corinthiens et l’Épitre des corinthiens à Paul.)  To say that  it was known in Coptic under the name of Acts of Paul is an understatement.  It was also known by this name in the Greek church.  The statement also fails to mention the Martyrdom of Paul, which was a part of the original Acts of Paul.  The French Wikipedia repeats the error of English Wikipedia of separating 3 Corinthians from “The Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul”.  The complete name of this apocryphon would be “The apocryphal correspondence between Paul and the Corinthians“; scholars have dubbed the two “letters” as 3 Corinthians.  Yet it is inappropriate that they should have separate Wikipedia entries, since we are dealing with single literary text.  It is especially false because of the title given to the letter of the Corinthians:  “The Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul”.  We know from 1 Cor that Corinthians had written at least one letter to Paul.  But the contents of that letter, which can be deduced by what Paul says about it, do not corresond at all to what Wikipedia has dubbed, “The epistle”; at most optimistic it is “An epistle of the Corinthians to Paul”.  But it is an apocryphal correspondence and therefore not authentic.

Line 4: According to Tertulian, this work was a forgery, ca. 160, to the glory of Paul by a Presbyter of Asia Minor, whose fraud was discovered (Selon Tertullien, cet ouvrage est un faux écrit vers 160 à la gloire de Paul par un presbyte d’Asie mineure dont la fraude a été découverte.)  In Bapt. 17.5 (the article leaves out the primary source reference), Tertullian says that the author was a presbyter who composed the text and resigned his office of presbyter (priest).  Tertullian implies it was a fraud by saying went spuriously under Paul’s name.  The main error here is that Tertullian provides no date, and the author of the line obviously has not read de Bapt. 17.5, which I reproduce here from ANF

But if the writings which wrongly go under Paul’s name, claim Thecla’s example as a licence for women’s teaching and baptizing, let them know that, in Asia, the presbyter who composed that writing, as if he were augmenting Paul’s fame from his own store, after being convicted, and confessing that he had done it from love of Paul, was removed [decisse = resigned, stepped down] from his office.

Line 5:  The author recognized his falsification, and he was condemned and “dechu” (deposed) of his office.  “Decisse” means to step down, while “dechu” is ambiguous, but primarily signifies, “deposed”.

Line 6: However a number of versions were published in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, and even in Latin, which explains that an number of works of the Fathers of the Church make allusion to it. “Cependant de nombreuses versions furent diffusées en grec, syriaque, arménien et même en latin, ce qui explique que nombre d’ouvrages des Pères de l’Église y fassent allusion.”  The term “numerous versions” is imprecise.  Typically, a “version” is a translation of the text.  A “recension” would be the text transmitted in a particular form.  There is for the Acts of Paul and Thecla different textual groups (W. Rordorf, forthcoming edition of CChrSA), but it is probably not proper to call them recensions.  There are versions properly called in Latin, Syriac, and Armenian;  why one would say, “even in Latin” as though Latin was some obscure language, is beyond me.  Von Gebhardt identified five independent translations in Latin.  Greek however is not a version but the original language.  Wikipedia fails to mention that there is significant papyrus of the Acts of Paul, including the part called the Acts of Paul and Thecla, in Coptic.

Part two:  Le récit

line 7-8:  several days (plusieur jours):  actually three days and nights.

line 9:  Paul teaches that it is necessary to worship a single God and to live chastely. (Paul enseigne que l’on ne doit vénérer qu’un seul Dieu et vivre chastement.) Actually the content of Paul’s teaching is a series of beatitudes on sexual continence and the resurrection.

Line 10-11: Ok.

Line 12:  Thecla listen to Paul teach all night the story of the miracles of Jesus (toute la nuit, le récit des miracles de Jesus): the Greek text does not clarify the content of what Thecla learned, except the “great acts of God”.

Line 13-15: ok.

Line 16:  Thecla rejoins Paul at Antioch. Not quite, they meet at an open tomb on the road from Iconium to Daphne.

Line 17-22: ok

Line 23: Thecla returns to Iconium and finishes her days in a little hermitage which she created (Thècle revint à Iconium et finit ses jours dans un petit ermitage qu’elle créa.)  This information may be based on Ps.Basil, “Thecla chose as her dwelling the summit of a mountain near this city, like Elijah and John the Baptist had chosen for their residence, the first Mt. Carmel, and the second the desert; …” (Thècle choisit pour sa demeure le sommet d’une montagne près de cette ville, ainsi qu’Elie et Jean-Baptiste avaient choisi pour leur résidence, l’un le Carmel et l’autre le désert ; … trans. from Encyclopedie Theologique, see below). But of course, this takes place in Seleucia of Isauria not Iconium.  All of the MS in Greek that we have say that Thecla lived out her days not Iconium, but Seleucia.

Part 3:  Sa signification — no mistakes in that section, but that’s because it is empty.

Part 4:  Notes et references

A note from Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities / Les christianismes disparus; Ehrman is notable scholar of NT textual criticism, though not a specialist of the Acts of Paul. This is not the beginning of a proper list of references to the Acts of Paul. The first work in French that should be on such a list is:  Willy Rordorf, “Actes de Paul”, Ecrits Apocryphes Chretiens, vol. 1, Bovon and Geoltran , editors, pp. 1117-1188.

Part 5:  External Links

Sur le site Le Champ du Midrash:  This actually takes you to a Google (FR) search with the terms, “Actes de Paul et Thecle.”  The first hit is Le champ du Midrash, a page which contains an excerpt from Ps. Basil of Seleucia of Isauria, a fifth century rewriting and elaboration of the Acts of Paul and Thecla.  This text is plagiarized without credit from Encyclopedie Theologique, Migne, vol 28 961f. which expressly indicates that the text purports to be from Basil, bishop of Seleucia at about the beginning of the 5th cent.  So the link sends a reader to site that has committed plagiarism and presents a 5th century text as though it were the 2nd century Acts of Paul and Thecla.

Evaluation:  If I were to rank this as a first-year university report (out of 100%)

Completeness:  70% A number of serious omissions make this article defective.  For example, it may be interesting to know that Carl Schmidt published in 1904 the an edition of the Coptic Heidelberg Papyrus which made it clear that the Acts of Paul and Thecla once belong to the ancient Acts of Paul, known to us from Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea.  This is one of several interesting MS finds that has greatly enhanced the critical knowledge of this ancient Christian text.

Accuracy:  50%: Incorrectly cites Tertullian  (as written in AD 160) without giving primary source reference.  Gives impression that Acts of Paul and Thecla was originally written in Coptic.  Twice includes factual errors in the summary of the story itself (content of Paul’s teaching to Thecla in prison; where Thecla catches up to Paul); yet anyone who has read the story should be to summarize without making errors of this nature.  It also incorrectly identifies 3 Cor as two texts with separate Wikipedia entries.

Sources:  10%: Cites one secondary source which is tangential (Ehrman), while omitting the most seminal introduction written in French (Rordorf).  Cites no other sources.

Links: 0%  Links to a website  that commits plagiarism and incorrectly identifies a 5th cent text as the 2nd cent. Acts of Paul and Thecla

Language and Organization:  83% No serious errors in French (as far as I can tell as a second-language speaker; one category is left blank, and that is awkward.  Apart from that there is no serious error of organization.

Total:  213/500 = 43%, Failing, F

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?

I therefore recommend that scholars like myself not bother to make edits on that platform where any non-specialist can take them down within seconds. Scholars don’t have the time to waste on such games. My posts about my personal experience with trying to edit Wikipedia are therefore of interest to other scholars in our orb (specialists in Bible, history and theology) who may be tempted to participate in Wikipedia. That is why it suits the threshold of Acta Pauli, which is an international scholarly discussion of the Acts of Paul.

As a co-founder of the blog, my goal is to make it the go-to site for the academic study of the Acts of Paul. If you can point me to a better site, please do so. I think your Wikipedia readers would be well-served by a link to Acta Pauli; however, I challenged your judgment as an editor because you let stand another link, Le Champ du Midrash: by reproducing a French translation of  a 5th century text by Ps. Basil as though it were the 2nd Century Acts of Paul and Thecla, it is only approximately 300 years off the mark. Consider also, that numerous articles and my PhD dissertation are available at Acta Pauli in PDF format, and a link to Dr. Jeremy Barrier’s PhD dissertation, and it is arguably already the best academic site on the WWW.

“See [this link] for more, with particular attention to the recommendation for blogs in the ‘links to be avoided’ section.”  I have read the rules against blogs and self-published works; in general, I would have to agree because it is difficult to determine the credibility of the authors. Let me cite rule 11 under links to be avoided:

11. Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria for biographies).

I would think that the authors on this blog would meet the criterion of “recognized authority”, possessing degrees from accredited universities, Barrier and Merz are professors; Willy Rordorf, who has contributed was my mentor and is a professor emeritus at the University of Neuchatel; I have taught in recognized schools in Canada and Africa at both the graduate and the undergraduate level. Prof. Willy Rordorf more than the rest of us merits the so-called “notability criteria”.  If we who have spent many years of academic research on the Acts of Paul and have articles in peer-reviewed publications and presented papers at academic conferences are not “recognized authorities” than nobody is. But notability and “recognized authority” are two different standards.  Not every professor who is an authority on a subject is also worthy of an article, though I have seen a few vanity articles on Wikipedia.

“…while you may possess PhDs, you’ve neglected to review your sources and their dates of publishing properly here”.  Now that is an interesting criticism.  Perhaps you examined some of the posts and found that we have not provided detailed bibliographic information in every case.   This may the case in the discussion posts.  But you will notice that in all the articles and dissertations posted on Acta Pauli, standard bibliographic information is given.  In posts, we have tried merely to give sufficient information so that readers possessing a bibliographic knowledge of the field may find the sources.  For full bibliographies of the Acts of Paul, see my dissertation and more recently Dr. Jeremy Barrier’s.

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?