Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-p566r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T13:03:02.526Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Prooftexting from Other People’s Scriptures? “Prophets and Patriarchs” in Acts of Philip 5–7

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2023

Julia Snyder*
Affiliation:
Westcott House, Cambridge; jas249@cam.ac.uk

Abstract

What role has the “Old Testament” played in the self-understanding of Christians over the centuries, and what can we learn from the fact that Israel’s scriptures are often cited in early Christian texts? Using the Acts of Philip as a case study, this article argues that we should not assume all early Christian writers thought of these as “my own scriptures.” When we encounter citations from Israel’s scriptures in Christian texts, a variety of interpretive options should be considered, including the possibility that some writers saw Israel’s scriptures as “other people’s scriptures, not ours,” or would have consigned them a limited role in the Christian life, treating them as relevant for apologetics and evangelism—or for talking about apologetics and evangelism—but not for ongoing Christian discipleship. The article offers a new interpretation of Acts Phil. 5–7 and also examines Qur’anic citations in the Dialogue of Timothy I and the Caliph.

Type
Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the President and Fellows of Harvard College

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Work on this article was supported by the Centre for Advanced Studies at the University of Regensburg, “Beyond Canon,” DFG FOR 2770. My thanks to participants in the Beyond Canon research seminar, Daniel Weiss, and the anonymous reviewers for feedback and suggestions as the article was in development.

References

1 This is the reading of manuscript Xenophontos 32. More information about the two extant manuscripts is provided below.

2 Paul M. Blowers and Peter W. Martens, introduction to The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Biblical Interpretation (ed. Paul M. Blowers and Peter W. Martens; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019) 1–3, at 1.

3 Translations of Acts are mine.

4 See, e.g., C. Kavin Rowe, World Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Graeco-Roman Age (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) 37–38. Regarding the first reference, Rowe summarizes: “Scholars have attempted to derive this phrase ultimately from Plato or from the remaining fragments of Epimenides or Posidonius, but—given the flexibility of the precise meaning of the formula—the wiser course is to attribute the lack of an exact parallel to Luke’s careful realization of the power of general allusion” (ibid., 37).

5 The sources in question were probably not considered “scripture” by anyone.

6 Where Codex Sinaiticus, etc., read “some of your own poets,” a few manuscripts, including P74 B 049. 326. 614, read “some of our poets” (τινες τῶν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ποιητῶν).

7 Timothy served for forty-three years (780–823 CE) as patriarch. A short biography is provided by Samir Khalil Samir and Wafik Nasry, The Patriarch and the Caliph: An Eighth-Century Dialogue between Timothy I and al-Mahdī (Eastern Christian Texts; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 2018) xxix–xxxiv. Longer works include: Vittorio Berti, Vita e studi di Timoteo I (d. 823), patriarca cristiano di Baghdad. Ricerche sull’epistolario e sulle fonti contigue (Studia Iranica 41; Paris: Association pour l’avancement des études iraniennes, 2009); Hans Putman, L’église et l’islam sous Timothée I (780–823). Étude sur l’église nestorienne au temps des premiers ‘Abbāsides avec nouvelle édition et traduction du dialogue entre Timothée et al-Mahdi (Recherches publiées sous la direction de l’Institut de Lettres Orientales de Beyrouth, Nouv. sér. B: Orient chrétien 3; Beirut: Dar el-Machreq, 1975).

8 While the oral dialogue will have been in Arabic, the first written account was in Syriac. Heimgartner dates the event to 782 or 783 CE (Martin Heimgartner, Timotheos I., Ostsyrischer Patriarch. Disputation mit dem Kalifen Al-Mahdī [CSCO 632; Leuven: Peeters, 2011] xxxi–xxxiii). Others have dated it to 781 CE. Note that there are differences between extant versions of the Dialogue. On the textual history, see Mayte Penelas, “A New Arabic Version of the ‘Dialogue between Patriarch Timothy I and Caliph al-Mahdī,’ ” in Cultures in Contact: Transfer of Knowledge in the Mediterranean Context (ed. Sofía Torallas Tovar and Juan Pedro Monferrer-Sala; Series Syro-Arabica 1; Cordoba and Beirut: CNERU and CEDRAC, 2013) 207–36; and Samir and Nasry, The Patriarch and the Caliph, xxxvi–xlix.

9 Since the Dialogue is from a different historical and cultural context than Acts Phil. 5–7, it cannot help us adjudicate between different interpretations of the latter narrative, but it can help ensure that we have not ignored relevant possibilities. Methodologically, I am thus engaging in a sort of limited, heuristic comparison. For some insightful remarks on the benefits of this sort of methodological move for scholarship on early Christianity, see John S. Kloppenborg, “Disciplined Exaggeration: The Heuristics of Comparison in the Study of Religion,” NovT 59 (2017) 390–414; and Jonathan Z. Smith, Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity (CSHJ; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990).

10 On Timothy’s use of biblical and Qur’anic prooftexts in the Dialogue, see David Bertaina, “The Development of Testimony Collections in Early Christian Apologetics with Islam,” in The Bible in Arab Christianity (ed. David Thomas; CMR 6; Leiden: Brill, 2007) 151–73. Timothy addresses Christian-Muslim issues in several letters. For discussion, see, e.g., Sidney H. Griffith, “The Syriac Letters of Patriarch Timothy I and the Birth of Christian Kalām in the Mu’tazilite Milieu of Baghdad and Baṣrah in Early Islamic Times,” in Syriac Polemics: Studies in Honour of Gerrit Jan Reinink (ed. Wout Jac. van Bekkum, Alexander Cornelis Klugkist, and Jan Willem Drijvers; OLA 170; Leuven: Peeters and Department of Oriental Studies, 2007) 103–32; Martin Heimgartner, “The Letters of the East Syrian Patriarch Timothy I,” in Exegetical Crossroads: Understanding Scripture in Judaism, Christianity and Islam in the Pre-Modern Orient (ed. Georges Tamer et al.; Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—Tension, Transmission, Transformation 8; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2018) 47–59.

11 English translations of the Dialogue are from Alphonse Mingana, Woodbrooke Studies: Christian Documents in Syriac, Arabic, and Garshūni, vol. 2 (Cambridge: Heffer & Sons, 1928). Numbering follows the edition of Heimgartner, Disputation.

12 Also concluding that such texts were for a primarily Christian audience is Mark Swanson, “Beyond Prooftexting (2): The Use of the Bible in Some Early Arabic Christian Apologies,” in The Bible in Arab Christianity (ed. Thomas), 91–112.

13 Pace Bertaina, who remarks, “This Christian reading of the Qur’an as scripture signals a dramatic shift in the identity of admissible sources for argumentation” (Bertaina, “Development,” 162). In my view, Timothy does not seem to be reading the Qur’an as “(my) scripture,” nor was it an innovation for a Christian in the eighth century to cite other types of sources in argumentation (cf. Acts 17).

14 As Heimgartner notes, this passage should not be taken as an indication that Timothy was originally Jewish (Heimgartner, Disputation, 38 n. 136).

15 The critical edition is François Bovon, Bertrand Bouvier, and Frédéric Amsler, Acta Philippi: Textus (CChrSA 11; Turnhout: Brepols, 1999). French versions are included in the latter volume and in Écrits apocryphes chrétiens, I (ed. François Bovon and Pierre Geoltrain; Paris: Gallimard, 1997). An English version is François Bovon and Christopher R. Matthews, The Acts of Philip: A New Translation (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2012).

16 On the term “magician” and other references to Philip in Acts Phil. 5–7, see Julia A. Snyder, Language and Identity in Ancient Narratives: The Relationship between Speech Patterns and Social Context in the Acts of the Apostles, Acts of John, and Acts of Philip (WUNT 2/370; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014) 168–73.

17 For analysis of the resurrection miracle, see Julia A. Snyder, “Sieg durch Wunder (Totenerweckung in Nikatera). ActPhil 6,16–20,” in Kompendium der frühchristlichen Wundererzählungen. Band 2: Die Wunder der Apostel (ed. Ruben Zimmermann et al.; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2017) 935–52.

18 For a description of the manuscripts, see Bovon, Bouvier, and Amsler, Acta Philippi, xiii–xxx; and François Bovon, “Les Actes de Philippe,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 2.25.6 (ed. Wolfgang Haase; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988) 4431–527, at 4468–75.

19 Acts Phil. 8–15 + Martyrdom begins with the assigning of missionary tasks to various apostles and ends with Philip’s demise, and thus appears to be a self-contained literary unit.

20 Frédéric Amsler, Acta Philippi: Commentarius (CChrSA 12; Turnhout: Brepols, 1999) 130–32, 212–14; idem, “Les Actes de Philippe. Aperçu d’une compétition religieuse en Phrygie,” in Le mystère apocryphe. Introduction à une littérature méconnue (ed. Jean-Daniel Kaestli and Daniel Marguerat; 2nd ed.; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2007) 125–45, at 158.

21 See Snyder, Language, 144–45. Also suggesting that Acts Phil. 3 and 4 have separate origins from Acts Phil. 5–7 are Bovon, “Les Actes,” 4483, and Christopher R. Matthews, Philip, Apostle and Evangelist: Configurations of a Tradition (NovTSup 105; Leiden: Brill, 2002) 170.

22 See Bovon, “Les Actes,” 4501–3; Amsler, Commentarius, 437–39; Amsler, “Actes de Philippe,” 159; Matthews, Philip, 163–64.

23 In Acts Phil.A, the general idea for the debate is attributed to a group of “Jews,” but Aristarchos mentions the prophets (see Acts Phil.A 6.9).

24 Acts Phil.V: “Do you accept the prophetic writings or not?” (λαμβάνεις τὰς προφητικὰς γραφάς ἢ οὔ;).

25 In Acts Phil.V 6.12, Aristarchos has also already told Philip he wants “to discuss about Jesus based on the scriptures” (συζητῆσαι ἐκ τῶν γραφῶν τὰ περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ). Cf. Acts Phil.A: “to discuss about the Messiah” (συζητῆσαι περὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ).

26 In a story with different social dynamics—e.g., where one character marked as “Jewish” was addressing other characters marked as “Jewish”—the same phrasing could easily have other overtones, of course. The term ἀπιστία is used elsewhere in Acts Phil. 5–7 for another character, Nerkella, who has not (yet) accepted Philip and his message (Acts Phil.A 5.10, 20, 23; Acts Phil.V 5.10, 23). Nerkella is not actively characterized as “Jewish,” although neither is she clearly depicted as a worshiper of other gods (see Debra J. Bucher, “Converts, Resisters, and Evangelists: Jews in Acts of Philip V–VII,” in A Most Reliable Witness: Essays in Honor of Ross Shepard Kraemer [ed. Susan Ashbrook Harvey et al.; BJS 358; Providence: Brown University, 2015] 9–16, at 13–14). In Acts Phil.V, Aristarchos also uses the term of himself (Acts Phil.V 6.12).

27 As far as I can see, no other passage in Acts Phil. 5–7 indicates knowledge of particular LXX texts. Some passages have similar motifs (e.g., calling down fire on enemies), but the similarities need not reflect direct knowledge of LXX texts.

28 Acts Phil.V includes two references to “scriptures” (see nn. 24, 25 above), suggesting that at least some storyteller(s) had written works in view.

29 Thus, e.g., Theodoret, Commentary on Isaiah 13.21 (5th cent.) (οὐκ ἐξηγεῖσθε). A sentiment similar to the Acts of Philip “citation” is expressed in question form in Ps 106:2 (LXX 105:2), but the Greek wording is entirely different: τίς λαλήσει τὰς δυναστείας τοῦ κυρίου.

30 Gregory of Alexandria, Life of John Chrysostom 74. Cf. Philo, Mos. 2.239: ὁ δ’ οὐρανὸς ὅλος εἰς φωνὴν ἀναλυθεὶς δυνήσεταί τι τῶν σῶν ἀρετῶν διηγήσασθαι μέρος;

31 See Amsler, Commentarius, 253–60. “It is not very surprising that Aristarchos’ quotations are inexact or truncated. This is one of the literary devices available to an author who wants to discredit the adversary of his hero” (ibid., 256; my translation). Amsler also suggests a connection to Acts Phil.A 6.12, where Aristarchos sees Jesus: “The appearing of Jesus to Aristarchos disturbs him to such an extent that it hinders him from formulating a coherent refutation of the Christian faith” (ibid., 258). In this reading, the debate illustrates the irresistible power of Jesus (ibid., 259). I think Amsler overestimates the knowledge and talents of the storyteller(s), however; e.g., Amsler wonders whether Aristarchos is portrayed as trying and failing to cite Isa 53:8 (τὴν γενεὰν αὐτοῦ τίς διηγήσεται) in the first citation [C1] (ibid., 253), but that interpretation is too subtle. If the “citation” does reflect a combination of Isa 53:8 with, e.g., Isa 43:21, the Acts of Philip storyteller was probably unaware of that fact.

32 Anthologies of quotations and extracts were common in antiquity. For an overview, see Henry Chadwick, “Florilegium,” RAC 7 (1969) cols. 1131–59.

33 Robert A. Kraft, “Barnabas’ Isaiah Text and Melito’s Paschal Homily,” JBL 80 (1961) 371–73, at 372–73.

34 Robert A. Kraft, “Barnabas’ Isaiah Text and the ‘Testimony Book’ Hypothesis,” JBL 79 (1960) 336–50, at 341–42. The “citation” is corrupt, but largely reflects Isa 45:1, apparently with influence from Isa 42:4. Acts Phil.A: τάδε λέγει κύριος τῷ χριστῷ μου κυρίῳ οὐκ ἐκράτησα τῆς δεξιᾶς ἐπακοῦσαι ἔμπροσθεν [Vat. gr. 824: ἐπὶ σε] ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν. Modern editions of Isa 45:1 typically read οὕτως λέγει κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῷ χριστῷ μου Κύρῳ οὗ ἐκράτησα τῆς δεξιᾶς ἐπακοῦσαι ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ ἔθνη. Since some manuscripts (e.g., the uncorrected original of the 4th-cent. Codex Sinaiticus) read οὐκ ἐκράτησα instead of οὗ ἐκράτησα (as in the Acts of Philip manuscripts), that variant could already have been part of the version received in the Acts of Philip. The word ἐλπιοῦσιν seems to come from Isa 42:4: (ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι) αὐτοῦ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν.

35 Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for the prompt to include this possibility.

36 See Heidi Wendt, At the Temple Gates: The Religion of Freelance Experts in the Early Roman Empire (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016).

37 Admittedly, Aristarchos is not necessarily portrayed as a talented debater and could even be understood as contributing to the debate’s quick end. After Philip finishes his citations, Aristarchos says, “I know that Isaiah spoke about a messiah,” and offers an additional prophetic citation. The narrator then comments, “The Jews were fighting with Aristarchos because he was saying, ‘You have called to mind the things written about the Messiah,’ ” and the city leaders remark, “Even the Jew who debated with him has revealed the hidden glory in the prophets concerning Christ.” This part of the scene raises a number of interpretive questions. Why does Aristarchos offer a citation about the Messiah from Isaiah, and how does it fit into the flow of the debate? Is Aristarchos conceding defeat and admitting that Philip has won? Or is he just a bad debater, and does Philip win over the audience partly thanks to this final citation out of Aristarchos’s mouth? I lean toward the first of these two interpretations.

38 See, e.g., Justin, Dialogue with Trypho or the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies.

39 It seems less likely that the “citations” reflect evangelistic or apologetic intent on the part of the storytellers, since Acts Phil. 5–7 was probably designed for a “Christian” audience, like Acts 17 and the written version of Timothy’s dialogue. On the audience of the Acts of the Apostles, see Snyder, Language, 85–88.

40 On intertextuality between the Acts of Peter and Acts Phil. 5–7, see Amsler, Commentarius, 224–25, 263–68; Andrea Lorenzo Molinari, “I Never Knew the Man”: The Coptic Act of Peter (Papyrus Berolinensis 8502.4), Its Independence from the Apocryphal Acts of Peter, Genre and Origins (Bibliothéque Copte de Nag Hammadi Section “Études” 5; Québec and Leuven: Les Presses de l’Université Laval and Peeters, 2000) 95–102; Matthews, Philip, 183–86; Snyder, “Sieg durch Wunder,” 945–47.

41 Intertextuality with the Acts of Peter may also explain the fact that the dead person in Acts Phil. 5–7 is characterized as both “rich” (πλούσιος σφόδρα) and a “child” (παῖς) (Acts Phil. 6.16, 20): one person raised from the dead in the Acts of Peter is described as a senator and very rich, and also as a puer (Acts Pet. 28–29). See Snyder, “Sieg durch Wunder,” 946–47.

42 A Roman crowd is reported as saying, “Tomorrow at dawn two Jews (duo Iudaei) will debate about how (the) god should be addressed” (Acts Pet. 22), and another character speaks of “a Jew named Simon” (Iudaeum …, nomine Simonem) (Acts Pet. 6).

43 Philip addresses Aristarchos as “Jew” (ὦ Ἰουδαῖε) (Acts Phil. 6.18), and Aristarchos is also called “the Jew” (ὁ Ἰουδαῖος) by the narrator (Acts Phil. 6.13), city leaders (Acts Phil. 6.15), and the populace (Acts Phil. 6.18). He describes himself as “great among the Jews” (μέγας ἐ?ν τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις) (Acts Phil. 6.9).

44 Debates about the characterization of Ireos may also be worth mentioning. Interpreters often talk about Ireos as a “Jewish” character, but apart from the first moment he is introduced, Ireos is not actually characterized as a “Jew,” and even the initial introduction is open to interpretation. The narrator announces that Philip faces opposition from Nikaterans in general and from “Jews,” then depicts “one of their leaders named Ireos” (τίς [V: εἷς] ἐξ αὐτῶν ἄρχων ὀνόματι Ἤρεως) urging his interlocutors not to treat Philip with injustice and violence (Acts Phil. 5.6). It would be possible to read “one of their leaders” as including the non-“Jewish” crowd mentioned in the immediately preceding context. It is also interesting that when Ireos first speaks—attempting to dissuade his interlocutors from harming Philip—he calls them “friends and fellow citizens” (ὦ ἄνδρες φίλοι καὶ συμπολῖται) (Acts Phil. 5.6), a form of address that hardly marks Ireos as a “Jew” addressing fellow “Jews.” (See Snyder, Language, 166–67.) Moreover, there is nothing recognizably “Jewish” about Ireos after his conversion. He does use the term “synagogue”—offering to make his house “a synagogue of Christians” (συναγωγὴν χριστιανῶν) in Acts Phil.V 5.8 and suggesting the building of “a synagogue in the name of the Messiah” (συναγωγὴν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ) in Acts Phil.A 7.2 (cf. 7.4)—but this Greek term was also used by non-Jewish groups in the ancient world and therefore does not necessarily mark Ireos as “Jewish” (even if Jews in Acts Phil.A 6.13 describe their own gathering with the same term). Reaching a similar conclusion, Bovon disagrees with Zahn’s assertion that the term συναγωγή indicates Ireos’s Jewish origin, at least in Acts Phil.A 7 (see Bovon, “Les Actes,” 4490–91 and n. 194; Theodor Zahn, Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen Literatur, VI, I: Apostel und Apostelschüler in der Provinz Asien [Leipzig: Deichert, 1900] 20 n. 2; Amsler, Commentarius, 228, 231, 517). Peterson suggests that the term was used for house gatherings by the ascetic community he posits behind the Acts of Philip, pointing to a 4th-cent. Marcionite inscription from Deir Ali (Lebaba) (Erik Peterson, “Die Häretiker der Philippus-Akten,” ZNW 31 [1932] 97–111, at 102–3). Harland also cites examples of non-Jewish associations that used the term (Philip A. Harland, Dynamics of Identity in the World of the Early Christians [London: T&T Clark, 2009] 40).

45 On “Jewish” characters and “Jewishness” in Acts Phil. 5–7, see further Bucher, “Converts”; Snyder, Language, 165–67, 218; Julia A. Snyder, “Simon, Agrippa, and Other Antagonists in the Vercelli Acts of Peter,” in Gegenspieler: Zur Auseinandersetzung mit dem Gegner in frühjüdischer und urchristlicher Literatur (ed. Ulrich Mell and Michael Tilly; WUNT 428; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019) 311–31. The increased thematization of Aristarchos’s “Jewishness” in comparison to the Acts of Peter could reflect a context of production in which producers wanted to distinguish “being Christian” from “being Jewish,” like John Chrysostom in Antioch, who complained in the 4th cent. about Christians who participated in Jewish festivals and visited synagogues. See Robert L. Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late 4th Century (Transformation of the Classical Heritage 4; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983); Wayne A. Meeks and Robert L. Wilken, Jews and Christians in Antioch in the First Four Centuries of the Common Era (SBLSBS 13; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1978). Aristarchos’s “Jewish” profile could also reflect plot considerations. Storytellers could hardly cast Simon Magus as an antagonist of Philip, and therefore needed to change the character’s identity. The literary tradition of “Jews” opposing “Christian” leaders, which was well established by the time Acts Phil. 5–7 was produced, provided a good alternative.

46 Acts Phil.V 5.13, 14; 6.6; 7.7.

47 Missing in the Vaticanus version.

48 The Vaticanus version has a similar statement.

49 εἷς θεὸς ὁ Φιλίππου.

50 οὐκ ἔστιν θεὸς ἕτερος ζῶν, εἰ μὴ ὁ Φιλίππου ὁ ποιῶν τὰ μεγαλεῖα δι’ αὐτοῦ. For a discussion of references to Philip’s god in Acts Phil. 5–7, see Snyder, Language, 173–83.

51 τὸ νικῆσαί με. On the theme of “conquering” in Acts Phil. 5–7, see Snyder, “Sieg durch Wunder,” 941.

52 καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀσκήσομεν διὰ σοῦ θεοσέβειαν.

53 Philip’s transfiguration also portrays him as special, and he even seems to be at least partially responsible for the transformation and subsequent return to his normal appearance (Acts Phil. 5.22–23).

54 A number of these statements do not appear in Acts Phil.V. The theme is not entirely absent, however. See, e.g., Acts Phil.V 6.11, 20; 7.6.

55 These appearances of Christ are missing in Acts Phil.V.

56 δουλεύσατε αὐτῷ ἐν ὑποταγῇ.

57 One could also ask what role other texts—e.g., Acts Phil. 5–7 itself—played in the lives of storytellers and their communities. What functional authority did these so-called apocryphal texts enjoy in such communities, and how did it compare to the authority attached to “persons” such as apostles or the bishop? Did the storyteller(s) of Acts Phil. 5–7 want or expect their own work to be treated as “authoritative,” and if so, how? With regard to Acts Phil. 5–7, there is unfortunately little internal or external evidence to go on to answer those questions.

58 Blowers and Martens, introduction, 1.

59 This study has corollary implications for questions about “canon,” including with regard to the New Testament (see Julia Snyder, “The Canon of the New Testament,” in The Cambridge Companion to the New Testament [ed. Patrick Gray; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021] 333–47). For instance, because it is methodologically problematic to try to ascertain how a particular work was viewed in early Christian communities simply by tabulating citations of and allusions to it in (other) early Christian writings, this is not a reliable means of determining when and where a work was seen as “canonical” (as had sometimes been done in earlier studies of “canon”). See Albert C. Sundberg, Jr., “The Bible Canon and the Christian Doctrine of Inspiration,” Int 29 (1975) 352–71, at 360–61. I also second other scholars’ critique of an older tendency to posit that New Testament writings gradually attained the status of LXX writings among Christians, since it is not clear that LXX writings themselves enjoyed a robust status in all communities. See John Barton, Holy Writings, Sacred Text: The Canon in Early Christianity (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997).

60 It could even have been primarily a literary practice for some authors, inspired by preexisting literary works rather than by everyday conversations or debates. Cf. the relationship between Acts Phil. 5–7 and the Acts of Peter. As I have noted elsewhere, the readiness of the storytellers of Acts Phil. 5–7 to include motifs that they had not encountered in daily life is illustrated by a reference to burning slaves with the body of a dead master (Acts Phil. 6.16). Cremation was no longer a widespread practice at the time the story probably originated, nor is there evidence that slaves were regularly—or ever—cremated with their masters in Greek or Roman contexts. See Snyder, “Sieg durch Wunder,” 942–44.

61 Vat. gr. 824: λαμβάνεις τὰς προφητικὰς γραφὰς ἢ οὔ, “Do you accept the prophetic writings or not?”

62 The text appears to be corrupt. See n. 34.