Dennis Ronald MacDonald’s book, The Legend and The Apostle: The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon, explores the early Pauline traditions found in the Acts of Paul and Thecla (AoPT).[1] This paper will explain and defend the AoPT in its historical value as a witness to the development of those traditions and legends. MacDonald contends that “the Pastoral Epistles have distorted our image of Paul, even for those of us who recognize them as pseudonymous.”[2] Indeed, many scholars still view the Pastorals in the New Testament as the normative Pauline expression for post-Pauline communities, but MacDonald holds that we should not make this assumption. The primary thrust of his book is that “the author of the Pauline Epistles wrote in Paul’s name to counteract the image of Paul as given in stories told by women,” such as those found in the AoPT.[3]
The AoPT (c.150-190 CE) is known in scholarly circles for a variety of reasons. It bears witness to a Pauline tradition of celibacy, vegetarianism, and renunciation. It describes the martyrdom of Paul in Rome under Emperor Nero in folkloric detail. Most significantly for MacDonald, it attests to the importance of women in some Pauline traditions, as embodied in the figure of Thecla. He argues that the AoPT lends credence to a tradition of early Christian women who, citing the example of Thecla trained and commissioned by Paul, were teaching, preaching and baptizing. As a result, writers such as Tertullian (160-240 CE) argued against the AoPT, contending that women should not be engaged in teaching, preaching, or baptizing.
Tertullian claimed that it was a presbyter from Asia Minor who wrote the AoPT “for love of Paul,” and had concocted the stories found therein.[4] Once he was discovered, this presbyter was made to denounce his writing and give up his office.[5] However, MacDonald says, while Tertullian was likely correct about the association with Asia Minor, he was incorrect in claiming that the presbyter invented these stories. MacDonald describes three distinct legends that he believes originated as oral tradition prior to being written down in the AoPT. These are the Thecla, Ephesus, and Martyrdom stories. There are likely other oral traditions present, but these three were among the most prominent, and attest to the historical value of the AoPT in preserving these traditions which may otherwise have been lost.
The first story describes the virgin Thecla, who is soon to wed a man named Thamyris. She hears Paul preaching and is captivated by his words, but is eventually taken to the governor for not marrying Thamyris and not heeding her mother Theocleia’s wishes. Thecla is tied up to be burnt at the stake, but a hailstorm stops the fire. She returns to Paul, and declares that she will cut her hair short as a man’s and follow him, and then goes on to Antioch. There, Thecla encounters the Syrian leader Alexander, who wants her for himself, but she refuses him and is condemned to die by the beasts. Queen Tryphaena cares for her in the interim, and once she is with the wild beasts, Thecla baptizes herself in a pool of seals - who were just struck by lightning. She survives all of this and more, sews her garment to look like a man’s cloak, and goes to see Paul. Paul commissions her to go and teach the word of God. In this Pauline tradition it is a woman, not Paul, who takes center stage.
The Ephesus story, otherwise known as Paul and the Lion, may be a Christian version of the Androclus and the Lion, a Roman story roughly contemporary with the AoPT.[6] MacDonald argues that “the story of Paul and the Ephesian lion can claim more antiquity than any other,” and that traces of these can also be found within the Pastoral epistles.[7] In the AoPT, while in Ephesus, Paul encounters a talking lion who wishes to be baptized, and after he is baptized, takes his leave to return to his lioness - but chooses to remain chaste, following Paul’s example. Later on, Paul faces the same lion who has been captured for Paul to be fed to. They recognize each other, and the lion refuses to eat him. One of the canonical Pastoral letters also references Paul’s rescue from a lion’s mouth, which may be an allusion to this legend (2nd Timothy 4:16-17).
The third story is that of Paul’s martyrdom. Stories of his death were known to the author of Luke-Acts, Clement of Rome, and Ignatius.[8] Patroclus, cupbearer to Nero, falls to his death from a high window while listening to Paul preach. Paul heals him, and once he returns to Nero, Patroclus incites the emperor’s anger by calling Jesus his King. Paul is caught and sentenced to death by beheading, and when he is, milk splashes out of his head onto the soldier’s tunic. The spirit of Paul later appears to Nero, and also to Luke and Titus. Of interest for MacDonald is the figure of Barsabas Justus who also appears in the story. He is known from the Acts of the Apostles, and later referenced by Eusebius, who said that Barsabas Justus was forced to drink poison and was saved. MacDonald writes, “If we are correct in linking the two stories, at least one episode of the martyrdom story… was known several decades before… [it] was written. Perhaps the longer ending of Mark also reflects a knowledge of this story…. [it] was already known to Justin Martyr and Tatian, and therefore must have been written before the second half of the second century.”[9]
MacDonald concludes that these three stories were evidently known to the 2nd century presbyter from Asia Minor who wrote the AoPT, and that he appropriated the oral traditions for his text. MacDonald also demonstrates the orality of the legends by looking at their folkloric content - Thecla baptized with the lightning-struck seals, Paul and the talking lion, milk splashing out from Paul’s head - and “their conformity to the conventions of oral narratives.”[10] Further, he contends that the author of the Pastoral Epistles knew these legends and betrays knowledge of each. He writes that “the Pastoral Epistles were written to contradict the image of Paul in popular legends - and… the legends were told by women to justify their celibate ministries.”[11]
The author of the Pastorals, in this view, sought to silence the women who were telling these legends. Thus, he forbade women to teach, except to teach young women to be housewives, and classified the oral traditions as “old wives tales.”[12] In contrast, the Thecla legend treats women sympathetically, and all men (besides, perhaps, Paul) contemptuously. MacDonald points out, “If the contents of any early Christian story suggests that its tellers were women, it is this one.”[13] As the AoPT likely came from Asia Minor, it is also not surprising that there were more women there than elsewhere in the proto-orthodox church at that time who were in leadership roles.[14]
Thus, between the Pastoral Epistles and the legends preserved in the AoPT, there are marked differences. Again, in the Pastorals, Paul forbids women to teach, while in the legends, he commissions them. In the Pastorals, women are saved through childbearing, but in the legends, those who remain chaste in all things are saved.[15] In the AoPT, Paul is a vegetarian, and uses water instead of wine for the Eucharist. The Pastorals reject both practices. The Pastorals also discuss bishops, deacons, presbyters and other offices of the church, while the legends are silent. MacDonald writes that this “silence is striking when we recall that the author of the Acts of Paul was himself a presbyter and subject to the authority of a bishop.”[16] However, he adds that the letters of Ignatius from the early 2nd century reveal that these two competing models were connected to historical conditions in the churches of Asia Minor.[17]
Though differences exist, there are also features common to both the Pastorals and the AoPT. For example, Paul gives a defense alone before the Gentiles, and is saved from the mouth of a lion. Due to their similarities, Ambrosiaster (5th century) commented on 2nd Timothy, noting that the characters of Alexander, Demas, and Hermogenes are mentioned in “other scriptures.”[18] In the 10th or 11th century, a scholar added the phrase “those things he suffered on Thecla’s behalf” to 2nd Timothy, as well as the names of Onesiphorus’ family members (who are only explicitly named in the AoPT).[19] Further, later editors altered the Pauline corpus. In fact, MacDonald writes, “all extant manuscripts of the corpus contain interpolations from a scribe who knew the Pastorals and who altered the text of Paul’s own letters,” such as in 1st Corinthians 11 and 14 and its stance on women.[20]
Despite the inclusion of the Pastorals in the New Testament canon, it did not stop the transmission of the legends found in the AoPT, or the text itself. Around 311 CE, Eusebius referred to the “Acts of Paul” as one of the “spurious books,” which indicates that the text was still widely circulated enough to have influence.[21] The AoPT was also quoted by Origen, and the Manicheans used it as scripture.[22] The various surviving manuscripts attest that it was translated into several languages, and it was part of the Book of Women in Syria (along with Ruth, Esther, Judith and Susanna).[23] The story of Paul’s martyrdom continued to be read on the day his death was commemorated, evidently from the AoPT.[24] The Greek Acts of Titus also draws on material from the AoPT.[25]
The influence of the Thecla story within the Pauline tradition and broader Christianity should not be understated either. For example, MacDonald notes that the name Thecla was not common in antiquity, but was popular with Christian women, and “especially common among virgins.”[26] Macrina Thecla, sister to Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa, was named after her.[27] Influence is also seen elsewhere, as in the 4th century, Methodius, bishop in Asia Minor, wrote in celebration and commemoration of Thecla in his Symposium. Theodore of Mopsuestia wrote an oration of Thecla, and Athanasius wrote a Life of St. Thecla. John Chrysostom cited Thecla in a sermon about simple dress.[28] Also in the 4th century, women who espoused celibacy were considered “new Thecla’s.”[29] Around the same time, Egeria (or Etheria), a Spanish nun, visited Thecla’s shrine in Seleucia, which MacDonald notes was “clearly the center of [her] cult .”[30] While there, Egeria “read the whole Acts of holy Thecla.”[31]
In the 5th century, the two-volume work known as the Life and Miracles of Saint Thecla began circulating, and by the 6th century, Emperor Justinian built a church to Thecla in Constantinople, and other churches followed in her honor.[32] In Asia Minor, Thecla’s name was invoked over monasteries and in inscriptions. In Antioch, a 4th century church was dedicated to Thecla, and a 5th century church in Iberia depicts Paul preaching to Thecla. Other depictions include a flask of holy oil, a fresco in a chapel, an ivory bas-relief, a relief on a sarcophagus, and a reference to Thecla in the Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena.[33] Faustus, a Manichean teacher, argued that a passage in 1st Timothy could not have been written by Paul as it contradicted what Paul preached to Thecla.[34]
Had the author of the AoPT not written down these legends, they likely never would have achieved the same significance and may well have died out, which speaks to the text's historical value. Although alluded to in the Pastorals, the legends find fuller expression and narrative form in the AoPT, and would be lost to us if not preserved therein. The continued influence of the legends attests to its historical value as well. The story of Paul’s martyrdom in Rome continued to be told in churches, and is still discussed today. While the Ephesus story may have had less influence than another more famous Biblical story of a lion, the story of Thecla undoubtedly retained influence in the church. Even though the Acts of Paul and Thecla did not end up in the New Testament canon, its impact still reverberates and carries with it an early Pauline tradition of renunciation and chastity, and one where women could also teach and preach. The text is still being translated and commented on today, and while it will likely never reach the degree of exposure or influence that the Pastoral Epistles have, the very fact that it still exists today attests to its historical value and continued importance in early Pauline and Christian studies.
Endnotes
[1] MacDonald, Dennis Ronald. The Legend and the Apostle: The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon (Philadelphia, PA: Westminister Press, 1983).
[2] Ibid., 15.
[3] Ibid., 14.
[4] Ibid., 17.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid., 21. The story of Paul and the lion is also referenced by Hippolytus in his commentary on Daniel (c.204 CE), Jerome also mentions the story, and even by the 14th century it was still referenced, as in Church History by Nicephorus Callistus (Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed., trans. by R. McL. Wilson, New Testament Apocrypha: Writings Relating to the Apostles Apocalypses and Related Subjects (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1992), 214-215).
[7] Ibid., 23.
[8] Ibid., 23-24.
[9] Ibid., 24.
[10] Ibid., 33.
[11] Ibid., 77.
[12] Ibid. This phrase and language is smoothed over in some translations to removed the reference to women.
[13] Ibid., 36.
[14] Ibid., 37.
[15] Ibid., 59.
[16] Ibid., 69.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid., 62.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid., 86.
[21] Eusebius, The History of the Church 3.25, in Eusebius, The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine (Trans. G.A. Williamson. Harmondsworth: Dorset Press, 1984), 134.
[22] MacDonald 90.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Schneemelcher, 219.
[26] MacDonald, 95.
[27] Ibid., 91.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Ibid., 53.
[30] Ibid., 93.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Ibid., 92.
[33] Ibid., 94-95.
[34] Ibid., 95.
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment