Relationships between the Acts of the Apostles and Other Apostle Narratives

Relationships between the Acts of the Apostles and Other Apostle Narratives

Julia A. Snyder

Because ‘apostles’ feature as protagonists both in the canonical Acts of the Apostles (ActsAp) and in other Christian narratives labelled ‘Acts’ in modern editions, it is frequently assumed that those other narratives represent ‘recep-tion’ of ActsAp – that is, that they were produced by persons who knew ActsAp and whose literary endeavours were actively inspired by it.1 For many narra-tives, however, actually demonstrating any particular form of literary influence has proven difficult. Scholars routinely disagree as to whether reconstructed ‘earliest’ forms of those narratives offer conclusive evidence of even ‘know-ing’ ActsAp, let alone as to what precise relationships may have existed be-tween them.

In the pages that follow, I will reflect on this intriguing discontinuity be-tween the inconclusive evidence of the particular case studies and the common assumption that other apostle narratives represent ‘reception’ of ActsAp. Tak-ing a selection of apostle narratives as case studies, I will investigate their re-lationships with ActsAp, asking whether the latter narrative seems to have functioned as a central reference point for their production or to have exerted a controlling influence. I will also reflect on what the answer to the latter ques-tion indicates about attitudes toward ActsAp in the second century and beyond. As case studies, I have selected most of the better-known apostle narratives because they will interest readers, and have added two lesser-known works that illustrate different ways of interacting with ActsAp.

Observing that these narratives generally engage very little with ActsAp, I will argue that most of them do not represent ‘reception’ of ActsAp to the ex-tent that one can justifiably describe them as ‘continuing,’ ‘rereading,’ ‘cor-recting,’ or ‘filling in the gaps’ of the latter narrative. Rather than attributing

1 Problematizing the assumed direction of influence, several scholars have suggested that

ascription of the title ‘Acts of the Apostles’ to the latter work could have occurred retrospec-tively in response to its use for other apostle narratives. See, e.g., F. BOVON, ‘La vie des apôtres: traditions bibliques et narrations apocryphes,’ in Les Actes apocryphes des apôtres: Christian-isme et monde païen, ed. F. Bovon/M. v. Esbroeck/R. Goulet (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1981), 149; R.I. PERVO, ‘A Hard Act to Follow: The Acts of Paul and the Canonical Acts,’ Journal of Higher Criticism 2 (1995): 4 n. 7; R. GOUNELLE, ‘Actes apocryphes des apôtres et Actes des Apôtres canoniques: état de la recherche et perspectives nouvelles (I),’ Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 84 (2004): 15–22; cf. G. DEL CERRO, ‘Los Hechos apócrifos de los Apóstoles su género literario,’ Estudios Bíblicos 51 (1993): 215–216.

Julia A. Snyder

320

this phenomenon to an early dating of texts and a consequent ‘ignorance’ or ‘dislike’ of the ‘canonical’ tradition, however, I will suggest that producers of other narratives may have ‘known’ and even liked ActsAp, but were simply not thinking about it (to any significant degree) when producing their own work. In conjunction with the latter hypothesis, I will suggest important ways in which the questions traditionally asked about relationships between ActsAp and other apostle narratives need to be reframed.

1. Preliminary Issues

During the discussion, it will be important to keep in mind that there are many ways in which ActsAp – in its own various versions2 – could have influenced the producers of other works.3 Some persons producing other narratives about the apostles might have consulted written versions of ActsAp, but it is also possible that limited resemblances between ActsAp and other works – assum-ing such resemblances do not simply reflect recourse to common traditions or ‘liturgical’ language4 – could have resulted from a producer’s having heard (a portion of) ActsAp read aloud, perhaps years before;5 from his or her having heard another person paraphrase the contents of the work; or from exposure to another apostle narrative that had itself been influenced by ActsAp.6 All of the

2 Regarding versions of ActsAp, cf. I. CZACHESZ, ‘The Acts of Paul and the Western Text

of Luke’s Acts: Paul Between Canon and Apocrypha,’ in The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla, ed. J.N. Bremmer (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996), 107–125; and, e.g., T. NICK-LAS/M. TILLY (eds.), The Book of Acts as Church History: Text, Textual Traditions and Ancient Interpretations = Apostelgeschichte als Kirchengeschichte: Text, Texttraditionen und antike Auslegungen (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003). For an overview of recent research on the text of ActsAp, see J. SCHRÖTER, ‘Actaforschung seit 1982. II. Sammelbände. Text- und Rezep-tionsgeschichte,’ ThR 72 (2007): 333–345.

3 On this topic see, e.g., C.R. MATTHEWS, ‘The Acts of Peter and Luke’s Intertextual Her-itage,’ Semeia 80 (1997): 208–214; R.F. STOOPS, ‘The Acts of Peter in Intertextual Context,’ Semeia 80 (1997): 72; C.M. THOMAS, The Acts of Peter, Gospel Literature, and the Ancient Novel: Rewriting the Past (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 14–15. I find ‘producer’ a more helpful term than ‘author,’ ‘scribe,’ or ‘redactor’ for talking about ancient narrative tra-ditions, since these stories were continually retold in new ways that both differed from and exhibited continuity with what had come before.

4 W. SCHNEEMELCHER, ‘Die Apostelgeschichte des Lukas und die Acta Pauli,’ in Apopho-reta: Festschrift für Ernst Haenchen, ed. W. Eltester/F.H. Kettler (Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1964), 242–244; cf. J.V. HILLS, ‘The Acts of Paul and the Legacy of the Lukan Acts,’ Semeia 80 (1997): 148–152.

5 Cf. SCHNEEMELCHER, ‘Apostelgeschichte’ (cf. n. 4), 244; J.V. HILLS, ‘The Acts of the Apostles in the Acts of Paul,’ SBLSP 33 (1994): 25. Thomas suggests asking whether one work appropriates another ‘by means of textually based procedures or by knowledge from memory’ rather than inquiring about ‘oral and written sources’ (Thomas, Acts of Peter [cf. n. 3], 14).

6 The possibility of influence by other apostle narratives means that features such as a travel motif or the use of apostles as protagonists need not have been directly inspired by ActsAp. On the vexed question of interrelationships between apostle narratives, see, e.g., R. VALANTASIS,


321

latter would constitute relationships of influence that would sufficiently ex-plain similarities of form and content, and it should be observed that not all of them would necessarily involve conscious processes, an important point to keep in mind when considering questions of motivation and intentionality.

Also worth observing is that persons producing the extant versions of apos-tle narratives had probably been exposed to other oral and/or written stories about their particular protagonists, and in many cases to other versions of their own ‘texts.’7 It is a fascinating feature of apostle narratives, engagingly de-scribed by Christine Thomas and Matthew Baldwin (Acts of Peter), Lautaro Roig Lanzillotta (Acts of Andrew), and Glenn Snyder (Acts of Paul),8 that they tend to have fluid manuscript histories, with extant versions varying not only at the word and phrase level, but also in larger areas of content, such that in most cases it is effectively impossible – and would indeed be nonsensical – to attempt to reconstruct ‘originals.’ Many of these narratives were continually rewritten over the centuries, with each ‘production’ exhibiting both continuity and discontinuity from the last, and with different productions often containing different sets of episodes. These were living traditions rather than static ‘texts,’ and extant versions would have been produced by a variety of different writers, each of whom would have had his or her own perspective on how received traditions and texts should be treated, including both ActsAp and previous ver-sions of their own narratives.

Assessing the influence of ActsAp on producers of other apostle narratives is thus more complicated than one might at first assume: one must not only consider the variety of conscious and subconscious, oral and written, direct and indirect manners in which versions of ActsAp could have influenced producers of other works, but also – in cases where such influence is even demonstrable – discern which of the many persons involved in the eventual production of a narrative might have introduced or affirmed various elements of (dis)continu-ity. In other words, one would need to consult every manuscript individually

‘Narrative Strategies and Synoptic Quandries: A Response to Dennis MacDonald’s Reading of Acts of Paul and Acts of Peter,’ SBLSP 31 (1992): 234–239; F.S. JONES, ‘Principal Orientations on the Relations Between the Apocryphal Acts (Acts of Paul and Acts of John; Acts of Peter and Acts of John),’ SBLSP 32 (1993): 485–505; PERVO, ‘Hard Act’ (cf. n. 1), 6; GOUNELLE, ‘Actes apocryphes (I)’ (cf. n. 1), 5, 12; and the essays of MACDONALD, PERVO, and STOOPS in Semeia 80.

7 As well as other texts and traditions. On the importance of taking other traditions about the apostles into account when speculating about influences on literary texts, see, e.g., D.R. MACDONALD, The Legend and the Apostle: The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon (Phil-adelphia: Westminster, 1983); VALANTASIS, ‘Narrative Strategies’ (cf. n. 6); GOUNELLE, ‘Actes apocryphes (I)’ (cf. n. 1), 8–9; D. MARGUERAT, ‘Paul après Paul: une histoire de récep-tion,’ NTS 54 (2008): 317–337.

8 THOMAS, Acts of Peter (cf. n.3); M.C. BALDWIN, Whose Acts of Peter? WUNT 196, Tü-bingen 2005; L.R. LANZILLOTTA, Acta Andreae Apocrypha: A New Perspective on the Nature, Intention and Significance of the Primitive Text, COr 26 (Geneva: Cramer, 2007); G.E. SNYDER, Acts of Paul: The Formation of a Pauline Corpus, WUNT 352 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013).

Julia A. Snyder

322

in order to achieve a comprehensive understanding of a particular narrative tradition’s relationship with ActsAp.

This is a point that has been underappreciated in discussions of the relation-ship between ActsAp and other apostle narratives. Almost all such discussions to date have focussed on reconstructed ‘earliest versions’ of these narratives, and have attempted to discern what ‘authors’ knew or thought about ActsAp. Yet just as the fluidity of the traditions often makes reconstruction of ‘origi-nals’ nonsensical, it also renders methodologically problematic the act of ask-ing about the attitude of ‘first authors.’ Moving forward, I suggest it will be better to stop talking about ‘authors’ and to inquire instead about the ways in which ‘producers’ – in whatever century – have or have not incorporated ele-ments of (dis)continuity with ActsAp into their own versions of apostle narra-tives.

The current essay will adopt the latter approach. Leaving aside the vexed question of ‘earliest’ versions, I will take a broader – and indeed more agnostic – approach to ActsAp’s reception history. Since I have not been able to exam-ine every manuscript of every narrative, I will limit my focus to an initial re-flection on relationships between ActsAp and some extant productions of some other narratives. In the process, I will suggest that one does well not to assume that all productions of apostle narratives represent ‘reception’ of ActsAp, nor that the way in which these texts interact – or do not interact – with ActsAp indicates anything certain about either their own production date or ActsAp’s ‘canonical status.’

2. Apostle Narratives and the Question of Influence

Helpful introductions to the current debate about relationships between ActsAp and other apostle narratives, especially with regard to the question of technical ‘literary dependence’ in putative ‘earliest’ versions, are provided by Semeia 80 (1997) and a 2004 study by Rémi Gounelle.9 In what follows, I will not repeat all the bibliographical details available in those studies,10 but will instead high-light some of the main areas of debate for the purpose of reflecting more broadly on relationships between those narratives and ActsAp.

9 GOUNELLE, ‘Actes apocryphes (I), (II)’ (cf. n. 1). Gounelle concludes that while some

‘second generation’ apostle narratives such as the Acts of Philip show explicit knowledge of ActsAp, the only ‘first generation’ narrative to make undeniable allusions is the Acts of Peter in its Latin ‘Vercelli’ version. He leaves open the question of whether the Acts of Paul, Acts of Peter, and Acts of Thomas have been influenced by ActsAp (ibid., 436). In another helpful introductory discussion, François Bovon lists formal and thematic similarities and differences between ActsAp and other apostle narratives (F. BOVON, ‘Canonical and Apocryphal Acts of Apostles,’ JECS 11 [2003]: 165–194; cf. BOVON, ‘La vie’ [cf. n. 1]).

10 Gounelle also provides a bibliography in R. GOUNELLE, ‘Les Actes apocryphes des apôtres témoignent-ils de la réception des Actes des Apôtres canoniques?’ in Les Actes des


323

Two main trends will be observed. First, we will see that some productions of some narratives, such as the Acts of John and Acts of Thomas, show no in-disputable connection to ActsAp at all, with no overlap in storyline and no verifiable thematic or verbal echoes. It will be suggested that these productions provide no information about ActsAp’s ‘reception history.’ Secondly, it will be observed that some productions of other narratives, such as the Acts of Peter and Acts of Barnabas, include what might be considered ‘discrepancies’ from ActsAp, despite seeming to ‘know’ the latter narrative. On that basis, it will be argued that differences between ActsAp and other texts should not automati-cally be attributed to either ignorance or an early production date.

Robert Stoops’ comments regarding the Acts of Peter are insightful:

Materials drawn from the canonical text are not treated with particular reverence […] Minor motifs possibly drawn from the Lucan Acts are employed without sensitivity to their func-tion in Acts. The vast majority of the material in the AcPet comes from other sources, while important features of canonical Acts are ignored […] Therefore, it seems misguided to assert that the canonical text had a controlling, dominant, or even the more important influence on the construction of the Acts of Peter at any stage. The evidence supports the conclusion that AcPet is in some sense dependent on canonical Acts, but the nature of that relationship is more like the echoes of Acts found in Justin Martyr than the explicit modelling or self-conscious supplementation that is often assumed.11

In what follows, I will suggest that Stoops’ insights might equally be applied to productions of other narratives, whose producers do not always seem to have engaged in a comprehensive and successful process of ‘checking’ facts with ActsAp in order to harmonize accounts. First, however, I will consider the for-mer type of narrative productions, those that do not provide a platform for dis-cussing ActsAp’s ‘reception history’ at all.

3. Acts of John

Exemplifying a narrative whose extant productions generally show no demon-strable connection to ActsAp whatsoever is the Acts of John (AJ). Its primary extant versions – considering here only those sections of manuscripts that have been attributed to AJ12 – never overlap in storyline with ActsAp and contain no definitive verbal parallels. Pieter Lalleman has tried to argue for literary dependence based on an allegedly sporadic ‘we’ narrator, but my own analysis shows that AJ’s style of narration is not parallel.13 I therefore concur with Eric

Apôtres: histoire, récit, théologie. XXe congrès de l’Association catholique française pour l’étude de la Bible (Angers, 2003), ed. M. Berder (Paris: Cerf, 2005), 206–211.

11 R.F. STOOPS, ‘Departing to Another Place: The Acts of Peter and the Canonical Acts of the Apostles,’ SBLSP 33 (1994): 390–391.

12 E.g., in manuscripts Patmos 188, Mezzojuso 2, Marc. 363, Halki 102, Ochrida 4, Vind. hist. gr. 63.

13 A detailed discussion of the issue is provided in J.A. SNYDER, ‘Imitation of “We” Pas-sages in Acts? Canonical Influence and the Internal (First Person) Narrator of the Acts of John,’

Julia A. Snyder

324

Junod and Jean-Daniel Kaestli that ActsAp’s literary influence on extant pro-ductions of AJ has been at most ‘extremely discrete,’14 and observe that such is the case even in later centuries when the narrative has been produced by people who almost certainly ‘knew’ ActsAp.

4. Acts of Thomas

Similarly, extant versions of the Acts of Thomas (ATh) do not overlap in story-line with ActsAp, and although a few verbal and thematic resemblances have been suggested, even productions that included all of the identified elements would not thereby show conclusive evidence of having been influenced by ActsAp. Among the more interesting resemblances are references to a place ‘for strangers’ being constructed where a snake splits open and pours out its contents (ATh 33; cf. ActsAp 1:18; Matt 27:7);15 to people hearing the voice of ‘the Lord’ but not seeing his form (ATh 27; cf. ActsAp 9:7);16 to ‘believers’ being ‘added’ (ATh 27; cf. ActsAp 5:14; 11:24);17 to Thomas’ rejoicing be-cause he is ‘worthy’ to suffer for Jesus (ATh 107; cf. ActsAp 5:41);18 and to Thomas’ demonstrating that Jesus is the ‘messiah’ about whom Scriptures

EChr 4 (2015), 488–516. Lalleman discusses the question of literary dependence in P.J. LAL-LEMAN, The Acts of John: A Two-Stage Initiation into Johannine Gnosticism (Leuven: Peeters, 1998), 74–98; cf. GOUNELLE, ‘Actes apocryphes (II)’ (cf. n. 1), 420–421. Equally debatable are the parallels suggested by T.W. THOMPSON, ‘Claiming Ephesus: Pauline Legacy in the Acts of John,’ in the Rise and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries of the Common Era, ed. C.K. Rothschild/J.Schröter, WUNT I/301, Tübingen 2013, 379–400.

14 E. JUNOD/J.-D.KAESTLI, Acta Iohannis, CChrSA 2 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1983), 427, cf. 532–533, 684. Most of the parallels discussed by Lalleman are also mentioned in their com-mentary (see ibid., 443 n. 1, 533 n. 1).

15 A.F.J. KLIJN, The Acts of Thomas: Introduction, Text, and Commentary, 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 98; H.W. ATTRIDGE, The Acts of Thomas, ed. J.V. HILLS (Salem, Ore.: Polebridge, 2010), 41.

16 ATTRIDGE, Acts of Thomas (cf. n. 15), 35. Klijn remarks that although ActsAp 9 is ‘a parallel passage […], it does not explain the present passage’ (KLIJN, Acts of Thomas [cf. n. 15], 78).

17 Attridge suggests that this is ‘more than just an echo of Acts 5:14’ (ATTRIDGE, Acts of Thomas [cf. n. 15], 36). Cf. KLIJN, Acts of Thomas (cf. n. 15), 84.

18 See KLIJN, Acts of Thomas (cf. n. 15), 181; P.-H. POIRIER/Y. TISSOT, ‘Actes de Thomas,’ in Écrits apocryphes chrétiens I, ed. F. Bovon/P. Geoltrain (Paris: Gallimard, 1997), 1418. Also of note are similarities in prison accounts (ATh 122, 153, 154; cf. ActsAp 12:7–10; 16:25–28), H.W. ATTRIDGE, ‘Intertextuality in the Acts of Thomas,’ Semeia 80 (1997), 106; GOU-NELLE, ‘Actes apocryphes [II]’ (cf. n. 1), 423–424).


325

speak (ATh 59; cf. ActsAp 17:3; 18:28).19 These are loose resemblances, how-ever, and none would conclusively indicate that any particular producer(s) of ATh even ‘knew’ ActsAp, let alone that it influenced their work.20

What can be concluded from this lack of interaction with what would be-come the ‘canonical’ text? It does not indicate that the producers were neces-sarily ignorant of ActsAp, but merely that they have produced narratives about Thomas and John that show no indisputable trace of ActsAp’s influence. In other words, ActsAp did not function as a primary and invasive frame of ref-erence for all productions of all apostle narratives, nor do all productions of all apostle narratives provide information about ActsAp’s ‘reception’ history. Since AJ and ATh fall into this category, it would be pointless to discuss their relationship with ActsAp further. There is nothing to discuss.21

5. Acts of Paul

There is only slightly more to discuss with regard to the Acts of Paul (APaul). Points of contact between ActsAp and APaul are minimal, which is surprising given that APaul focusses on one of ActsAp’s main characters. While John and Thomas feature only incidentally in ActsAp, Paul plays a major role, and one might expect APaul to pick up on its storyline. Nevertheless, extant APaul pro-ductions tell stories about Paul without substantial recourse to the ‘canonical’ apostle narrative. Most episodes are entirely new, and even those that reflect the same broad storyline as ActsAp tell stories in their own way.

Before looking at those stories in more detail, it is worth highlighting Glenn Snyder’s observation that different Pauline narratives include different epi-sodes, and that one cannot assume all known episodes were ever part of an early stable ‘whole.’22 I point this out because scholarly opinions about APaul’s relationship with ActsAp have generally been based on the latter assumption.

19 KLIJN, Acts of Thomas (cf. n. 15), 139; ATTRIDGE, Acts of Thomas (cf. n. 15), 58; cf.

A.F.J. KLIJN, The Acts of Thomas: Introduction – Text – Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 1962), 253. Gounelle suggests Luke 24:27 as the intertext (GOUNELLE, ‘Actes apocryphes [II]’ [cf. n. 1], 422–423).

20 Thus also the conclusion of GOUNELLE, ‘Actes apocryphes (II)’ [cf. n. 1], 424. On the question of whether extant versions of ATh ‘know’ ActsAp, see also Attridge, ‘Intertextuality’ (cf. n. 18), 87–124. He observes that allusions to ActsAp are rare, while the Gospels seem to have been more consciously in view (ibid., 106, 121). Note also the response of Christopher Matthews in the same volume.

21 There is no point in discussing whether AJ or AT have been influenced by ActsAp in terms of genre or component literary forms when they show so few other points of contact, and when superficial similarities in narrative structure can easily be explained in other ways. François Bovon and Ann Graham Brock, for instance, have suggested that gospels provide a closer genre analogue. See BOVON, ‘La vie’ (cf. n. 1), 150; A.G. BROCK, ‘Genre of the Acts of Paul: One Tradition Enhancing Another,’ Apocrypha 5 (1994): 133.

22 See SNYDER, Acts of Paul (cf. n. 8).

Julia A. Snyder

326

Such is the case for several scholars who have argued that the ‘author’ of APaul knew ActsAp and intentionally engaged with it. These include Richard Bauckham, who has suggested that APaul was designed as a ‘sequel’ to ActsAp.23 While Bauckham’s hypothesis rightly recognizes the limited overlap in storyline between productions of these narratives, it seems to me – and Rich-ard Pervo’s analysis is helpful here24 – that some APaul productions included an account of the same event recounted in ActsAp 9 (in APaul 1), and that reports of Paul’s arrival at Rome in productions of APaul and ActsAp relate to the same historical event. Productions including those elements could not therefore have been designed as intentional ‘sequels’ to ActsAp.

Another scholar who has argued that the ‘author’ of APaul engaged with ActsAp is Richard Pervo. Pervo has seen in APaul a desire to replace or ‘su-persede’ ActsAp,25 citing as evidence for ActsAp’s influence on APaul similar falling-from-window stories of Eutychus and Patroklus (ActsAp 20:7–12; APaul 14.1); commonalities in farewell scenes (ActsAp 20–21; APaul 12); and an accumulation of similarities in Ephesus accounts, such as mention of Priscilla/Aquila and silver/goldsmiths (ActsAp 19; APaul 9.1, 10, 14). In the first two cases, what Pervo observes is not a specific overlap in storyline, but a general similarity in the types of stories told. Eutychus falls from a window in Troas, and Patroklus falls from a window outside Rome, but Paul is speaking on both occasions, and on both occasions restores a young man to life.26 Simi-larly, the farewell scene in APaul occurs in Corinth, where Paul – still free –

23 R. BAUCKHAM, ‘The Acts of Paul as a Sequel to Acts,’ in The Book of Acts in Its First

Century Setting. Volume 1: The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting, ed. B.W. Win-ter/A.D. Clarke (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1993), 105–52; R. BAUCKHAM, ‘The Acts of Paul: Re-placement of Acts or Sequel to Acts?’ Semeia 80 (1997): 159–168. The idea that APaul was a sequel to ActsAp had been suggested by JTHS 6 (1905): 244–246. James later changed his mind (M.R. JAMES, ‘The Acts of Titus and the Acts of Paul,’ JThS 6 [1905]: 555).

24 PERVO, ‘Hard Act’ (cf. n. 1), 24; R.I. PERVO, ‘The “Acts of Titus”: A Preliminary Trans-lation with an Introduction, Notes, and Appendices,’ SBLSP 35 (1996): 455–82; cf. D. MAR-GUERAT, ‘Actes de Paul et Actes canoniques: un phénomène de relecture,’ Apocrypha 8 (1997): 211, 213–214, 219. Pervo argues based on the content of the Acts of Titus and other works that APaul must have included a ‘conversion’ account. He and James also discuss other persuasive evidence that producer(s) of the Acts of Titus considered APaul to parallel ActsAp chronolog-ically. See JAMES, ‘Acts of Titus’ (cf. n. 23).

25 R.I. PERVO, The Acts of Paul: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Cambridge: James Clarke, 2014), 67–68. The idea that APaul was designed as a competitor to ActsAp had already been mooted by C. HOLZHEY, Die Thekla-Akten: Ihre Verbreitung und Beurteilung in der Kirche (Munich: J. J. Lentner’schen, 1905), 31–32, 105.

26 On similarities and differences in the accounts of Patroklus and Eutychus, see BOVON, ‘La vie’ (cf. n. 1), 150–151; BOVON, ‘Canonical’ (cf. n. 9), 190; MACDONALD, Legend (cf. n. 9), 25–26; D.R. MACDONALD, ‘Luke’s Eutychus and Homer’s Elpenor: Acts 20:7–12 and Odyssey 10–12,’ JHS 1 (1994): 9–11; W. RORDORF, ‘In welchem Verhältnis stehen die apokry-phen Paulusakten zur kanonischen Apostelgeschichte und zu den Pastoralbriefen?’ in Text and Testimony: Essays on New Testament and Apocryphal Literature in Honour of A.F.J. Klijn, ed. T. Baarda et al. (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1988), 234–35; PERVO, ‘Hard Act’ (cf. n. 1), 10–12; SNYDER, Acts of Paul (cf. n. 8), 54–58, 60; P.W. DUNN, ‘The New Testament in the Acts of


327

boards a ship to Rome, whereas farewell scenes in ActsAp take place in Mile-tus and Caesarea, Paul is on his way to Jerusalem, and he will arrive in Rome in captivity.27 There is thus no overlap in storyline, but Paul’s forthcoming suffering is announced in both narratives by Paul and other prophets, and in both cases gathered believers are distressed by the announcement.28

For Pervo, these superficial similarities constitute evidence that APaul has been inspired by ActsAp. Has it? Maybe, maybe not. ‘Farewell’ scenes appear in many apostle narratives – and other ancient literature – and ActsAp need not therefore have been the source of the motif. The similarities in falling-from-window stories are more striking, but they could be explained in other ways. And the points of contact Pervo and others have observed in Ephesus episodes are merely incidental details in what are essentially different stories.29 Any of these features could reflect ActsAp’s influence on APaul, but that would not be the only way to explain the similarities.

In fact, what is especially striking about APaul productions is how dissimi-lar they are from ActsAp – so dissimilar that Wilhelm Schneemelcher and (sometimes) Dennis MacDonald have suggested APaul’s ‘author’ did not use ActsAp even if he knew it,30 and Willy Rordorf, followed by Peter Dunn, has argued that the ‘author’ of APaul probably did not know ActsAp at all.31 Ror-dorf observes that some episodes occurring in the same cities have absolutely

Paul,’ in Christian Apocrypha: Receptions of the New Testament in Ancient Christian Apocry-pha, ed. J.-M. Roessli/T. Nicklas (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014), 163–64; PERVO, Acts of Paul (cf. n. 25), 304, 310. Pervo considers a reworked version in 1 Clement to show that Luke’s Eutychus was not always seen as normative (PERVO, ‘Hard Act’ [cf. n. 1], 20).

27 On Paul’s arriving in Rome as a free person in APaul, see C. SCHMIDT, Acta Pauli: Nach dem Papyrus der Hamburger Staats- und Universitäts-Bibliothek (Glückstadt and Hamburg: J. J. Augustin, 1936), 103–104; SCHNEEMELCHER, ‘Apostelgeschichte’ (cf. n. 4) 205; MACDO-NALD, Legend (cf. n. 9), 25; RORDORF, ‘In welchem Verhältnis’ (cf. n. 26), 236; PERVO, ‘Hard Act’ (cf. n. 1), 6–7, 26–27; SNYDER, Acts of Paul (cf. n. 8), 38.

28 See PERVO, ‘Hard Act,’ 15–16; R.I. PERVO, ‘Egging on the Chickens: A Cowardly Re-sponse to Dennis MacDonald and Then Some,’ Semeia 80 (1997): 43–56; PERVO, Acts of Paul (cf. n. 25), 281–288.

29 Marguerat notes differences of plot in the Ephesus episodes and suggests they reflect an act of ‘rereading’ in which APaul places more focus on the apostle, and draws on 2 Cor 1 and 1 Cor 15 (MARGUERAT, ‘Actes de Paul’ [cf. n. 24], 214–215; cf. RORDORF, ‘In welchem Ver-hältnis’ [cf. n. 26], 232–234). On the Ephesus accounts, see also PERVO, ‘Hard Act’ (cf. n. 1), 12; PERVO, Acts of Paul (cf. n. 25), 213–251; BOVON, ‘Canonical’ (cf. n. 9), 190; SNYDER, Acts of Paul (cf. n. 8), 90–93. Rordorf would see these commonalities as evidence of shared traditions rather than literary dependence.

30 Schneemelcher prefers to see a common pool of oral traditions behind similarities. See SCHNEEMELCHER, ‘Apostelgeschichte’ (cf. n. 4); MACDONALD, Legend (cf. n. 9), 24–26. In his 1994 JHC article, MacDonald says the similarities indicate literary dependence, but in Leg-end had suggested they could trace to oral processes.

31 RORDORF, ‘In welchem Verhältnis’ (cf. n. 26); W. RORDORF, ‘Paul’s Conversion in the Canonical Acts and in the Acts of Paul,’ trans. P.W. Dunn, Semeia 80 (1997): 137–144; P.W. DUNN, ‘The Acts of Paul and the Pauline Legacy in the Second Century. Internet Version’

Julia A. Snyder

328

no overlap in content. Regarding episodes in Philippi and Corinth, he remarks, ‘Apart from the names, there is scarcely one common feature.’32 He also points out narrative ‘discrepancies,’ such as Paul’s making only one journey in some versions of APaul vs. multiple journeys in ActsAp, the presence of established Christian communities wherever Paul travels in some versions of APaul,33 and the prominence of Judas rather than Ananias – among other differences – in an account of Paul’s Damascus experience (APaul 9.5–6). A closer look at the latter passage will illustrate the point. In Coptic P. Bodmer 41, Paul says:

My brothers and sisters, listen to what happened to me, when I was in Damascus, when I persecuted the faith in God, when mercy struck me, mercy from the father who proclaimed the message of his son to me […] I entered into a large assembly with the support of blessed Jude, the brother of the lord, who gave me from the beginning the sublime love bestowed by faith. I conducted myself then in grace, with the support of the blessed prophet and through the revelation of Christ… When I was able to be worthy of the Word, I spoke to the believers – Jude encouraged me, and I became dear to those who heard me (Trans. Pervo).

This version of Paul’s Damascus experiences does not mimic any of the three ActsAp accounts (ActsAp 9, 22, 26). A ‘Judas’ is mentioned in ActsAp 9:11, but is not described as ‘the brother of the lord,’ nor depicted as integrating Paul into the Christian community. Furthermore, Ananias, who plays a prominent role in ActsAp 9, is not mentioned in this APaul account, while ‘the father’ takes an active role. These are certainly differences between the accounts.34

Nevertheless, the differences do not justify Rordorf and Dunn’s conclusion that the ‘author’ of APaul did not ‘know’ ActsAp, a phenomenon they relate to a second-century dating of APaul, before ActsAp was widely in circulation. Because they are thinking about a putative ‘author’ of APaul, they ignore the evidence of extant productions. P. Bodmer 41 is not a second-century text, but a fourth-century text whose producer probably did know ActsAp. Similarly, Pervo, whose translation I have quoted, and Rordorf, who has produced his own French version of APaul, continue to print editions of APaul that contain ‘discrepancies’ from ActsAp, despite ‘knowledge’ of the latter narrative. When one thinks about ‘producers’ rather than ‘authors,’ one immediately sees that differences from ActsAp do not necessarily indicate ‘ignorance,’ nor do they necessarily relate to early production date.

(PhD diss., Cambridge University, 2006), 13–44; DUNN, ‘New Testament’ (cf. n. 26). Rordorf draws on Schneemelcher in his discussion of differences (see SCHNEEMELCHER, ‘Apostelgeschichte,’ [cf. n. 4], 244–250). In 1903 Corssen had also mooted an ‘ignorance’ hy-pothesis (P. CORSSEN, ‘Die Urgestalt der Paulusakten,’ ZNW 4 [1903]: 22).

32 RORDORF, ‘In welchem Verhältnis’ (cf. n. 26), 230. 33 Cf. JAMES, ‘Note’ (cf. n. 23), 245. 34 Regarding discrepancies in the account of Paul’s conversion, see RORDORF, ‘Paul’s Con-

version’ (cf. n. 31), 138–140; and PERVO, ‘Hard Act’ (cf. n. 1), 22–24; PERVO, Acts of Paul (cf. n. 25), 217–218; SNYDER, Acts of Paul (cf. n. 8), 81–90. Marguerat observes that the ac-counts of ActsAp 9, 22, and 26 also attest differences (MARGUERAT, ‘Actes de Paul’ [cf. n. 24], 216–218).


329

Nor do they necessarily indicate a desire to ‘supersede’ ActsAp, as Pervo has suggested. Extant APaul productions give no indication of polemical in-tent,35 and the fact that the storylines are so entirely different from that of ActsAp makes a ‘supercession’ hypothesis hardly tenable. If production of APaul had been substantially motivated by a conscious, intentional engage-ment with ActsAp, as Pervo’s hypothesis assumes, one would expect to see more points of contact than the rather superficial similarities and differences that have been observed.

For similar reasons, a hypothesis offered by Daniel Marguerat is difficult to justify. He draws on Gérard Genette’s concept of ‘hypertextuality’ to suggest that APaul might be a ‘rereading’ of ActsAp rather than a ‘correction.’ If the stories differ, Marguerat suggests, the motivation need not have been polemi-cal. Instead, APaul may be fleshing out the biography of Paul, focussing on issues of concern in the producer’s own historical context, and presenting Paul in an elevated manner suitable for apostolic veneration in the second century CE.36

While I appreciate Marguerat’s move away from the false dichotomy of ‘ig-norance’ and ‘polemics,’ and while I agree that producers of apostle narratives could have been motivated by the concerns he suggests, I do not think that APaul productions can be described as ‘rereadings’ of ActsAp. The points of contact between ActsAp and extant APaul productions are simply too minimal to qualify as ‘hypertextuality’ as Genette describes it, or to justify suggesting that ActsAp was a central point of reference for APaul production, which is what Marguerat’s hypothesis assumes. To call APaul a ‘rereading’ of ActsAp implies that producers were actively thinking about ActsAp and intentionally engaging with it when framing their narratives, but in my opinion extant texts do not warrant such a conclusion. It is of course possible that some producers were ‘rereading’ ActsAp, but that is not the characterization of relationships between ActsAp and APaul productions that best fits the extant evidence.37

How might one characterize APaul productions, if not as ‘sequels,’ ‘reread-ings,’ or ‘replacements’ of ActsAp? Although ‘ignorance’ of ActsAp is theo-retically possible for some producers, I suggest that in most cases (selective) ‘ignoring’ is a more likely production scenario. Some producers may have ‘known’ and even liked ActsAp, and may even have been consciously or sub-consciously, orally or textually influenced by it at points, but for most of the

35 There are polemical elements in APaul – e.g., Demas and Hermogenes, the Corinthian

correspondence, and accounts of opposition to Paul’s teaching – but they are directed neither at ActsAp nor at the perspectives it espouses.

36 MARGUERAT, ‘Actes de Paul’ (cf. n. 24); D. MARGUERAT, ‘The Acts of Paul and the Canonical Acts: A Phenomenon of Rereading,’ trans. K. McKinney, Semeia 80 (1997): 169–183; G. GENETTE, Palimpsestes: la littérature au second degré (Paris: Seuil, 1982).

37 Cf. Yves Tissot’s critique of Marguerat, for calling APaul a ‘rereading’ of ActsAp without sufficiently demonstrating intentionality or explaining how an author could ‘reread’ in a non-corrective sense while contradicting the hypotext (Y. TISSOT, Review of Semeia 80, Apocrypha 13 [2002]: 313–314). Similarly, DUNN, ‘Acts of Paul’ (cf. n. 31), 37–38.

Julia A. Snyder

330

production process were simply not thinking about it at all. This hypothesis moves away from the unwarranted assumption of Pervo and Dunn that discrep-ancies and/or lack of resemblances necessarily indicate ‘ignorance’ of ActsAp, and is more plausible than hypotheses of Pervo and Marguerat, both of whom assume that (early) production of APaul was substantially motivated by a con-scious, intentional engagement with it. The problem with all of the latter hy-potheses is that they assume all APaul producers (would have) wanted to en-gage with ActsAp – and in Rordorf’s scenario, comprehensively to harmonize accounts – and that they were thinking about it (or would have been thinking about it) throughout the production process. Yet none of that can be assumed.

On the whole, then, the position of Schneemelcher lies closest to my own, but I would want to leave open two possibilities: first, that some APaul pro-ducers may have actually been ignorant of ActsAp, while others were not; and second, that some producers may occasionally have thought about ActsAp or consulted manuscripts during the production process, while at other points it was not at the forefront of their minds. I am thus not trying to rule out influence by ActsAp entirely, but simply counselling against statements like ‘APaul is an XYZ of ActsAp,’ which imply that ActsAp was a central point of reference for production of APaul.

I would also emphasize that even if some early producers did not ‘know’ ActsAp – and the evidence on that issue is inconclusive38 – any producers in later centuries who (re-)produced Pauline narratives diverging from ActsAp still qualify as writers for whom ActsAp did not exert a controlling influence on their work. This might not be relevant for productions of the Martyrdom alone, which could easily have been produced by diligent, active, intentional ‘canonical harmonizers,’ but it might apply to some productions of other epi-sodes.39

38 I find the stories of Eutychus and Patroklus, similar elements in the Ephesus episodes,

and – merely as supporting evidence – some verbal resemblances cited by Julian Hills (e.g., ‘face of an angel’ [ActsAp 6:15; APaul 3.3]; ‘look upon their threats’ [ActsAp 4:19; APaul 5] – NB: although these are very short phrases and appear in entirely different narrative contexts) sufficiently striking to warrant leaving open the question of whether APaul productions that included the latter elements might attest ActsAp’s influence. Influence is not necessary to ex-plain the data, but neither does the data rule it out. See HILLS, ‘Acts of the Apostles’ (cf. n. 5); HILLS, ‘Acts of Paul’ (cf. n. 4); cf. BAUCKHAM, ‘Acts of Paul: Replacement or Sequel’ (cf. n. 23), 159.

39 This initial assessment is necessarily brief. A more comprehensive treatment of relation-ships between APaul productions and ActsAp would need to grapple with how APaul produc-ers viewed and interacted with other texts, including the Pastoral Epistles. Regarding the latter relationships, see MACDONALD, Legend (cf. n. 9), 59–66; RORDORF, ‘In welchem Verhältnis’ (cf. n. 26), 237–241; PERVO, ‘Hard Act’ (cf. n. 1); DUNN, ‘Acts of Paul’ (cf. n. 31).


331

6. Acts of Peter

Another narrative whose extant productions attest surprisingly little interaction with ActsAp is the Acts of Peter (APet), a tradition primarily known from the Latin Vercelli version of the sixth or seventh century.40 Apart from flashbacks, there is no chronological overlap between extant APet productions and ActsAp, and verbal resemblances are few. Yet not all APet producers seem to have been ‘ignorant’ of ActsAp. References to ‘many being added’ in versions of APet 9, 31, and 33 may reflect ActsAp 2:47;41 the story of Ananias and Sapphira (ActsAp 5) seems to lie behind Peter’s remark in Coptic P. Berlin 8502 that ‘I sold [a piece of land], and God alone knows that neither I nor my daughter have kept anything from the money of the acre’;42 and the depiction of Paul in the Vercelli version of APet 1–3 seems to have been designed with ActsAp in mind.43 The latter text begins with Paul in Rome, mentions Paul’s conflicts with Jewish leaders – a major theme in ActsAp – and creatively di-vides Paul’s ‘two years’ in Rome (cf. ActsAp 28:30) into one year before the beginning of the story and one year spent traveling to Spain before a final Ro-man martyrdom. None of this is irrefutable evidence that any of these APet productions have been influenced – consciously or subconsciously, directly or indirectly – by ActsAp, but such a conclusion would certainly be reasonable.44

‘Knowledge’ has not always translated into a comprehensive and successful harmonization of details, however. In the Vercelli version of APet 23, Peter says:

Tell me, Simon, did you not fall at my feet and those of Paul, when in Jerusalem you saw the miraculous cures which took place by our hands, and say, ‘I pray you, take as much

40 The manuscript is dated to the sixth or seventh century, although its contents could reflect

an older APet production in many respects. See BALDWIN, Whose Acts of Peter (cf. n. 8) and J. N. BREMMER, ‘Aspects of the Acts of Peter: Women, Magic, Place and Date,’ in The Apoc-ryphal Acts of Peter: Magic, Miracles and Gnosticism, ed. J.N. Bremmer (Leuven: Peeters, 1998), 18–20; J.N. BREMMER, ‘The Apocryphal Acts: Authors, Place, Time and Readership,’ in The Apocryphal Acts of Thomas (Leuven: Peeters, 2001), 154–156; THOMAS, Acts of Peter (cf. n. 3), 28.

41 See STOOPS, ‘Departing’ (cf. n. 11), 395–396; THOMAS, Acts of Peter (cf. n. 3), 33–34. Stoops comments that the producer of APet need not have been consulting a text of ActsAp (STOOPS, ‘Acts of Peter’ [cf. n. 3], 69).

42 Trans. Elliott. See STOOPS, ‘Acts of Peter’ (cf. n. 3), 69; THOMAS, Acts of Peter (cf. n. 3), 34. The episode does not appear in the Vercelli version of APet.

43 See L. VOUAUX, Les Actes de Pierre: introduction, textes, traduction et commentaires (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1922), 27–33, 47–48, 55–57; G. POUPON, ‘Les “Actes de Pierre” et leur remaniement,’ in ANRW 25.6 (1988), 4378–4382; STOOPS, ‘Departing’ (cf. n. 11), 391–94; THOMAS, Acts of Peter (cf. n. 3), 21–24, 34–37.

44 Good discussions of resemblances between ActsAp and APet can be found in STOOPS, ‘Departing’ (cf. n. 11); STOOPS, ‘Acts of Peter’ (cf. n. 3); MATTHEWS, ‘Acts of Peter’ (cf. n. 3); C.M. THOMAS, ‘Canon and Antitype: The Relationship between the Acts of Peter and the New Testament,’ Semeia 80 (1997): 185–205; GOUNELLE, ‘Actes apocryphes (II)’ (cf. n. 1), 424–425; THOMAS, Acts of Peter (cf. n. 3), 32–37 and passim.

Julia A. Snyder

332

money from me as you wish, that I too by laying on of hands may perform such deeds’? And when we heard this from you, we cursed you: do you think that we try to possess money? (Trans. Elliott).

Although this attempt by Simon to purchase power is reminiscent of ActsAp 8, Peter’s companion is Paul instead of John, Simon requests healing power rather than ability to confer the Spirit, and the encounter takes place in Jerusa-lem rather than Samaria.45 Thus while the Vercelli producer in the sixth or sev-enth century surely ‘knew’ ActsAp, ‘knowledge’ has not resulted in compre-hensively harmonized accounts, and we therefore see once again that differ-ences do not necessarily indicate ignorance, nor do they necessarily indicate an early production date.

This does not mean that all APet producers knew ActsAp. Christine Thomas and others have argued that the references to Paul in APet 1–3 were probably not present in APet’s earliest written manifestation, and Thomas points out that some versions of APet may show more influence from ActsAp than others.46 She also observes that later APet producers did not consider earlier versions of APet to be inviolate,47 a phenomenon that could provide an anal-ogy for producers’ attitudes toward ActsAp. She writes, ‘Each of the Acts of Peter texts knows earlier written versions. The constant reformulation of the narrative, then, is not an accident of memory, but a chosen compositional technique.’48 Her observation raises the following question: if APet producers at later stages cared enough to re-produce the narrative in a form substantially similar to what had come before, yet felt free to alter and add ele-ments, could this also describe how some of them felt it was appropriate to interact with ActsAp? I think this is worth considering, although I acknowledge that the overlap in fabula between ActsAp and extant APet productions is more limited than between versions of APet.

How, then, might one characterize relationships between APet productions and ActsAp? Once again, it is best not to describe extant APet productions as ‘cor-rections,’ ‘interpretations,’ ‘rereadings,’ or ‘updatings’ of ActsAp, because the storylines are too different. It is simply not evident that ActsAp was (always) a central point of reference for production of APet – that producers were regu-larly thinking about ActsAp and wanting to engage with it. Similarly, there is little evidence that producers were intentionally presenting ‘continuations’ of ActsAp, as earlier commentators such as Ficker and Hilgenfeld had suggested,

45 On this parallel, see VOUAUX, Actes de Pierre (cf. n. 43), 32, 47–48, 364–365;

C. SCHMIDT, ‘Studien zu den alten Petrusakten. II. Die Komposition,’ ZKG 45 (1927): 498–501; STOOPS, ‘Departing’ (cf. n. 11), 399–401; THOMAS, Acts of Peter (cf. n. 3), 35. Bovon remarks that APet 23 could be referring to something in the (lost) first part of APet (BOVON, ‘Canonical’ [cf. n. 9], 189, n. 135). Matthews argues that the whole motif of Peter’s conflict with Simon is Luke’s creation and that its APet manifestation is therefore ultimately inspired by ActsAp, but he comments that this does not necessarily imply direct literary dependence (MATTHEWS, ‘Acts of Peter’ [cf. n. 3], sp. 208–214). Others see older traditions behind both accounts (e.g., THOMAS, Acts of Peter [cf. n. 3], 35–36).

46 THOMAS, Acts of Peter (cf. n. 3), 32. 47 Ibid., 80. 48 Ibid., 89.


333

inspired partly by the fact that the Vercelli version begins with Paul in Rome.49 Although a ‘continuation’ motivation cannot be ruled out for all producers, I agree with Carl Schmidt that the Vercelli version probably begins with Paul in Rome because it follows the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, which includes a separate account of Peter’s prior activities.50 Since the Vercelli version of APet is presented as a continuation of the Recognitions, it need not be under-stood as a continuation of ActsAp.

Before leaving APet, it is worth commenting finally on Thomas’ suggestion that the Vercelli version – and the Greek version that preceded it – reflect the evolving ‘canonical’ status of ActsAp and other NT texts. Thomas cites an increased density of NT allusions in later compositional layers of APet, and suggests that the compositionally ‘later’ Pauline sections of APet are more con-sistently in harmony with ActsAp than the ‘earlier’ sections on Peter.51 She may be right, but I would point out that the latter idea does not entirely account for the fact that we find the relatively ‘faithful’ Pauline sections in the same extant version of APet as the less ‘faithful’ Petrine sections, a production that also includes other ‘contradictions.’ Since later APet producers chose to retain these discrepancies, they were either not as concerned with matching ActsAp as Thomas thinks, or accorded previous versions of APet higher authority.

7. Acts of Titus

In the preceding section, we saw that an APet producer in the sixth or seventh century who surely ‘knew’ ActsAp has not comprehensively and successfully harmonized accounts, and I argued on that basis that differences from ActsAp do not necessarily indicate either ‘ignorance’ of it or an early production date. Extant productions of the Acts of Titus (ATit) lead to the same conclusion.

All ATit productions clearly attest influence by both ActsAp and APaul. According to two Greek manuscripts:52

49 G. FICKER, Die Petrusakten: Beiträge zu ihrem Verständnis (Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius

Barth, 1903), 7; D.A. HILGENFELD, ‘Die alten Actus Petri,’ ZWT 46 (1903): 325. Vouaux sug-gests that a desire to present APet as a continuation of ActsAp motivated the ‘author’ of the Vercelli version to add the first three chapters (VOUAUX, Actes de Pierre [cf. n. 43], 31), but critiques Hilgenfeld and Ficker for attributing this motivation to producers of earlier versions of the narrative (ibid., 36, 48, 229).

50 SCHMIDT, ‘Studien’ (cf. n. 45), 509–512; cf. STOOPS, ‘Departing’ (cf. n. 11), 404; STOOPS, ‘Acts of Peter’ (cf. n. 3), 70.

51 THOMAS, Acts of Peter (cf. n. 3), 32, 36–37; cf. J.-D. KAESTLI, ‘Le rôle des textes bi-bliques dans la genèse et le développement des legendes apocryphes: le cas du sort final de l’apôtre Jean,’ Aug. 23 (1983): 335; BOVON, ‘Canonical’ (cf. n. 9).

52 Par. gr. 548 and Ottob. 411 (O). For the Greek, see F. HALKIN, ‘La légende crétoise de saint Tite,’ AnBoll 79 (1961): 241–256. The following translation is based primarily on the Paris manuscript.

Julia A. Snyder

334

[Titus] was numbered with the one hundred twenty [ActsAp 1:15], and with the three thou-sand who came to believe in the Lord through the teaching of Peter, the chief [ActsAp 2:41], as indeed it is written, ‘Cretans and Arabs’ [ActsAp 2:11]. He was always eager and enthu-siastic. After three years, five thousand men had been added to the faith [ActsAp 4:4]. After two years, when the lame man had been healed by Peter and John [ActsAp 3:1–10], the apostles were persecuted and commanded not to speak in the name of the lord Jesus [ActsAp 4:18]. And when the priests53 wanted to kill them, Gamaliel, the teacher of the law,54 ob-structed their plan [ActsAp 5:33–40]. Seven years later, Stephen was stoned [ActsAp 7:59]. After that, the things concerning the holy Paul occurred in Damascus, that is, his blinding and recovery of sight [ActsAp 9]. And he first proclaimed the word of Christ in Damascus.55 Paul healed Aphphia56 the wife of Chrysippus, who had been possessed by a demon [APaul 7]. And having fasted seven days, he cast down the idol of Apollo [APaul 6]. Then he went to Jerusalem and in turn57 to Caesarea.

The holy Titus was ordained by the apostles and sent with Paul to teach and ordain those whom Paul would designate. Arriving at Antioch, they found Barnabas the son of Panchares, whom Paul had raised [cf. APaul 2]. Herod the tetrarch killed James the brother of John with a sword [ActsAp 12:2]. They then went to Seleucia and Cyprus and Salamis and Paphos, and from there to Perga in Pamphilia, and back to Pisidian Antioch, and to Iconium to the house of Onesiphorus, whom Titus had already told about Paul [APaul 3.2], since he was Paul’s forerunner in every city. From there he58 went to Lystra and Derbe. The divinely inspired Titus proclaimed the word of God59 with Paul in every city, and endured persecu-tions and whippings. But he60 enlightened the hearts of unbelievers, performing signs and wonders, just as all these things are reported in the Acts of the apostles.

This passage illustrates how two particular ATit productions have been influ-enced by both ActsAp and APaul. Titus is situated within the ActsAp account as one of the ‘one hundred twenty’ gathered in Jerusalem and one of the ‘Cre-tans’ present on Pentecost, while Aphphia’s healing has probably been inspired by a version of APaul 7, the casting down of Apollo’s idol by a version of APaul 6, and Titus’ description of Paul to Onesiphorus by a version of APaul 3.2, which reports, ‘Titus had told him what Paul looked like, as Onesiphorus had not seen him in person.’61 As an aside, it is interesting to note that these ATit productions show no evidence of considering either ActsAp or APaul to be more authoritative, nor is it clear that one of those traditions has played a more dominant role in the producers’ mental framework. In fact, both ActsAp

53 O: ‘chief priests’ 54 O omits ‘of the law.’ 55 O: ‘in Arabia and Damascus’ 56 O: ‘Amphia’ 57 Or ‘again.’ 58 O: ‘they’ 59 O: ‘Christ’ 60 O: ‘they’ 61 Trans. Pervo. Later in these ATit productions, the narrator reports that Titus and Luke

stayed with Paul until ‘his consummation under Nero’ (ATit 6), which accords with APaul 14.


335

and APaul seem to be included in the designation ‘Acts of the apostles’ at the end of the cited text.62

Also interesting is the fact that although these ATit productions consciously use ActsAp, they have not comprehensively and successfully harmonized ac-counts. In 1905, M. R. James found the ‘years’ elapsing between events ‘en-tirely out of harmony with the canonical narrative,’ and observed that ActsAp does not depict Barnabas as ‘Barnabas the son of Panchares, whom Paul had raised.’63 For my own part, I do not find the chronological information ‘en-tirely’ disharmonious, but I agree with James that the ATit account does not emulate ActsAp’s depiction of Barnabas as the precursor and partner of Paul, nor does it concur about how everyone got to Antioch. In ActsAp 11:25–26 Barnabas brings Paul to the latter city, but in this ATit account Paul and Titus travel there of their own accord, which is certainly a discrepancy.64 Because these ATit producers clearly ‘knew’ ActsAp, we see once again that differences do not necessarily indicate ‘ignorance,’ nor do they relate in a simple manner to production date. The manuscripts reflected above come from the tenth and fifteenth centuries, and even putative ‘early’ production of ATit is never dated before the fifth century.65

Can these ATit productions be described as ‘corrections,’ ‘updatings,’ or ‘rereadings’ of ActsAp? Again, I would want to avoid any phraseology that suggests ActsAp was (always) a central reference point for ATit production. The ATit productions cited above mention events from ActsAp, but the story-line revolves around Titus, ActsAp is not the only source that has been used, and even those elements stemming from ActsAp function primarily to enhance the Titus narrative. These ATit productions do not read as ‘versions’ of ActsAp, but as stories about Titus and Crete that happen to draw upon ActsAp

62 PERVO, ‘Acts of Titus’ (cf. n. 24), 461; W. RORDORF, ‘Actes de Tite,’ in Écrits apocry-

phes chrétiens II, ed. P. Geoltrain and J.-D. Kaestli (Paris: Gallimard, 2005), 611 n. 4. Regard-ing the use of ActsAp and APaul in ATit productions see JAMES, ‘Acts of Titus’ (cf. n. 3): W. SCHNEEMELCHER, ‘Paulusakten,’ in Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung. II. Apostolisches, Apokalypsen und Verwandtes, ed. W. Schneemelcher. 5th ed. (Tübingen: J. B. C. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), 199–200.

63 JAMES, ‘Acts of Titus’ (cf. n. 23), 551–53, quote 551–552. 64 See PERVO, ‘Acts of Titus’ (cf. n. 24), 459, 464. 65 Dates between the fifth and seventh centuries have been suggested for the existence of

ATit productions (PERVO, ‘Acts of Titus’ [cf. n. 24], 457–458; RORDORF, ‘Actes de Tite’ [cf. n. 62], 605; I. CZACHESZ, Commission Narratives: A Comparative Study of the Canonical and Apocryphal Acts [Leuven: Peeters, 2007], 208). No extant productions are that early, however. Note that the ATit productions cited may also attest discrepancies with APaul. In extant ver-sions of APaul, the Chrysippus and Apollo episodes occur in Tyre and Sidon, after Paul has already been to Antioch and Iconium, an itinerary that is difficult to reconcile with the ATit account. See JAMES, ‘Acts of Titus’ (cf. n. 23), 554; SCHNEEMELCHER, ‘Paulusakten’ (cf. n. 62), 204. As James observes, such a discrepancy could of course have been introduced at a later stage in the life of the ATit tradition. Cf. PERVO, ‘Acts of Titus’ (cf. n. 24), 461–462; RORDORF, ‘Actes de Tite’ (cf. n. 62), 606.

Julia A. Snyder

336

when it serves their own purposes, and I would therefore counsel against de-scribing its production in a manner that grants ActsAp particular priority.

I would also counsel against discussion of ‘authors’ and ‘earliest versions’ of ATit. The importance of examining each ‘production’ separately becomes evident when one considers the fact that a third Greek manuscript of ATit, Vind. hist. 45, does not contain any of the possible discrepancies with ActsAp discussed above. In place of the quoted material, it reads:

[Titus] was numbered among the one hundred twenty disciples on whom the all-holy Spirit came to rest like tongues of fire [ActsAp 1:14; 2:1–2]. After the blessed Stephen was killed, when the blessed apostles were scattered because of persecution [cf. ActsAp 8:1] and the blessed Paul had become a disciple of the divine word, he was appointed by the holy apostles together with Paul as a fellow traveler and champion.

When they had returned to Jerusalem, Titus was ordained by the apostles and sent with Paul to teach and ordain those whom Paul would designate. Preceding and going before Paul to every location, he was pre-teaching the word of the Lord.66

Like the two earlier accounts, Vind. hist. 45 places Titus within ActsAp as one of the one hundred twenty disciples gathered on Pentecost, but references to ‘years’ and ‘Barnabas the son of Panchares’ are absent. This version of ATit does not ‘contradict’ ActsAp as clearly as the others.67

8. Acts of Barnabas

One apostle narrative for whose production ActsAp may (sometimes) have been a central point of reference is the Acts of Barnabas (ABarn). Narrated in the first person by John Mark, ABarn productions highlight Paul and Barnabas’ dispute about the latter colleague (ABarn 5–10; cf. ActsAp 15:36–40) and make Bar-Jesus (cf. ActsAp 13) the arch-villain whose opposition eventually results in Barnabas’ martyrdom (ABarn 18–23). In some versions, a consider-able amount of space is allotted to John Mark’s history with Paul and Barnabas, and details are provided about his movements, motivations, and attempts to reingratiate himself with Paul that go beyond the ‘canonical’ narrative. In all of these sections, ABarn productions seem to be directly inspired by ActsAp, and some may even have been conceived as ‘expansions’ of it.

This does not necessarily apply to all ABarn productions, however. Richard Lipsius, Aurelio de Santos Otero, and Enrico Norelli have suggested that pro-duction of ABarn (originally) related to church politics: they think ABarn was composed as ‘literary evidence’ of the Cyprian church’s apostolic founding and possession of apostolic remains, which were important in the Cyprian

66 The Greek text is provided by HALKIN, ‘Légende’ (cf. n. 52), 252–256. 67 The assertion that the apostles were ‘scattered’ contradicts known versions of ActsAp

8:1, but probably represents an incidental lapse of memory or a misunderstanding of the ‘ca-nonical’ account.


337

church’s ongoing struggle for autonomy.68 István Czachesz has responded to the latter hypothesis by pointing out that extant ABarn productions are not as single-mindedly focused on Barnabas and Cyprus as a ‘church politics’ expla-nation might lead one to believe,69 and I would add that one needs to consider not only what may have inspired ‘original’ production of ABarn, but also what may have inspired its reproduction over succeeding centuries. Nevertheless, church politics may have been at the forefront of some producers’ minds, and in those cases one would not want to describe ABarn as an ‘expansion of ActsAp,’ but rather as a separate narrative that draws on ActsAp when conven-ient.

The ABarn tradition also provides further evidence that knowledge of ActsAp – and ‘late’ production date – did not always translate into a compre-hensive and successful harmonization of accounts. ActsAp depicts John Mark’s mother as living in Jerusalem (ActsAp 12:12), but in the ninth-century Par. gr. 1470 version of ABarn70 John Mark is baptized in Iconium (ABarn 2). Where is John Mark from? These productions seem to disagree. Similarly, ActsAp has John Mark part ways with Barnabas and Paul after visiting Cyprus (ActsAp 13:4–5) before they go to Iconium (ActsAp 14:1–6), while Par. gr. 1470 seems to have them visit Iconium before Cyprus (ABarn 5). There are thus differences between the narratives.71

It is also worth noting that these discrepancies only appear in some ABarn productions. In manuscript Vat. 1667, for instance, details are more in keeping with the ‘canonical’ narrative.72 In this production, John Mark is servant to ‘the high priest’ rather than ‘the high priest of Zeus’; he was baptized by Peter, Barnabas, and Paul rather than by Paul, Barnabas, and Silas; a reference to his being baptized ‘in Iconium’ does not appear (ABarn 2); and ‘Jerusalem’ re-places another mention of the latter city (ABarn 5). Since these changes resolve

68 R.A. LIPSIUS, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden: Ein Beitrag zur

altchristlichen Literaturgeschichte, vol. 2.2 (Braunschweig: C. A. Schwetschke and Son, 1884), 290–297; A. DE SANTOS OTERO, ‘Jüngere Apostelakten,’ in Neutestamentliche Apokry-phen in deutscher Übersetzung. II. Apostolisches, Apokalypsen und Verwandtes, ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher, 5th ed. (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), 421; E. NORELLI, ‘Actes de Barnabé,’ in Écrits apocryphes chrétiens II, ed. P. Geoltrain and J.-D. Kaestli (Paris: Gallimard, 2005), 624.

69 See CZACHESZ, Commission Narratives (cf. n. 65), 189–207. 70 See M. BONNET, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, vol. II, 2 (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1959

[first printing 1903]), 292–302. Dates suggested for ‘initial’ production are fifth or sixth cen-tury. See DE SANTOS OTERO, ‘Jüngere Apostelakten’ (cf. n. 68), 421; NORELLI, ‘Actes de Bar-nabé’ (cf. n. 68) 623–624; CZACHESZ, Commission Narratives (cf. n. 65), 190.

71 On these and other discrepancies between ActsAp and versions of ABarn, see O. BRAUNSBERGER, Der Apostel Barnabas: Sein Leben und der ihm beigelegte Brief (Mainz: Florian Kupferberg, 1876), 4–5; LIPSIUS, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten (cf. n. 68), 2.2:285–86; NORELLI, ‘Actes de Barnabé’ (cf. n. 68), 625, and his notes; CZACHESZ, Commis-sion Narratives (cf. n. 65), 198–199.

72 For the Greek text, see G. HENSCHENIO et al., eds., Acta Sanctorum Iunii, new ed., vol. 2 (Paris and Rome: Victorem Palmé, 1867), 425–429.

Julia A. Snyder

338

several apparent discrepancies, Lipsius is no doubt correct that they have been motivated by a desire to harmonize with ActsAp.73 This demonstrates once again the importance of considering each production individually when inquir-ing about literary relationships.

Before concluding, I will now briefly comment on the Acts of Andrew and Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1 as a way of reinforcing points already made.

9. Acts of Andrew

The Acts of Andrew (AAnd) represents a narrative tradition like AJ, ATh, and APaul whose points of contact with ActsAp are generally rather minimal – so minimal that two scholars concerned with ‘early’ versions of AAnd have seen no explicit evidence whatsoever for ActsAp’s influence at that ‘early’ stage. Lautaro Roig Lanzillotta remarks that there are no definitive New Testament references in what he considers to be the ‘earliest’ AAnd material, and Jean-Marc Prieur concludes that the ‘author’ probably does not ‘know’ ActsAp at all because AAnd as he reconstructs it has Andrew visit some of the same cities as Paul in ActsAp, without any recognition of the latter’s having been there.74

While Prieur correctly observes that extant AAnd productions demonstrate no substantial relationship with ActsAp, his conclusion that this reflects ‘igno-rance’ of the latter tradition is unconvincing, for the reasons that have already been discussed. Differences do not always indicate ‘ignorance,’ and when one thinks about ‘producers’ rather than ‘authors,’ one sees that Prieur’s argument is actually self-refuting. Because Prieur has reconstructed the ‘early’ AAnd with reference to the sixth-century AAnd epitome by Gregory of Tours, the logical implication of his comments is that he understands Gregory in the sixth century to have produced a version of AAnd that ‘ignores’ Paul’s canonical activities. But if overlapping itineraries do not indicate ignorance of ActsAp in Gregory’s case – and they certainly do not75 – by the same logic earlier AAnd

73 LIPSIUS, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten (cf. n. 68), 2.2:176–77; and see BRAUNS-

BERGER, Barnabas (cf. n. 71), 2–4; NORELLI, ‘Actes de Barnabé’ (cf. n. 68), 629–630 n. 2. The harmonization effort has not been completely effective, however. As in other ABarn produc-tions, Vat. 1667 has John Mark stay behind in Perga rather than abandoning Paul and Barnabas for Jerusalem (see ABarn 5; ActsAp 13:13).

74 L. ROIG LANZILLOTTA, ‘The Acts of Andrew and the New Testament: The Absence of Relevant References to the Canon in the Primitive Text,’ in Christian Apocrypha: Receptions of the New Testament in Ancient Christian Apocrypha, ed. J.-M. Roessli and T. Nicklas (Göt-tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014), 173–188; J.-M. PRIEUR (ed.), Acta Andreae, CChrSA 6 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1989), 404.

75 Gregory certainly knew ActsAp. He quotes it by name both in the preface to his AAnd account and in, e.g., Glory of the Martyrs 3 and 4.


339

producers could also have ‘known’ ActsAp and simply not let it exert a con-trolling influence on their work.76

The wider Andrew production world also illustrates once again the varying degrees to which different producers interacted with ActsAp. Although Roig Lanzillotta and Prieur see little evidence for interaction with ActsAp in ‘early’ versions of AAnd – and in my opinion they are correct in that77 – the Narratio and Laudatio versions of Andrew’s activities contain clear references to the ‘canonical’ text.78 The three Greek manuscripts Max Bonnet uses for his edi-tion of Laudatio even cite ActsAp explicitly: ‘As one can hear in the writings of the all-wise Luke, “It was first in Antioch that the disciples were called Christians”’ (cf. ActsAp 11:26).79 Some narratives about Andrew thus were influenced by ActsAp. I point this out to emphasize the importance of distin-guishing between individual productions of apostle narratives when consider-ing questions of literary influence.

10. Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.27–71

A narrative tradition whose interaction with ActsAp is more similar to that of ATit and ABarn is Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1 (Rec), which includes an account in direct speech of the apostles’ post-resurrection activities in Jeru-salem. F. Stanley Jones and others have argued that extant productions show probable ‘knowledge’ of ActsAp in their portrayal of Gamaliel (Rec 1.65.2–3; cf. ActsAp 5:38–39); their account of Paul’s Damascus activities (Rec 1.71.3–4); and an idiosyncratic citation of Deut 18 / Lev 23 (Rec 1.36.2; cf. ActsAp

76 Roig Lanzillotta critiques Prieur for using Gregory’s itinerary as representative of the ‘early’ AAnd (ROIG LANZILLOTTA, Acta Andreae [cf. n. 8], 30–31).

77 Dennis MacDonald has suggested that the beginning of the Acts of Andrew and Matthias – which he considers intrinsic to AAnd – ‘ultimately derive[s] from Luke’s Acts’ (ActsAp 1–2) (D.R. MACDONALD, The Acts of Andrew and the Acts of Andrew and Matthias in the City of the Cannibals [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990], 33; cf. CZACHESZ, Commission Narratives [cf. n. 65], 226–31). Yet although the Armenian tradition clearly echoes ActsAp in that section (see L. LELOIR, Écrits apocryphes sur les apôtres: traduction de l’édition arménienne de Venise. I. Pierre, Paul, André, Jacques, Jean, CChrSA 3 [Turnhout: Brepols, 1986], 205), Greek manuscripts tend to be less clear in attesting ActsAp’s influence, and neither this nor the other loose resemblances cited in the notes of MacDonald’s edition would necessitate literary dependence nor, pace MacDonald, even indirect literary influence by ActsAp on the ‘early’ Greek AAnd as he reconstructs it. Prieur’s index notes some other resemblances between ActsAp and various AAnd versions, e.g., Andrew’s face shining like ‘an angel’ (Greg 11:30–31; cf. ActsAp 6:15); ‘household’ conversions (Mart. pr. 5/Laud. 34; Greg 4.36; cf. ActsAp 10, 11, 16, 18:8); and paralysis with the ‘hand of the Lord against you’ (Mart. pr. 4/Laud. 34; cf. ActsAp 13). See PRIEUR, Acta Andreae, 592–93, 578–79, 716–17, 710–711. Many are drawn from Bonnet’s editions. These need not reflect ActsAp specifically, although they might.

78 See, e.g., M. BONNET, ‘Martyrium sancti apostoli Andreae,’ AnBoll 13 (1894): 355–356; cf. ROIG LANZILLOTTA, ‘Acts of Andrew’ [cf. n. 74], 183–188.

79 M. BONNET, ‘Acta Andreae apostoli cum laudatione contexta,’ AnBoll 13 (1894): 316 (= Laud. 6). See also p. 323 (= Laud. 15).

Julia A. Snyder

340

3:22–23).80 Yet despite probably ‘knowing’ ActsAp, the write-up of events is so fresh that Jones can suggest the material may have been designed as a com-petitor or replacement for ActsAp, in the vein of Greco-Roman competitive historiography.81

There is some merit to the latter idea on the level of literary endeavour, but I suggest that one would not want to ascribe a polemical intent to the mere fact that Rec 1 tells the same story in a different way. Extant Rec 1 accounts contain no substantive contradictions with ActsAp that are obviously designed as ‘cor-rections’ of the latter tradition in particular, and there is therefore no a priori reason to interpret differences as indicating hostility. Like producers of APet, ATit, and ABarn, producers of Rec 1 may have ‘known’ ActsAp, but simply chosen to tell stories in their own way, apparently unconstrained by a text that would in some circles be seen as ‘canonical.’

11. Conclusion

What may be concluded from this survey of relationships between ActsAp and other apostle narratives? First, I have argued that extant productions of apostle narratives do not always represent ‘reception’ of ActsAp. While some persons who produced apostle narratives – producers of the Acts of Titus, Acts of Bar-nabas, and Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, for instance – have actively en-gaged with ActsAp, extant versions of other narratives such as the Acts of John, Acts of Thomas, and Acts of Andrew show little evidence of being produced with ActsAp in mind. Even productions of the Acts of Paul and Acts of Peter,

80 F.S. JONES, ‘An Ancient Jewish Christian Rejoinder to Luke’s Acts of the Apostles:

Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.27–71,’ Semeia 80 (1997): 223–245; ID., An Ancient Jew-ish Christian Source on the History of Christianity: Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.27–71 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 141; cf. A. SCHNEIDER/L. CIRILLO, Les Reconnaissances du pseudo Clément: Roman chrétien des premiers siècles (Turnhout: Brepols, 1999), 44; and B. REHM, ‘Zur Entstehung der pseudoclementinischen Schriften,’ ZNW 37 (1938): 146, 162; J.L. MARTYN, ‘Clementine Recognitions 1,33–71, Jewish Christianity, and the Fourth Gospel,’ in God’s Christ and His People: Studies in Honour of Nils Alstrup Dahl, ed. J. Jervell/W.A. Meeks (Oslo, Bergen, and Tromso: Universitetsforlaget, 1977), 265–295; A. STÖTZEL, ‘Die Darstellung der ältesten Kirchengeschichte nach den Pseudo-Clementinen,’ VC 36 (1982): 29–32; A.L.A. HOGETERP, ‘Proclaiming the Gospel in the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions: Historical Settings and Communicative Intention of Speeches in Recognitions 1,’ in The Pseudo-Clementines, ed. J.N. Bremmer (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 241–254. The cri-tique of Andrew Gregory is worth noting, however (A. GREGORY, The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period Before Irenaeus: Looking for Luke in the Second Century, WUNT 169 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003], 328–341).

81 JONES, ‘Ancient Jewish Christian Rejoinder’ (cf. n. 80), 243; cf. MARTYN, ‘Clementine Recognitions’ (cf. n. 80), 273; STÖTZEL, ‘Darstellung’ (cf. n. 80), 32. Jones provides a brief history of research at F.S. JONES, ‘A Jewish Christian Reads Luke’s Acts of the Apostles: The Use of the Canonical Acts in the Ancient Jewish Christian Source behind Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.27–71,’ SBLSP 34 (1995): 620–622.


341

which share protagonists with ActsAp, have very few points of contact with the latter narrative, and it therefore does not make sense to describe them using phrases that imply ActsAp was a central reference point for their production. Statements like ‘APaul is an XYZ of ActsAp’ should be avoided, as should any assumption that these traditions provide substantive information about ActsAp’s ‘reception history.’ What is most striking is not how these traditions relate to ActsAp, but how they do not.82

This does not mean that producers did not ‘know’ ActsAp, however. Anal-yses of relationships between ActsAp and other apostle narratives have often suffered from the assumption that producers of other apostle narratives who knew ActsAp would certainly have engaged with it, but there is no reason to think that producers of apostle narratives felt bound by any such convention. The possibility should be left open that other producers may have known ActsAp, but when producing their own narratives were simply not thinking about it – or at least, not thinking about it very much.

Finally, I have suggested that it makes little sense, given the fluidity of these traditions, to speak of singular ‘authors’ and what may have influenced them when composing putative ‘earliest versions’ of the narratives. Instead, consid-eration should be given to the ways in which each individual production en-gages or does not engage with ActsAp. When one adopts this approach, one sees that discrepancies or lack of engagement with ActsAp do not necessarily need to be interpreted either as ignorance – an interpretation scholars have of-ten linked to an early dating of these texts, before ActsAp was widely in circu-lation – or as lack of respect – again, often linked to an early dating, before ActsAp had acquired full authoritative status. Because many later productions of apostle narratives attest similar ‘discrepancies’ or silence with regard to ActsAp, it is evident that those features do not intrinsically relate to production date, nor do they in and of themselves indicate anything in particular about ActsAp’s distribution or ‘canonical status.’

82 In this essay, I have not discussed whether ActsAp may have influenced the broad struc-

ture or component literary forms of other apostle narratives. In my opinion, if it is not possible to demonstrate ‘knowledge’ or substantive use of ActsAp based on other criteria, it does not make sense to discuss mimesis of genre or forms, for which similarities can easily be explained in other ways. See above, n. 21.

Relationships between the Acts of the Apostles and Other Apostle Narratives

Documents

Transcript of Relationships between the Acts of the Apostles and Other Apostle Narratives