University of Groningen
The Apocryphal Acts of Paul And Thecla Bremmer, Jan N.
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date: 1996
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA): Bremmer, J. N. (1996). The Apocryphal Acts of Paul And Thecla. (2 ed.) Kok Pharos Publishers.
Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license. More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne- amendment.
Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
Download date: 30-09-2021 VIII. The resurrection in the Acts of Paul
PIETER J. LALLEMAN
Professor W.C. van Unnik died in 1978, a few months before I started my studies of Theology in Utrecht University. It is he who called the resurrection 'almost an articulus stantis aut cadentis ecclesiae in the second century.' He also said that the doctrine of the resurrection had been part and parcel of the teaching of the Church from the very beginning and that this doctrine is expressly stated or presupposed in all the books of the NT. In the third century the dispute died down, but in the second century the resurrection was the main topic of polemics within and without the church.' It is indicative of the diversity of opinion in the study of the New Testament that Van Unnik's view is not undisputed. For example, James Robinson thinks that at least two views on the resurrection existed side by side from the very beginning of Christianity. In his view, there were already some in the first century who denied a future resurrection, as attested in 1 Cor 15.12 and 2 Tim 2.18. Robinson gives us an interesting picture of the branch of Christianity that denied a future resurrection, but his efforts to find this trajectory in and behind the NT are hardly con- vincing; his best witnesses are second-century texts which sup- posedly preserve older traditions. It is not until the second century that the debate over the resurrection comes to the fore, and it is the second century with which we deal in this paper. From this
1 W.C. van Unnik, Sparsa Collecta 111 (Leiden, 1983) 244-72 ('The newly discovered Gnostic Epistle to Rheginos on the resurrection', J. Eccl. Hist. 15, 1964, 141-67), esp. 246, 258. THE RESURRECTION 127 period stem Robinson's favourite witnesses, such as the Epistle to Rheginos (EpRh) and the Gospel of Philip.2 In this contribution we will sometimes compare the points of view of EpRh with those of the Acts of Paul (AP). The EpRh is a Valentinian text, careful not to deny ecclesiastical standpoints but to interpret them in a way that is acceptable for Gno~tics.~
The Acts of Paul
The AP reflects the vividness of the debate concerning the resur- rection in the second century. It is best seen as a composite text, of which the resurrection is a theme in the most important parts, the Acts of Paul and Thecla (AThe 3), the Corinthian correspon- dence (8) and the Martyrium Pauli (MP 1 In the MP it occurs twice: initially, Paul heals Nero's servant Patroklos; later he him- self appears after death.5 There are also stories about miraculous resurrections in the papyrus fragments, but they are too fragmen- tary to be useful here.6 Had the author of the AP lived in our
2 M.J. Edwards, 'The Epistle to Rheginus: Valentinianism in fourth century', NT 37 (1995) 76-91, suggests the fourth century, but see J.N. Bremmer, 'The Resurrection between Zarathustra and Jonathan Z. Smith', Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift SO (1996) 89-107, esp. 102. 3 J.M. Robinson, 'Jesus from Easter to Valentinus (or to the Apostles' Creed)', J. Bibl. Lit. 101 (1983) 5-37. 4 See L. van Kampen, Apostelverhalen (Diss. Utrecht, 1990) 90-3. The original unity of the text is upheld by R.J. Bauckham, 'The Acts of Paul as a Sequel to Acts' in B.W. Winter & A.D. Clarke (eds), The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting (Grand Rapids and Carlisle, 1993), 113 n. 20, 131-9. W. Rordorf (who prepares the CCSA edition of the text) and P.W. Dunn (in his forthcoming dissertation The Acts of Paul and the Pauline Legaq in the Second Century) think that only 3 Cor predates the composition of AP. 5 See also Bolyki, this volume, Ch. 6. 6 In the preaching of Paul in Italy (10) reference is made to the fact that Jesus raised up the dead, but this is marginal. Miracle stories: the very fragmentary episode in Antioch (2), the (lacunose) episode in Myra 128 PIETER J. LALLEMAN time, he would have sided with Van Unnik against Robinson. The AP is a typical example of the novelistic genre of the AAA, even in the way in which it deals with the resurrection, so that it can scarcely be compared with treatises which work with many arguments and counter-arguments like Justin's De resurrectione, Tertullian's De camis resurrectione, and others. The (fictional) Corinthian correspondence is qua form unique within the AAA, being the only explicit treatment of a doctrinal problem.' Its form is less ingenious than that of EpRh, which does not need a separ- ate letter from Rheginos in order to let his questions resound in the answers.
The resurrection of Christ
We will first look at the resurrection of Christ. In the first para- graph of the AThe we are told that Paul preached 'all the words of the Lord, of the doctrine and of the interpretation of the Gospel,' both of the birth and of the resurrection of the Bel~ved.'~The summary of Paul's preaching includes sayings (logia) of the Lord as well as narratives about the major events of his life, which for our author are his birth and resurrection. The Corinthian correspondence in its initial summary of Paul's reply states that the Lord Jesus saves 'all flesh through his own flesh' and that he will 'raise us bodily from the death after his own example' (typos, 111.6). These words imply that the Lord arose bodily and that this resurrection is influential for the believers, no doubt because of his special role as the divine
where Paul cures Hermocrates and raises his son Dion (4), and the episode at Philippi where Pauls raises Frontina (8). 7 Van Karnpen, Apostelverhalen, 93. 8 The text here is uncertain in that both the clauses 'of the doctrine' and 'of the interpretation of the Gospel' are absent in manuscripts, but this is immaterial for our present question. 9 Irenaeus uses the word 'beloved' in the creed-like passage Ah. Haer. 1.10.1: 'the incarnate assumption into the heavens of the beloved (fiyaxqptvou) Christ Jesus'. THE RESURRECTION 129 example (111.16-1 7). The line of argument is clearly anti-docetic. The use of the word 'example' is interesting in that it suggests the same corporeality for the Lord and for man, both now and in the world to come. The mentioning of the Lord's body and resurrec- tion is not complemented by attention to his suffering and death. As in the other parts of the AP, this aspect of the message of the New Testament is more in the background. lo It is remarkable that it is absent in EpRh. The resurrection of Christ is mentioned explicitly in 111.25 as the first proof of the resurrection of all, and again in the con- clusion of the chain of arguments for the resurrection (III.31). In the first case a form of the verb anistemi is used, in the second a form of egeiro. We note that just the bare fact of the resurrection of Christ is mentioned, without any additions from gospels or legends. Even the terms 'after three days' and 'on the third day' are absent, though the first occurs in connection with Jonah (111.30). 111.15-18 lays great stress on the reality of the body of the incarnate Lord. The resurrection of Christ is absent from the miracle stories and also from the MP, though it is part of the background of those texts.
The resurrection of the believers
Now we turn to the resurrection of the believers, a theme which receives far more stress in the AThe than Christ's resurrection. Paul's message, given in the form of beatitudes, is summarized as 'the word of God concerning continence and the resurrection' (5)" We may say that the main theme of this novella is chastity,
10 It occurs in the episode of the sea voyage to Italy (10) in which the Lord says to Paul that he will be crucified again, in the preface to the Corinthian correspondence, and in the final lines of Paul's letter which mention the stigmata of Christ (111.35). 11 Cf. Peter preaching to women 'concerning chastity and all the words of the Lord', Apt 33 (4). 130 PIETER J. LALLEMAN but that it is closely linked with resurrection. When 'the pure in heart' are promised that 'they shall see God', this must refer to their future life after the resurrection. The final beatitude,
blessed are the bodies of the virgins, for they shall be well pleasing to God, and shall not lose the reward of their purity. For the word of the Father shall be for them a work of salvation in the day of his Son, and they shall have rest for ever and ever (6), contains a similar promise for the life hereafter. And such is the case with all beatitudes. This implies that the eschatological resurrection functions as the gate to all these blessings to come. Paul's message, as the narrator has it voiced by his adversaries Demas and Hermogenes, is along similar lines:" There is resur- rection in the sense of future salvation only for those who live chaste (l2).I3 The implication of these words is that sinners will be eternally dead; this implication is indeed voiced by Thecla (37) as well as by Paul himself when in Ephesus (7, PH p.1). Thecla also states that she will be clothed with salvation in the day of judgement (38); these words explain what the resurrection involves. It is probably not God but his Son, Christ, who clothes Thecla, although our author would have found this distinction irrelevant. The baptism of Thecla is not connected with her resur- rection. l4 On hearing that Thecla has been saved from death, Queen Tryphaena who until then was not a believer, says: 'Now I believe that the dead are raised up! Now I believe that my child lives'
12 Van Kampen, Apostelverhalen, 298 n.120, hesitates if the words really mirror Paul's view, but his scepticism is unfounded, cf. C. Schmidt, Acta Pauli (Leipzig, 1905, repr. Hildesheim, 1965) 195; C.F.M. Deeleman, 'Acta Pauli et Theclae', Theologische Studien 26 (1908) 273- 301, esp. 283. 13 I will not discuss the question what chastity implies. P.W. Dunn in a paper given at Dole 1994 defends the thesis that the AP are not encratic. 14 Thecla's mention of Jesus as the basis (hypostasis) of eternal life (37) merits more attention than is possible now. THE RESURRECTION 131
(39). The child is her daughter Falconilla who has been mentioned frequently (27-31), the beloved only child of the widowed Queen. Tryphaena had asked Thecla to intervene for her daughter with the Lord that she might live eternally (29). The Queen believes that her daughter who died as a heathen has been saved unto eternal life by the intercessory prayer of Thecla. That Thecla has been given back to her from the certain death in the arena assures her of the fact that Falconilla has been restored to life in a similar way. l5 We see that in the AThe chastity is linked with resurrection in that the first is a prerequisite for the second. In the EpRh 49 the situation is different: we find chastity both as a consequence of the already growing res~rrection'~and as a command, in a paraenesis full of tension between the already and the not yet. The miracle stories as far as we have them do not contain general statements about believers, nor even about the exact condition of those whom Paul brings to life, but the Corinthian correspondence makes up for this. The Corinthians in their letter tell Paul that the new teachers say that there is no resurrection of the flesh (1.1 I), which in the context marks this idea as a heresy. The author wants us to believe in that very resurrection (III.31-32), which on the conceptual level is closely linked with the creation and the redemption of men as beings of flesh and blood. It is remarkable that it is Christ, not the Father, who will raise the believers (111.6, 16-1 8). In the letter from Paul we find four arguments for the resur- rection: the example of Christ who rose from the dead, the analogy of seed which goes into the earth naked and comes up clothed, the precedent of Jonah, and the precedent of an episode from the life
15 In a private letter P.W.Dunn states that she 'is translated to the resting place of the living who await the resurrection of the bodylflesh (cf. Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham, Luke 16.23)'. See also Bremrner, this volume, 54. 16 B. Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures (Garden City NY, 1987) 317 aptly uses the word 'process' about the resurrection in EpRh and speaks of its 'beginning'. 132 PIETER J. LALLEMAN of Elisha (III.25-30, 32-33). But, despite all this, Third Corinthians is cautious about the salvation of the readers: it is a reward for those who behave well (III.36). This caution cannot be separated from the absense of the idea of justification in our text. In contrast to the AThe, here the desired behaviour is not formulated in terms of asceticism. The Paul of the AP is not the Paul of the epistles to the Romans and Galatians who is so popular with Protestant theologians. It is very interesting that Paul himself serves as an illustration of the teaching of the AP in their final episode. Paul's appearance after his execution is explicitly presented as a proof of the resur- rection of the dead in general. Before his death Paul announces to Nero that he will return: 'I will arise and appear to thee (in proof) that I am not dead, but alive to my Lord Christ Jesus' (1 1.4). We can compare this to the reference in the EpRh (48.7-9) to the ap- pearance of Moses and Elijah on the mount of transfiguration, which also serves as a kind of proof. Paul also pronounces another beatitude: 'And blessed is that man who shall believe in him, and live for ever, when he comes to burn the world till it is pure.' ,To Parthenius and Pheretas, the persons sent by Nero to hasten his execution, Paul repeats his conviction that not only he but all believers will be raised from the dead (1 1.5). The two Romans willingly reply that they will believe in Paul's God if Paul indeed dies and rises. It is a flaw on the narrative level that we hear no more from these imperial mess- engers, Parthenius and Pheretas. Has part of the text of the MP been lost? As for Paul, he indeed appears to the emperor after his death saying: 'I am not dead, but alive in my God' (1 1.6). To modem readers the narrator has in the meantime weakened the persuasive power of this appearance by the insertion of a miracle which dis- tinguishes Paul and his death from the normal: when he is behea- ded it is milk rather than blood that splashes out of him (1 1.5).17 Contrary to the AThe, in the MP it is faith that is the prerequisite for the resurrection, not chastity. It appears that in most other parts
17 Bolyki, this volume, 103f. THE RESURRECTION 133 of the AP the believers' good works are a necessary addition to faith in gaining the resurrection." Among these works, chastity is the most important. The resurrection of the believers cannot be separated from that of Christ. We already saw this point in the Corinthian letters and more specifically in the word 'example' (typos, 111.6).
When does the resurrection take place?
If we ask when exactly the dead believers are raised, a question suggested by the rejection of the idea that the resurrection has already taken place, we are faced with the same ambiguity that can be found in the NT. On the one hand, two persons who die start their blessed life at once. The simplest case is that of Paul himself, who appears to Nero and others shortly after his violent death. The other person is Falconilla in the AThe, who has died as an unbe- liever; but as soon as Thecla's prayer for her has been answered she is said to be alive (39). The intercession of the living believer - in this case the woman Thecla - is so effective that it procures the transposition of Falconilla from the abode of the dead to the sphere of the living. On the other hand, in all parts of the AP the resurrection is connected with the return of Christ and the final judgement (e.g. 11.4), an idea that is absent from the EpRh and rejected in the Gospel of Philip 73.1-5. The example of the seed that resides in the earth also suggests a future resurrection.I9 The beatitudes in the AThe reserve the promised blessings for the eschatological resurrection. To the Corinthians, 'Paul' writes that they shall rise up on that day (111.32). The addition in some manuscripts of a verse which contains the words 'at the sound of the trumpet'
18 L. Vouaux, Les Actes de Paul et ses lettres apocryphes (Paris, 19 13) 77. For the MP see Van Karnpen, Apostelverhalen, 88-9. 19 That the image is Jewish is shown by G. Rolffs in E. Hennecke (ed), Handbuch zu den Neutestamentlichen Apokryphen (Tiibingen, 1904) 393. 134 PlETER J. LALLEMAN
(III.33) serves to highlight our interpretation. The question of the moment of resurrection is one on which the author of the AP evidently has not reflected; we therefore refrain from harmonizing his thoughts.
The adversaries
So far for the positive teaching. We will now look at the other side, where we find three groups of adversaries that should be dealt with, one group in each of the major parts of our text. In the AThe, the adversaries are Demas and Hermogenes. We will first look at their behaviour and then at their teaching. As we already saw, the narrator first uses them to voice Paul's message (12). These men, who arrived in the city in Paul's company (I), later openly distance themselves from Christianity and become advisors to Tharnyris, Thecla's disappointed fiancd, who asks them what Paul has taught (13). They do not give an answer: 'But Demas and Hermogenes said: "Bring him before the governor Castellius, on the ground that he is seducing the crowds to the new doctrine of the Christians"' (14). When Paul is indeed brought before the governor, Tharnyris wants to hear him explain what he teaches. But Demas and Hermogenes have a short cut: 'Say that he is a Christian, and so thou wilt destroy him' (16). After this episode they are no longer heard of in the narrative. By creating the image of the two adversaries as people who arrived with Paul but are essentially outsiders, the author places not only them but also their teachings outside the church, although in reality they were current within it. He thus performs a kind of excommunication in narrative form, which indicates that his book is meant for an orthodox Christian public.20 At first sight, the teaching of these heretics is in two parts: the resurrection 'has already taken place in the children whom we
20 See on this episode also Bremrner, this volume, 47. THE RESURRECTION 135 have',2' and 'we are risen again in that we have come to know the true God' (14). The authenticity of the second of these statem- ents is disputed for several reasons: it is absent from the Syriac and Latin traditions; it is an alternative and rather superfluous explanation, and it is a commonplace of Gnostic thinking.22 When we look at the first part, that the resurrection has already taken place in the children, we immediately see that it resembles the false teaching combated in 2 Tim 2.18, but with the addition of the words 'in the children we have'. The combination of the resur- rection with having children is so peculiar that we seriously ques- tion the accuracy of this picture of the adversaries. It is not Gnostic, for Gnostics believed that their resurrection was a result of their gaining knowledge of God, of the world and especially of themselves. This gnosis was acquired during their lifetime, and it is never related to having children or to the fate of their ~hildren.~'Thus Irenaeus tells about the early Gnostic Menander: 'His disciples are able to receive resurrection through baptism into him; they can no longer die but remain ageless and immortal.'24 The description of the false teachers in 1 Tim 4.1-3 shows that
21 J.K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford, 1993) 367 leaves out the last three words. 22 Van Unnik, 'Epistle to Rheginos', 263, who depends on Zahn, cf. Bauckham, 'The Acts of Paul', 128 with n.63. P.W. Dunn informs me that Rordorf's forthcoming edition in CCSA retains the phrase. 23 See for the opposition of the Gnostics to matrimony P. Nagel, Die Motivierung der ~skesein der alten Kirche und der Ursprung des Monchtums (Berlin, 1966); N. Brox, Die Pastoralbriefe (Regensburg, 1969) 36-8, 248; G. Stroumsa, Savoir et salut (Paris, 1992) 145-62. The ascetic attitude of gnosticism is underlined by K. Koschorke, Die Pole- mik der Gnostiker gegen das kirchliche Christentum (Leiden, 1978) 123- -9 I. 24 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 1.23.5: Resurrectionem enim per id quod est in eum [sc. Menandrum] baptisma accipere eius discipulos et ultra non posse mori, sed perseverare non senescentar et immortales, tr. R.M. Grant, Gnosticism (New York, 1961) 30, who comments: 'His interpre- tation of baptism looks like a distortion of the Pauline teaching about dying and rising with Christ.' 136 PIETER J. LALLEMAN they too forbade marriage. But neither could the combination of resurrection and children be derived from the teaching of Jesus. Had not the Lord himself said that in the heavenly condition men would not many but be as angels in heaven (Matt 22.30)? Our author's addition of children seems to create an absurd picture. Is it a caricature?25
Misunderstanding
Could the link of resurrection and children be the result of a misunderstanding, instead of a caricature? This question merits a digression. It has been suggested that this view is Jewish, more specifically Sadducean, with reference to Sir 11.28 (LXX) and 30.1ff.26 But the Hebrew text of Sir knows no resurrection, and the LXX version only says that the memory of a father is preser- ved by what his son, his image, does. Indeed, Sir 11.28a explicitly says 'Call no one happy before his deathY, which excludes any idea of a present certainty of the future. We are all familiar with the fact that the Sadducees denied the re~urrection.~' Yet Van Unnik refers to the fact that in his Refirtatio, Hippolytus introduces the word 'resurrection' when dealing with the Sadd~cees.~'Having said that the Essenes belie- ve the doctrine of the resurrection, and that the Pharisees do the same (IX.28.5), he notes that the Sadducees deny it. He continues
25 Bauckham, 'Sequel', 128, suggests that it is occasioned by the reference to Demas' love of the world in 2 Tim 4.10. 26 W. Lock, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Edinburgh, 1924) ad 2 Tim 2: 18. 27 Recently A.J. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Pales- tinian Society (Edinburgh, 1989) 304-7; E. Puech, La croyance des Esskniens en la vie future: immortalite', rksurrection, vie kternelle?, 2 vols (Paris, 1993) 753. 28 Van Unnik, 'Epistle to Rheginos', 263 n.82. C. Burchard, 'Die Essenen bei Hippolyt', J. St. Judaism 8 (1977) 1-41 shows that Hip- polytus draws on Josephus. Against Puech's criticism of this position (La croyance, 714-26, 753-60) see now Bremrner, 'The Resurrection', 91-6. THE RESURRECTION 137 that they hold 'that it is on account of this existence here that man has been created. However, that the notion of the resurrection has been fully realized by the circumstance, that we close our days after having left children upon earth.'29 A little later Hippolytus himself repeats this in the words, '... saying that one ought so to live, that he may conduct himself virtuously, and leave children behind him on earth.'30 In this repetition the word 'resurrection' is absent; its introduction in the first quoted sentence is peculiar. The attentive reader will have noticed that it results in a connecti- on between resurrection and children! Hippolytus ascribes to the Sadducees views that resemble those of Ben Sira, viz. that men live on in their children. But the use of the word 'resurrection' stems from Hippolytus or his source. Hippolytus is later than the AThe which has the same combination. It is unlikely that he uses the AP here because the AP do not mention Jews. There must be a common source behind Hippolytus and the AP which contained information about Jewish idea^.^' We conclude that the AThe depict the adversaries as Jews.32
29 Ref: IX.27.1: 6 &vaor&oao~h6yo~. I quote from the most recent edition: Hippolytus, Refitatio omnium haeresium, ed. M. Marco- vich (Berlin and New York, 1986); IX.29.1: &vbrorao~v66 06 p6vov &pvoSvrat aap~6~,&hh& at yuxTjv pq 61apEvstv vopf
Having looked at the origin of the phrase 'in the children whom we have', we now digress on its reception. In his commen- tary on 2 Tim in the ICC series, W. Lock states that the idea that men live on in their posteriority is attested in AThe and in several patristic commentaries on the epistle, viz. Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodoretus, all between 370 and 450.33 With the exception of Theodore these commentaries are brief. Theodoretus of Cyrus just says that the heretics called child- ren 'res~rrection'.~~Pelagius is ambivalent: first he notes 'in the children' and then he refers to the prophecies of Ezechiel about the resurrected bones.35 Theodore of Mopsuestia states that the false teachers said that the resurrection consisted in our children.36 Very interesting is what Ambrosiaster, an independent com- mentator with a good name,37 says: 'Another passage of Scripture teaches that they said that the resurrection happens in the child- ren.')' As there is no other passage in the canonical books which teaches thus, nor a variant reading in 2 Tim itself, it appears that Ambrosiaster here refers to the AThe as Scripture! It is likely that the other three commentators are, directly or not, dependent on
Apokiefen van het Nieuwe Testament I (Kampen, 1984) 162. 33 Lock, Pastoral Epistles, 100, cf. xlii. 34 Theodoretus Cyrus, PG 82, ad 2 Tim 2.18: rh~k~ xatGonotCa5 6ta6o~dl<&vdrcmaotv oi Guob vupot npoqyd p&uov ('successiones quae per liberorum Punt procreationem, resurrectionem infelices appel- larunt'). 35 Pelagius, ed. A. Souter, Texts and Studies 9.2 (Cambridge, 1926) ad 2 Tim 2.1 8: In filiis. Sive: Ossa vivzficata in [Hliezecihel Istarhelis in- terpretantur de captivitate collectum quasi a mortuis surrexisse. 36 Theodori episcopi Mopsuesteni in epistolas b[eati] Pauli commenta- rii, ed. H.B.Swete, 2 vols (Cambridge, 1880-2, repr. Farnborough 1969) ad 2 Tim 2.18: aliam quandam resurrectionem somniantur, quam et in successionem aiunt nostrum constare. 37 A. Souter, A Study ofAmbrosiaster (Cambridge, 1905) 1, 6-8. 38 Arnbrosiaster, PL 17, ad 2 Ti 2.18: hi autem, sicut ex alia Scrip- tura docemur, in filiis fieri resurrectionem dicebant. Cf. Vouaux, Actes de Paul, 4 1. THE RESURRECTION 139 him.39 This implies that Ambrosiaster treated the words from the AP as Scripture and thus put them on one line with the words from 2 Tim."' He also found no problem in the fact that 2 Tim mentions Hymenaeus and Philetus as adversaries, whereas in the AP the names are Demas and Hennogenes. Patristic commentaries thus painted a mistaken picture of Gnosticism based on a dubious testimony. We may add that Ambrosiaster, writing about 370, is by no means the only Father to have a high regard for the AP. Earlier in the fourth century, they were included in a list of the scriptures which is preserved in the sixth century Codex Claromontanus. At the end of the list we find Barnabas, Revelation, Acts of Apostles, Hennas, the AP and the Apocalypse of Peter.4' In the first half of the third century Origen in the East and Hippolytus in the West treat the AP as nearly equal to the scripture^.^^ Eusebius (Histo- ria Ecclesiastics 3.25.4) mentions them first in his list of valuable writings that just failed to enter the canon (v68a),followed by Hennas' Shepherd, the Apocalypse of Peter, Barnabas and the Didache. A catechetical book written in Gaul early in the fifth century implicitly treats the AP as ~cripture.~~On the other hand, Jerome was very critical of our text.44
Adversaries in other parts
We return to the views of the adversaries in the AP and come to the Corinthian correspondence, in which the false teachers are
39 Swete in his edition merely says that Ambrosiaster is earlier (Ixxviii). 40 Schmidt, Acta Pauli, 157-8; Vouaux, Actes de Paul; both also refer to Ambrosiaster's commentary on 2 Tim 1.15 and 4.14. 41 Schmidt, Acta Pauli, 110. 42 See for details Schmidt, Acta Pauli, 108-12; Vouaux, Actes de Paul, 24-9. 43 The Caena Cypriani, see Schmidt, Acta Pauli, 159-60. 44 De vir. ill. 7: Igitur xept66ooq Pauli et Theclae et totam baptizati leonis fabulam inter apocryphas scripfuras computamus. 140 PIETER J. LALLEMAN called Simon and Cleobius. Among their ideas the editorial intro- duction mentions in the first place: 'There is no resurrection of the flesh but only of the spirit.' In the actual letter from Corinth the heretical idea 'there is no resurrection of the flesh (a&pc)' is the third to be mentioned (I.12). In Paul's letter it comes last (111.24- 33). From the other ideas of the adversaries it is clear that they are Christians with Gnostic ideas.45 The author counters not by dis- cussing the background of their ideas but by juxtaposing his argu- ments. Because the heretics are still part of the church, it is neces- sary to demand their isolation (III.21). In the wording the frequent repetition of the words 'flesh' and 'body' is remarkable, especially as they are absent from the other parts of the text; the polemic is sharper here than in the AThe and the MP. The EpRh does not deny a corporeal aspect to the resurrection, but seems to deny identity between the present fleshly body and the future spiritual body.46 In 3 Cor on the other hand we find no indi'cation that the author differentiates between the earthly body and the resurrected body. The phrase that the believer will rise up 'with your flesh whole' (III.32)47 seems to imply a restitution of the body. This stress on continuity at the expense of change is a result of the anti-docetic stress on the reality of the body of Christ even after his resurrection. The letter reacts sharply against the dualistic reasoning of the Gnostics. The issues raised in the Corin- thian correspondence were real in the church, but the answers 'Paul' gives will have appealed more to church members than to those combatted. In the MP we do better not to speak of adversaries of the belief in the resurrection, but of a willing audience. Paul's appearance after his death - apparently unchanged - so impresses Nero that he commands the release of the Christians who are still in prison (1 1.6). The two officers who had held long talks with Paul during
45 See esp. 111.15: the evil one (= the Demiurg) needs to be convinced that he is not God. 46 EpRh 45.39 - 46.2, 47.4-8; see M.L. Peel, Gnosis und Auferstehung (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1974) 154-7. 47 Latin: integram / sanam carnem habentes. THE RESURRECTION 141 his imprisonment are converted and receive baptism as a result of the appearance of Paul, so that Paul's resurrection has led to the conviction of two persons and even to improvement in Nero's behaviour. 48
Summary and conclusion
The question of the resurrection is explicitly dealt with twice in the AP. It also plays a role in the MP and in miracle stories. All this indicates its importance for our author and for the sources he used. The AP battles at three fronts: unbelieving outsiders, Jews, and Gnostic heretics in the church. They represent the adversaries as disputing the resurrection of believers or resurrection in general, not the resurrection of Christ. The AP tries to be fair to the New Testament books, but its popular theology sometimes remarkably resembles that of the moderate gnostic behind the EpRh. These facts suggest that our author did not understand the Gnostics very well, which in turn may be the reason why we do not find his contribution very impressive. The writings of the Apologists show that the objections to the resurrection of the body were often voiced as logical arguments. Of the consequent discussions we find no traces in the AP, possibly because our text was addressed to another, wider group of readers.49
48 See also Bolyki, this volume, 102. 49 I wish to thank dr. A. Hilhorst (Groningen) and Mr. Peter W. Dunn (Canada) for their critical comments on an earlier version of this paper.