Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (122 page)

81.
Studien zur Epistula Apostolorum
(Berlin: De Gruyter, 1965). The more recent full-length study of Julian Hills,
Tradition and Composition in the Epistula Apostolorum
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), is less concerned with the theological and polemical investments of the text than with its structure, composition, and the relation of tradition and redaction.

82.
“Läßt sich weder als ein Dokument des Urchristentums noch der Gnosis noch des Frühkatholizismus begreifen.” On docetism: “The fact that Jesus is risen in the flesh has therefore meaning only as a fact that is supposed to demonstrate the reliability of Jesus’s teaching” (“Das Faktum, daß Jesus im Fleische auferstanden ist, hat mithin nur die Bedeutung eines Tatbeweises, der die Gläubigkeit der von Jesus verkündigten Lehre demonstrieren soll”). Further, “The determination of the Risen One’s bodiliness serves only as proof and for the confirmation of the teaching concerning the resurrection of the flesh. The Epistula Apostolorum is thus quite distinct from the views of Ignatius and Irenaeus” (“Die Feststellung der Leiblichkeit des Auferstandenen dient nur zum Beweis und zur Bestätigung der Lehre von der allgemeinen Auferstehung im Fleische. Von den Anschauungen des Ignatius und des Irenäus ist die Epistula Apostolorum weit geschieden”; p. 60). I could not disagree more. Throughout his
Studien
Hornschuh uses an essentialized understanding of what it means to be “Christian” and shows that the Epistula Apostolorum does not stack up well against it.

83.
Translations of C. Detlef G. Muller in Schneemelcher,
New Testament Apocrypha
.

84.
See p. 397.

85.
“In the most worrisome fashion, the author thus touches upon the pseudepigraphal activity of the Gnostics who in addition to the general instruction during their public teaching had chosen in particular the post-resurrection period for their special revelations” (“Damit streift der Verfasser auf das bedenklichste der pseudepigraphische Schriftstellerei der Gnostiker, die neben der allgemeinen Unterweisung während der öffentlichen Lehrtätigkeit besonders die Zeit nach der Auferstehung für ihre Spezialoffenbarungen sich ausgesucht hatten”). Schmidt,
Gespräche
, p. 202.

86.
Gespräche
, p. 198.

87.
“Man [wird] schwerlich bestreiten können, daß wichtige Partien des Briefes nicht anders zu verstehen sind denn als Widerlegung der Gnostiker,” Hornschuh,
Studien
, p. 7. Hornschuh tried to be more precise in naming the opponents, and settled on a group of Basilideans (p. 94). Most scholars today are, rightly, more reserved in thinking that we can pinpoint one Gnostic sect over another. Among other things, if the Basilideans were in view, why are they set under the guise specifically of Simon and Cerinthus? It is better to think here in terms of a general polemic against Gnostic teachings found among a number of groups.

88.
See, e.g., Pheme Perkins,
The Gnostic Dialogue: The Early Church and the Crisis of Gnosticism
(New York: Paulist Press, 1980).

89.
Hornschuh,
Studien
, p. 7.

90.
Only the opening letter of the account, not the revelation dialogue, is forged.

91.
The first critical edition was produced by Brooke Foss Westcott,
A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament
, 4th ed. (London: Macmillan, 1875), pp. 561–76.

92.
Pervo is unusual in seeing the letter as something other than a pastiche; he wants to stress the epistolary character of the piece, as constructed, and to read it, then, with a generous spirit. See
Making of Paul
, pp. 106–9.

93.
“Elle est en effet aussi anodine que possible.”
Les actes de Paul et ses lettres apocryphes
… (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1913), p. 321.

94.
“Der Brief [ist] ein armseliges Elaborat ohne jede persönliche Note des Verfassers ohne Spur von Häresie, ohne Tendenz und Zweck”; “Die pseudo-Paulinischen Briefe,”
Bib 6
(1925): 190.

95.
“Es ist übrigens nach Inhalt und Form die wertloseste Urkunde, die aus dem kirchlichen Altertum auf uns gekommen ist”;
Apocrypha IV: Die apokryphen Briefe des Paulus an die Laodicener und Korinther
, 2nd ed. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1931), p. 3.

96.
Viz., “Why Was the Insipid Letter to the Laodiceans Written?”
NTS
48 (2002): 132–41.

97.
Pink (“Die pseudo-Paulinischen Briefe”) argued that the author of the Muratorian Fragment did not realize that the Marcionites had renamed Ephesians Laodiceans (as Tertullian indicates) and so supposed that a separate letter must have existed, not being familiar with the letter that we now have.

98.
For a full listing, see Pink, “Die pseudo-Paulinischen Briefe.”

99.
See Burnet, “Pourquoi,” p. 132.

100.
Thus ibid., p. 133.

101.
See Vouaux,
Les actes
, p. 320.

102.
For Westcott see note 91; J. B. Lightfoot,
Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon
(London: Macmillan, 1904), pp. 291–92. Lightfoot provided a retroversion to the “original” Greek.

103.
See Harnack
Apocrypha IV
. Pink had argued that the Graecisms, cited by Lightfoot, do not require a Greek original, since so much of the letter is drawn from Pauline works originally penned in Greek. He goes on to argue that the letter draws on vocabulary invented by Tertullian (thus “dilectio” and “retractus”) and so was written in Latin no earlier than the mid-third century. But the first occurrence of the terms in Tertullian does not prove that he invented them. Their appearance in the letter therefore indicates nothing about its original language or date.

104.
Thus, for example, Vouaux,
Les actes
and Pink, “Die pseudo-Paulinischen Briefe.”

105.
Chrysostom,
Homily 12
on Col. 4:16.

106.
The fullest statement of the view is found in
Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott; eine Monographie zur Geschichte der Grundlegung der Katholischen Kirche
, “Beilage III: Das Apostolikon Marcion,” part D: “Der Laodicener- und der Alexandrinerbrief” (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1924), pp. 134*–49*, which is based on an article published the previous year in
Sitzungsberichte der Preuß. Akademie
, Nov. 1, 1923.

107.
“Diese Beobachtungen entscheiden: unser Brief ist eine Marcionitische Fälschung.”
Marcion
, p. 143*.

108.
“Pourquoi.”

109.
Speyer,
Die literarische Fälschung
, p. 229.

110.
The fullest and best account of the discovery and of the codicological issues involved is in Peter van Minnen, “The Greek
Apocalypse of Peter
,” in Jan Bremmer and István Czachesz, eds.,
The Apocalypse of Peter
(Leuven: Peeters, 2003), pp. 15–39.

111.
G. Cavallo and H. Maehler,
Greek Bookhands of the Early Byzantine Period,
A.D.
300–800
(London: University of London, Institute of Classical Studies, 1987), no. 41.

112.
The first full study of the text of the Akhmim text was Dieterich’s
Nekyia; Beiträge zur Erklärung der neuentdeckten Petrusapokalypse
(Leipzig: Teubner, 1893), conducted, obviously, prior to the discovery of the more accurate Ethiopic version.

113.
Grébaut, “Littérature éthiopienne ps. Clémentine. La second venue du Christ et la resurrection des morts,”
ROC
(1907): 139–51; (1910): 198–214, 307–23, 425–39; M. R. James, “A New Text of the Apocalypse of Peter,”
JTS
12 (1910/11): 36–54, 362–83, 573–83.

114.
Thus Müller: “That the Ethiopic version is authentic and offers the original text of the Apocalypse of Peter, albeit in parts somewhat distorted, can scarcely be contested any longer today.” C. Detlef G. Müller in Schneemelcher,
New Testament Apocrypha
, 2.625.

115.
“The Greek
Apocalypse
,” p. 28.

116.
See Dennis D. Buchholz,
Your Eyes Will Be Opened: A Study of the Greek (Ethiopic) Apocalypse of Peter
(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), p. 17. Buchholz counts twelve direct references to the account and eighteen indirect references (pp. 20–81). A more conservative presentation can now be found in Thomas J. Kraus and Tobias Nicklas, eds.,
Das Petrusevangelium und die Petrusapokalypse: Die griechischen Fragment mit deutscher und englischer Übersetzung
(Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), pp. 87–99.

117.
Richard Bauckham, “The
Apocalypse of Peter
: A Jewish Christian Apocalypse from the Time of Bar Kokhba,”
Apocrypha
5 (1994): 7–111; reprinted in Bauckham,
The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses
(Leiden: Brill, 1998), pp. 160–258. Original pages are indicated here. Buchholz,
Your Eyes Will Be Opened
.

118.
Translations taken from C. Detlef G. Müller in Schneemelcher,
New Testament Apocrypha
.

119.
Van Minnen, “The Greek
Apocalypse
.”

120.
Eibert Tigchelaar, “Is the Liar Bar Kokhba? Considering the Date and the Provenance of the Greek (Ethiopic)
Apocalypse of Peter
,” in Bremmer and Czachesz, eds.,
The Apocalypse of
Peter, pp. 63–77.

121.
James A. Brooks, “Clement of Alexandria as a Witness to the Development of the New Testament Canon,”
SecCent
9 (1992): 41–55.

122.
Apocalypse of Peter
, pp. 19–20.

123.
István Czachesz, “The Grotesque Body in the
Apocalypse of Peter
,” in Bremmer and Czachesz, eds.,
The Apocalypse of Peter
, p. 108.

124.
See Callie Callon, “Sorcery, Wheels, and Mirror Punishment in the
Apocalypse of Peter
,”
JECS
18 (2010): 29–49.

125.
“The Grotesque Body.”

126.
Terence V. Smith,
Petrine Controversies
: “It is therefore difficult to determine the precise reason for the writer’s appeal to the Peter-figure.” Smith goes on to suggest that the references to Peter’s martyrdom in Rome (Eth 14, Rainer fragment) may provide a clue, but then decides not: “though the martyrdom is referred to, the writer does not attempt to use it as a buttress for any Petrine/Roman primacy.” So too he thinks that a concern for persecution related to Peter cannot explain it (p. 48).

127.
Ch. 14
, translation of Buchholz.

128.
Your Eyes Will Be Opened
, p. 396.

129.
The most important recent edition is T. Silverstein and A. Hilhorst,
Apocalypse of Paul: A New Critical Edition of Three Long Latin Versions
(Geneva: P. Cramer 1997).

130.
Translation of H. Duensing and Aurelio de Santos Otero, in Schneemelcher,
New Testament Apocrypha
.

131.
Thus, for example, Elliott,
Apocryphal New Testament
, 616.

132.
T. Silverstein “The Date of the ‘Apocalypse of Paul,’”
MS
24 (1962): 335–48; P. Piovanelli, “Les origines de l’Apocalypse de Paul reconsidérées,”
Apocrypha
4 (1993): 25–64, esp. 45–59.

133.
Anthony Hilhorst, “The
Apocalypse of Paul
: Previous History and Afterlife,” in Jan Bremmer and István Czachesz, eds.,
The Visio Pauli and the Gnostic Apocalypse of Paul
(Leuven: Peeters, 2007), pp. 1–22. Piovanelli disputes these data, claiming that neither of the passages of Origen need necessarily refer to the Apocalypse and noting that all of our surviving witnesses derived from the fifth-century edition of the text (so that there are no physical remains of the earlier version). Duensing and de Santos Otero concur, marshaling the odd argument that since Sozomen indicates that “none of the ancients” knew the document, Origen could not have quoted it.

134.
Augustine
Tract. Ioh
. 98, 8. Translation of John Rettig,
Augustine: Tractates on the Gospel of John
FC, 90 (Washington, DC: Catholic University Press of America, 1994).

135.
Ecclesiastical History
7.19. Translation of Chester D. Hartranft,
NPNF
, second series, vol. 2.

136.
See p. 125. A comparable account is found, most famously, in Dictys. For other discovery narratives, see V. Saxer,
Morts, Martyrs, reliques, en Afrique Chrétienne aux premiers siècle
(Paris: Éditions Beauchesne, 1980, 245–46); F. Bovon, “The Dossier on Stephen, the First Martyr,
HTR
96 (2003): 279–315; Pierluigi Piovanelli, “The Miraculous Discovery of the Hidden Manuscript, or the Paratextual Function of the Prologue to the Apocalypse of Paul,” in Bremmer and Czachesz,
The Visio Pauli
, pp. 23–49; and esp. W. Speyer,
Bücherfunde
.

137.
Piovanelli has argued that by the time of the writing—after the triumph of Christianity starting in 313
CE
—the idea of an apocalyptic renewal of the heavens and earth had given way to an individualized judgment in the afterlife. That may be true enough, but it almost certainly was not a shift created by the conversion of the emperor and the massive shifts of religious allegiance that occurred in its wake, since we have earlier evidence of this eschatological transformation, most notably in the Apocalypse of Peter of the mid-second century.

138.
Duensing and de Santos Otero (p. 715) oddly enough take this as an indication of the
late
date of the account.

139.
Czachesz finds it significant that there is nothing said about the torment of Christian persecutors, and argues on these grounds that the final recension must have occurred some time after Constantine. Thus “Torture in Hell and Reality. The
Visio Pauli
,” in Bremmer and Czachesz, eds.,
The Visio Pauli
, pp. 130–43.