Eastman2015 - Cursing in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 4|doi .6/570070-486

vigiliae christianae 69 (05) 86-08

brill.com/vc

VigiliaeChristianae

Cursing in the Infancy Gospel of ThomasDaniel Eastman

386 Prospect Street, Apt A7 New Haven, CT 06511-2100, USA

[email protected]

Abstract

One of the most notable features of the so-called Infancy Gospel of Thomas is its depic-tion of several punitive miracles, or curses, performed by the child Jesus. Previous scholarly treatments of the text have often dismissed these curses as merely another type of miracle, rather than as a special feature of IGT deserving of further study. This article examines the curses with an eye toward their distinctive qualities, and then seeks to find a match for the resulting paradigm in other literature, both Christian and non-Christian, from the ancient Mediterranean setting. A possible match is found in the cursing stories told of the ascetics of fourth-century Syria, as related by Theodoret of Cyrrhus in his Religious History.

Keywords

Infancy Gospel of Thomas cursing Syrian ascetics

Among early Christian apocrypha, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (IGT) has long held a preeminent position of notoriety. Aside from the daunting textual dif-ficulties associated with IGT, the primary reason for scholars distaste for this short collection of stories about Jesus childhood has typically been its inclu-sion of several punitive miracles, or curses, ascribed to the young Jesus.1 The

1 This distaste has typically been expressed more broadly through derogatory references to the texts focus on miracles, a tendency that has changed little over the years. Thus Ellicotts description of the texts miracle-mongering (C.J. Ellicott, Apocryphal Gospels, Cambridge Essays, vol. 4. [London, 1856] 153-208, 193) is echoed a century and a half later by Van Voorsts characterization of its crude emphasis on miracles (R.E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New

187cursing in the infancy gospel of thomas


apparent disconnect between the calm, collected Jesus of the canonical gos-pels and the rather mercurial and at times vindictive child Jesus of IGT has proven difficult to reconcile, especially if one reads IGT with the expectation that it derived its picture of Jesus exclusively from the New Testament. It is thus necessary to look outside the canonical NT for other sources of inspira-tion which may have influenced the portrayal of Jesus in IGT. In so doing, one may examine not only specific texts and figures, but also broader literary para-digms available in antiquity which the author(s) of IGT may have employed. The present paper takes this examination as its focus. After a brief overview of the text and its reception, I proceed to an examination of the curses in IGT, fol-lowed by a review of possible miracle-working paradigms which might explain their inclusion in the text. The paper concludes with some reflections on the origins of the curses in IGT, and what such origins might connote for other areas of IGT research.

The Text and Its Reception

Reconstructing the original text of IGT is, as mentioned above, not without dif-ficulty. The earliest extant Greek manuscript dates from the late eleventh cen-tury, but several earlier versions in other languages exist. Despite the absence of an early Greek manuscript, it has been convincingly argued that the original form of IGT was indeed Greek.2 Moreover, the discovery of a Greek manuscript (Codex Sabaiticus 259) which corresponds fairly closely to the early versions has resulted in the publication of a new recension, or revised text, of IGT by

Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, [Grand Rapids, MI. Eerdmans, 2000] 205). On the other hand, in recent years some scholars have sought to defend IGT, or at least revive interest in it, which has resulted in more sympathetic descriptions of the text as, e.g., an exposed orphan within the study of early Christianity (R. Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus: Decoding the Apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas [Eugene, OR. Cascade Books, 2009] 3).

2 The likelihood of a common Vorlage for the Ethiopic, Syriac, Georgian and Latin versions was first proposed by L. van Rompay (De ethiopische versie van het Kindheidsevangelie volgens Thomas de Israliet, in A. Thodorids, P. Naster, and J. Ries [eds], Lenfant dans les civiliza-tions orientales [Leuven, 1980] 119-32), who thought that the original IGT was an Ethiopic text. S. Gero (Apocryphal Gospels. A Survey of Textual and Literary Problems, ANRW II 25,2 [1988] 3978-3984) agreed on a common textual ancestor but argued for a Greek Vorlage. Until quite recently, however, most studies of IGT have used the longer Greek recension (titled Ga) of C. von Tischendorf (Evangelia apocrypha [Leipzig 1876] 140-57), which relies on four later, expanded Greek manuscripts and is thus not representative of the original IGT text.

188 eastman


Tony Burke based largely on this manuscript.3 While this recension, titled Gs, is not without its own discrepancies,4 it is nevertheless the fullest and most accurate representation of the original IGT which we have, and it is on this text that the present paper is based, rather than on the longer Greek text (titled Ga) of Tischendorf, which likely represents a later expansion of the original IGT text.5 In light of the recent publication of this new recension, I have included a brief synopsis of the miracles which likely formed the original IGT text (with citations to both Gs and Ga) as an appendix at the end of this article.

From the wide variety of the Greek variants and the other versions, both geographically and in terms of content, it seems likely that the stories of Jesus childhood enjoyed a broad circulation around the Mediterranean, though pri-marily in the East. It also seems likely, as some scholars have pointed out, that the stories underwent a rather long period of oral transmission before they were written down.6 This hypothesis receives further support when we exam-ine some of the external references to IGT in antiquity. The first certain refer-ences to the stories of IGT (whether in oral or written form is unclear) date

3 T. Burke, De Infantia Iesu Evangelium Thomae Graece, Corpus Christianorum, Series Apocryphorum 17 (Turnhout. Brepols, 2010). For a detailed exposition of the manuscript tra-dition, see ibid., 129-171, 222; Aasgaard, Childhood of Jesus, Appendix 5. While the importance of Cod. Sabaiticus 259 had already been noted as early as 1972 by J. Noret (Pour une dition de lvangile de lenfance selon Thomas, AnBoll 90 [1972] 412), and again more forcefully in 1991 by S. Voicu (Notes sur lhistoire du texte de LHistoire de lEnfance de Jsus. Apocrypha2 [1991] 11932), who argued that it represented an earlier recension than Tischendorf s Ga or Gb, it was not until 2001 that the text was finally published in its entirety by Tony Burke as part of his dissertation (T. Chartrand-Burke, The Infancy Gospel of Thomas: The Text, its Origins, and its Transmission [PhD diss., University of Toronto 2001]).

4 Specifically, it differs from the early versions in that it includes a prologue and an extra mira-cle story (the healing of a young mans foot at Gs 16 [Ga 10]), together with some other small additions (see appendix). See also Burke, De Infantia, 196-197.

5 Regardless of whether one accepts the hypothesis of a Greek Vorlage for the early, fragmented versions of IGT, the fact remains that Cod. Sabaiticus 259 shares more similarities with these versions than does any other Greek ms., and has the added benefit of being much more com-plete than any of the versions. These factors make Gs, which relies on Cod. Sabaiticus 259 with reference to the early versions, the best source for those who wish to study the original IGT. Quotations of the Greek text of Gs are taken from Burkes 2010 edition and follow his numbering system; translations of Gs and other sources in this paper are, unless otherwise noted, my own.

6 Gero (The Infancy Gospel of Thomas: A Study of the Textual and Literary Problems, Novum Testamentum 13, Fasc. 1 [Jan., 1971] 46-80, 72-73) makes this argument with regard to the teaching episode. Aasgaard (Childhood of Jesus, 15-34) argues more broadly for the oral trans-mission of all the episodes, due to the many differences between the mss.



from the late second century. Irenaeus, in his Against Heresies, cites the story of Jesus encounter with the teacher Zacchaeus (IGT 6), in which Jesus chal-lenges his teacher to explain the true meaning of the letter alpha. Irenaeus refers to this episode in the context of the spurious writings (perperum scrip-turarum / ) of the Marcosians,7 which makes it fairly likely that at least the teacher story was written down at this point, if not the rest of the sto-ries included in IGT.8 The teacher story is also mentioned in the Epistle of the Apostles, another second-century text likely composed in Egypt or Asia Minor; unlike in Irenaeus, however, there is no reference here to any written text.9

More certain evidence for a written IGT exists in the late fourth-century writings of John Chrysostom and Epiphanius of Salamis. Both refer to the mir-acles () performed by Jesus in his childhood ().10 These terms are significant in that they also appear in most of the IGT manuscript titles and thus, as Sever Voicu has argued, it is likely that Chrysostom and Epiphanius are referring to IGT, rather than merely to individual stories.11 Nevertheless, it must also be admitted that are not mentioned in the early versions, and only once in Gs (10.2, i.e. not in the title). Moreover, neither Chrysostom nor Epiphanius make explicit mention of any written sources concerning Christs childhood, instead referring only to hearsay concerning his childhood deeds.12 Hence it is with only limited confidence that the existence of a written IGT containing some or all of the stories can be ascribed to the late fourth century in the eastern Mediterranean, though both written and oral versions of the story of Jesus and the teacher appear to have been widely known by the late second century. This latter observation is unsurprising, for the teacher story forms the backbone of IGT; Jesus first encounter with Zacchaeus is the longest

7 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.20.1 (PG 7,653-4).8 This is the position taken by Gero (Infancy Gospel, 63-64), who further asserts that the

written version of the teacher story underwent an additional period of oral transmission before being combined with the other stories to form IGT.

9 Epistula Apostolorum 4 (CANT 22). See also Burke, De Infantia, 29.10 John Chrysostom, Homily 17 on John 3 (PG 59,110); Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion

51.20.2-3.11 S. Voicu, Verso il testo primitivo dei I Racconti dellinfanzia del

Signore Ges, Apocrypha 9 (1998) 795, 41-42. Cited in Burke, De Infantia, 6. 12 Chrysostom refers to the miracles which they say [] are of Christs childhood

(Homily 17 on John 3 [PG 59,110]); similarly, Epiphanius mentions the miracles which he is said [] to have performed in play as a child (Panarion 51.20.2 [K. Holl (ed.), Epiphanius, Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte 31,2 (Leipzig. J.C. Hinrichs Buchhandlung, 1922) 278]).

190 eastman


episode in the narration, and the motif of Jesus teaching his teachers in fact recurs three more times in the text (13, 14, 17).

For our purposes, two features of the early history and reception of IGT stand out. First, while the teaching story is attested (albeit in a very basic form) quite early, the rest of Jesus miracles are not specifically mentioned by the early external sources. Thus the earliest secure witness for the miracles, includ-ing the curses, is the fifth-century Latin manuscript known as LV.13 Allowing for some time between the original Greek composition and its Latin transla-tion, it is reasonable to assume, as noted above, a fourth-century text of IGT which included most of the material in Gs. This leads us to the second fea-ture of IGTs reception that stands out, namely the lack of condemnation of the curses by early commentators. Chrysostoms reaction is typical: he objects not to the nature of Jesus childhood miracles, but rather to their existence. For if he had begun from his early age to work wonders, neither could John have been ignorant of him, nor would the multitude have needed a teacher to make him known.14 In other words, a miracle-working Jesus would not have needed John the Baptist to announce him to the world, since he would already have been famous.15 Chrysostoms position, which is echoed by other later writers,16 points to an apparent acceptance of the curses as legitimate mira-cles, which might seem odd to modern readers. As we shall see in the next sec-tion, however, the curses become easier to understand when they are set in the proper context.

13 See Burke (De Infantia, 145-6); Aasgaard (Childhood of Jesus, Appendix 5). The manuscript is fragmentary, but from the surviving sections it is possible to deduce the original presence of most of IGT. E.g., while LV does not describe the first two curses in IGT (3.2-3, 4.1), it does contain Jesus later reversal of these curses (8.1-2).

14 John Chrysostom, Homily 17 on John 3 (PG 59,110). Translation is that of C. Marriott, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series 14 (Buffalo, NY. Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1889).

15 Cf. John 1:31, 2:11.16 E.g., Maximus Confessor (Life of the Virgin 62) and Anastasius Sinaita (Hodegos 13), writing

in the seventh century, both cite similar reasons. Chrysostoms contemporary Epiphanius is even less critical, and in fact seems quite open to the idea of childhood miracle stories of Jesus, noting that this would refute those sects which teach that Jesus only assumed the mantle of divinity after his baptism (Panarion 51.20.2-3 [K. Holl (ed.), Epiphanius, Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte 31,2 (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs Buchhandlung, 1922) 278]).



Cursing in IGT

Scholars dealing with IGT have stressed that Jesus curses need to be under-stood in the larger context of his miracles.17 The curses have thus generally been seen as punitive miracles which illustrate Gods power and judgment, in rather the same way that healings demonstrate Gods power and grace. This is true enough, but it is also quite general. Those seeking possible paradigms for the curses in IGT will have a lot of material to sift through if they have to examine all the instances of miracle-working in antiquity, most of which do not in fact include curses. Rather, it should be stressed that curses were not a very common type of miracle; hence a careful survey of the curses in IGT is the first requirement to narrow the field of possible templates.

Of the thirteen miracles which are attested in the early versions, four are punitive in nature. Jesus kills three people: the son of Annas (3.2-3), a running child who bumps into him (4.1), and his second teacher, who hits him (13.2). He also blinds an unspecified number of accusers, who have complained about his killing of the two children (5.1). We can note several features imme-diately concerning these curses. First, they are all performed as a direct result of people disrespecting the person of Jesus himself. They are, in other words, personal responses by Jesus to perceived slights against him (or against God, depending on how one interprets the Christology of IGT). Second, they all take immediate effect, which distinguishes them from many of the curses in other Christian literature. Third, they are all later reversed; Jesus revives those he has killed, and heals those he has blinded.

In all cases, the reversals of the curses take place after Jesus encounters with teachers who recognize his greatness. In the first encounter, Jesus is identified by his teacher Zacchaeus as a supernatural being, something more than human; as a result he reverses his previous curses (8.1-2). This may be contrasted with Jesus encounter with his second teacher, whom he kills for striking him (13.2). Finally, he is described by his third teacher as full of much grace and wisdom, and thus not in need of any instruction, whereupon he reverses his cursing of the second teacher (14.2-4). Jesus clear approval of these recognitions, and his subsequent reversals of his earlier curses, leads directly into the fourth feature of the curses in IGT, namely their educational value. Seen in the broader light of their subsequent reversals, the curses take on new meaning as didactic tools that help, along with the other miracles, to establish Jesus special identity in

17 E.g., H.C. Kee, Miracle in the Early Christian World (New Haven. Yale University Press, 1983) 281, 286; Gero, Infancy Gospel, 61.

192 eastman


his community as a teacher who possesses extraordinary powers.18 Particularly important in this context is the significance laid on Jesus identification as a teacher of teachers, an identification that is repeated again at the end of IGT when Jesus teaches the elders of the Temple in Jerusalem (17.2).19

In light of the above points, we can significantly narrow our search for a paradigm which explains the curses of IGT. To wit, we are looking for examples of curses which are (1) invoked as a result of disrespect of either ones own person or of God, (2) immediately effective, (3) later reversed, and (4) used ultimately to educate, rather than merely to punish. Templates which fulfill some or all of these requirements are, I think, the most likely to have exerted an influence on the composition of IGT. To this we can add the requirements of setting. While the origin of IGT remains obscure, the earliest mention of Jesus childhood miracles is by John Chrysostom in fourth-century Antioch, and the eastern Mediterranean is generally acknowledged as a probable loca-tion for the original text.20 Thus we can further limit our search to templates which would have been known in the eastern Mediterranean at or before the end of the fourth century.

18 The use of the curses in particular as didactic tools has, to my knowledge, gone unnoticed in IGT scholarship. Aasgaard (Childhood of Jesus, 101) notes that Jesus is typically treated like a child by those around him except when he performs miracles, but later dismisses the curses as a reflection of the folklore tradition that alls well that ends well (161). Similarly, while Burke (De Infantia, 286) notes the centrality of teaching as the main theme of IGT, he does not connect it specifically to the curses.

19 Cf. the first teachers lament at Gs 7.2: I thought to have a student and have been found having a teacher ( ). Similarly, in the early versions, the third teacher notes, It is not a disciple you have given to me but it is a teacher (cited in Burke, De Infantia, 332 n. 1). And at Gs 17.2: And those listening to him were amazed at how he was questioning the elders and explicating the main points of the law and the notes and parables of the prophets ( ). Note the expansion of Jesus activity in this last episode from the Lucan original (Luke 2:46-47), which omits explicit mention of Jesus as a scriptural teacher.

20 R. Hock, The Infancy Gospels of James and Thomas (Santa Rosa, CA. Polebridge Press, 1995) 92; Burke, De Infantia, 212.



Ancient Miracle-Working Paradigms

With these limitations in mind, then, we can turn to an examination of the sources outside of IGT. In considering the external sources, however, we are faced with an immediate problem: miracles in antiquity were the province of adults, not children. Is it methodologically viable to compare the miracles of the child Jesus to those of adults? According to Tony Burke, it is, since the child Jesus is actually portrayed as an adult in a childs body, what in antiquity was called a puer senex or .21 The idealized treatment of children as adults is well-documented in antiquity, especially among ancient biographies and panegyrics.22 What is less clear is whether this applies to Jesus portrayal in IGT. On the one hand, insofar as miracles themselves were typically per-formed only by adults, the focus of IGT on miracles is itself evidence that Jesus cannot be treated as a child. Moreover, the IGT Jesus is certainly portrayed as precocious in his interactions with adults; he treats his teachers as inferiors, and even reprimands his father for attempting to discipline him (5.3). On the other hand, his interactions with other children are, as Reidar Aasgaard has noted, characteristically childish: running, jumping, playing, etc. (of course, he also performs miracles on other children).23 Jesus portrayal as child/adult is evidently a mixed one. Despite this mixed nature, however, I think we may proceed with comparisons with other adult miracle-workers, on the grounds that, at least in his miracle-working capacity, Jesus appears to achieve an adult status in the minds of those around him.24

21 Burke, De Infantia, 268. See also Hock, Infancy Gospels, 96-97.22 In many cases, this treatment took the form of a projection of a famous adults character

back into his childhood, in order to create a picture of what his childhood must have been like (C. Pelling, Childhood and Personality in Greek Biography, in C. Pelling [ed.], Characterization and Individuality in Greek Literature [Oxford. Clarendon Press, 1990] 228). For more on the adult child in Greco-Roman literature, see M. Kleijwegt, Ancient Youth: The ambiguity of youth and the absence of adolescence in Greco-Roman society (Amsterdam. J.C. Gieben, 1991) 123-131; T. Wiedemann, Adults and Children in the Roman Empire (New Haven. Yale University Press, 1989) 54-55; P. Cox, Biography in Late Antiquity: A Quest for the Holy Man (Berkeley. University of California Press, 1983) 22.

23 Aasgaard, Childhood of Jesus, 99-101. Aasgaard ultimately rejects the puer senex theory, concluding that Jesus is not only true God and true human, he is true God and true child (157).

24 Cf. the onlookers responses to Jesus miracles and teachings at 4.1, 6.2c, and 9.3, which shift from astonishment to wonder to glorification.

194 eastman


NT and Apocrypha

The most obvious source, and the one to which IGT scholars have typically turned first, is of course the New Testament.25 Jesus cursing of the fig tree (Mark 11:12-22; Matt 21:18-19) is the closest match here, and indeed in form it has clear parallels with the cursing in IGT of the son of Annas, as a side-by-side comparison makes clear:

Matt 21:19 (RSV) IGT 3.2And seeing a fig tree by the wayside he went to it, and found nothing on it but leaves only. And he said to it, May no fruit ever come from you again. And the fig tree withered immediately.

And Jesus, seeing what had happened, said to him: Your fruit [will be] without root and your shoot withered like a branch singed in a strong wind. And straightaway that child withered.

In both passages, Jesus is annoyed when his will is hindered in some way; in Matthew, he is angered at the fig trees lack of fruit when he is hungry, while in IGT he is angered when the son of Annas breaks the dams he has made in a stream and reprimands him for building them on the Sabbath. In both passages, Jesus reacts by placing a curse of fruitlessness on the object of his ire, resulting in its becoming withered (). In light of the similarity between the passages, it seems likely that the author of IGT was at least famil-iar with the text of Matthew; certainly the most likely reason to employ such arboreal terminology as fruit and withering would seem to be the prece-dent set by the canonical Jesus.26 The Matthean passage is also similar in other respects, for it both depicts the curse as accomplished immediately and as a lesson for the apostles concerning the power of faith. Nevertheless, it must be conceded that the curse is not reversed. Moreover, it is also extremely mild when compared to the harsh curses of IGT.

Other references to cursing in the New Testament are few and far between. While Jesus does instruct his followers to curse disbelieving towns, such instructions are at best ambiguous in their applicability.27 Similarly, the curses of Peter and Paul in Acts (5:1-11: Ananias and Sapphira; 13:11: Elymas), while

25 Cf. Gero, Infancy Gospel, 59-61; Hock, Infancy Gospels, 93; Burke, De Infantia, 278.26 Scholars have generally stressed the gospels of Luke and John as primary influences on

IGT (e.g. Aasgaard, Childhood of Jesus, 132-134; Burke, De Infantia, 204; Hock, Infancy Gospels, 98), but in this case, the evidence appears stronger for Matthew.

27 Cf. Luke 9:54-56 and 10:10-15, which appear to give conflicting views on the acceptability of cursing.



closer in their result (death and blinding), nevertheless fall short of true paral-lel status, in that they are not reversed and thus appear to be more punitive than educational in nature. The extra-canonical acts of the apostles provide no closer parallels. In the Acts of John (51), the apostle heals a youth whose hands had withered after he received the Eucharist, having previously killed his paramour. Conversely, in the Acts of Peter (32), the apostle heals his daugh-ter of her disabled condition in order to demonstrate Gods power to bystand-ers, only to subsequently reverse the healing when the lesson is understood. Although the miracles here are not curses, they are both explicitly educational, and both include an aspect of reversal (though in very different ways). Despite these similarities, however, it is difficult to make a strong case for cursing paral-lels in New Testament literature, canonical or otherwise. By far the strongest parallel appears to be that of the fig tree in Matthew, but, as we have seen, this is hampered by the curses lack of reversal and inherent mildness when com-pared to the IGT curses.

Gnostic Redeemer

Much of the history of IGT scholarship has been dominated by an associa-tion of IGT with Gnosticism, fueled by its erroneous (albeit understandable) initial identification as the Gospel of Thomas first mentioned by Hippolytus and Origen. This association has faded somewhat since the discovery of the real Gospel of Thomas among the Nag Hammadi texts in 1945. Nevertheless, for many years (beginning with Tischendorf and continuing for well over a century) the common explanation for Jesus miracles in IGT was that they were indicative of a docetic Christology.28 In other words, the apparent lack of development in the young Jesus, his supernatural powers, omniscience, claims of pre-existence, and his obscure explanation of the letter alpha (here seen as a glimpse of secret knowledge), were all cited as signs of his purely divine, non-human nature. The problems with this position are manifold. Aside from the fact that similar claims might be made for other canonical texts which display a relatively high Christology (e.g. John), there is in fact much in IGT which points to a very human Jesus, from the mentions of him playing (2.1, 9.1), jumping (6.2e), and laughing (8.1), to his immediate reactions to cor-poral punishment (5.2-3, 13.2). In any case, the Gnostic explanation for Jesus

28 For a list of the scholarship which followed this theory, see Burke, De Infantia, 274 n. 2. On the Gnostic origin theory in general and its problems, see ibid., 269-75; Aasgaard, Childhood of Jesus, 150-1.

196 eastman


miracles does nothing to account specifically for the curses; rather, in attribut-ing IGT to heretical sources, its chief purpose (at least post-Nag Hammadi) has arguably been apologetic.

Greco-Roman Divine Man

Although most of the scholarly discussion of IGT has focused on possible parallels within early Christianity, there were many other examples of mir-acle-working in antiquity. The ancient Mediterranean world was home to a panoply of figures who straddled the divide between natural and supernatu-ral, in one commentators words a mob of divine or deified men and their many varieties.29 For our purposes, two types of figures stand out. The first is the biographical figure of the divine philosopher, the wise man who stands above the rest of humanity, and thus closer to God, in his wisdom and insight.30 Examples of this paradigm include Apollonius of Tyana, Pythagoras, Plotinus, and Origen, as characterized by their biographers. Indeed, the portrayals of these figures as possessors of arcane wisdom, naturally gifted with superior intellectual skills and in some cases also able to effect miracles, have much in common with the young Jesus of IGT. In particular, biographies which men-tion the philosophers childhood can be compared side-by-side with IGT in the search for literary parallels.31 Thus, we find in Philostratus Life of Apollonius the following account of his childhood:

Even before the age of schooling, he revealed both strength of memory and power of attention, and his tongue had the Attic dialect, nor was his voice led astray by his countrymen, and all eyes were carried toward him,

29 M. Smith, Prolegomena to a Discussion of Aretalogies, Divine Men, the Gospels and Jesus, Journal of Biblical Literature 90,2 (Jun., 1971) 174-199, 184. The term divine man ( ) has been used often and widely to describe these figures; I avoid it here due to its ambiguity and thus its limited utility for this study. For a recent and helpful critical analysis of the concept, see E. Koskenniemi, Apollonius of Tyana: A Typical ? Journal of Biblical Literature 117,3 (1998) 455-467, 456-460.

30 The paradigm of the divine philosopher is fully explored in Cox, Biography, 17-44.31 Hock (Infancy Gospels, 96-97) notes this in passing, though he does not examine any

particular cases. Burke (De Infantia, 250-261) includes a lengthy section on childhood biography, including biographies of philosophers (256-258).



for in that time he was admired by all....[and] even so he apprehended the matters of Pythagoras with an unspoken wisdom.32

The stress on Apollonius childhood ability is obviously meant to prefigure his future greatness as a wise man, just as Jesus childhood miracles and teaching of his teachers prefigure his own future status as a miracle-worker and teacher. And yet there are substantial differences even in this area, for while Apollonius at least goes through the motions of attending his lessons and learning from his teachers, the Jesus of IGT does neither of these, but immediately proclaims his superiority and confounds (or kills) his teachers. By contrast, it is only as an adult that Apollonius, Plotinus, and others come into their own as teachers. The parallel becomes even weaker when we take into account the lack of curs-ing in the Life of Apollonius. Although he does perform several healings,33 at no time does he curse. Nor do we find curses among other divine philosophers.

In fact, there was another figure in Greco-Roman antiquity who was spe-cifically connected with cursing, namely the magician (; occasionally or ). Prima facie, the identification of Jesus as a magician pos-sesses some viability, not least because of the extreme elasticity of the con-cept of magician and magic in the ancient world. Certainly in terms of his miracle-working, the canonical Jesus can be compared with other itinerant holy men whose acts were variously described as miracles or magic by their admirers and detractors.34 There are, however, two problems with the figure of the magician as a model for the cursing stories in IGT. First, in contrast to the highly respected divine philosopher, or even the itinerant holy man, the magician who engaged in cursing was typically a figure of contempt or of fear.35

32 Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 1.7 (LCL): , , , , , , .... .

33 Of the four healings mentioned in 3.39, only two are described in detail: a man with a dislocated hip is healed using massage therapy, and a pregnant woman with recurring labor pains is induced to give birth when her husband releases a live hare from his bosom. These healings are a far cry from the instantaneous, word becomes deed healings of IGT.

34 The struggle over where to draw the line between magic and miracle is clearly seen in Origens Against Celsus, which specifically rebuts the pagan Celsus accusation that the miracles of Jesus are no different than the magic of magicians (see esp. 2.49), and in Irenaeus Against the Heresies, in which he accuses Marcion of practicing magic (1.13.3). Nor was this struggle unique to Christians; Philostratus is at pains to note that Apollonius never practiced magic, contrary to the opinions of this detractors (Life of Apollonius, 1.2).

35 F. Graf, Magic in the Ancient World (Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press, 1997) 27.

198 eastman


Cursing was explicitly forbidden by imperial Roman law, and a charge of prac-ticing magic was taken very seriously.36 This makes it unlikely that the com-poser of IGT would intentionally model the curses of Jesus on those of the magician. Second, and more significantly, the curses of IGT bear almost no resemblance to those found in our primary records for magical cursing prac-tice, namely the Greek magical papyri and curse tablets. The child Jesus curses consist of fairly simple, spoken commands, publically proclaimed and imme-diately effective. As noted above, they are direct results of slights to his person, though all are later reversed when those around Jesus recognize his identity as a great teacher. It might further be mentioned that Jesus does not call on God to accomplish the curses; the agency appears to be solely his own. All of these aspects may be contrasted with the curses found in the papyri and curse tablets, which typically call on chthonic powers (though, at least in the case of the papyri, any deity of reputable power, including Jesus, might be named) to accomplish some hindrance of their target, often on account of legal, roman-tic, or economic motives.37 In lieu of the simple, open commands of the child Jesus, we find a variety of formulae, ranging from lists of names to elaborate rituals requiring various magical accoutrements in the magical papyri. It need hardly be added that magicians and their clients were not interested in cursing for didactic purposes, and thus curses enacted by magicians were unlikely to be reversed. It is thus highly improbable that the curses in IGT have any basis on the practiceseither real or literary38of the magician in classical antiq-uity. As it happens, there was another, much more accessible and esteemed figure within Christianity, who was also known to curse his opponents: this was the prophet of the Hebrew Bible.

36 For Roman legislation against magic, see Graf, Magic, 35, 41-43, 46-47. The most famous example of a charge of magic in antiquity is of course that of Apuleius; for an analysis of his court defense, see ibid., 65ff.

37 M. Dickie, Magic and Magicians in the Greco-Roman World (New York: Routledge, 2003) 16, notes that the earliest curse tablets were employed to silence ones opponents in court, though their use soon expanded to include curses aimed at prostitutes and their associates (81ff), and by the late Roman Empire also encompassed competitive athletes such as wrestlers and charioteers (282-8).

38 Interestingly, the magician in classical literature was almost invariably a female figure, which is another reason why it would not fit IGT (Graf, Magic, 184ff).



Septuagint Prophets

Early Christians would have been familiar with the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, known as the Septuagint. Within this text, the most spectacular curses are those attributed to the prophets Elijah and Elisha. These curses are typically of two sorts; for ease of description, let us call them the prophetic and the spontaneous. The former sort are judgments of God upon the unrigh-teous, which are revealed beforehand and at times effected by the prophet. Examples of these are Elijahs prophecies of the deaths of Ahab (1 Kings 21:17-29) and Ahaziah (2 Kings 1). The latter sort, the spontaneous, are judgments of the prophet himself, and are accomplished by the prophet through the power of God. Examples of these are Elijahs killing of the two companies of soldiers sent to bring him to the king (2 Kings 1:9-12), Elishas cursing of the small boys who mock him on the road and are subsequently mauled by bears (2 Kings 2:23-24), Elishas cursing of his servant with leprosy for being greedy (2 Kings 5:20-27), and Elishas blinding of a Syrian army (2 Kings 6:18). At first glance, the spontaneous curses have much in common with those of IGT. First, they are all accomplished immediately. Second, some of them (esp. the cursing of the small boys) echo the curses of the IGT Jesus against those who insult or annoy him. Third, one of them (the blinding of the Syrian army) is actually reversed (2 Kings 6:20), and also shares the theme of education, for we are told that after this experience the Syrians stopped raiding the land of Israel (2 Kings 6:23).

Tony Burke lays great significance on the parallels between Elijah and Elisha and the IGT Jesus, with regard not only to their curses but also to their other miracles (e.g., purifying water, raising the dead).39 In Burkes view, these figures were influential both directly and through the medium of other, later Jewish holy men. In particular, he cites such Jewish charismatics as Hanina ben Dosa and Honi the Circle-Drawer, both of whom performed miracles (but not curses) in Palestine during the late Second Temple period.40 While these figures are certainly interesting, not least for their similarities to the Jesus of the canonical gospels, they bear less resemblance to the Jesus of IGT.41 More

39 Burke, De Infantia, 279-280.40 Ibid., 276-277. For more on Hanina ben Dosa, see G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew: A Historians

Reading of the Gospels (London. William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd, 1973) 72-80). On Honi, see ibid., 69-72; J. Goldin, On Honi the Circle-Maker: A Demanding Prayer, Harvard Theological Review 56,3 (July 1963) 233-7.

41 Burke offers only one parallel here, between the child Jesus elongation of a plank for his father Joseph and the story of Rabbi Hanina ben Dosas stretching of a beam for one of

200 eastman


helpful in this regard are the portraits of Christian holy men influenced by the Elijah/Elisha tradition. Burke is on the right track when he asserts that the image of the holy man in the style of Elijah was adopted early in Christian imagination and was retained at least through the time of Theodoret in the fifth century.42 The mention of Theodoret is a reference to the holy men of the hills surrounding Antioch, who performed punitive miracles as displays of their power and authority.43 These early Christian ascetics, who typically lived alone in the wilderness (though many attracted followers), were described by Theodoret of Cyrrhus in his Religious History (c. 440).44 Perhaps because of the rather late date of Theodorets work, Burke devotes only a couple of sentences to this topic. The parallels between these Syrian holy men and the IGT Jesus are, however, extensive, and therefore deserve fuller attention.

Syrian Ascetics

The ascetics of Syria have generally received rather less attention than their brethren in Egypt. It was, after all, in Egypt that such famous monks as Antony the Great, Macarius of Alexandria, and Didymus the Blind lived.45 Moreover, it was in Egypt that the great coenobitic settlements flourished, in which thou-sands of monks lived together, and it was to Egypt that most of the pilgrims and tourists flocked, drawn by the accounts of monastic life in such works as Athanasius Life of Antony, Palladius Lausiac History, and the History of the Monks in Egypt, made available to the western empire through Rufinus Latin translations. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that, from at least the early fourth century, the Syrian countryside was home to countless anchorites, as

his neighbors (Babylonian Talmud, Taanit 25a, cited in Burke [De Infantia, 327 n. 9]). This single parallel does not, however, do anything to explain IGTs curses. More intriguing for its pedagogic significance is the parallel between the miracle of Jesus carrying water in his cloak and the young Ezra doing a similar deed, to the wonder of his teacher ( Jeremiah Apocryphon, 32). A. Marmorstein (Die Quellen des neuen Jeremia-Apocryphons, Zeitschrift fr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der lteren Kirche 27 [1928] 327-337, 337) postulated a third or fourth century date for this apocryphon, which would support a similarly late dating of IGT, as I argue below (205f).

42 Burke, De Infantia, 279.43 Ibid.44 P. Canivet and A. Leroy-Molinghen (eds), Thodoret de Cyr. Lhistoire des moines de Syrie,

2 vols, Sources chrtiennes 234, 257 (Paris. ditions du Cerf, 1977, 1979).45 The exception here is of course the famous Syrian ascetic Symeon Stylites, but I think this

is a case of the exception marking the rule.



Theodorets Religious History makes plain.46 One way in which these ascet-ics differed from those in Egypt was that they were much more likely to live alone than in communities (hence the name anchorite). As Peter Brown has argued, the relative lushness of the Syrian countryside in comparison with the Egyptian desert made it possible for ascetics to survive alone in the wilderness, often without even any shelter.47 This is not to say that these men (and occa-sionally women) had no interaction with the inhabitants of towns and villages. On the contrary, in a landscape that was split between the authority of the Roman military and the rural patron (), they performed essential services as mediators and arbitrators among the farmers, and at times even between the farmers and the political elite.48 They were, moreover, sought out by laity and bishops alike in their role as possessors of spiritual author-ity, mediators between humanity and God.49 They thus wielded considerable power and influence.

One of the primary ways in which this power manifested itself was the per-formance of miracles. The tales recounted by Theodoret in his Religious History contain an astounding number of miracles of all sorts, including curses. The miracles vary widely in scope, from the fatal cursing of an Arian propagandist, to the taming of lions and even the curing of an equine bladder infection.50 They also vary widely in setting; the earliest anchorites described date to the beginning of the fourth century, while the latest figures were still alive at the time of Theodorets writing (c. 440).51 As one might expect, it is to the earliest figures that the most miracles are ascribed. Historicity is, despite Theodorets own assertions to the contrary, not a deciding factor in his selection of which miracles to relate, even in cases where they are easily proved historically

46 Given the lack of sources and archaeological data, it is difficult to postulate at what time the ascetic lifestyle began to be practiced in Syria. S. Brock (Early Syrian Asceticism, Numen 20, fasc. 1 [Apr., 1973] 1-19, 3-4), citing the Old Syriac version of Luke and its use in the Syriac Church, argues that Syrian asceticism went back to the very beginnings of Christianity. R.M. Price (A History of the Monks of Syria [Kalamazoo, MI. Cistercian Publications, 1985] xix) is more cautious: Christian asceticism was strong and widespread in this region as early as 340.

47 P. Brown, The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity, Journal of Roman Studies 61 (1971) 80-101, 83.

48 Ibid., 85-87.49 See Price, History, xxixff.50 Theodoret, Religious History, 2.21, 6.2, 8.11.51 For a chronological list, see Price, History, xvi-xvii.

202 eastman


inaccurate.52 In any case, the historical authenticity of the miracles which were recorded by Theodoret is not our present concern; for the purposes of this study, it is enough to note the existence of a rich, mythopoetic milieu sur-rounding the lives and deeds of holy men in fourth-century Syria.

This penchant for mythopoeia is shown clearly in the case of James of Nisibis (d. 337/8), the first holy man described in the Religious History, and also the one to whom the most curses were attributed. Here we find several curses which are not only similar to those of IGT, but are explicitly compared by Theodoret to those of the Septuagint prophets. Let us take, as an example, the very first episode, which actually occurs in Persia. In this story, the ancho-rite James, emerging from the wilderness clad in his goat-hair tunic, passes by a spring where some local, pagan girls are washing their clothes. Annoyed at the girls brazen looks and lack of modesty, James decides to display Gods power opportunely, in order to free them from impiety.53 He curses the spring, which dries up, and the girls, whose hair turns grey. When the girls parents supplicate him to reverse the curses, he agrees, and restores the spring, though not the girls dark hair, since they are too shy to show themselves: but when [the girls] did not appear he let the punishment stand, as a lesson [] in self-control, a reason for good behavior, and a perpetual and clear reminder of the power of God.54 The similarity of this account to the curses of IGT is striking. The curse is (1) performed in response to a perceived personal slight, (2) takes immediate effect, (3) is later partially reversed, and (4) has a clear didactic purpose. Citing both Elisha and Jesus as examples, Theodoret empha-sizes both the moderation and the educational utility of the curse:

He did not, like the great Elisha, hand over those shameless girls to car-nivorous bears, but applying a harmless correction that involved only a slight disfigurement he gave them a lesson in both piety and good behavior. I do not say this to accuse the prophet of harshnessmay I be spared such follybut to show how, while possessing the same power,

52 Indeed, in some cases Theodoret contradicts himself; his Religious History (1.10) ascribes the death of Arius to James of Nisibis in Nicaea, while his Church History (1.13) correctly sets Arians death in Constantinople, eleven years later. Nevertheless, Theodoret repeatedly defends the authenticity of the miracles which he relates, often citing similar scriptural miracles as supporting evidence (e.g., Religious History, Prologue 10-11, 26.17; Church History, Prologue 13).

53 Theodoret, Religious History 1.4.16-19. Translations of Theodorets Religious History follow those of Price, History.

54 Ibid., 1.4.37-40.



he performed what accorded with the gentleness of Christ and the new covenant.55

In explaining this episode, Theodoret follows the same path as have some mod-ern scholars with regard to IGT. The curses of James and those like him derive ultimately from the Hebrew Bible prophets, but they are tempered by the gen-tleness of Jesus; they receive their efficacy not from the blow of a rod, as with Moses miracles, but from the sign of the cross.56 Theodoret repeats this idea at intervals throughout the text, and especially in his account of James. Thus when James causes a stone to explode next to an unjust judge, Theodoret com-pares it with Jesus cursing of the fig tree (Matt 21:19), and stresses the didactic power of the moderate curse: He did not chastise the unjust judge but by strik-ing a stone taught him justice.57 Or, to take another example, when James calls down a plague of mosquitoes on an invading Persian army and causes them to retreat, Theodoret makes the comparison between Elijahs immolation of the two companies of soldiers sent to bring him to the king (2 Kings 1:10-12) and Jesus negative response to his disciples suggestion to immolate an inhos-pitable village (Luke 9:55). By merely afflicting the Persians with mosquitoes, James leaves open the chance that they will at some later date learn piety.58

Thematically, these curses have much in common with those of IGT, but it must be admitted that they represent fairly mild parallels to the lethal curses of the young Jesus. Somewhat more severe is Theodorets account of a man who climbs a tree in order to peer into the hut of the secretive anchorite Acepsimas. The man is immediately paralyzed, and thus maintains a posture of supplica-tion until the tree is cut down, whereupon he is healed.59 In fact, there are also several examples of fatal curses in the Religious History, but they are not immediate in effect, and incline toward the prophetic curses of the Hebrew Bible. For example, a eunuch who had insulted the ascetic Aphrahat falls into a hot bath he is preparing for the emperor (Valens) and so dies. In Theodorets view, the curse is both punitive and edificatory. The eunuch, who had repeat-edly threatened Aphrahat with death, paid the penalty for his insolence.

55 Theodoret, Religious History, 1.5.4-11.56 Ibid., 1.5.2-3. For an analysis of Theodorets use of biblical typologies in the Religious

History, see D. Krueger, Typological Figuration in Theodoret of Cyrrhuss Religious History and the Art of Postbiblical Narrative, Journal of Early Christian Studies 5,13 (Fall 1997) 393-419.

57 Theodoret, Religious History, 1.6.13-14.58 Ibid., 1.13.14-15.59 Ibid., 15.3.

204 eastman


Consequently, Fear fell on the emperor and on all those in arms against piety.60 These sorts of curses, while they lack the immediacy (and subsequent reversal) of those in IGT, are thus nonetheless similar with regard to their cause (personal offense) and effect (semi-didactic). A second explanation for the relative mildness of most of the curses in the Religious History compared to those in IGT is the respective settings of the two texts. Most of the curses in the Religious History occur either in pagan lands, directed against pagans (e.g., James of Nisibis in Persia), or in Christian lands against heretics and figures seen as dangerous to the faith (e.g., Arius, Valens). According to Theodoret, the relative mildness of (most of) these curses can be accounted for by their tem-poral setting; they occur during a time when Christianity has gained a strong foothold in the world, and thus they are (mostly) fairly mild in nature. The situ-ation in the first years of Christianity was, however, quite different. Theodoret makes this clear when he defends Peters fatal cursing of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-10): The divine Apostle did not release the dead from their misfor-tune, for terror was needed in the first stage of proclaiming salvation.61 Seen in this light, the curses of the IGT Jesus become more understandable, especially if the compiler of IGT shared Theodorets view.

Finally, in addition to the similarities between cursing stories, we may note the presence of other parallels between the miracles of IGT and those of the Syrian holy men. For example, the killings of the vipers by Jesus in IGT (15.2) and Marcianus in the Religious History (3.7.9-13) are quite similar. Both accounts share (1) an allusion to the miraculous efficacy of breath and (2) a description of the literal destruction of the viper, either by drying up or breaking into pieces.62 Admittedly the accounts have different foci; IGT con-centrates on the healing of Jesus brother James, while the story of Marcianus focuses on the miraculous destruction of the snake. The stories are similar enough, however, to make a connection between the two plausible. Another similar miracle involves the raising of the dead to exculpate the living. In IGT, Jesus raises a child who has died accidentally, in order for the child to tell his parents that Jesus did not kill him (Gs 9.3). A similar story is told of the hermit

60 Theodoret, Religious History, 8.9.6, 8.10.1-2.61 Ibid., 1.9.9-11.62 One Syriac version of IGT describes the serpent as dried up here, while Ga has burst

apart (). See Burke, De Infantia, 333 n. 12, 526. A similar account is told of the Egyptian ascetic Ammonas, who reportedly caused a basilisk to burst apart () through prayer (Apophthegmata Patrum, Ammonas 2 [PG 65,120B]).



Palladius, who, accused of a murder he did not commit, raises the victim and has him point to the actual murderer.63

Tradition History: Which Came First?

This brings us to the question of tradition history. Namely, were the cursing nar-ratives in the Religious History influential in the formation of IGT? In answer-ing this question, we should first recall the early evidence for a textual IGT: the latest possible date of composition is set by the fifth-century Latin manu-script LV, but the references to Jesus childhood miracles by John Chrysostom (Antioch) and Epiphanius (Cyprus) in the late fourth century point to a prob-able existence of an IGT text already at that time (though not necessarily one including the curses). In addition, we know that the central story of Jesus and the teacher was already in wide circulation (though in a much shorter form) much earlier, in the late second century (as noted by Irenaeus). I am thus inclined to follow Geros theory of a long period of oral transmission and elab-oration of this story. I would further suggest that the composition (or compila-tion) of a complete IGT text did not occur until sometime in the mid-fourth century, probably in Syria. This text would have arisen in the same atmosphere as the miracle stories about the Syrian ascetics (which were also in oral circula-tion at this time), and in fact it likely draws on these stories as source material.

There are several factors that support this theory. First, there are the strong parallels between the cursing stories of the Syrian ascetics and those of the IGT Jesus, noted above. Second, there are the additional parallels between other miracle stories, such as the destruction of the viper. And third, in light of Theodorets propensity for drawing explicit parallels between the deeds of Syrian holy men and biblical figures, we may conjecture that he was not aware of IGT. If he had known of the curses attributed to the IGT Jesus, he would likely have mentioned them parenthetically in the Religious History, given their clear similarities to the curses attributed to figures such as James of Nisibis.64 It is therefore highly improbable that IGT was a source for the curses in the Religious History; rather, the most likely scenario is that the curse stories,

63 Theodoret, Religious History, 7.3.64 Whether Theodoret would have approved of IGT is difficult to say, though likely he would

not. We do know that he confiscated 200 copies of the Diatesseron, the amalgamated gospel created by Tatian from the four canonical gospels, from the churches of his diocese, where they had been held in honor (Theodoret, Haereticarum fabularum compendium, 20 [PG 83,372]). Since he was not willing to countenance a text which excised parts of

206 eastman


developing orally within the framework of Syrian ascetic mythopoeia (perhaps with some influence from the stories of the Septuagint prophets), were attrib-uted to a variety of figures and gradually became individualized in accordance with these attributions. Indeed, we can see evidence of just such a process in two of the curses of James of Nisibis: the cursing of the pagan girls is attributed elsewhere to Jacobs follower Ephrem, while Jacobs accidental killing of a man pretending to be dead (the man dies in truth when Jacob performs his funeral rites) is elsewhere ascribed to both Gregory Thaumaturgus and Epiphanius.65 The ease with which these miracles were attributed to different holy men indi-cates not only the fluidity of such narratives in their initial stages, but also a social environment in which miracle stories were, so to speak, very much in demand. Such an environment would have been well-suited to the develop-ment and composition of IGT.

Conclusions

The foregoing investigation has had two goals: first, to establish some common features for the curses in IGT, and second, to identify ancient miracle-working paradigms which might prefigure the presence, form, and function of IGTs curses. With regard to the former, we find that the curses of the child Jesus are all invoked as responses to personal slights, all achieved instantaneously, and all reversed at a later point. Moreover, while the curses initially appear purely punitive in function, their later reversal in response to Jesus recognition as a teacher of teachers reveals their ultimate function in the text as didactic tools. Applying these criteria to other ancient instances of cursing, we find that the IGT Jesus can be viably compared to several other miracle-working figures in antiquity, namely the prophets of the Hebrew Bible (especially Elijah and Elisha), the figures of Jesus and his apostles in the New Testament and its apocrypha, and certain Jewish and Christian holy men active in Asia Minor during the first four centuries CE. Narrowing the search still further, we find that among these latter holy men, the ascetics of northern Syria described in Theodorets Religious History bear the closest resemblance to the IGT Jesus in terms of their punitive miracles.

This in turn leads to additional conclusions. First, although some of the sto-ries in IGT doubtless existed in oral (and perhaps even written) form from as

scripture, it seems reasonable that he would hardly have been willing to accommodate a text which appended more information to the four gospels.

65 See Price, History, 21 n. 1.



early as the second or even first century, it is likely that the cursing stories (and perhaps some of the other miracles as well) did not become incorporated into IGT until the fourth century, and moreover that this occurred in the Syrian ascetic milieu. Thus, while the literary figures of the prophets, the NT Jesus, and the apostles were no doubt influential with regard to the formation of IGTs miracle cycle, the equal influence of contemporary stories about Syrian holy men should not be discounted. Finally, we may remark that the above comparison of these curses has yielded substantial evidence for two theories regarding the composition of IGT, namely the texts lengthy initial period of oral transmission and its Syrian origin.

Appendix: Miracles and Teaching in IGT66

Position: Gs (Ga)67

Type:(M = miracle,T = teaching)

Synopsis:

2.1 M Jesus, five years old, purifies water that he has gathered into pools in a stream.

2.4 M Jesus animates clay sparrows which he has made.

3.2-3 M (curse) The son of Annas destroys the pools that Jesus has made and reprimands him for breaking the commandment against work on the Sabbath. Jesus curses him and he withers away.

4.1 M (curse) Jesus curses a running child who bumps into him. The child dies immediately.

5.1 M (curse) Jesus blinds those accusing him of misconduct.

66 The content presented here is that which occurs in both Gs and the early non-Greek ver-sions. Gs 1 (prologue) and 10 (healing of a young mans foot) are not included as they represent later additions. Also absent are passages from Tischendorf s longer edition of the text (Ga) which are not supported by Gs and the early versions; thus, Ga 17 (healing of a dead infant) and Ga 18 (healing of a dead workman) are omitted as later additions.

67 Gs = Codex Sabaiticus 259, published in Burke, Infantia; Ga = Tischendorf s longer recen-sion, published in Tischendorf, Evangelia. Note that for the first nine chapters, the num-bering is identical for Gs and Ga. Following the story of Zeno in the ninth chapter, the numbering diverges, and the parallel passages in Ga are noted in parentheses.

208 eastman


6 T Jesus reveals his pre-existence and omniscience and explains the properties of the letter alpha to the teacher Zacchaeus.

7 T Zacchaeus laments being shamed by a child and exalts Jesus as a god or angel.

8.1-2 M (healing) Jesus reverses his previous curses.9.3 M Several days later, Jesus is wrongly blamed for

the accidental death of the child Zeno. He raises Zeno from death and questions him to excul-pate himself.68

10.2 (11.2) M Jesus, now seven years old, carries water in his cloak while doing chores for his mother.

11.1-2 (12.1-2) M Jesus sows a miraculous harvest while working with his father.

12.2 (13.2) M Jesus, now eight years old, helps his father at work by elongating a plank for him.

13.2 (14.2) T, M (curse) Jesus kills his second teacher for hitting him.14.2-4 (15.2-4) T,

M (healing)A few days later, a third teacher tries to teach Jesus but instead listens to the child speaking awe-inspiring words. He glorifies Jesus as already full of wisdom; as a result Jesus raises his second teacher from the dead.69

15.2 (16.2) M (healing) Jesus heals his brother James of a snakebite and kills the snake.

17 (19) T Jesus, now twelve years old, teaches the elders in the Temple.

68 In Gs, Jesus returns Zeno to death after questioning him, but this is not supported by the early versions (nor by the other Greek mss.).

69 It should be noted that Jesus reversal of his curse here is not well-attested in the early non-Greek versions of the story. Burke postulates that this may be an apologetic addition of Gs (De Infantia, 332 n. 4).

Copyright of Vigiliae Christianae is the property of Brill Academic Publishers and its contentmay not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyrightholder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles forindividual use.

Eastman2015 - Cursing in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

Documents

Transcript of Eastman2015 - Cursing in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas