S
emeia is an experimental journal devoted to the exploration of new and emergent areas and methods of biblical criticism. Studies employing the methods, models, and findings of linguistics, folklore studies, contemporary literary criticism, structuralism, social anthropology, and other such disciplines and approaches are invited. Although experimental in both form and content, Semeia proposes to publish work that reflects a well-defined methodology that is appropriate to the material being interpreted. Semeia is complemented by Semeia Studies, also published by Scholars Press. As a monograph series, Semeia Studies encourages publication of more elaborate explorations of new and emergent approaches to the study of the Bible. founding editor (1974–1980): general editor: editors for Semeia Studies:
Robert W. Funk David Jobling, St. Andrew’s College, Saskatoon Fred W. Burnett, Anderson University
Danna Nolan Fewell, Perkins School of Theology
associate editors: Alice Bach, Stanford University; Randall C. Bailey, Interdenominational Theological Center; Phyllis Bird, Garrett Evangelical Seminary; Athalya Brenner, University of Amsterdam; Sheila Briggs, University of Southern California; Fred W. Burnett (Semeia Studies Editor), Anderson University; Danna Nolan Fewell (Semeia Studies Editor), Perkins School of Theology; Stephen D. Moore, Theological School, Drew University; Ilana Pardes, The Hebrew University; Gary Phillips, University of the South; Adele Reinhartz, McMaster University; Bernard Brandon Scott, Phillips Graduate Seminary; R. S. Sugirtharajah, University of Birmingham, UK; Gerald O. West, University of Natal; Gale A. Yee, Episcopal Divinity School. assistant to the general editor: Audrey Swan, University of Saskatchewan Issues of Semeia are unified around a central theme and edited by members of the editorial board or guest editors. Future themes and editors are given at the back of each issue of Semeia. Inquiries or manuscripts should be sent to the General Editor: David Jobling, St. Andrew’s College, Saskatoon, SK S7N OW3, Canada. Inquiries or manuscripts for Semeia Studies should be sent to one of the series editors: Fred W. Burnett Danna Nolan Fewell Dept. of Religious Studies Perkins School of Theology Anderson University Southern Methodist University Anderson, IN 46012-3462 Dallas, TX 75275 Semeia and Semeia Studies are sponsored by the Society of Biblical Literature as part of its research and publications program. A subscription unit to Semeia consists of four issues (77–80 for 1997), and costs $25 for SBL or AAR members; $40 for non-members and institutions. Members and subscribers outside the U.S., Canada, and Mexico are requested to add a $6.00 postal surcharge. All payments should be in U.S. currency or its equivalency. Single issues are $19.95. Subscriptions should be sent to Scholars Press Membership Services, P.O. Box 15399, Atlanta, GA 30333. Orders for single issues (including multiple-copy orders) should be sent to SCHOLARS PRESS CUSTOMER SERVICES, P.O. Box 133089, Atlanta, GA 30333-3089, Phone: (888) 747-2354 (toll free) or (404) 727-2354, Fax: (404) 727-2348.
SEMEIA 80
THE APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES IN INTERTEXTUAL PERSPECTIVES
Guest Editor: Robert F. Stoops, Jr. Board Editor: Dennis R. MacDonald, Jr.
© 1997 by the Society of Biblical Literature
Published by SCHOLARS PRESS P.O. BOX 15399 Atlanta, GA 30333-0399
Printed in the United States of America on acid free paper
the apocryphal acts of the apostles
semeia 80
CONTENTS Contributors to this Issue ……………………………………………………
v
Introduction: Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles in Intertextual Perspectives Robert F. Stoops, Jr. …………………………………………………
1
I. WHICH CAME FIRST? 1.
Which Came First? Intertextual Relationships Among the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles Dennis R. MacDonald ……………………………………………… 11
2.
Egging on the Chickens: A Cowardly Response to Dennis MacDonald and Then Some Richard I. Pervo ……………………………………………………..
43
The Acts of Peter in Intertextual Context Robert F. Stoops, Jr. …………………………………………………
57
3.
II. INTERTEXTUAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 4.
Intertextuality in the Acts of Thomas Harold W. Attridge …………………………………………………. 87
5.
Apocryphal Intertextual Activities: A Reframing of Harold W. Attridge’s “Intertextuality in the Acts of Thomas” Christopher R. Matthews …………………………………………… 125
6.
Paul’s Conversion in the Canonical Acts and in the Acts of Paul Willy Rordorf Translated by Peter W. Dunn …………………………………… 137
7.
The Acts of Paul and the Legacy of the Lukan Acts Julian V. Hills ………………………………………………………. 145
8.
The Acts of Paul: Replacement of Acts or Sequel to Acts? Richard Bauckham …………………………………………………... 159
9.
The Acts of Paul and the Canonical Acts: A Phenomenon of Rereading Daniel Marguerat Translated by Ken McKinney …………………………………... 169
10.
Canon and Antitype: The Relationship Between the Acts of Peter and the New Testament Christine M. Thomas ……………………………………………….. 185
11.
The Acts of Peter and Luke’s Intertextual Heritage Christopher R. Matthews …………………………………………… 207
12.
An Ancient Jewish Christian Rejoinder to Luke’s Acts of the Apostles: Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.27–71 F. Stanley Jones ……………………………………………………… 223 III. CULTURAL CONTEXT AS INTERTEXT IN THE APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
13.
This World or Another? The Intertextuality of the Greek Romances, the Apocryphal Acts and Apuleius’ Metamorphoses Judith B. Perkins ……………………………………………………. 247
14.
The Nuptial Chamber Revisited: The Acts of Thomas and Cultural Intertextuality Richard Valantasis ………………………………………………….. 261
15.
An Illustration in the Admont “Anselm” and its Relevance to a Reconstruction of the Acts of John David R. Cartlidge ………………………………………………….. 277 IV. GENERAL RESPONSE Historical, Rhetorical, Literary, Linguistic, Cultural and Artistic Intertextuality: A Response Vernon K. Robbins ………………………………………………………. 291
CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS ISSUE Harold W. Attridge Divinity School Yale University 409 Prospect St. New Haven, CT 06510 Richard J. Bauckham St. Mary’s College University of St. Andrews St. Andrews Fife, KY16 9JU United Kingdom David R. Cartlidge Maryville College 502 E. Lamar Alexander Parkway Maryville, TN 37804 Julian V. Hills Department of Theology Marquette University P.O. Box 1881 Milwaukee, WI 53201-1881 F. Stanley Jones Religious Studies California State University Long Beach, CA 90840 Dennis R. MacDonald Claremont School of Theology 1325 North College Ave. Claremont, CA 91711 Daniel Marguerat Faculté de Théologie Université de Lausanne BFSH2 CH-1015 Lausanne Switzerland
Christopher R. Matthews Weston Jesuit School of Theology 3 Phillips Place Cambridge, MA 02138 Judith B. Perkins Saint Joseph College Department of Classics West Hartford, CT 06119 Richard I. Pervo Department of Classical and Near Eastern Studies University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN 55455 Vernon K. Robbins Department of Religion Emory University Atlanta, GA 30322 Willy Rordorf Faculté de Théologie Université de Neuchâtel CH 2000 Neuchâtel Switzerland Robert F. Stoops, Jr. Department of Liberal Studies Western Washington University Bellingham, WA 98225 Christine M. Thomas Department of Religious Studies University of California Santa Barbara, CA 93106 Richard Valantasis Hartford Seminary 199 North Beacon Street Hartford, CT 06105
INTRODUCTION: APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES IN INTERTEXTUAL PERSPECTIVES Robert F. Stoops, Jr. Western Washington University
This volume represents the recent work of the SBL Seminar on Intertextuality and Christian Apocrypha and responses to it. The Seminar took up the issue of intertextuality as a rubric that might be broad enough to bridge the gap between social-historical interests of many of its members and the text-critical research being done by European scholars working on the same body of literature. For the Seminar, intertextuality has functioned as an umbrella term, useful for integrating different approaches, and as a constant reminder of the complexity of communication in both the ancient and contemporary worlds. The title chosen for this volume is meant to suggest a number of things. It intentionally gives the apocryphal Acts pride of place. The papers included in this volume focus on specific documents and their concrete relationships to other texts rather than to theory. Among other things, this volume continues the work of Semeia 38, The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, which has taken its place as an important collection in the study of early Christian Apocrypha. Many of the contributors to that volume are represented in this one as well, and the advances that have been achieved within this field of study over the past dozen years are evident. New critical editions of some of the most important texts have been published (Junod and Kaestli; Prieur; MacDonald), standard translations have been revised (Schneemelcher; Elliott), and new collections have appeared (Desreumaux and Norelli; Bovon and Geoltrain). The number of scholars working in the field and the number of studies published annually have both increased several-fold, and a new journal, Apocrypha, dedicated to the field has begun publication. As the title suggests, this volume does include more explicit discussion of methodological issues than did Semeia 38. The term intertextuality, in spite of being a relatively recent coinage, has a range of meanings. It can designate anything from the literary-critical concept of the “anxiety of influence” to the sociology-of-knowledge proposition that the production and reception of texts is always conditioned by a larger web of “texts,” both written and unwritten. Members of the Seminar have been attracted to different parts of the critical literature employing the concept of intertextuality. Like others, we have found ourselves using a word in common but meaning different things by it, or at least having different centers of gravity, depending on individual
-1-
2
semeia
predilections and associations—precisely the phenomenon that the study of intertextuality is meant to highlight. Many of the studies presented here address questions familiar to more traditional literary or source criticism, but they do so in ways that draw out the broader intertextual implications. They not only deal with the most obvious sort of intertextual borrowing and allusion but also attempt to assess the possibility of cross-fertilization from oral tradition and other cultural influences. Does a reference to an event known from other sources demonstrate the use of a written Vorlage, a text remembered, an established oral tradition, or a cultural commonplace? These are not new questions, but an intertextual perspective demands that they be asked consistently, because it recognizes that every act of communication is both an appropriation of a shared network of language and ideas and, at the same time, a distinctive performance within that network. Other studies emphasize the interaction of the specific text and the “general text” of the culture within which it was written. A borrowed motif or story may be modified and put to new uses in a new context. In other cases, the literary text deliberately seeks to de-construct and/or re-construct the intertexts of the social, religious, and literary worlds within which it was formed. All of these projects can legitimately be classified as studies of intertextuality, and each contribution was either produced or modified under the influence of the other models. Rather than arguing over the proper intertextual method, the Seminar has preferred to use the term connectively, emphasizing the overlap among these various endeavors and the benefits of cross-fertilization in our own work. The term perspective was chosen in part for its connotations. It is deeply connected with the issues of objectification and individualism that the more radical theorists of intertextuality seek to undermine. Perspective, as in “getting things in proper perspective,” has implied a privileged point of view, a place to stand intellectually, from which everything of importance can be seen in its proper place and in relationship to everything else. Since the Renaissance this has meant a privileging of the rational—both that which is logical and that which is susceptible of mathematical description. Intertextuality challenges overly simplistic notions of logic, but it does not have to mean, and does not mean in this volume, an abandonment of rational thought. It does call into question the notion of an absolute, fixed truth that can in principle be fully delineated. If the boundaries of intertextuality are notoriously difficult to draw, that is, in itself, an important observation to be made from within the methodological framework offered by intertextuality. Perspectives also characterizes the Seminar’s approach to intertextuality as a set of methods consciously chosen to help us see ancient texts in new ways, while also signaling an awareness of the limitations of each chosen perspective. Many of these studies, especially those in part three, suggest the
stoops: introduction
3
kinds of insights that have been missed in the study of ancient religious documents while scholarship remained focused within rather narrow ways of looking at the relics of the past. The plural is meant not to only subvert the absolutist connotations of the term perspective but also to indicate the diversity of methodological models falling under the designation intertextual represented in the volume. A quick perusal of the “Works Consulted” at the end of each study will reveal that the contributors are indebted to different theoretical perspectives in different degrees. There is no party line promoted here; no single “point of view” has carried the day. Contemporary critics frequently explore intertextuality with a keen awareness of the problematic character of communication. However, the understanding that all systems of signification and communication are conditioned, cultural constructs is not new. The Sophists had arrived at similar conclusions about the conventional nature of language and culture by the middle of the fifth century BCE. They came to these conclusions through the study of both literature, which meant poetry, and philosophy. They did so at the very time when texts in the form of books were becoming a significant factor in Greek culture (Pfeiffer: 16–17, 25–32). Even if Kerford is correct in his argument that the Sophists were more interested in the problems of predication than radical relativism, it remains true that as a group they recognized and discussed the complex and problematic interrelations among things, ideas, and verbal communication. Protagoras’s famous dictum: “Man is the measure of all things, the things that are that they are and things that are not that they are not” served as a rallying cry of humanism in the Renaissance, but it began life as the starting point of an epistemological argument. Protagoras and his associates recognized the role of human experience and social convention in the making of meaning at all levels. The Sophists, collectively, applied their insights into the workings of language to the practical concerns of persuasion, having noted that communication does in fact take place, however imperfectly. They contributed significantly to the shift from the inspired verse of the rhapsodes to the carefully crafted speech of persuasive rhetoric, a move which ultimately made possible the genres of prose narrative to which the apocryphal Acts and much of the New Testament belong. The importance of the Sophists is perhaps best reflected in their chief critic. Plato’s grand reification of ideas and its correlate metaphysics were worked out largely in an attempt to escape the consequences of the Sophists’ insights into the nature of language. While every possible position in the spectrum may not have been articulated in the ancient world, the epistemological extremes were held down by the Skeptics, Epicureans, and other heirs of the Sophists on one side and Platonists on the other. Platonists, however, remained a small minority, even among intellectuals, until near the time the apocryphal Acts were composed, when the question of how ultimate truths
4
semeia
might be grasped by human beings once again became an important theme in philosophy, religion, and literature. Literary production in the ancient Mediterranean world, beginning with school exercises, was explicitly intertextual in another sense as well. Quotation, imitation, and adaptation were basic tools of composition. Reading, too, was deliberately intertextual. Homer was read as a philosophical allegory, and Vergil’s Aeneid was recognized as a masterpiece largely because of its complex and explicit intertextuality. The so-called Second Sophistic movement that was contemporary with the production of many of the apocryphal Acts was more concerned with questions of style than epistemology. It was characterized by an intense awareness of literary conventions, both their own and those of earlier ages. While the adherents of the Second Sophistic exploited literary convention and rhetoric primarily to reinforce values of the society of the day, the authors of the apocryphal Acts used some of the same devices to call those social conventions into question in various ways. Many of the apocryphal Acts appear to have actively participated in a significant paradigm shift that took place simultaneously within Christianity and the larger culture. In the later second and early third centuries, the quest for meaning took a turn toward the transcendent, and dualism, often in forms influenced by Platonism, was congenial to many. The apocryphal Acts, like other texts produced at that time, were meant to persuade an audience; they were designed to reinforce a faith already held, or perhaps intended, however unrealistically, to bring about conversion. Most often they aimed at swaying the audience toward a particular understanding of Christianity. Our authors found themselves inescapably engaged both with other Christians and with the larger culture. It appears that in the process of constructing their texts they borrowed frequently from those who had gone before, sometimes transforming the borrowed material into something quite different. The issues we gather under the label of intertextuality were neither new nor unfamiliar to the period and culture that produced the apocryphal Acts. Perhaps because that world was familiar with these issues, intertextuality, which is hailed by some of its current practitioners as a means of overcoming bourgeois notions of individuality, has proven a fruitful methodology for interpreting texts produced prior to the full development of modern, bourgeois notions of individuality. The first section of this issue explores the synoptic relationships among the most important apocryphal Acts. The subject is under active discussion again after a seventy-five-year hiatus. The new editions produced by the Association pour l’étude de la littérature apocryphe chrétienne have already proposed new, earlier, dates for the Acts of John (Junod and Kaestli) and the Acts of Andrew (Prieur). MacDonald’s essay offers a comprehensive overview of the synoptic problem on the basis of the verbal parallels he has identified. His study outlines a set of criteria for determining literary dependence and
stoops: introduction
5
applies those criteria to establish an overview of the intertextual relationships among the five earliest surviving apocryphal Acts. The most important parallel passages are examined in detail, and a new stemma of dependence is proposed which identifies the Acts of Paul as the first of the apocryphal Acts. The two responses to sections of MacDonald’s analysis suggest the difficulty of reaching unanimity on the question of synoptic relations among the apocryphal Acts. Richard Pervo assesses the evidence for the priority of the Acts of John. MacDonald’s criteria are critiqued but favorably assessed. Several of the crucial parallels are reexamined with the goal of distinguishing different types of intertextual relations among these three apocryphal Acts. Pervo is not convinced that the Acts of John shows dependence on the Acts of Paul. He concludes that the best preserved version of the Acts of Peter did make use of the Acts of John, overturning the usual understanding shared by MacDonald. Robert Stoops offers a defense of the priority of the Acts of Peter after examining the modes of intertextuality observable in that text and the major blocks of evidence for intertextuality between the Acts of Peter and the Acts of Paul. Although the relationship is more complex than a simple literary dependence of one fixed text upon another, the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the Acts of Peter is likely to have been a source for portions of the Acts of Paul. Sensitivity to the life of texts multiplies the possibilities for intertextual relations and, therefore, makes it more difficult to obtain agreement. Awareness of the issues raised by the theorists of intertextuality has not produced more certain conclusions, but it has, perhaps, reduced the chances of falling prey to overly simplistic solutions. In the second section, this broadened sensitivity is applied to the question of the intertextual relations between the New Testament and Christian apocrypha. These studies document the reception of New Testament texts in this body of second and third century documents. They also demonstrate the implications of these intertextual relationships for understanding the composition of the New Testament texts themselves. Harold Attridge offers a broad survey of New Testament influence in the Acts of Thomas, examining the frequency and range of material from the New Testament and Gospel of Thomas used by the author of the Acts of Thomas. The variety of ways in which this material has been incorporated in the distinct Syriac and Greek versions is also traced. In each version explicit citations of dominical tradition are supplemented with embellishing allusions to both dominical and Pauline traditions. In some places allusion is used to achieve more precise special effects, such as the characterization of Thomas as the twin of Christ. These strategies of intertextuality reveal that the gospels had more influence in shaping the Acts of Thomas than did the canonical Acts of the Apostles. The response by Christopher Matthews seeks to draw out more explicitly the implications of
6
semeia
Attridge’s work for the understanding of intertextuality in early Christian literature. He suggests that the use of the New Testament in the Syriac and Greek versions is conditioned by distinctive cultural intertexts. The next four studies address the more narrowly focused, and hotly debated, question of the intertextual relationship between the Acts of Paul and the canonical Acts of the Apostles. Each essay focuses on a particular aspect of that relationship between the Acts of Paul and the canonical Acts. Each defends a distinctive position regarding their intertextual relationship. Willy Rordorf points to the differences in the accounts of Paul’s conversion to argue that the Acts of Paul shows no knowledge of the canonical Acts. Rordorf suggests that the apparent reminiscences and important differences can be accounted for if each author knew Galatians 1 but developed that tradition differently. Julian Hills offers a direct challenge to Rordorf’s position. Building on his earlier analysis (1994), Hills argues that the verbal overlap between Acts and the Acts of Paul is too great to be explained by the use of common traditions, formulaic expressions, and the like. Hills refines his method with a study of possible quotations from Acts in early liturgies. He then returns to the analysis of four examples of devotional language and nine examples of unusual expressions common to Acts and the Acts of Paul, concluding that the author of the Acts of Paul was indeed familiar with the Lukan Acts. Richard Bauckham accepts Hills’ 1994 argument and asks: If the author of the Acts of Paul not only knew, but in many ways imitated, the canonical Acts, what was the purpose of that imitation? Bauckham defends the thesis that the Acts of Paul was composed at least in part as a sequel to the canonical text. This position is defended against the arguments of Richard Pervo (1995) that a more aggressive form of intertextuality obtains, namely a deliberate attempt to correct and possibly supplant both the Lukan Acts and the Pastoral Epistles. Daniel Marguerat finds the alternatives put forward by Rordorf, Bauckham, and Pervo unsatisfactory. He agrees that the author of the Acts of Paul made use of the canonical Acts and proposes a model of deliberate rereading to account for the kind of intertextual and literary creativity exercised by the author in elaborating Luke’s scheme. He believes that the relationship is one of reformulation rather than rejection. The motivations were partly literary and partly theological. The canonical Acts lacks a sense of closure and fails to mention Paul’s letters. The new text treats Paul in a manner closer to hagiography, transferring the role of model disciple to Thecla. It offers a rereading of Luke’s text, which accommodates its content to changed historical circumstances. The final three studies in this section deal with variants of Petrine tradition and their relationship to the developing New Testament. Christine Thomas’ “Canon and Antitype: The Relationship Between the Acts of Peter
stoops: introduction
7
and the New Testament” emphasizes the fluid nature of ancient texts. Almost every manuscript witness constitutes a new performance of the text and is the product of numerous intertextual interactions. She argues that each compositional level of the Acts of Peter demonstrates a different relationship to the canonical Acts and other books of the emerging New Testament canon. In “The Acts of Peter and Luke’s Intertextual Heritage,” Christopher Matthews argues that the variant accounts of Peter’s encounter with Simon Magus found in the apocryphal Acts allow for the identification of a tradition that was modified by Luke to serve new purposes. The transmission history of the apocryphal Acts invites a reformulation of our notion of text. The apocryphal Acts, like most ancient documents were not fixed entities; the interaction of orality, textuality, and rhetoric did not end with the first written composition. The study by F. Stanley Jones gives a detailed analysis of the multifaceted transformation of a portion of the canonical Acts in Jewish-Christian tradition as represented by the source behind Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.27–71. That author’s varied procedures in appropriating Acts are examined: positive reception of Acts, rewriting of Acts, and direct opposition to Acts. What emerges in this complex intertextual relationship is an early, explicit commentary on Acts in narrative form. Standing alongside the Lukan, Marcionite, and gnostic versions of early church history, this Jewish-Christian source describes how the conversion of the entire Jewish people and priesthood was disrupted by a ruthless murderer named Paul. Reconsideration of the ways texts are produced and function has lead to the dissolution of the boundaries between written texts and the “general text” of the culture within which writing and reading take place. The essays in the third section focus on the cultural context as the intertext for written communication. The apocryphal Acts of the Apostles were generated where various movements within Christianity intersected with other elements of the Roman empire. The encounter with the general text of the larger culture shaped expectations about how the world works. The apocryphal Acts, in their turn, sought to reshape those fundamental assumptions. All three of these studies touch on the revalorization of marriage within the apocryphal Acts, but their diversity shows how multifaceted the interaction with even one social institution could be. The essay by Judith Perkins addresses the role of the general text and the ways in which specific texts both reflect and attempt to construct a social world. She argues that the apocryphal Acts exploit the conventions of romance literature in order to invert the values usually associated with it. Perkins challenges the common understanding of the genre of romance as being concerned with personal identity in face of an erosion of civic identity under Roman rule. She suggests that the central couple’s love and fidelity, maintained in the face of extraordinary threats, and culminating in marriage,
8
semeia
are a type for the concord and harmony that provided the foundation for society. In romance, chastity is sanctioned in the interests of preserving and replicating the elite, patriarchal society of the Hellenistic cities. In the apocryphal Acts, however, the apostles preach sexual continence for the sake of spiritual purity. The Christian version of chastity disrupts the bonds of marriage provoking persecution at the hands of distraught husbands or lovers. The rejection of contemporary social structures in favor of a new ideal is a central feature of Christianity as it is represented in these texts. Apuleius’ Metamorphoses works from different motives and employs different devices, but it rings a similar change on the conventions of both romance literature and Roman society through parody. Properly locating the romances as an intertext allows the full religious and social significance of the themes of marriage, chastity, and death in the apocryphal Acts to emerge. Richard Valantasis shows that the nuptial chamber scene in Acts of Thomas 11–15 has three different cultural intertexts. The figure of Jesus relates the ritual to theological speculation on immutability. The bride’s response invokes current cultural associations with heavenly marriage. The groom’s response correlates the scene to systems of male formation aimed at union with the divine figure. Each of these discourses “revisits” the nuptial chamber with distinct intertextual connections. Ritual, rather than reading, is the context for invoking cultural intertexts. The important point that intertextuality is operative even when the “texts” are not all written is reinforced in David Cartlidge’s treatment of a medieval manuscript illustration. He shows how the apocryphal Acts contributed to the general text of European Christianity through nonliterary channels. A narrative scene drawn from the Acts of John is inserted visually into a text which has no other direct connection to the apocryphal Acts. The image is probably meant to reinforce the value of chastity among nuns. The final section of the essay brings this volume full circle by showing how a pictorial document from a later age can aid the reconstruction of the text of the Acts of John. The interests of the Seminar represented in this volume overlap with those of many other biblical scholars. With this volume we hope to continue a dialogue not only with others using the term intertextuality but also with those working on orality and textuality, rhetoric, education, and social formation in the context of biblical studies. The Christian apocrypha have proven to be rich resources for understanding developments in early Christianity including the reception of biblical texts and the relationship of Christianity to the larger social world. More nuanced considerations of the composition and use of texts in interaction with oral tradition and the general text of the culture should lead to further refinements of those insights. We have found that the discovery of the multifaceted relationships existing among texts, traditions, and social structures has to be made over
stoops: introduction
9
and over, even by those who are old hands at source-, form-, and redactioncriticism. That experience gives us reason to believe that this volume will prove useful to those working on analogous texts, including those of the New Testament. We make no claims to be normative, but the kind of work represented here aims at a more adequate understanding and appreciation of the apocryphal Acts, both individually and as a group, through subjecting them to the interconnected set of questions raised when they are viewed in intertextual perspectives.
WORKS CONSULTED Bovon, François and Pierre Geoltrain, eds. 1997 Ecrits apocryphes chrétiens. Bibliotheque de la Pléiade. Paris: Gallimard Desreumaux, Alain and Enrico Norelli, eds. 1993–96 Apocryphes: Collections de poche de l’AELAC. Turnhout: Brepols. Elliot, James Keith, ed. 1993 The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in English Translation. Oxford: Clarendon. Genette, Gérard 1982 Palimpsestes: La littérature au second degré. Paris: Seuil. Hills, Julian V. 1994 “The Acts of the Apostles in the Acts of Paul.” SBLSP 33: 24–54. Junod, Eric and Jean-Daniel Kaestli 1983 Acta Ioannis. CChrSA 1. Turnhout: Brepols. Kerford, George B. 1981 The Sophistic Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MacDonald, Dennis R. 1990 The Acts of Andrew and the Acts of Andrew and Matthias in the City of the Cannibals. SBLTT 33, Christian Apocrypha 1. Atlanta: Scholars. MacDonald, Dennis R., ed. 1986 The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles. Semeia 38. Pervo, Richard I. 1995 “A Hard Act to Follow: The Acts of Paul and the Canonical Acts.” Journal of Higher Criticism 2/2:3–32. Pfeiffer, Rudolf 1968 History of Classical Scholarship: From the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age. Oxford: Clarendon.
10
semeia
Prieur, Jean-Marc 1989 Acta Andreae. CChrSA 5–6. Turnhout: Brepols. Schneemelcher, Wilhelm, ed. 1992 New Testament Apocrypha: Revised Edition of the Collection Initiated by Edgar Hennecke. 2 vols. Trans. R. McL. Wilson. Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox.
WHICH CAME FIRST? INTERTEXTUAL RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES Dennis R. MacDonald Claremont School of Theology
abstract The study of intertextual relationships in the earliest apocryphal Acts of the Apostles should be grounded as far as possible in a clear understanding of their inter-relationships as written texts. Close attention to the language of the apocryphal Acts reveals a significant degree of verbal overlap. The synoptic study of parallel passages shows that the intertextual relationship is most often one of literary dependence. This study develops a set of criteria by which the direction of literary dependence can be established and then applies those criteria to resolve the chronological relationships among the three earliest of the apocryphal Acts: the Acts of Paul, the Acts of Peter and the Acts of John. The Acts of Paul appears to be a literary source for both the Acts of Peter and the Acts of John. The Acts of Peter may also have been used by the author of the Acts of John. Thus, the intertextual relationships establish the chronological priority of the Acts of Paul. The final part of this paper seeks to clarify the intertextual relationships among the remaining early Acts by focusing on the Acts of Andrew, especially its use by the Acts of Thomas.
The vastly improved editions of the apocryphal Acts of the Apostles published in the past decade make it possible to see ever more clearly the complexity of the literary interdependence among the earliest Acts. As yet there is no dominant model for explaining the intertextuality of the synoptic Acts, but a consensus seems slowly to be emerging concerning several lines of dependence. It is generally agreed that the Acts of Thomas, the latest of the soidisant “Leucian Acts,” betrays reliance on the Acts of Peter, the Acts of John, and the Acts of Andrew. The Acts of Andrew in turn seems to rely on the Acts of Peter and probably the Acts of John. Some interconnection exists between the Acts of Peter and the Acts of Paul, although scholars dispute which of these came first. This minimal assessment allows for the following skeletal alignment which would satisfy most specialists. Acts of Paul
Acts of Peter
Acts of Andrew Acts of Thomas
-11-
Acts of John
12
semeia
The aim of this paper is to refine this stemma by arguing that the Acts of Peter shows signs of dependence on the Acts of Paul and that the Acts of John show signs of dependence on both the Acts of Paul and the Acts of Peter. In the second part of the paper I will clarify the relationship of the Acts of Andrew to these early Acts and to later Acts, especially the Acts of Thomas. By now it should come as no surprise that intertextual study of the apocryphal Acts is humbugged by the fragmentary nature of most of the Acts, and, as Christine Thomas loves to remind us, the fragments we do have often are fragments of free recensions with only remote relationships to the originals, if indeed one can speak of originals at all.1 Despite our interests in writing in the indicative, we all know that, in light of the fragile nature of these texts, our work should be cast in the subjunctive. Furthermore, we usually read the works of other scholars as though they should have written in the optative. This said, I would insist that careful textual comparisons of these witnesses not only are possible but indispensable if we are to understand the role of intertextuality among the apocryphal Acts. At times the contents of two or more of these Acts reflect each other so closely that one can place them in parallel columns as one would the Synoptic Gospels. In order to determine the intertextual connections among these Acts, I have isolated the passages they have in common that cannot be explained as coincidence, as reliance on other texts, or as evidence of popular traditions or compositional commonplace. These texts will appear below in parallel columns to facilitate comparison.2 Demonstrating literary connection between two texts is one thing; determining the direction of that dependence quite another, as those familiar with the debates concerning the intertextual relations among the Synoptic Gospels can attest. My analysis of the literary relationships among the apocryphal Acts employs the following criteria for establishing the direction of dependence: 1. The criterion of generative external traditions. When parallel passages exist, one of them may display reliance on antecedent literature or on oral tradition which may sufficiently account for its genesis, voiding the necessity of positing reliance on the other Acts. If the parallel in the other Acts shows no such reliance on external tradition, it may well have derived from the Acts that did. 1 See, for instance, her contribution to this volume. 2 For the most part, I follow the translation of the Acts of Paul by Schneemelcher and Kasser. For the other apocryphal Acts I use the translations prepared for the forthcoming Polebridge collection of New Testament Apocrypha: the Acts of John by Richard Pervo; the Acts of Peter by Robert Stoops; the Acts of Thomas by Harold Attridge; and the Acts of Andrew by myself, which can also be found in my 1990 edition of the Acts of Andrew.
macdonald: which came first?
13
2. The criterion of internal consistency. Frequently two Acts share episodes that must be genetically related, but neither of them can be traced to external traditions. In such cases, one can at times determine which is the earlier by assessing which provides the episode its more native environment. This assessment may be based on motifs, characterizations, plot sequence, even vocabulary. Conversely, one can often detect scars caused by an author artlessly grafting foreign materials into the story from the other Acts. 3. The criterion of secondary improvement. Sometimes one of the texts seems to repair its parallel in the other Acts. For example, one document may contain a theologically objectionable concept which becomes more palatable in the other. Often, one of the two Acts presents an apostle in a less favorable light than the other. Insofar as tradition generally improved apostolic public relations, in such cases one can rather confidently monitor the direction of dependence. These three criteria, although not exhaustive, suffice for mapping the intertextual connections among the earliest apocryphal Acts. In the parallels that follow, square brackets ([]) isolate parallels that appear in a different order from the other materials in that column. In order to assist the reader, the most obvious parallels are highlighted. The three Acts at the top of the diagram above, those of Paul, Peter, and John, each have claims on being the earliest. Each of them relies on independent, early traditions about the apostles, and each finds probable external attestation around the end of the second century. Furthermore, each shares with the other two Acts content apparently caused by intertextual borrowing. Understanding the details and direction of their dependence is important to understanding the origins and development of the apocryphal Acts collectively. Analysis of selected “synoptic” passages according to the criteria outlined above can, I believe, resolve the question of priority. The ACTS OF PAUL and the ACTS OF PETER: Which Came First? Carl Schmidt, a pioneer in the modern study of the Acts of Paul, saw evidence of literary interplay between it and the Acts of Peter. At first (1904), he thought Paul’s Acts was the earlier; later, he reversed himself and succeeded in convincing nearly all subsequent interpreters to view Peter’s Acts as the more primitive (1936). I will argue that Schmidt should have followed his original intuitions. The points of contact between the Acts of Paul and the Acts of Peter appear primarily in the voyages of the apostles to Rome and in their martyrdoms.
14
semeia
The Voyages of Paul and Peter The voyage of Peter to Rome survives in a single manuscript of a third or fourth century Latin translation (Actus Vercellenses). The voyage of Paul now exists primarily in a single tattered Greek manuscript (Pap. Hamburg). Despite these textual problems, one can see at once that the two voyages are literarily related. According to the Acts of Paul, the apostle disclosed to the church in Corinth that he soon would depart for Rome. This scene of departure parallels two passages at the beginning of the Acts of Peter: Paul’s departure from Rome for Spain, and Peter’s departure from Jerusalem for Rome. Acts of Paul 9 (Pap. Hamburg 6–7)
the days were ended (and the time drew near) for Paul to depart for Rome, grief came upon the brethren as to when they should see him again. (Cf. Acts 20:36) . . . Then Cleobius was filled with the Spirit and said: “Brethren now must Paul fulfill all his assignment, and go up to the of death . . . and depart out of this world.” [They were greatly distressed when they heard this.] Lord (kuvrio~) said (ei\pen): “Paul, I am about to be crucified afresh (a[nwqen . . . staurou`sqai).” And Paul said (kai; ei\pen Pau`lo~): “God forbid, Lord (kuvrie) that I should see this!” But the Lord said (ei\pe) to Paul: “Paul prophet says: “We saw him, and he possessed neither beauty nor grace” (Isa 53:2); and “In the last times a boy will be born from the Holy Spirit. His mother knows not a man, nor does anyone say he is his father” (cf. Isa 9:6). Again he says: “She has given birth and not given birth.”6 And again: “Is it a small thing for you to contend” and “Behold, a virgin shall conceive in her womb” (Isa 7:13–14). Another prophet, giving honor to the Father says: “We have neither heard dead.” 7 and who saves as one who has no need; Who catches the fish for breakfast and for dinner; 8
33 receive some of the blessing of the humble, some of the rest of those who are weary (cf. Matt 11:28), and some of the blessings of those whom men hate, persecute, and revile, saying vile things about them (cf. Matt 5:11). For, behold, it is for your sake that I am hated. It is for your sake that I have been separated from most people and it is for your sake that men say that I am what I am not. 36 all of them and commands his subjects not to use them. 41 become rich and obtain possessions, showed me in deed that great wealth upon earth is loss. But I believed in your revelation and remained in worldly poverty until the time when you, who are true wealth, appeared, filled your people who are worthy of wealth, and released them from want, care, and greed. I therefore have now brought your work to completion and fulfilled your commandment. I have become poor, needy, a stranger, a slave, one despised, a prisoner, hungry, thirsty, naked, and weary.42 Let not my confidence be disappointed; let my hope in you not be put to shame; let my toils not be in vain; let not my prayers and constant fasts go for naught; and let my deeds done for you not be diminished. Let not the devil snatch the seed of grain from the earth,43 (146) so that it might send its roots deep and its spreading branches into heaven (cf. Mark 4:32 and Gos. Thom. 20), so that its fruits might be displayed on the earth and those who are worthy of you might be delighted with it. Behold, the moneys and the possessions that you have given me I have put in the bank.44 Give them back to me with interest as you promised. With your one talent 45 I have earned another ten. Let them be added to my account as you have ordered (cf. Matt 25:14–30; Luke 19:11–27). I have forgiven the debt of those who owed me a talent. Do not let it be requested back from me, for you have forgiven me that debt (cf. Matt 18:23–35). At your invitation I have come to dinner, leaving field and wife behind (cf. Luke 14:18–20). Let me not be cast outside,46 but.48 Let my eyes look for you and my heart rejoice because I have fulfilled your will and done your command, <so that I may be likened to>49 your active and reverent servant who in his prudent diligence neglects nothing.50 For I stayed on watch all night and grew weary guarding my house against a break-in by thieves (cf. Matt 24:42–44, 45–51; Luke 12:39–40). <“I’ve girded my loins with truth (Luke 12:35; Eph 6:14, 15) and bound sandals on my feet that I might not ever see them loosened.51 I’ve put my hands to the yoked plow and not turned back, that my furrows might not be made crooked. The field has become white and the harvest is imminent (Luke 9:62, John 4:35), that I might receive my reward. I’ve made my antiquated garment grow old (cf. possibly Luke 5:36) and completed the toils upon toils that lead me to repose. I’ve kept the first, second, and third watch (cf. Luke 12:28), that I might see your face and worship your holy radiance. I’ve torn down the barns 52 and left them deserted on the earth, that I might be filled from your treasuries. I’ve dried up the flowing fountain within me, that I might live and repose at your inexhaustible fountain. The prisoner whom you entrusted to me I slew, that the one who is released by me might not lose his confidence. That which is within I have made without, and that which is without <within>,53 and all of your fullness has been fulfilled in me. I’ve not turned back, but advanced forward, that I might not be ashamed. I’ve brought the dead to life and overcome the living one and filled up what was lacking, that I might receive the crown of victory and that the power of Christ might be brought to perfection in me. I’ve received shame upon earth; grant me a requital and recompense in heaven>. from the Father, he it is who preached to me the Gospel of his Son, that I might live in him. Indeed, there is no life except the life which is in Christ. I entered into a great church through (?) the blessed Judas, the brother of the Lord, who from the beginning gave me the exalted love of faith. I comported myself in grace through (?) the blessed prophet, and the revelation of Christ who was begotten before ages. While they preached him, I was rejoicing in the Lord, nourished by his words. But when I was able, I was found <worthy> to speak. I spoke with the brethren—Judas it was who urged me—so that I became beloved of those who heard me. But when evening came I went out, lovingly (?) accompanied by the widow Lemma and her daughter Ammia (?). I was walking in the night, meaning to go to Jericho in Phoenicia, and we covered great distances. But when morning came, Lemma and Ammia were behind me, they who . . . agape, for I (?) was dear , so that they were not far from me (?). There came a great and terrible lion out of the valley of the buryingground. (translation of the Genf Coptic Papyrus from Schneemelcher: 264) 
