Tertullian and the Acts of Thecla or Paul_ - Barrier

8/9/2019 Tertullian and the Acts of Thecla or Paul_ - Barrier

1/15

1

T ERTULLIAN AND THE A CTS OF T HECLA OR P AUL ? R EADERSHIP OF THE A NCIENT

C HRISTIAN N OVEL AND THE I NVOCATION OF T HECLINE AND P AULINE A UTHORITY

by Jeremy W. Barrier,Brite Divinity School, Texas Christian University

Within this essay, I intend to discuss the Acts of Paul and Thecla1 in conjunction with

Tertullians de Baptismo for the purpose of shedding some light upon several issues

surrounding the teaching and baptism of Thecla, as well as the social and historical

impact that the Acts of Paul and Thecla had upon several communities within early

Christianity. In particular, I am interested in the Acts of Paul and Thecla (APTh)as an

early Christian novel2

, the readership of the novels3

, and the impact that they may havehad upon their readers. Within this essay, I intend to make the claimthat Tertullian is

uncomfortable with an authoritative text, entitled the Acts of Paul , which records a

tradition of Paul, where Paul authorizes a woman to teach, and as a result of her teaching

authorization, she also has the right to baptize. This Pauline tradition is threatening to

Tertullian because it threatens to undermine the necessity of a Bishop, who plays a

significant role in the baptismal process. I am going to make the argument that Tertullian

is concerned that the Cainite woman and others have found and are using a Pauline

tradition that threatens to eliminate the need for the hierarchical episcopate of the early

church, rendering the dominant orthodox model as useless.

I. Date

One of the first persons to make any mention of the APTh is Tertullian, who comments

on the writing in De Baptismo 17, when he states,

But if those Acts of Paul, which have been written wrongly,defend the example of Thecla for allowing women to teachand baptize, know that the presbyter in Asia who arrangedthose scriptures, as if to add a title of honor for Paul from


2/15

2

himself, was proved mistaken and confessed of doing it outof love of Paul, having to withdraw from his place. Indeed,how could we see to believe that Paul would give away towomen the ability to teach and baptize when it was notallowed for a woman to learn by her own right? Let them

keep silence, he says, and ask their husbands at home.4

This quote, along with the rest of de Baptismo was written sometime between the years

196 and 206. 5 It is the dating of de Baptismothat provides the terminus a quo for the

APTh. On the other hand the terminus ad quem is undecided. Jan Bremmer suggests a

date of 160 CE, because of the evidence on a Roman inscription of a Pompeia Sosia

Falconilla, the wife of a Roman consul in Sicily around the year 169 CE.6

Bremmer isconvinced that this Falconilla is the same one, mentioned in the APTh, who is the

daughter of Queen Tryphaena. 7 If this is true, then the date for writing the APTh falls

within a space of 40 years, being compiled within the peak of the popularity of the

ancient novel. 8 On the other hand, Hilhorst suggests that the passage of Jerome,

commenting upon Tertullians comment is significant in regards to the composition of

APTh.9 This is do to the fact that in addition to essentially repeating what Tertullian had

to say, Jerome adds conuictum apud Iohannem. With Jerome not being mistaken in his

assessment of Tertullian, this addition leads Hilhorst to conclude that the Acts of Paul

must have been written after Pauls death and before the death of the apostle John. This

would make the terminus ad quem between 68 CE and 98 CE. 10 Peter Dunn makes

several calculations in regards to the age of Thecla at the time of meeting Paul in the late

40s, and in turn settles on the date of 120 CE as the terminus ad quem.11 The dating of

the material is significant in part because it possibly changes who the readers of the text

would have been, roughly adding a potential 40 to 60 years on the estimates of Bremmer.


3/15

3

II. Issues of Interpretation: The Document or the Doctrine

In addition to the problem of dating the text, several other issues within the text must be

dealt with. 12 First, one needs to ask in what ways had the Acta Pauli been written

wrongly? 13 A likely conclusion is that Tertullian is addressing several problems in

regards to the incorrect teaching on the doctrine of baptism. In particular, he addresses

incorrect procedures of baptism and incorrect groups of people to perform baptisms. In

this discussion, Tertullian excludes women from performing baptisms. So, is this a

condemnation of the Acta Paulias a false document , or a condemnation of a false

doctrine within an otherwise generally received text of Christian communities? Or is it possible that Tertullian is condemning the doctrine and the document? For instance,

notice the ambiguity of the language of Tertullian in regards to what to call the Acta

Pauli.14 I am not addressing the textual debate over Codex Trecensis 523 and Mesarts

1545 text on whether or not the text actually says Acta Pauli. I believe that the responses

to Stevan Davies by Thomas Mackay and Willy Rordorf have been conclusive that we

are speaking of the Acts of Paul. 15 I think the ambiguity of Tertullians language is

over whether or not to consider the text as a respectable or disrespectable writing. In the

text, Tertullian suggests that they know that in Asia the presbyter who compiled 16 that

document, thinking to add of his own to Pauls reputation was found out. 17 First, one

cannot overlook the fact that the verb compiled (construxit), is clearly not a verb

indicating to write, which would typically go back to scribo, and does so in Tertullian

as demonstrated in the previous sentence in De Baptismo17.5. 18 This suggests that the

Asian presbyter did not write these Acta, but rather is an arranger, a compiler, or as one

might say within the modern era, a redactor . Typically, this fact is often overlooked in


4/15

4

the literature. 19 It is generally assumed that the presbyter wrote the Acts of Paul , or else

assumed that Tertullian was just wrong about the author. 20 If nothing else, the use of the

verb construxit is evidence that testifies to the difficult manuscript history of the Acts of

Paul . This especially demonstrates and explains how these writings (namely the Acts of

Paul and Thecla, 3 Corinthians, and Martyrium Pauli) circulated independently and also

as a unit. 21 This brings up another question (of which I do not believe can be answered

fully at this time). What contribution did the presbyter of Asia make to the compilation?

Interestingly enough, this allows for the possibility that Dunn, Hilhorst, and Bremmer are

correct in regards to the dating of the APTh. Some of the texts could go back to the latefirst century, while others (specifically the sections dealing with Queen Tryphaena and

Falconilla) are written later. Unfortunately, the text is not as clear as would like to be

assumed. In sum, the first point to be observed is that Tertullian does not doubt the

historical reality of a Thecla, but rather the disagreement is over the truth of Theclas

relationship with Paul, and in the role of women in Christianity. This is further reinforced

by the fact that Tertullian recognizes that this is not a text written out of someones

imagination, but might actually be a writing with pre-existent traditions that have been

placed together into one volume.

Moving on, this leads us to the second point concerning the problem of whether

Tertullian is condemning the document or the doctrine. Tertullian criticizes the example

of Thecla for allowing women to teach and to baptize. Hilhorst and others makes the

case that one must realize that Thecla never actually baptizes anyone, other than her self-

baptism. 22 This point is equally contended by Rordorf and Dunn from the opposite

perspective, where he claims that it was God who did the baptizing. 23 At this point, I


5/15

5

am bringing up both sides of the argument to demonstrate the potential discrepancy

between what Tertullian says about the APThand what the APTh actually say. If

Tertullian is aware of the Acta Pauli, it appears that (1) he has a different variant than the

manuscripts that have come down to readers today, (2) Tertullian is twisting a text to suit

his condemnation of the role of women teaching and baptizing within his social context,

or (3) we have yet to determine the meaning of Tertullians words. 24 So far, only the first

two options have been conceded by scholars. Misunderstanding has not been an option. It

seems to me that we have been misunderstanding Tertullian. In regards to this matter, I

will comment again on this point later. At this point, allow me to suggest that ourmisunderstanding of Tertullian has shadowed our ability to see that Tertullian is

condemning not the text, but is indeed condemning the doctrine.

The third point that I want to emphasize in the text deals with Tertullians mentioning

that the presbyter arranged eam scripturam (that document). What is the scripturam

referring to? Could this suggest a higher respect within his social context for these

writings that he is referring to? Obviously I am not suggesting canonical status, which

does not develop for another 120 to 150 years, but rather a regard for the Acta Pauli, in

the same way that he mentions the scripturae divinae just a few lines later in 18.2.

Scriptura is mentioned again in the next sentence of 18.2. To contrast this use of

scriptura with other examples, one only has to look at the first lines of the Adversus

Marcionem, which state

Nothing I have previously written against Marcion is any longer myconcern. I am embarking on a new work to replace the old one. My firstedition, too hurriedly produced, I afterwards withdrew, substituting afuller treatment. . .Thus this written work. . . 25


6/15

6

Within this brief passage, Tertullian refers to his present writing in five different ways,

yet never uses the word scriptura. On the other hand, the first time that Tertullian refers

to a passage from the Hebrew Bible, he expectedly states, quia scriptum sit (because it is

written). 26 This high respect for the Acts of Paul seems to be supported by Hippolytus

reference to Paul and the lion without hesitation as an orthodox tradition in his

Commentarium in Danielem 3.29. 27 Another possible support for this claim is Codex

Claromontanus, which locates AP within the Pauline epistles.

Summarizing the three major points stated thus far: (1) Tertullian is uncomfortable with

the compiled documents entitled the Acts of Paul, (2) There is a discrepancy between the Acts of Paul and Tertullian regarding whether or not Thecla was authorized to teach and

baptize, and (3) it appears that Tertullian (accidentally or intentionally) refers to the Acts

of Paul as Scripture, indicating a high regard for the writings. While this evidence is

more suggestive than definitive, it is nonetheless worthy of consideration that even

Tertullians language is incidentally respectful of the authority of the Acta Pauli within

the Christian communities that he is dealing with. If this be the case, then two things need

to be assumed concerning the readers of the APTh: (1) women (the ones baptizing) and

men (Tertullian) were reading this Christian novel in North Africa and Asia, and (2) it

was regarded as possessing authority within the Christian community 28 possibly at the

authoritative level of scriptura.

If Tertullian is threatened by the doctrinal authority of the APTh and not the document

in its entirety, then why does he feel threatened? Scholars have gone to great lengths

attempting to determine the orthodox/heterodox tendencies of the APTh, but up to this

point the major theories being put forward see a dialogue between the APTh and the


7/15

7

Pastorals, separate and apart from any relationship with the Acts of the Apostles.29 While

much has been gained in this endeavor, one weakness that seems to plague some of these

studies is the necessity to discredit Tertullians claim that an Asian presbyter put the Acta

Pauli together. 30 I find this to be a substantial weakness, not dealing with the evidence

carefully, even to the point of choosing textual possibilities merely because they work

to make a particular theory plausible. So, before proceeding forward, the question

remains unanswered, what was Tertullians problem with the APTh?

III. Tertullians problem with the APTh

Tertullian recognizes the inherent authority within the document. Is this authoritysupported in any other way? Is there any other evidence to suggest that the APTh were a

real threat to Tertullian? Consider de Baptismoa little closer. In chapter one, the text is

addressed to a certain woman teacher, apparently of Gnostic or Marcionite connections,

and perhaps an adherent of the Cainite sect., 31 She has been accused of withholding

baptism from people and denying the necessity of the sacrament of baptism. What is the

problem? Is it the woman? The lack of administering baptism? Both? Consider the

following. Tertullian complains of the woman not administering baptism. Problems: he

says in chapter one that a woman has no right to teach even correctly. This is

compounded by Tertullians emphasis upon the moving of the Holy Spirit in the water.

Chapters 5 through 8 emphasize this point strongly, looking at the example of Jesus at the

pool of Bethsaida when the angel would move over the water and a healing would take

place. 32 Tertullian makes the argument, most explicitly in chapter eight that the

imposition of the hand in benediction invites and welcomes the Holy Spirit. He goes on

to say that (h)uman ingenuity has been permitted to summon spirit to combine with


8/15

8

water. This is followed by a continuation of the panegyric on baptism 33, where

Tertullian strongly reinforces his arguments for baptism. What I want to emphasize at this

point is the connection that Tertullian makes between the individual who administers

baptism, the water, and the Spirit are all present to make this act of initiation a success.

But the key to understanding Tertullians comments in regards to Thecla in de

Baptismo 17, are found in chapter 14. The usual discussion of Tertullians comments

concerning the APTh revolves around the accuracy of Tertullians assessment that Thecla

was giving authorization to baptize. This discussion usually moves from Tertullian, back

into the APTh, where a search begins to see whether or not there is any evidence ofThecla baptizing. 34 The discussion then moves to Theclas (self?) baptism and whether or

not the Spirit baptized her, God baptized her, or she baptized herself. Before proceeding

any further, let us go back to Tertullian to look a little closer at Tertullians comments in

de Baptismo 13 and 14. In chapter 13, Tertullian repudiates his critics by reminding them

that:

there has been imposed a law of baptizing, and its form prescribed: Go,he says, teach the nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father andthe Son and the Holy Spirit. When this law was associated with that {wellknown} pronouncement, Except a man have been born again of water andthe Holy Spirit he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven, faith was

put under obligation to the necessity of baptism.

Tertullian moves from these affirmations of baptism in conjunction with the activity of

the Spirit to Pauls baptism. This requires an altogether shift in his argument, almost as if

Tertullian is reminded of the specific accusations made against Paul. Thus a full

discussion ensues in chapter 14 about Paul. He begins by saying Moreover they have

something to say about the apostle himself, immediately addressing an attack against

Paul himself. The defense of Paul centers on Pauls claim in 1 Corinthians 1:14-16 that


9/15

9

he did not come to Corinth to baptize, but to teach. The opponents of Tertullian have

deduced from this comment of Paul that baptism is unnecessary. Tertullian attempts to

explain Pauls comment, and then concludes his argument on Paul by stating,

On this account the apostle, a lover of peace, so as not to seem to claimeverything himself, said he was not sent to baptize but to preach. For

preaching comes first, baptizing later, when preaching has proceeded. But I suppose one who had permission to preach had also permission tobaptize.35

Tertullian has just reinforced his arguments for baptism by using a text, conjured up by a

dissenting party, where Paul states plainly that he did not come to baptize, and Tertullian

has made the extension that if one has the authority to teach, then they have the authorityto baptize also. De Baptismo 17 is becoming clearer. It is not a discussion of who

baptized Thecla in the APTh, but the discussion centers rather on the last conversation

between Paul and Thecla in APTh 3.41. Immediately after Theclas baptism she finds

Paul and says to him

I have received baptism, O Paul; for he who worked with you for thegospel has worked with me also for baptism. And Paul, taking her, led herto the house of Hermias and heard everything from her . . .And Theclarose up and said to Paul, I am going to Iconium. Paul answered, Go,teach the word of God.

This small pronouncement for Paul is the sticking point for Tertullian. At this point Paul

has clearly given a directive with authority to Go, teach the word of God reminiscent of

the statement made by Jesus to his disciples in Matthew 28:19, which Tertullian quoted

in chapter thirteen. Tertullian knows, because he has just argued for this, that if one is

authorized to teach, then they are authorized to baptize.

Now the question is: Why is this a problem for Tertullian? Is Tertullian really one who

is so strongly opposed to the leadership and speaking of women? Is this not the same


10/15

10

Tertullian, who is beginning to show Montanist tendencies, where it is common

knowledge that two women prophets stand at the origins of this movement? The issue at

stake is authority. Tertullian is concerned that the Asian Presbyter is drawing from a

tradition, possibly oral or possibly a written tradition that suggests that Paul has directly

supported and empowered a woman to teach and to baptize. This is a threat to authority

for Tertullian who is now facing threats to a system of authority within the local church

that cannot be overlooked. Look closely how Tertullian begins chapter 17 of de

Baptismo. He states:

To round off our slight treatment of this subject it remains for me to adviseyou of the rules to be observed in giving and receiving baptism. Thesupreme right of giving it belongs to the high priest, which is the bishop:after him, to the presbyters and deacons, yet not without commission fromthe bishop, on account of the Churchs dignity: for when this is safe, peaceis safe. Except for that, even laymen have the right.

Tertullian is aware that this tradition does not go back to the apostles, and concedes that

anyone has the right to administer baptism, knowing that the Lords disciples were not

bishops, presbyters or deacons, but then he highlights the thrust of his argument. 36 He

states, (o)pposition to the episcopate is the mother of schisms. Breaking outside of the

authorized hierarchy for baptizing is an emergency situation, and must regarded as such

and not standard practice. 37 Going further, Tertullian goes on to criticize not the

emergency/necessary rite of baptizing, but the problem of some women who are willing

to arrogate to themselves the function of a bishop and the right to baptize. The problem

here is whether or not the Cainite woman has the authority to teach. If so, according to

Tertullians earlier reasoning, then she has the right to baptize or not baptize.

Interestingly enough, Tertullian concedes at this point, that the Cainite woman is

apparently acting with some authority granted within a community. Tertullian goes so far


11/15

11

as to say But the impudence of that woman who assumed the right to teach is evidently

not going to arrogate to her the right to baptize as well. If this be the case, Tertullian

may be aware of his obvious limitations in restricting the ability of this woman to teach,

but if he can break the chain of reasoning that suggests that she can baptize also, then the

authority of the Bishop can be preserved and protected. The problem with the APTh is

that the Asian presbyter is drawing on a possible tradition of Paul that suggests that what

the Orthodox church has fought so hard to accomplish in the supremacy of the Bishop

can be countered by the words of Paul himself, the one apostle, other than John who is

most closely associated with Asia. After all, one only has to look at Ignatius to see what adifficult and persistent verbal battle that was waged to ensure the role of the bishops in

Asia, while knowing that this form of organization had probably not reached Rome yet,

in Ignatius day. The problem with the APTh is not that Thecla has baptized herself or not.

Paul has sanctioned her to teach, thus, in effect, she may baptize also. The startling fact is

not, as Dunn suggests, God himself baptizes her, but rather there is no hand of a bishop

to conjure the Holy Spirit in the rite, and the Holy Spirit still moves in the water. 38 This

clearly cuts out the necessity of a bishop, presbyter, or deacon in baptism. This is a direct

threat to Tertullian, who is being opposed by a Pauline tradition that supports the

teaching and preaching of Thecla, and more importantly undermines the hierarchy of the

church.

I believe that this is further supported by the fact that it has been sufficiently

demonstrated that the Acts of Paul show an independence from the Canonical Acts of the

Apostles.39 This has especially been demonstrated in the relationship of the conversion

stories of AA and the AP . It has been demonstrated that the author of the AP has been


12/15

12

gathering most of his information from such texts as Galatians, in contrast to the evidence

put forward from the AA.40 Other evidence showing the influence of Galatians upon the

AP is witnessed in other places such as 3 Corinthians that begins with an exhortation to

the Corinthians, very much like the rebuke of Galatians. To add to this, 3 Corinthians

quotes and modifies Galatians 3.17, at the close of 3 Corinthians. This letter of Paul has

clearly been an influencing factor on the Asian Presbyter. This is significant to my

argument, because it appears that the Asian Presbyter is following more closely the

process of the apostolic conversion more so than the account found in the AA. In thethe

APand within Galatians, no presbyter or ordained leader of the church is necessary forthe conferral of baptism or of the Holy Spirit. This further intensifies the problem of

Thecla, who experiences conversion in a manner on par with Paul. This is significant due

to the fact that the conversions of Paul and Thecla look more like the Pauline tradition

than do the AA. This is clearly a problem. Tertullian is forced to resist a pattern that needs

no water, no bishop, and no leader to wave the hand and conjure the Holy Spirit.

Tertullian is being forced to confront a conversion process that is clearly within the

Pauline tradition.

What I am suggesting is that the presbyter who has compiled the APTh is threatening

the leadership of the church by recalling a possible tradition that provides women with

the right to teach, and therefore the right to baptize is assumed. After all, it has become

clear that one cannot rule out the evidence of early women missionaries working

alongside Paul even from the texts that Tertullian and the Asian Presbyter are aware of,

namely the Pauline Epistles. One only has to go so far as 1 Corinthians 9:5, and realize

that the word gun usually rendered wife, has been argued strongly as possibly being


13/15

13

simply woman, thus leaving one with the possibility of women missionary partners. 41

This was first suggested by Clement of Alexandria 42, contemporary with Tertullian in the

second century. The APTh stands as a concrete example of this relationship of women

missionary partners working along with Paul.

Conclusion:

Such a view as this helps resolves several problems: First, the issue being addressed by

Tertullian is whether or not the APTh sanctions Thecla with authority to preach. If so, this

provides an alternate understanding of the Apostolic tradition. Second, it further explains

the heterodoxy of the APTh. While scholars have quickly acknowledged the orthodoxyon most points of the APTh, this could be an explanation of the problem, as specifically

mentioned by Tertullian. Third, it clearly tells us something of the readership of the

APTh. While being read as a novel in Asia, it is a loaded gun, in regards to issues of

authority, especially apostolic authority and tradition. Why? What has the potential of

greater influence? Ancient Novels or theological treatises and epistles? I think novels. In

conclusion, I am arguing for the recognition that (1) Tertullian is accurately portraying

the Acta Pauli, (2) he is indeed concerned about the authority that the Acts of Paul

possesses. (3) While Tertullian may be concerned about the document in general, I

believe that he is more concerned with the fact that the Asian presbyter has included a

tradition of Paul that undermines the necessity for a bishop, presbyter, or deacon to take

part in baptism, and (4) with the undermining the authority of these positions, the Asian

presbyter has elevated a variation of the Apostolic tradition, and as a result has made an

indirect push for the recognition that Paul ordained women to apostolic status.


14/15

14

1 The examination that I will provide will include the Acts of Paul and Thecla in a strict sense, excluding 3Corinthians, and the Martyrium Pauli. For complete texts of the Acts of Paul in English see J. K. Elliott,Ed., The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an EnglishTranslation based on M. R. James (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993); or Wilhelm Schneemelcher, Ed., New

Testament Apocrypha, Volume Two:Writings Relating to the Apostles; Apocalypses and Related Subjects (Trans. R. McL. Wilson; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992); and for Greek and Latin textssee Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha (Ed. Ricardus delbertus Lipsius and Maximilianus Bonnet; 2 vols.;Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1990). The most recent text that includes all of the published manuscriptsof the Acts of Paulis the French translation of Bovon, Franois, and P. Geoltrain, crits apocrypheschrtiens, I (Bibliothque de la Pliade; Index tablis par S. J. Voicu; Paris: Gallimard, 1997), 1115-77.2 To begin a study on ancient Novels, see Niklas Holzberg, The Ancient Novel: An Introduction (Trans.Christine Jackson-Holzberg; London and New York: Routledge, 1995), 1-27; Tomas Hgg, The Novel in Antiquity (Berkeley and Los Angeles: U of Cal P, 1983); James Tatum (ed.), The Search for the Ancient Novel (Baltimore and London: John Hopkins UP, 1994); or Gareth Schmeling (ed.), The Novel in the Ancient World (Leiden: Brill, 1996). For several examples boosting and emphasizing the ancient Christiannovel see Studies on the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, a seven volume series edited by Jan N. Bremmerthat highlights the significance and impact of these texts. See also Christine M. Thomas, TheActs of Peter ,

Gospel Literature, and the Ancient Novel: Rewriting the Past , (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2003; Steven L.Davies, The Revolt of the Widows: The Social World of the Apocryphal Acts (Carbondale and Edwardsville:Southern Illinois University Press, 1980); also see Robert F. Stoops, Jr., Guest Ed., Semeia 80: The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles in Intertextual Perspectives (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990); and DennisRonald MacDonald, Ed., Semeia 38: The Apocryphal Acts of Apostles (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986).3 Christine Thomas The Acts of Peter , 1-7; Jan N. Bremmer, The Apocryphal Acts: Authors, Place, Timeand Readership, The Apocryphal Acts of Thomas (Leuven: Peeters, 2001) 149-50.4 Tertullian, De Baptismo 17 lines 22-29. Taken from Latin and English texts in Ernest Evans, Tertullians Homily on Baptism: The text edited with an Introduction, Translation and Commentary (London: SPCK,1964), 36-7. The translation above is from Ernest Evans, Tertullians Homily On Baptism, London: SPCK,1964, 36-7, with some emendations of my own.5 See Ernest Evans, Tertullians Homily, 35-37, 97-101; or Tertulliani Opera: Pars I (CorpusChristianorum; Ed. J. G. Ph. Borleffs; Turnholti: Typographi Brepols Editores Pontificii, 1954) 291-92. Seealso several translations together in one article with thorough discussion by A. Hilhorst, Tertullian on theActs of Paul, The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla (Ed. Jan N. Bremmer; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996)150-53; and Hilhorst acknowledges that a more thorough discussion is provided by Willy Rordorf inTertullien et les Actes de Paul ( propos de bapt. 17,5), Lex orandi, lex credendi: gesammelte Aufstze zum 60, Geburtstag(Freiburg, Schweiz: Universittsverlag, 1993) 475-84.6 Bremmer, Apocryphal, 153.7 APTh 28-36; Bremmer, Apocryphal, 153.8 Ewen Bowie, The Readership of Greek Novels in the Ancient World, in James Tatum, Ed., The Search for the Ancient Novel (Baltimore and London: John Hopkins UP, 1994) 442-43; and Holzberg, The Ancient ,43. For an earlier dating, see Hgg, The Novel , 5-6. This is reinforced by J. Perkins, This World orAnother?, 248; Bremmer, Apocryphal Acts, 154.9 Tertullian, 158-59.10 Ibid., 158-61.11 Dunn, Peter Wallace, TheActs of Paul and the Pauline Lecacy in the Second Century (UnpublishedDissertation at the Queens College, University of Cambridge, 1996), 8-9.12 Here is a reproduction of most of 17.5 for further use in the section dealing with Tertullian is: quod siquae Acta Pauli, quae perperam scripta sunt, exemplum Theclae ad licentiam mulierum docenditinguendique defendant, sciant in Asia presbyterum qui eam scripturam construxit, quasi titulo Pauli de suocumulans, convictum atque confessum id se amore Pauli fecisse loco decessisse. This was taken fromEvans, Tertullians Homily 36-37, which is consistent with Codex Trecensis 523 and the edition produced

by Martini Mesnartii in 1545.13 Or, if using Evans text, quod si quae Acta Pauli, quae perperam scripta sunt.


15/15

15

14 I am assuming that Acta Pauliis the likely reading of the text, thus agreeing with the response presented by Thomas W. Mackay to Stevan L. Davies article, Women, Tertullian and the Acts of Paul , Semeia 38,139-49.15 Response of Thomas W. Mackay to Stevan L. Davies article, Women, Tertullian and the Acts of Paul ,Semeia 38, 139-49; and Willy Rordorf, Tertullien et les Actes de Paul ( propos de bapt.17,5) Autor de

Tertullien (Hommage Ren Braun; Nice: Association Publications de la Facult des Lettres et SciencesHumaines de Nice, 1990) 2:153-60. Reprinted in Lex Orandi-Lex Credendi: Gesammelte Aufstze zum 60.Geburtstag. (Paradosis 36: Freiburg: Universittsverlag Freiburg Schweiz, 1993), 475-84. 16 Schneemelcher, Wilhem translates this as produced, in New Testament Apocrypha, 214.17 Quoting from Evans, Tertullians Homily 37.18 Look at the Latin text of De Baptismoin footnote 42. For definitions, see Cassells Latin Dictionary (D.P. Simpson; New York: Macmillan, 1959), construo, contruere, construxi, constructum on 143 andscribo,scribere, scripsi, scriptum on page 539.19 Dunn, Peter W., Limage de Paul dans Les Acts de Paul, Foi et Vie 44.4 (1995) 75; Davies, Revolt ,108; MacDonald, Legend, 17.20 Davies, Revolt , 108.21 The unit is best demonstrated through the Coptic manuscript P. Heidelberg (5 th-6 th Century) that was

pieced together by Carl Schmidt; and also Bodmer X, a 3 rd century document demonstrating theindependent circulation of 3 Corinthians. See Elliott, The Apocryphal , 352.22 Hilhorst, Tertullian, 157-58. See also MacDonald, Dennis R. The Legend and the Apostle: The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983) 33.23 Dunn, Acts of Paul , 67.24 The sciant refers back to the mulierum. Hilhorst, Tertullian, 153.25 Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem 1.1.1 as reproduced in Tertullian: Adversus Marcionem (Ed. And Trans.Ernest Evans; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972) 2-3.26 Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, 1.7.127 See Thesaurus Linguae Graecae.28 The point of authority is hardly arguable, since the discussion in 17.4 begins by considering that the textis discussing some other (woman) should of her own authority confer it (baptism).29 Dunn, Acts of Paul , Part Two: The Relationship between the Acts of Paul and the Pastoral Epistles, 45-200; MacDonald, Legend , 54-77; Willy Rordorf, Lex Orandi-Lex Ceredendi: Gesammelte Aufstze zum 60.Geburstag. (Paradosis 36; Freiburg: Universittsverlag Freiburg Schweiz, 1993). 30 Davies, Revolt , 108; MacDonald, Legend , 17-18.31 Evans, Tertullians Homily, xi-xii.32 De Baptismo 5.33 Jensen, Robin M., Baptismal Rites and Architecture, A Peoples History of Christianity: Volume 2, Late Ancient Christianity(Ed. Virginia Burrus; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005) 120-22.34 Rordorf, Tertullien, 157.35 De baptismo, 14.36 Jensen, Late Ancient , 123-24.37 De Baptismo 17.38 Dunn, Acts of Paul , 67.39 Rordorf, Willy, Pauls Conversion in the Canonical Acts and in the Acts of Paul , Semeia 80: The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles in Intertextual Perspectives (Ed. Robert F. Stoops, Jr.; Atlanta: ScholarsPress, 1997),137-44. See also the Kasser text translated into French in Bovon, Franois, and P. Geoltrain,

crits apocryphes chrtiens, 1151-54.40 Rordorf, Pauls Conversion, 141.41 Osiek, Carolyn and Margaret Y. MacDonald with Janet H. Tulloch, A Womans Place: House Churchesin Earliest Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 27, 33.42 Miscellanies 3.6.53.3. As cited in A Womans Place.

Tertullian and the Acts of Thecla or Paul_ - Barrier

Documents

Transcript of Tertullian and the Acts of Thecla or Paul_ - Barrier