University of Groningen

The Apocryphal Acts of Paul And TheclaBremmer, Jan

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.

Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publication date:1996

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):Bremmer, J. N. (1996). The Apocryphal Acts of Paul And Thecla. (2 ed.) Kampen: Kok Pharos Publishers.

CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

Download date: 29-05-2018

V. The apocryphal correspondence with the Corinthians and the Acts of Paul

GERARD LUTTIKHUIZEN

In an essay written in 1905, one year after the publication of the Coptic Heidelberg papyrus, Adolf Harnack claims that the so- called Corinthian correspondence is the most important component of the Acts of Paul (AP), for, he argues, over a long time the rele- vant letters were valued as authentic by Syrian and Armenian churches and incorporated in their Bible; they were also included in some late medieval Latin New Testament manuscripts.' This judgement by Harnack may provide sufficient reason to draw special attention to the Corinthian correspondence in a volume dealing with the AP. It should be noticed, however, that it is no longer as evident as Harnack assumed (on the basis of the Coptic manuscript) that the correspondence was composed as part of the AP. As we shall see, the publication in 1959 of a third-century Greek text of the two letters (papyrus Bodmer X) brought about a change of opinion with regard to this issue.

The correspondence between Paul and the Corinthians consists of a letter allegedly addressed to Paul by Stephanas and the pres- byters who are with him, and a letter by Paul in response to this letter (the letter by Paul is commonly referred to as the Third Letter to the Corinthians). In several manuscripts, the two letters are linked by a short report referring to Paul's receipt of the Corinthian letter while he is a prisoner in Philippi and to the frame of mind in which he wrote his reply. This brief narrative connec- tion between the two letters is of central significance for a dis-

1 'Untersuchungen iiber den apokryphen Briefwechsel der Korinther mit dern Apostel Paulus', SB Kon. Preuss. Ak Wiss. 1905, 3-35, esp. p.3.

76 GERARD LUTTIKHUIZEN

cussion of the literary history of the Corinthian correspondence. In the letter addressed to Paul, the presbyters indicate that their

writing was prompted by the recent activity in Corinth of two heretical teachers, Simon and Cleobius. Paul's response consists mainly of a rejection of these teachers' ideas by referring to his previous teaching in Corinth and also by providing theological argumentation.

1 . The literary history of the Corinthian correspondence

Prior to the discovery (in 1897) and the publication (in 1904) of the Coptic Heidelberg papyrus, the Corinthian correspondence was known only through collections of Pauline epistles. In Armenian manuscripts of the New Testament, the correspondence is an integral part of the corpus Paulinum. The two letters are inserted between Paul's second letter to the Corinthians and his letter to the Galatians. The majority of the Armenian manuscripts also include the brief connecting story between the two letters.

The letters and the narrative interlude have basically the same canonical value in a commentary on the Pauline epistles by Ephrem the Syrian (preserved in an Armenian version). From this treatment of the correspondence, we may infer that, at least accor- ding to some Eastern traditions, the contents of the correspondence are in basic agreement with the doctrine of the apostle (cf. Harnack's statement cited above).

In five Latin manuscripts that have come to light since 1891, the Corinthian correspondence is allotted a position after the canonical epistles, sometimes with the explicit note that the corres- pondence is unauthentic. Two of these manuscripts also include the narrative intermezzo.

Even before the publication of the Coptic Heidelberg papyrus, the brief historical note between the two letters induced some

2 Cf. W. Rordorf, 'HtrBsie et orthodoxie selon la Correspondence apocryphe entre les Corinthiens et 17ap8tre Paul', in his Lex orandi, lex credendi (Freiburg, 1993) 389-43 1, p. 393 and Appendix 0 on p. 429.

THE CORlNTHIAN CORRESPONDENCE 77

scholars to surmise that, at an earlier stage, the correspondence had been part of a larger narrative. Because of the protagonist of the correspondence, it was more or less self-evident to consider the fragmentary remains to be a part of the AP.~

Due to the discovery of the Coptic Heidelberg papyrus, pub- lished by Carl Schmidt, this assumption no longer seemed to be hypothetical. In this lacuna1 manuscript, the correspondence is part of the episode of the AP which discusses his stay in P h i l i ~ p i . ~ Here, the narrative connection between the two letters would seem to have its natural place. The Coptic text of the Philippian episode also contains a brief introduction to the correspondence. Unfort- unately, the relevant pages of the manuscript, our sole witness to this part of the text, are badly damaged. From the surviving text, it is clear that here - just as in the letter allegedly written by Stepha- nas and the elders - mention is made of the activity and the here- tical ideas of Simon and Cleobius. A more detailed discussion of this introductory narrative follows below (section 2).

Schmidt did not doubt that the Coptic text, with its many Greek loanwords, is a translation of a Greek original. Furthermore, he assumed that also in the hypothetical Greek original, the corres- pondence was an integral part of the AP. This view clearly ind- icates that the Armenian and Latin versions of the correspondence have their textual base in the Greek AP. (Before that time, it was generally assumed that the correspondence originated in a Syrian environment.) In fact, Schmidt argues that it was only at the end of the fourth century that the correspondence was separated from the AP and became part of an Eastern collection of Pauline epist- les. He maintains that since that time the letters were transmitted in two contexts: the supposedly original context of the AP, and the

3 Cf. esp. Th. Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons I1 (Erlangen and Leipzig, 1892) 606-1 1. 4 The order of sequence of the pages of this part of the manuscript is not fully clear. This leaves room for the possibility that the correspon- dence does not belong to the episode in Philippi (but is a flashback within the context of the episode in Corinth).

78 GERARD LUTTIKHUIZEN

secondary context of the corpus Pau l in~m.~ We have to bear in mind, however, that the Coptic papyrus

was - and still is - the only source in which the correspondence is an integral part of the AP. As we have seen, the correspondence has a different context in the Armenian sources (including an Armenian version of Ephrem's Syriac commentary on the Pauline epistles) and in the Latin manuscripts. Curiously enough, in the Hamburg papyrus, a Greek text that contains parts of the A P , ~ the Philippian episode - with the apocryphal Corinthian corresponden- ce - is entirely missing.

But what is much more important and probably decisive, is that the connection with the AP is lacking in the only surviving Greek text of the letters, the papyrus Bodmer X, which was published only in 1959. Obviously, this third-century Greek text must be the foundation of any study of the Corinthian correspon- dence.' In fact, in the papyrus Bodmer, the two letters are con- veyed without any direct context (also the short report between the two letters is absent): they are embedded neither in a narrative context reminiscent of the AP nor in a collection of Pauline epist- les.

In the Greek codex, the two letters are preceded by another early Christian writing, The Nativity of Mary, and both letters have a title: 'The Corinthians to Paul' and 'Paul to the Corinthians about the Flesh'.

It will be clear that the discovery of this comparatively early Greek manuscript gave rise - once again - to the question of the relation of the two letters to the AP. Michel Testuz, the editor of the papyrus Bodmer, disputes the view held by Carl Schmidt, Adolf Harnack and others that the two letters were an original component of the AP.' He argues that the two letters were written

5 Cf. C. Schmidt, Acta Pauli (repr. Hildesheim, 1965) 132, 144. 6 The relevant parts of the manuscript were also published by Carl Schmidt, with the collaboration of Wilhelm Schubart, IIPASEIC IMYAOY, Acta Pauli (Gliickstadt and Hamburg, 1936). 7 M. Testuz, Papyrus Bodmer X-XI1 (Geneva, 1959) 9-45. 8 Testuz, 23-25.

THE CORINTHIAN CORRESPONDENCE 79

first, independently of the AP; they were incorporated into the Pauline Acts shortly afterwards. But, Testuz explains, the two letters continued to be copied for themselves, separately from the AP.

While I do not deny that, originally, the two letters were written independently, Testuz' argument calls for a critical note. Testuz does not seem to realize that the vast majority of the Armenian Bible manuscripts and Ephrem's commentary also have the short historical note between the two letters. This is not with- out consequences, since it undermines his claim that de adoption of the correspondence by some Eastern churches is an indication of the independent transmission of the two letters. This short narrative connection strongly suggests that the correspondence was borrowed from the larger story of the AP. I am inclined to assume, in conclusion, that in all those cases where the two letters are connected by the short narrative interlude, the correspondence was adopted from the AP. It may be noted that other parts of the AP, notably AThe and MP, also came into separate c i rc~ la t ion .~

9 Testuz argues: '( ...) ne trouve-t-on pas extraordinaire que des Eglises comme la Syrienne et l1Arm6nieme aient extrait ces deux lettres des Actes de Paul et qu'elles les aient placees dans leur Nouveau Testament? On devait savoir dans les Eglises d'Orient que I'auteur des Actes de Paul, un pr&tre d'Asie, avait encouru de ses superieurs un bllme sevtre pour cet ouvrage qu'il avait placC, fiauduleusement mais en toute bonne intention, sous le nom de Paul.' Testuz concludes: 'Pour que des Eglises placent donc nos epitres dans leur canon, il fallait que ses lettres eussent circulC h part des Actes de Paul, ouvrage sur lequel pesait une rkproba- tion gCnCrale'. O.C., 23f (quoted by Rordorf, a.c., 394, without critical comment); Rordorfs conjecture on p.426, n. 187, 'pourquoi ne pas supposer qu'elles Ctaient relikes entre elles par cette notice dks leur traduction en syriaque?', does not convince me: it does not explain that the very same connecting story is found in the AP and in Syrian-Amen- ian and Latin collections of Pauline epistles. Note that, in Testuz' reaso- ning, the occurrence of the narrative interlude in a Latin MS (the MS of Zurich) indicates that it is borrowed from the AP (ibid., p. 24). But if this argument on the basis of the narrative connection is correct, why does Testuz not apply it to the Armenian MSS, that have the same

80 GERARD LU'ITIKHUIZEN

Anyhow, the publication of a third-century Greek text of the two letters without narrative context created a new situation. It is only natural that A.F.J. Klijn, in an article dated 1963, and W. Rordorf, in a more recent study, focus on this earliest extant textual form of the Corinthian correspondence. l o In their examin- ations, they discuss parallels and discrepancies between the apo- cryphal letters and the AP but, after having reached the (probably correct) conclusion that the connection with the Pauline Acts is secondary, Klijn and Rordorf direct their attention almost exclusi- vely to the contents of the two letters.'' They do not go into the question why the letters were inserted into the AP." In the present paper, I hope to supplement their studies by giving special attention to the question as to what may have been the function and meaning of the two letters in the narrative context of the Pauline Acts.

It may be helpful to conclude this somewhat complicated discussion with my working hypothesis regarding the literary history of the Corinthian correspondence. I agree with Testuz, Klijn and Rordorf that the two letters were written independently of the AP. Rordorf adduces strong reasons to assume that they were composed in the first half of the second century.I3 The AP were composed with the help of various traditions about the apostle, inter alia the two Corinthian letters. On that occasion, the

narrative connection? Testuz assumed that the narrative intermezzo is found in just one Latin MS. For the second witness, the MS of Paris, see above, n.2, and D. de Bruyne, 'Un quatrikme manuscrit latin de la correspondence apocryphe de S. Paul avec les Corinthiens', Revue Bknk- dictine 45 (1933) 189-95. 10 A.F.J. Klijn, 'The Apocryphal Correspondence between Paul and the Corinthians', VigChris 17 (1963) 2-23; W. Rordorf, art. cit. (above, n.2). 11 Rordorf, art. cit., 41 If compares the heresy described in the letters with the information about the heresy in the narrative introduction of the letters in the Coptic papyrus. 12 According to Klijn, ibid., 16 (quoted by Rordorf, ibid., 399): 'the correspondence does not fit into the Acts as a whole (...)'. 13 Rordorf, art. cit., 425-8.

THE CORINTHIAN CORRESPONDENCE 8 1

letters were supplied with a narrative context: an opening frame story (only preserved in the Coptic Heidelberg papyrus) and a narrative intermezzo (surviving in several Armenian and two Latin manuscripts as well as in the Coptic manuscript). At the end of the fourth or the beginning of the fifth century, the Corinthian corres- pondence was transferred from the Pauline Acts (or from an intermediate source?) into the ancient Syrian Bible, and from there into the Armenian canon (cf. above, n.6). In this way, the narrative connection between the two letters in the relevant Eastern MSS can be explained. The occurrence of the short connecting story in two Latin MSS is an indication that this Latin tradition also draws on the AP (directly or through the ancient Syrian Bible).

2. Form and content of the correspondence in the AP

As indicated above, the opening frame story, which discusses the circumstances in which the letter of the Corinthians was written, is badly damaged in our sole textual witness, the Coptic Heidelberg papyrus. The surviving parts contain four pieces of information.

1. Carl Schmidt was able to read the Greek loanword ANOMOC preceded by the definite article ('the lawless one') at the top of p.45 (unfortunately, the photograph included in Schmidt's edition, vol. 11, is too blurred to permit a verification of this reading). Note that, according to the letter from the Corinthian presbyters, it was revealed to a woman called Theonoe that the Lord had saved Paul from the hands of 'the lawless one7. It is quite possible that reference was made to this same revelation in the introductory frame story.

2. After a very lacuna1 passage we read: (...) 'the Corinthians were in [great] distress [concerning] Paul that he would leave the world before it was time'. I presume that there was a close con- nection between these two pieces of information: the revelation granted to Theonoe (it was revealed to her that the Lord had rescued Paul from some kind of serious danger) reassured the Corinthians who were in great distress because they believed that Paul (being in that dangerous situation) would die 'before it was

82 GERARD LUTnKHUlZEN

time'.I4 3. Subsequently, there is the report about the arrival in Corinth

of Simon and Cleobius and about their heretical ideas (see below). 4. Finally, it is reported in a poorly preserved passage that the

presence of the heretical teachers occasioned the Corinthians (because they had heard that Paul was in Philippi?) to send Threp- tus and Eutychus to Macedonia.

N o doubt, the information relating to the heretical ideas of Simon and Cleobius is the most important part of the opening narrative. This is clear from the fact that the two letters are devoted almost exclusively to these heretical ideas.15 It would

14 Klijn does not pay attention to Schmidt's reading of 'the lawless one' on the top of p.45. This entitles him to point to a discrepancy between the content of the letter by the Corinthian elders and the prec- eding narrative context in the AP. Klijn writes: 'The discrepancy about the ideas in Corinth with regard to Paul's future [But note that the revelation concerns the past rather than the future: Paul was rescued from the hands of 'the lawless one', G.L.] between the introduction and the correspondence is remarkable. In the introduction we find (p.45, 8- 11): "The Corinthians were in great distress concerning Paul that he would leave the world before it was his time". In the epistle of the Corinthians to Paul we read: "... we believe as has been revealed to Theonoe, that the Lord saved you from the hands of the lawless one". This means that the expectations with regard to Paul's life are quite different.' (Art. cit., 12). Rordorf quotes this interpretation and apparently accepts it, cf. art. cit., 396: 'A.F.J. Klijn ajoute, A juste titre, que mCme dans le papyrus de Heidelberg, il y a une divergence entre I'introduction h la lettre des Corinthiens et cette lettre elle-mtme'.) Unlike Klijn and Rordorf, I am of the opinion that the composer of the AP quite aptly embedded the letters in his narrative. I agree upon the independent origin of the two letters, but I do not see why this should be demonstrated by stressing the differences between the letters and their narrative context in the AP. 15 The (lacunal) Coptic text of the letter by the Corinthian elders in the sixth-century Heidelberg papyrus does not substantially differ from the (much better preserved) Greek text in the third-century Bodmer papyrus. The only conspicuous difference is that in de Coptic version, the Corin-

THE COFUNTHIAN CORRESPONDENCE 83

seem that in the opening narrative, the ideas of the two teachers are ordered systematically, starting from their rejection of the bodily resurrection.

The heretics taught: a. that there is no resurrection of the flesh but only of the spirit. Apparently this view was closely connected with the idea that b. the body of man is not a formation (ITAACIC) of God, and that c. the (physical) world was not made by God and that God does

not know the world.

Then the consequences of these negative views about the material reality (the human body and the created world) for the understand- ing of the Christian saviour are mentioned:

d. Jesus Christ was not cructjied, but (or: since?) it is an outward appearance (or: a likeness?) that came into existence. l6

thians write that they had never heard such things (i.e. the things taught by Simon and Cleobius) from Paul nor from 'the other apostles', whereas the Bodmer papyrus just mentions 'the other ones'. It is possible that the Greek Bodmer text refers to assistants of Paul rather than to other apostles (Testuz, ox., 31, n.2). The expression 'the other apostles' would imply that Paul considered himself an apostle (as the historical Paul certainly did). But nowhere in the Corinthian correspondence or in the surviving portions of the AP is he called an apostle. On this point the AP are more in line with the canonical Book of Acts which similarly presents Paul as a missionary and a witness to Jesus rather than an apostle. 16 Appearance: Schmidt reconstructs the word C[MA]T, a very com- mon word with a broad range of possible meanings. It can be used to render a variety of Greek words: ~16oq, E ~ ~ C C L , E ~ K ~ V , popQq, b p o f ~ p a , oxqpa, ~ ~ 6 x 0 ~ ~ 6 x 0 ~ &v.sfruxoq etc. Which Greek term underlies the (reconstructed) Coptic word is not clear. The second sentence can be understood both in contrast to the belief in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ (in that case it means: it is not Jesus Christ who was crucified but his temporary fleshly covering or a body bearing his likeness) and in con- trast to the belief in the incarnation and the true humanity of the saviour

84 GERARD LUTTIKHUIZEN

e. He was not born of Mary nor ofthe seed of David.

For the time being, we conclude that this summary of the tea- chings of Simon and Cleobius centres on their negative attitude toward the flesh and the material world. This focus is in agreement with the tenor of Paul's answering letter (and with the title of this letter in the Bodmer papyrus: 'Paul to the Corinthians about the Flesh').

I can be brief about the last piece of information in the frame story and about the opening of the letter by the Corinthians. The report about Threptus and Eutychus bringing the Corinthian letter to Macedonia is continued in the short story between the two letters. Here, the two men are designated as 'deacons'. In the opening of the Corinthian letter, Stephanas is introduced with four Corinthian presbyters. Rordorf assumes that Stephanas had a special position in the community of Corinth. This would entail that, according to the correspondence, the Corinthian community was familiar with three church ofices ('la forme triadique classi- que', 400, cf. pp. 413, 425): the church leader, presbyters, dea- cons. "

The information about the heretical ideas of Simon and Cleo- bius in the letter from the Corinthian elders is, in principle, in agreement with the description in the preceding narrative context. Yet there are some divergences (cf. the synopsis in Rordorf's

(in this case it means: it is not Jesus Christ who was crucified, for the body that came into existence - when Jesus Christ descended into the world - was an outward appearance). But both interpretations come down to the same idea: Christ bore a material body that was exterior and strange to him (cf. b. the body of man is not a creation of God). 17 Unfortunately, Rordorfs observations function within his argument to the effect that the contents of the correspondence differ from the contents of the AP. It may be recalled that the reference to 'deacons' occurs in the narrative part of the correspondence, which - at least in my opinion - was added during the composition of the AP. Rordorf surmises that this connecting narrative was added during the Syriac translation, art. cit., p. 426, 11.187; cf. my note 10 and the early-second-century parallels adduced by Rordorf, p. 425.

THE CORINTHIAN CORRESPONDENCE 85

article, 3960: the report in the letter opens with two ideas which are not mentioned in the narrative frame (but see n.21):

1. (vs.9b) we should not use the prophets; 2. (vs.10) God is not almighty (or: the Almighty One).

The other tenets mentioned have a parallel in the preceding narra- tive, although there are some differences in the exact definition as well as in the sequence of the ideas:

3 (vs. 1 1, cf. a) there is no resurrection of the flesh; 4 (vs.12, cf. b) the formation (nh8ot~) of human beings is not God's (work); 5 (vss. 13-14, cf. e) the Lord did not come in the flesh neither was he born of Mary. 6 (vs 15, cf. c) the world is not God's (work) but that of angels.

What is lacking in this report is mainly d. the rejection of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ." Conversely, as indicated above, 1. and 2. are absent in the introductory narrative.lg Elsewhere in the introduction, we do not find the specific idea that the world is (the work) of angels."

The letter from the Corinthians concludes with the urgent re- quest to Paul to come to Corinth in order that the community will remain unblemished and that the madness of these men may be unveiled.

The brief historical report between the Corinthian letter and Paul's written response is of crucial importance for the recon-

18 It is not improbable that 5. 'Christ did not come in the flesh' (which quite possibly means that the body was just something exterior and strange to Christ), is a variant of the second sentence of d. 'it was an outward appearance that came into existence', cf. above, n.18. 19 But 2. 'God is not almighty' seems to be a variant of (or at least closely related to) the second sentence of c. 'God does not know the world'. 20 But this can easily be reconciled with the first sentence of c.

86 GERARD LUTITKHUIZEN

struction of the literary history of the apocryphal Corinthian correspondence. (cf. above, section 1 .) In this narrative connection, the two Corinthian emissaries are designated as 'deacons' (see above). It is reported that Paul is in prison 'through Stratonice, the wife of Apollophanes', who apparently was in the position to have Paul arrested. The letter from the Corinthian presbyters saddened Paul. The things Paul is supposed to have uttered upon receipt of the letter are quoted in direct speech. Among other things, he states that it would have been better for him to die and to be with the Lord than to remain in the flesh and to hear such teaching^.^' It is in this mood that pseudo-Paul writes his letter.

Paul's response (3 Corinthians) focuses on the refutation of the heretical teachings reported in the letter from the C ~ r i n t h i a n s . ~ ~ The body of the letter has the traditional structure of ancient deliberative speech:

vv. 2-3: introduction (proem), w. 4-8: review of past facts (narration), ending with the proposition, w. 9-21; 24-32: argumentation in two headings (proof), w. 34-39: conclusion (epilogue). 23

In the introduction, of which one of the rhetorical functions proem is to arouse the interest and the attention of the pseudo- Paul writes that he is not amazed about the rapid spread of the teachings of the Evil One (the names of Simon and Cleobius remain unmentioned), since the coming of Christ, the Lord, is

21 The heretical activity of Simon and Cleobius is characterized as 'the devices of the Evil One'. 22 This means that pseudo-Paul does not rehte the heretical denial of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ for, as we have noted, this idea is only reported in the narrative introduction. 23 Cf. G.A. Kennedy, New Testament and Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill and London, 1984) esp. 24. 24 Rordorf, art. cit., 426, who finds in the imminent expectation a reason (in combination with other evidence) to date the letter before the second half of the second century.

THE CORINTHIAN CORRESPONDENCE 87

imminent (apparently the activity of heretical teachers is viewed as a sign of the imminent parousia). Of course this suggests that the problem in question should be taken very seriously.

After the proem, the author gives a retrospective of Paul's earlier preaching in Corinth. He recalls that "in the beginning" Paul had delivered to the Corinthians the things he himself had received from the apostles who, before him, were with Jesus Christ during his lifetime.25 In this review of the past, the author draws attention to two tenets allegedly taught by Paul in Corinth:

1. Jesus Christ was born of Mary, of the seed of David, the Holy Spirit having been sent to her by the Father from heaven.26 Paul is also said to have explained the purpose of Christ's coming in the flesh: Christ came into the world in order to save all flesh through his own flesh and in order to raise us from the dead in the flesh like he has shown in himself as an e~ample .~ '

2. Paul had further taught that2' 'man was formed by the Father himself .29 The retrospective ends with what apparently is the

25 Paul is not presented as an apostle (cf. the definition of the NT Acts 1.21-2). 26 This is a refutation of 5 (cf. e; the agreement with e, the report in the introductory narrative, is more complete). 27 Note that it is not the Father, but Christ who raises up the believers; see also Lalleman, this volume, Ch. 8. 28 at 6r t in v.7 is coordinate to 6r t in v.5. Rordorf's comment, 'I1 me semble que III,7 ouwe un nouveau chapitre (MalgrB la construction de la phrase avec brt qui la fait dependre de II,4, art. cit., p.417)' does not clarify the (rhetorical) structure of this part of the letter. This structure is also obscured in Schmidt's reconstruction of the Coptic version (Acta Pauli, p.79: 'Weil der Mensch ...'), which seems to be at the basis of Schneemelcher's German translation (NA 11, 1989, p.232). 29 Bodmer papyrus: Kat ort o a v n ~ vno zov npq a w o v enhaoeq. The current translation (also the text of the Latin MSS) is: '( ...) man was formed by his (or: His) Father'. This might be a misunderstanding of the Greek a v ~ o v . In any case, the above interpretation matches the relevant heretical teaching: 'the formation of human beings is not God's (work) (5); cf. b: 'the body of man is not a formation of God'.

GERARD LUTIlKHUlZEN

proposition of the letter as a whole: it was for this reason that man was sought (by the Father) when he was lost, in order that he might live again by adoption.30

Pseudo-Paul continues with adducing proof for this proposition. He does so in two headings (vv.9-21 and 24-32). In the first heading, he argues on the base of scriptural evidence. In effect, we have here a concise theology of salvation. In this argument, the author takes the following steps:

1 (v.9a). The almighty God is the creator of Heaven and earth (of course this implies that God created man and the human body). Step 2 is not taken explicitly: man was lost (cf. the formulation of v.8: 'man was sought when he was lost').

3 (vv.9b-1 I). Initially God sought man by sending his prophets to the house of Israel. But the Prince of Iniquity killed the prophets and tied all flesh to lust (q60vfi).

4 (vv.12-15). Thereupon God sent his Spirit into Mary ('Mary the Galilean') in order that the Evil One be defeated by the same flesh that he tried to subdue.

First conclusion (vv.16-18): By his own body, Christ Jesus saved all flesh in order that a temple of justice be revealed in his body by which we are saved.

Second conclusion (v.19): Those who deny that God is the creator of Heaven and earth and all things in them, are not children of Justice but children of Wrath.

This part of the proof ends with a final warning: They (the unnamed heretical teachers) are cursed because they follow the teaching of the serpent. The Corinthians are summoned to avoid

30 Cf. Rordorf, art. cit., 417: 'Cette these qui introduit une nouvelle idke, ti savoir celle de la perte de I'homme et de sa recherche par le crkateur, a besoin d'Ctre explicitde. Tout le dkveloppement des v.9-18 sert ti cette fin. I1 s'agit d'un vkritable prkcis d'une theologie de I'histoire du salut'. Also w.24-32 (about the resurrection of the flesh) can be regarded as an elaboration of v.8, esp. of the idea of L;woxo(qoq (making alive), cf. Lampe, ad loc.

THE CORINTHIAN CORRESPONDENCE 89

them. For a more detailed study of the theology of this part of the

letter, I refer to Rordorf, art. cit., 417-2 1 . I merely wish to add to this highly instructive interpretation that the content of this section of the argument is well attuned to the overall context of the AP.3' For it is stated explicitly that the Evil One tries to rule over man by tying his flesh to lust. Furthermore, there is the strong suggest- ion that the sin by which man was lost had something to do with

This entails that Christian believers should combat the Evil One by distancing themselves from lust, i.e. by asceticism and continence. Indeed the present argument can be read as a theolog- ical underpinning of Paul's preaching of continence.

This theological argumentation is interlaced with disapproval of the heretical ideas mentioned by the Corinthians in their letter to Paul. In the course of his argument, the author refutes the ideas 2, 4 and 6 (cf. b and c) by stating that God is the God of all things, the Almighty One who did not wish his creation to go astray. Opposing 1, he teaches that God sent prophets to Israel, that He conferred a portion of Christ's own Spirit to the prophets, who repeatedly proclaimed the unerring worship of God. Opposing 5 (cf. e), he expounds that God sent the Spirit into Mary, the Galilean, and that it was God's aim that the Evil One be defeated by the same flesh over which he wished to rule.

Only the denial of the resurrection of the flesh (3 = a) is not refuted in this first part of the arg~rnentat ion.~~ The second head- ing (vv.24-32) is reserved for this issue. The author opens this second argument with a quotation from the disputed teaching: 'And as for those who say to you, "There is no resurrection of the flesh", to them indeed there is no resurrection'. He reasons by

31 I refer to Paul's preaching of continence and asceticism. See e.g. AThe 5 and 12. 32 Compare v.9: the sins of the Jews, with v.11: now the Evil One tied all flesh to lust. 33 As noted above, the denial of the crucifixion of Christ is mentioned in the narrative introduction to the correspondence (d) but not in the Corinthian letter itself.

90 GERARD LUTnKHUIZEN

analogy and by references to historical evidence from the Script- ures. The clear suggestion is that those who deny the resurrection of the flesh do not know the natural seeds that are cast bare into the earth are first corrupted but then, by the will of God, they rise again with bodies and are fully ~ lo thed .~ ' Subsequently, pseudo-Paul refers to what happened to Jonah and to the dead man who rose after he was cast upon the bones of the prophet Elisha (2 Kgs 13.21). The implicit conclusion is that the heretics do not accept the testimony of the Scriptures.

In this connection, our interest is not focused on the possible source(s) used by the author.36 It is more important to see the rhetorical function of this section of the letter: pseudo-Paul rejects the denial of the resurrection, for he wishes to convince his readers that in the resurrection of the flesh, God's purpose to revive his lost creatures (cf. vv.6,8) is fully realized.

The letter is concluded in the pathetic style characteristic of the epilogue of deliberative speech. The author summons his readers not to trouble him if they should accept other teachings, for his hands are chained for Christ's sake and he bears (Christ's) marks in his body (cf. Gal. 6.17) so that he may attain the resur- rection of the dead. The one who keeps to the rule will be rewarded but the one who does not, shall be punished with fire just as the ones who guided him on this way (the heretical teacher^).^' These guides are called godless people and a gener-

34 The idea to the effect that only the true believers shall rise, is also found in the narrative context of 111 Cor., viz. in AThe 37. 35 Note that Paul himself, in his first letter to the Corinthians, argues that the body of the plant is completely different from that of the grain of seed, and that this also holds true of resurrected body (15.35-50). In contrast, pseudo-Paul assumes that the believer will arise in an intact physical body (v.30: 'no part will be consumed, not even a hair nor an eyelash'). 36 This question is dealt with by Rordorf, art. cit., 421-4. 37 1.e. the rule he received both through the blessed prophets and through the Holy Gospel. Once again, the author refutes the view that the prophets should not be used.

THE COIUNTHIAN CORRESPONDENCE 91

ation of vipers. The readers are summoned to avoid them. Unlike Rordorf, I doubt whether the ideas attributed by the

Corinthians to Simon and Cleobius are specific enough to allow any historical identification." These ideas, with the possible exception of the teaching about the creation of the world by angels,39 were widespread among Christian Gnostics in the sec- ond and third centuries. In fact, we may be dealing with a general warning against the invasion of Gnostic ways of thinking into Christianity rather than with the refutation of a specific group of Gnostics active in Corinth or in another local community.40 The author of the apocryphal letter and the preceding letter from the Corinthian presbyters must have been familiar with Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians and his disapproval of the spiritualizing tendency in that community; it is, therefore, not hard to see why this author presented Paul as the principal adversary of Gnostic thought.

Nowhere else in the AP (or in the other AAA) do we find a polemical speech, whether oral or written, which could be com- pared to the Third Letter to the Corinthians. In that sense, the Corinthian correspondence is a singular part of the Pauline Acts. On the other hand, as we have seen, (pseudo-) Paul's theological argument is in basic agreement with the proclamation of con- tinence and resurrection in the AP. The composer of the AP may have inserted the correspondence not only because he endorsed the vehement rejection of Gnostic ideas but also because he apprec- iated the theological insights attributed to Paul in his apocryphal letter.

38 Rordorf, art. cit., 403-12. 39 Similar ideas are attributed by Irenaeus to Carpocrates and his disciples (Adv.Haer. 125.1) and to Basilides (I 24.3-4). 40 A modem analogy might be the ubiquitous appearance, since the sixties, of diverse forms of New Age spirituality. A modem pseudoPaul would probably not address one specific group but the whole pheno- menon.