Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Polycarp
Charles E. Hill
CHARLES E. HILL
Despite a clear preference for Egypt on the part of many recent scholars, a
review of the evidence shows that Carl Schmidt was correct in assigning the
Epistula Apostolorum to Asia Minor. Literary and theological affinities with
other Asian works, the social setting of the author and his group, and the
historical circumstances visible in this pseudepigraphon, including the
experience of earthquakes, plague, and persecution, combine to place the
Epistula in Asia Minor in the first half of the second century. Two dates
emerge as the most likely for the composition of the Epistula: just before 120,
or in the 140s. The Epistula may therefore be used with confidence to enhance
our understanding of the development of Christianity within the sometimes
hostile environment in Asia Minor in this period.
Journal of Early Christian Studies 7:1, 1–53 © 1999 The Johns Hopkins University Press
2 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES
Gospel is one of its remarkable features and has been noted widely by its
modern students.
But where and when did the community exist for whom this author
wrote? Neither the date nor the provenance of the Ep. Apost. has ever
been fully settled. In 1919 Carl Schmidt in his magisterial study and the
editio princeps of the Coptic version assigned the Ep. Apost. to Asia
Minor during the decade 160–70,1 but his position has been all but
abandoned by more recent scholars. Though some continue to prefer the
second half of the second century,2 the trend has been towards a
somewhat earlier date, with Hugo Deunsing, Manfred Hornschuh, J. J.
Gunther, and C. D. G. Müller all placing it at or before the midpoint of
the century. Asia Minor too has been all but eclipsed.3 Deunsing and
Gunther wrote in favor of a Syrian milieu, and Hornschuh theorized that
the author was a Jewish-Christian with roots in the primitive Palestinian
Church, writing in Egypt around 120.4 In the year before Hornschuh’s
study appeared, A. A. T. Ehrhardt had also argued for an Egyptian
origin, but for a later date towards the end of the second century.5 Since
the studies of Ehrhardt and Hornschuh in the mid-1960s, Egypt has been
in the ascendancy. An Egyptian origin has been decisively adopted by
1. C. Schmidt and I. Wajnberg, Gespräche Jesu mit seinen Jüngern nach der
Auferstehung: Ein katholisch-apostoliches Sendschreiben des 2. Jahrhunderts. TU 43
(Leipzig, 1919), 361–402. Asian provenance was also upheld by K. Lake, The
Beginning of Christianity, part I: The Acts of the Apostles, v (London, 1933), 44.
2. J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford, 1993) [ANT], 556, says
that “the consensus of opinion puts it in the third quarter of the second century.” H.
Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (Philadelphia,
1990), 312, specifies only the second half of the second century.
3. After submitting this article, A. Stewart-Sykes’ important contribution, “The
Asian Context of the New Prophecy and of Epistula Apostolorum,” VC 51 (1997):
416–38, appeared. Stewart-Sykes also argues for an Asian provenance for the
Epistula based mainly on similarities in theology and general religious atmosphere
between it and Montanism. Though I cannot endorse all of his arguments (in
particular cf. pp. 433–36 with C. E. Hill, “The Marriage of Montanism and
Millennialism,” Studia Patristica 26 [1992]: 142–48), I am pleased to observe that his
independent line of research supports and complements the present study.
4. Deunsing, “Epistula Apostolorum,” in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, New Testa-
ment Apocrypha, 2 vols. (London, 1963), I:191; M. Hornschuh, Studien zur Epistula
Apostolorum (Berlin, 1965), 116–19; J. J. Gunther, “Syrian Christian Dualism,” VC
25 (1971): 81–93 at 91.
5. A. A. T. Ehrhardt, “Judaeo-Christians in Egypt, the Epistula Apostolorum and
the Gospel to the Hebrews,” in F. L. Cross, ed., Studia Evangelica 3 (TU 88, 1964):
360–82.
HILL/THE EPISTULA APOSTOLORUM 3
“in the days of”) Pilate and one Archelaus. Mt 2.22 mentions an
Archelaus, the son of Herod the Great, who ruled Judea after the death
of his father. But Archelaus was removed from office in 6 c.e. and
banished. J. de Zwaan suggested that Julius Archelaus, son of Helcias, is
meant (see Josephus, Ant. 19.354-55; 20.140, 147; Ap. 1.51), which
would put the crucifixion in the 40s of the first century.12 De Zwaan ties
this to Irenaeus’ notion, based upon a free interpretation of Jn 8.57 and
supported by some Asian traditions, that Jesus lived between forty and
fifty years (AH 2.22.6). De Zwaan then takes the 150 years of the
Ethiopic version and arrives at the terminus ad quem of 200. But if the
author knew anything about Julius Archelaus, then he must have known
that this man was not a ruler of Palestine, least of all during the
procuratorship of Pontius Pilate.13 More plausibly, I think, the Ep.
Apost.’s assertion about Archelaus was simply based on too literal a
reading of Mt 3.1 without noting the temporal break from Mt 2.22.
After mentioning Archelaus in 2.22, Matthew leaps over nearly three
decades right to the ministry of Jesus, but introduces 3.1 with the words,
“in those days. . . .” To one unfamiliar with the governmental history of
Palestine, it could easily seem that Archelaus was still in office when John
the Baptist appeared on the scene. As for Irenaeus’ statement on the
length of Jesus’ life, it is possible that all Irenaeus had to claim from
Asian tradition before him was simply that the Fourth Gospel recorded
a longer ministry than did the Synoptics, necessitating the conclusion
that Jesus lived well beyond thirty years.14
So much for a preliminary discussion of dates. We shall have more to
say on the subject after we examine other possible indications of the
circumstances of composition. We now treat the main proposals for the
provenance of Ep. Apost. As Egypt is the point of origin most discussed
and favored in recent works, it is with Egypt that we begin.
12. J. de Zwaan, “Date and Origin of the Epistle of the Eleven Apostles (Gespräche
Jesu mit seinen Jüngern nach der Auferstehung),” in H. G. Wood, ed., Amicitiae
Corolla: A Volume of Essays Presented to James Rendel Harris, D. Litt., on the
Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday (London, 1933), 344–55, at 349.
13. See Hills, Tradition, 78.
14. See C. E. Hill, “What Papias Said about John (and Luke): A ‘New’ Papian
Fragment,” JTS n.s. 49 (1998), 582–629.
6 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES
I. PROVENANCE
A. Egypt
1. A. A. T. Ehrhardt
As mentioned above, Ehrhardt argues forcefully that the author was a
Jewish Christian writing in Egypt.15 An important plank in his proof is
the proposition that the Ep. Apost. is dependent upon the Egyptian
Gospel of the Hebrews. Even if this were true, however, an Egyptian
origin for the Ep. Apost. would not be assured. Ehrhardt also proposes
that Ignatius of Antioch used the Gosp. Heb.,16 and this would have been
prior to the appearance of Ep. Apost. in any case. But if this does not
make Ignatius an Egyptian, it would not necessarily make the author of
Ep. Apost. an Egyptian. And, more to the point, the alleged connections
with Gosp. Heb. are open to most serious doubts. In particular, Ehrhardt
finds these two documents to be in agreement in denying a role to the
Holy Spirit in the conception of Jesus.17 Ep. Apost. 14.518 says, “For I
alone was a minister unto myself, in that which concerned Mary.” But
Ehrhardt has somehow passed by the confession in 3.2, “we believe: the
word, which became flesh through the holy virgin Mary, was carried
(conceived) in her womb by the Holy Spirit. . . .” And when Ehrhardt
concludes that Ep. Apost. 14.5 agrees with Gosp. Heb. in denying that
Jesus partook of the humanity of Mary, it seems he has missed the point
of Ep. Apost. 14.5. While the Savior is pictured by the author of Ep.
Apost. as saying, “For I alone was a minister unto myself, in that which
concerned Mary,” the intention is not to deny a real participation in
human flesh. The text goes on to say, “I became flesh,” and the true
sarkic nature of Christ’s humanity is one of the foremost concerns of the
15. He states unequivocally, “The truth is rather that E. A. was written in defence
of Judaeo-Christianity in Egypt” (371). The Jewish-Christian viewpoint of the author
is said to be “quite clearly expressed in Christ’s missionary command: ‘Go and preach
unto the twelve tribes, and preach also unto the heathen and to all the land of Israel,
from the East unto the West, and from the South unto the North’” (371). But how is
a Jewish-Christian milieu compatible with the prophetic oracle cited in ch. 33,
“Behold, out of the land of Syria I will begin to call a new Jerusalem, and I will
subdue Zion and it will be captured; and the barren one who has no children will be
fruitful and will be called the daughter of my Father, but to me, my bride; for so has
it pleased him who sent me”?
16. Ehrhardt, “Judeo-Christians,” 361–62.
17. Ehrhardt, “Judeo-Christians,” 363–64.
18. I have followed the practice, suggested by Hills, of numbering the sentences of
each chapter as verses, as they appear in the English translation of NTA (2nd edn.).
HILL/THE EPISTULA APOSTOLORUM 7
tract. Nor does the author mean to deny Mary’s part in the incarnation19
(again, 3.2, “we believe: the word, which became flesh through the holy
virgin Mary, was carried (conceived) in her womb by the Holy Spirit␣ .␣ .␣ .”).
The point is rather to deny the participation of Joseph and the normal
method of procreation. As he says in 21.2 (Eth.) “without being begotten
I was born (or, begotten) of man, and without having flesh I put on
flesh,” and again, stressing his possession of common humanity, in 19.20
(Eth.), “I have put on your flesh, in which I was born and died and was
buried and rose again through my heavenly Father.” This is borne out
again by the christological use of Jn 1.13 in 3.2 (on which we shall have
more to say below). Thus there is really nothing in the Ep. Apost. which
can be said to be in common with the “docetic” teaching of the Gosp.
Heb. fragment in question, on which Ehrhardt lays such emphasis.
It has often been remarked that there are certain similarities between
the Ep. Apost. and a work known from the Jung Codex of the Nag
Hammadi library, the so-called Apocryphon of James. Ehrhardt argues
that the Asian origin of the Ep. Apost. is untenable “at any rate if the
conclusion of W. C. van Unnik is accepted that the ‘Apocryphon of
James,’ which is of Egyptian origin, was written between a.d. 125 and
150. For it is certain that there are close similarities between this writing
and E. A. which is later than this apocryphon. Consequently the author
of E. A. must have used it, and he could hardly have done so outside
Egypt.”20 Müller accepts Ehrhardt’s reasoning.21 As it happens, however,
both the Egyptian origin of the Apocryphon of James and the dating
assumed by Ehrhardt for it are quite disputed. It is interesting to note
that in the introduction to the Apoc. Jas., which follows the Ep. Apost.
directly in NTA2, Dankwart Kirchner actually favors a Syrian-Palestinian,
not an Egyptian, provenance for the Apoc. Jas. and says, “The similari-
ties between Ap. Jas. and the Epistula Apostolorum are to be explained
by assuming that the latter is reacting to a spiritual situation represented,
among others, by Ap. Jas. No literary dependence can be demon-
strated.”22 Other scholars too are not convinced that Apoc. Jas. origi-
nated in Egypt where it was ultimately found. Pheme Perkins, for
example, argues for “Asia Minor or western Syria sometime in the early
third century a.d.”23
2. M. Hornschuh
Manfred Hornschuh has presented by far the most extensive argu-
ments for Egypt. Most of his points can be fairly briefly treated.
1) Citing Lietzmann’s review of Schmidt in ZNW 20 (1921), Hornschuh
says that the surviving translations of the work place it “in den uns
wohlbekannten römisch-ägyptischen Kreis,” for it survives only in
Coptic, Ethiopic, and Latin translations. But Hornschuh realizes that this
does not mean it circulated only in Egypt, Ethiopia, and the Latin West
(it was after all first written in Greek), and so Hornschuh allows that this
argument has some weight, but is not decisive.24 One should observe here
that the ultimate preservation in African languages and reception among
the Coptic churches may be due simply to a more open attitude in Egypt
in the second century towards pseudepigraphal but useful Christian
works than tended to characterize the church elsewhere.
2) Hornschuh then observes that the work’s peculiar tendencies might
have discouraged its acceptance anywhere but where it was first written.
But on the other hand, he says, it might have been valued in Egypt for its
quasimonophysite Christology.25 Nor should we overlook another quite
different possibility, namely, that a work of known fictional qualities
might be read and perceived for what it was in its homeland but more
easily misappropriated in a foreign land.
indeed probably from the first half of the second century, and that it may have come
from Egypt or from Asia Minor. But the flow of apocryphal or heretical Christian
works North from Egypt was by no means necessarily slow. Irenaeus has a copy of the
Gospel of Truth and some version of the Apocryphon of John (AH 1.29), which
would have come from either Rome or Egypt. And he has Carpocratian writings
which probably came from Egypt (AH 1.25.4, 5). Connections between Egyptian
religion and Ephesus, for instance, at this time are well known from the archaeologi-
cal remains. J. C. Walters, “Egyptian Religions in Ephesos,” in H. Koester, ed.,
Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia. HTS 41 (Valley Forge, 1995), 281–310, “Extant
evidence makes it appear that Christianity and the Egyptian cults were the only
religions from the East . . . that made significant inroads into the religious life of
Ephesos” (282); “It seems that during the period of Christian expansion in Ephesos,
the Egyptian cults also experienced something of a resurgence. Because of the relative
absence of evidence for other foreign religions in Ephesos, particularly mystery cults,
the metropolis of Asia may be a unique site where the contextualization of these two
religions and their special appeal during this period could be jointly analyzed” (305).
It should also be observed that there was a temple and priesthood of Isis in Smyrna in
the second century, to whom the orator Aelius Aristides betook himself many times
(C. J. Cadoux, Ancient Smyrna: A History of the City from the Earliest Times to 324
A.D. [Oxford, 1938], 265, 271).
24. Hornschuh, Studien, 103.
25. Hornschuh, Studien,103–4.
HILL/THE EPISTULA APOSTOLORUM 9
which he thinks supports this work’s Ephesian origins. For Streeter, this
is one more piece of evidence for “a special connection between most of
our earliest authorities of the Western text and the Roman province of
Asia.”31 Hornschuh disputes this, however, arguing that Roman influence
in Egypt is demonstrable in the early second century, and that knowledge
of the longer ending could have come from Rome to Egypt just as easily
as it could from Rome to Asia. As far as bare possibilities go, this is
perhaps true. But the fact remains that the reading is attested in the
second century in one (Irenaeus)32 and possibly two (Papias)33 Asians,
and is unknown in Egypt! It does not appear in the most “Egyptian” of
manuscripts of Mark, and, very tellingly, is not known by Clement or
Origen.34 It appears that this piece of evidence is decidedly in favor of
Asia.
6) The next point is just as revealing and involves the same response to
more observations made by Streeter. First, Streeter remarked that the
name “Judas Zelotes” from the apostle list in ch. 2 is found in some
European (not African) Old Latin versions of Mt 10.3, and appears in a
mosaic in a baptistery in Ravenna.35 Second, Streeter caught the
significance of the description of Christ in 3.2, “the word which became
flesh through the holy virgin Mary . . . was born not by the lust of the
flesh but by the will of God . . .” as implying “the famous Western
reading of Jn. i. 13, which substitutes ˘w . . . §gennÆyh for ofl §gennÆyhsan
and thereby makes the fourth Gospel also assert the Virgin Birth of
Christ. This reading is found in b, in three quotations of Irenaeus, two of
Tertullian, and was also known to Ambrose, Augustine and probably to
Justin Martyr.”36 Hornschuh can do nothing but admit that this shows
an affinity between the Ep. Apost. and “the West,” but answers that the
same argument may be used here as was used concerning the long ending
of Mark. But that argument, as we have seen, was not a very good one.
Again, this reading is known in the second century only in one who spent
his early Christian life in Asia before moving to Rome (Justin, Dial.
63.2), in an Asian native (Irenaeus, AH 3.16.2; 19.2; 21.5, 7; 5.1.3), and
is next found in one who was a student of the latter’s writings, Tertullian.
On the other hand, this reading, or use, of Jn 1.13 is unknown to
Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 2.13.58), who assumes the collective text
and interpretation without the slightest awareness of any variant, and it
is apparently unknown to Origen, not occurring in his Greek citations
but only in later Latin translations of his work. More to the point, none
of the surviving “Alexandrian” or “proto-Alexandrian” MSS (P66, 75 a B,
etc.) contains the christological reading. This evidence then also points us
definitely away from Egypt and towards Asia Minor, or parts west.
7) Hornschuh argues that the confessional statement in ch. 5, which
has five elements, said to be the meaning of the five loaves offered for the
feeding of the 5,000, is also on the side of Egypt. The original triform
confession (with articles on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) was
in time expanded in Rome to the point where each of the three articles
became itself triform. The Ep. Apost. then represents a very old
intermediate form. But he cites no Egyptian formulae which can be
shown to be early. He says, “Das Glaubensbekenntnis der Ep. Ap. is
entweder in Rom oder in Ägypten entstanden und verweist unsere Schrift
wiederum in den ‘römisch-ägyptischen Kreis.’”37 But no good reason is
offered why there should not be a “Roman-Asian circle” as well, or why
the credal forms presupposed in, for instance, Irenaeus, AH 1.10.1;
5.20.1; Dem. 3, 6, 99, should not be allowed as parallels.38
8) Hornshuh says the “religionsgeschichtliche Milieu” of the docu-
ment is “typisch ägyptisches,” claiming its thoughts and conceptions are
those of “altägyptischen Mythologie, des Hermetismus und der christlichen
3. C. D. G. Müller
We may treat more quickly the brief but more recent arguments
adduced in favor of an Egyptian provenance by Müller. He too brings the
long ending of Mark into play, arguing specifically for the Ep. Apost.’s
origin in Lower Egypt because Mark’s Gospel was “at that time still
unknown in parts of Upper Egypt.”50 This may be, but this Gospel was
hardly unknown in a place like Asia Minor, which even knows the long
ending of Mark (Irenaeus, AH 3.10.6). In fact, Müller cites no corrobo-
rating evidence for supposing that this ending was known in Lower
Egypt in the second century. He claims that “the bluntly antidocetic
tendency and the emphasis on the resurrection of the flesh are Egyp-
tian.”51 But this blunt tendency and emphasis could just as well, or
probably better, be Asian (cf. I, II John, Ignatius, Polycarp, ad Phil.). He
also cites the close association in the document between the Father and
the Son, “the Father works through the Son as his incarnation and
instrument,” and sees this as typical of Egypt, where “the godhead
works not directly but through the ruler, who is its embodiment and
instrument.”52 But this quality in Ep. Apost. may simply be an echo of
the theology of the Fourth Gospel, so treasured by the author.
Müller does not deny connections with Asia Minor and elsewhere, but
sees them explained if we suppose the author of Ep. Apost. to have been
a school head from the hellenistic-Jewish Christianity of Alexandria or its
neighbourhood, the point of irruption into Egypt for all oriental ideas and
teachers. This also fits with the special mention of the additional apostle
Paul, who played no role in Egyptian-Jewish Christianity and must here be
commended for the first time. But possibly the author is in this way
answering the regard in which the apostle was held among gentile
gnostics.53
to Egypt any more surely than to Asia Minor, and others actually point
more surely in the direction of Asia Minor itself.
4. J. J. Gunther’s Objections
Beyond this, J. J. Gunther has noted two problems for an Egyptian
context.54 Chapter 3 describes God as the one “who . . . in the twinkling
of an eye summons the rain for the wintertime, and fog, frost, and
hail.␣ .␣ .␣ .” Gunther points out that “the weather described in ch. 3 is
inappropriate for Egypt.”55 Gunther thinks it is compatible with Syria,
but we may observe in passing that Cadoux gave the following
description of weather conditions in the environs of Smyrna: “In and
near Smyrna, the winters are cold and stormy; but snow and frost are
usually confined to the high ground. The annual rainfall, about
three-quarters of which comes during the months from November to
March inclusive, averages nearly twenty-six inches; but it is very
variable. . . . The later spring and the autumn are delightfully temper-
ate.”56
This point may be expanded by another notice in the Ep. Apost. of
apparently local weather conditions. In 34.9 the author speaks of the
possibility of “drought from the failing of the rain.” In Egypt, where the
crops were “wholly dependent on irrigation”57 provided by the flooding
of the Nile, arid conditions were the rule and “constant drought” would
have been unexceptional.58 In Asia Minor it was quite different. As we
shall see below, rain was quite necessary for each crop and droughts were
not uncommon. The weather conditions familiar to the author, then, all
but rule out an Egyptian setting for his writing.
Gunther’s second argument against Egypt is that “Clement and
Origen, in spite of their vast knowledge of apocrypha, showed no
54. More will appear from the results of our study below.
55. Gunther, “Syrian,” 82.
56. Cadoux, Ancient Smyrna, 19. There is also a description of the climate of the
Aegean coast in T. R. S. Broughton, “Roman Asia,” in T. Frank, ed., An Economic
Survey of Ancient Rome, vol. IV: Africa, Syria, Greece, Asia Minor (Patterson, N.J.,
1959), 499–916, at 603.
57. A. C. Johnson, Roman Egypt to the Reign of Diocletian, in Frank, Economic
Survey IV: 7.
58. Aelius Aristides hails the providence of Serapis, “who, in a land where rain is
least likely, has brought in the Nile as a kind of imitator of himself and to be like rain
for the people” (The Egyptian Discourse 123); again, the Nile “comes itself in place
of the rain of Zeus and floods the land” (Regarding Zeus 28). Translations of
Aristides’ works are from from C. A. Behr, P. Aelius Aristides: The Complete Works,
2 vols. (Leiden, 1981, 1986).
16 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES
acquaintance with this Epistle.”59 This argument from silence may have
little independent weight but combined with the other observations that
we are making can be allowed some confirmatory value. To be added to
this is the observation that the supposition of an Egyptian origin has a
hard time accounting for the lack of reference in the document to the
great Alexandrian heretic of the first half of the second century, Basilides,
or to his peculiar doctrines.
Despite its current popularity, then, the case for Egypt is anything but
strong. Its weakness, I think, will be even more evident from what
follows.
B. Syria
The arguments for Syria, though they have been developed less
extensively, are perhaps somewhat better.60 The list of attributes this
“epistle” shares with some early Syrian works includes the notion that at
death one must escape the evil archons (apparently alluded to in ch. 28,
cf. Act. Thom. 10, 143; possibly Odes Sol. 42.11). But this would not be
conclusive, for such an idea is known outside Syria, in Egypt (Carpocrates,
Irenaeus, AH 1.25.2) and in Rome or Asia Minor (Hippolytus, Comm.
Dan. 3.31.2–3).61
In ch. 27 the Ep. Apost. assumes a baptism performed on the righteous
in the underworld by Christ. This too is possibly signified in the Syrian
Odes Sol. 42.20 (“And I placed my name upon their head”). But it is also
known outside Syria in the probably Palestinian Apoc. Pet. 14,62 the
Roman Hermas Sim. 9.16.2–3, and is probably akin to the notion
attested in Hippolytus and Origen that John the Baptist preached in
Hades as a forerunner to Christ before he descended there.63
1. J. J. Gunther
Gunther also accepts Delazer’s conclusions about Ep. Apost. presup-
posing a heavenly liturgy, which is supposed to point to Syria. But
Delazer’s idea of a heavenly liturgy in ch. 13 has been criticized,64 and
2. J. de Zwaan
Gunther’s case, so far as it goes, is not unreasonable, though it is very
far from compelling. The parallels with Syrian literature he has cited are
not necessarily distinctive to Syrian literature. But now we must mention
J. de Zwaan’s more specific attempt to show that the Epistula had an
origin about 195 “in the native Syriac Church of Osrhoëne, the kingdom
of Abgar.”66 He thinks it is from this nationalist Syrian church, as
opposed to that of the so-called Palutians, the orthodox intruders into
the area, that the document emanated. But H. J. W. Drijvers thinks this
nationalist church was probably Marcionite,67 and the Ep. Apost. is
anything but Marcionite! Whether it came from the unorthodox “state
church” or from the orthodox Palutians, we would surely expect from
an east Syrian document at this time more strident indications of the
presence of Marcionism. As Drijvers says, “Polemic with Marcion is . . .
a distinguishing mark of all Syrian theology in its different forms from
the very beginning of Syriac literature forward.”68 But the absence of any
indication of Marcionism in the Ep. Apost. has been noted by Gunther
himself.69 The last thing to be said about De Zwaan’s arguments is that
they center mainly on the document’s Quartodecimanism and leave most
of the rest of its contents untouched. Yet it must be said that, though
70. Hardly signifying that “the Paschal controversy was red-hot,” pace de Zwaan,
“Date and Origin,” 348.
71. de Zwaan, “Date and Origin,” 354. S. G. Hall, Melito of Sardis: On Pascha
and Fragments, OECT (Oxford, 1979), xxv, thinks its Quartodecimanism is “by no
means certain.”
72. “Hellenistic and Oriental Origins,” in S. Hackel, ed., The Byzantine Saint:
University of Birmingham Fourteenth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies.
Studies Supplementary to Sobornost 5 (London, 1981), 25–33 at 32.
73. H. J. W. Drijvers, “Facts and Problems,” 158–59. He notes its presence “in the
Vetus Syra, in the Acts of Thomas, in Ephrem Syrus, in the Doctrina Addai and in
Eusebius, Church History I. 13 where the bishop of Caesarea gives a Greek
translation of essential parts of the Abgar correspondence and Abgar legend” (159).
Drijvers’ description (170–71) of the theology of the Thomas literature would surely
exclude the Ep. Apost. from this category.
74. Gunther, “Syrian,” 91.
HILL/THE EPISTULA APOSTOLORUM 19
C. Asia
1. Schmidt’s Arguments
Schmidt’s arguments for Asia Minor have not so much been refuted as
deemed inconclusive. Hornschuh treated them in the process of rejecting
them, and we shall find it convenient to cite them here as he does.
1) The mention of Cerinthus with Simon. Cerinthus is, of course,
placed in Asia by Irenaeus, our earliest source (besides the Ep. Apost.).
Hornschuh cannot accept this as valid, however, because of the way
Cerinthus is used here. Cerinthus and Simon are thought to be intro-
duced as mere types, not as those whose teaching is really affecting the
community.75 Moreover, they are presented as heretics from the apostolic
age, whose false teaching has “gone throughout the world” (7.1). If
Cerinthus’ teaching is thus widespread, his reputation cannot be limited
to Asia. Simon’s Samaritan origin does not mean the Epistula is
Samaritan, so neither does Cerinthus’ Asian origin mean it is Asian.
Strictly speaking, this is correct. I would argue, however, that the
inclusion of Simon is understandable on the supposition that he was
considered the fount of all Christian heresies (AH 1.23.2; 2.praef.1, etc.),
and his is one of the few heretical names which could be associated with
the times of the apostles, the putative senders of the “epistle.” Cerinthus,
on the other hand, though he could also be said to be an “apostolic”
heretic, because associated with the apostle John, flourished much later,
according to Asian tradition (AH 3.3.4; 11.1), and this must put him
much closer to the author’s own time. I would even argue that it is
possible to show that Ep. Apost.’s knowledge of Cerinthus extends to the
heretic’s teaching. But the systematic demonstration of this is really the
work of another study. In the remainder of the present study, Cerinthus
and his teaching will be used only illustratively.
2) The author’s predilection for the Fourth Gospel. Hornschuh cannot
argue with Schmidt’s conclusion that “in keiner der uns überlieferten
Schriften (sc. des 2. Jahrhunderts) eine derartig starke Benutzung des
75. For this Hornschuh has the support even of Schmidt, whom he quotes (99) as
saying, “vielmehr sind diese beiden Namen nur Typen der Gesamterscheinung . . .
Sollte nämlich die Fiktion aufrechterhalten werden, daß die Apostel selbst also
Bekämpfer der gnostischen Häresie auftreten, so mußte der Verfasser Häretiker der
apostolischen Zeit namhaft machen” (from Schmidt, Gespräche, 195). He can also
claim Bardy’s support (Bardy, 118), “Dans la lettre des Apôtres, Simon et Cérinth
paraissent plutôt comme des types, déjà légendaires, que comme des personnages
vivants.”
20 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES
of John was popular too. And here I must disagree with Hornschuh, who
claims there are no points of contact with the book of Revelation.81 The
NTA2 lists nine probable references or allusions to Revelation and as this
study proceeds we shall see that there are more. The weight of the
combination, then, of the author’s familiarity with the Fourth Gospel
and with the Apocalypse (which is universally acknowledged as Asian, as
it addresses seven churches there), and his community’s Quartodeciman
practice should probably be allowed to fall on the side of Asia Minor.
Nonetheless, this evidence will be weakened for those who hold out for
a different birthplace for the Fourth Gospel. As stated above, I believe
the author can be shown to be familiar with the teachings of Cerinthus.
This also should point strongly to Asia, though there are those who
believe Hippolytus’ notice that Cerinthus was trained in Egypt signifies
an alternative and superior tradition that this man came from Egypt.82
For the purposes of our investigation I prefer not to rely on the
disputed implications of Schmidt’s evidence in arguing for the prov-
enance of the Ep. Apost. We shall instead leave all the weight which
might accumulate from an Asian origin of the Fourth Gospel and an
Asian provenance of the Cerinthus traditions to one side. There is, I
believe, much more evidence which can be appealed to which will point
in the same direction.
We have already noted a few instances above where arguments
intended to support other localities turned out to make their best
contributions to Asia, namely, the weather patterns mentioned in ch. 3;
the apparent knowledge of the longer ending of Mark’s Gospel; the
Christological reading of Jn 1.13. In what follows we shall arrange
various pieces of evidence, under aspects of literary or theological
affinities, indicators of the social situation, and external historical
factors, all of which can be integrated into the search for the origins of
the Ep. Apost. and all of which, I believe, lead us in the direction of Asia
Minor.
correctly has been said to reflect knowledge of the long ending of Mark’s
Gospel. We have noted that this ending is first clearly signified in a writer
of Asian extraction, Irenaeus (AH 3.10.6), and possibly is attested by an
earlier Asian, Papias of Hierapolis (Eusebius, HE 3.39.9). We have also
met with another textual peculiarity which is attested early in Asia,
namely, the application of Jn 1.13 to Jesus, who “was born not by the
lust of the flesh but by the will of God” (3.2). As with Justin, so here, we
cannot know for certain whether this represents a variant text at this
point,83 or whether it is simply a christological application of the verse.
But by the time Irenaeus uses it, it was apparently a textual reading in his
copy of John’s Gospel.84 The point here is that outside its use in Ep.
Apost. it is known in the second century only in one who spent his early
Christian life in Ephesus (and probably acquired his first copy of the
Fourth Gospel there), in the Asian Irenaeus (AH 3.16.2; 19.2; 21.5, 7;
5.1.3), and then in one who was a student of Irenaeus’ writings,
Tertullian (De carne Christi 19.1; 24.2; cf. 15.3). Both these latter use it
in defense of the virgin birth of Jesus not involving a human father,
against heretics such as the Ebionites (or the Cerinthians) who taught
otherwise. We also observed that this reading is unknown to Clement
and apparently Origen, and is found in no Alexandrian text of the
Fourth Gospel.
Next is the christological application of the OT appellation of God as
the one, “who is over the Cherubim” (Ps 80.1 or 99.1) which appears in
the list of attributes of Jesus in Ep. Apost. 3.1.85 This expression as
applied to Jesus is attested elsewhere in the second century only in
Irenaeus: AH 3.11.8, “the Word, the Artificer of all, He that sitteth upon
the cherubim, and contains all things. . . . As also David says, when
83. All the surviving Greek MSS of John contain the plural, ofl . . . §gennÆyhsan, and
not the singular, ıw . . . §gennÆyh. There is but one witness for the singular in the Old
Latin (MSS b). See Ehrman, Orthodox Corruption, 27, 59.
84. Apparently Irenaeus was not aware that there was a variation in the textual
tradition, though Tertullian was (De carne christi 19.1). The latter blamed the plural
reading (today accepted as the original) on the Valentinians. Thus, Tertullian
evidently had access to both readings, though no Greek MSS containing the singular
has survived. It is significant that this alteration of the text (if it was an alteration and
not simply a Christological application of it) is assumed in a document which opposes
Cerinthus, who, like the Ebionites mentioned by both Irenaeus and Tertullian, taught
an adoption of the earthly Jesus at the time of his baptism. In my opinion, this is the
likeliest context for the original variation.
85. “Dieser Jesus Christus ist an die Stelle des alttestamentlichen Gottes gesetzt und
deshalb wird auch der solenne Titel desselben ihm an erster Stelle erteilt,” Schmidt,
Gespräche, 268. See also Hills, Tradition, 54–55.
HILL/THE EPISTULA APOSTOLORUM 23
86. This is related in the context to the four “living creatures” from Ezek 1; Rev 4,
described as cherubim in Ezek 10, and is there part of Irenaeus’ defense of the
four-fold Gospel.
87. Irenaeus goes on to relate this to the eschatological earthquake predicted in Mt
24.21. These verses may have had a special significance in the Asia Minor of Irenaeus’
youth. See below.
88. Hall, Melito, 84, 93.
89. The phrase “run in vain” is used by Paul in another context in Gal 2.2, “lest
somehow I should be running or had run in vain.” The metaphor of life as a race
occurs again in II Tim 4.7, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I
have kept the faith.”
90. Cf. I Clem. 5.4.
91. See Clement of Alexandria’s beautiful extended metaphor in Quis Dives
Salvetur 3, who, however, does not mention running in vain.
24 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES
b. Extracanonical Traditions
Often it is said that the Ep. Apost. shares some concepts with
gnosticism, or at least with some forms of “nonstandard” Christianity.
And one of the elements that probably gives rise to this is the notion,
seen also in the Ascension of Isaiah 10.7ff., of Jesus disguising himself in
his descent from the highest heaven to enter the womb of the virgin (ch.
13). As it is in the Ethiopic,
While I was coming from the Father of all, passing by the heavens, wherein
I put on the wisdom of the Father and by his power clothed myself in his
power, I was like the heavens. And passing by the angels and archangels in
their form and as one of them, I passed by the orders, dominions, and
princes, possessing the measure of the wisdom of the Father who sent me.
And the archangels Michael and Gabriel, Raphael and Uriel followed me
until the fifth firmament of heaven, while I appeared as one of them. This
kind of power was given me by the Father. Then I made the archangels to
become distracted with the voice and go up to the altar of the Father and
serve the Father in their work until I should return to him.
92. Each heaven is said to correspond to one of the seven charismata of the Spirit
according to Isa 11.2f. In Jewish or Jewish-Christian sources, see Test. Levi 3; Asc.
Isa. 10; Secrets of Enoch 3f.
HILL/THE EPISTULA APOSTOLORUM 25
On the other hand, the author of Ep. Apost. and Irenaeus show a
sharp disagreement about another extracanonical tradition, the story of
the boy Jesus and his teachers, a version of which is also known from the
Infancy Gospel of Thomas. The author of Ep. Apost. tells his version of
the story with no qualms (ch. 4), while Irenaeus pronounces severely
against it and attributes it to unacceptable sources (AH 1.20.1).93 What
we must observe here, however, is simply that both know the story. It
would be reasonable to suppose that Irenaeus represents a later, more
critical view towards this tradition, a tradition which he may have
known from his Asian upbringing.
These two extracanonical traditions about Jesus then are significant
elements shared by Ep. Apost. and Irenaeus which may denote access to
a common fund of Asian tradition. Combined with the knowledge of
common forms of NT textual variations and interpretations, we are
beginning to see the accumulation of substantial links between Ep.
Apost. and Asian Christianity.
93. The Ep. Apost.’s use of this story does not at all, however, necessarily signal an
unorthodox or docetic Christology. Epiphanius tell us in fact why the orthodox might
be interested in such traditions about the childhood of Jesus: “For he ought to have
childhood miracles too, to deprive the other sects of an excuse for saying that ‘<the>
Christ,’ meaning the dove, came to him after [his baptism in] the Jordan. They say this
because of the sum of the letters alpha and omega, which is [the same as the sum of
the letters of] ‘dove,’ since the Savior said, ‘I am Alpha and I am Omega’” (Panar.
51.20.3). That is, such stories offered a way of confirming the orthodox Christology
of the union of the divine and human natures of Jesus Christ before the baptism in the
Jordan. This would make sense in a work such as Ep. Apost., written explicitly to
counteract the influences of Cerinthus. Irenaeus will restrict himself to canonical,
Scriptural traditions, but, interestingly, he uses Luke’s account of the blessing of
Simeon (Lk 2.29) to show the same thing, that Jesus was Christ from his birth, against
adoptionist Christologies which divide him up (AH 3.16.4).
26 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES
Beginning with its use by the author of Rev 22.18–19, this rule of not
adding to or subtracting from comes to be used in battling corruption of
the tradition and false teaching, with special application to the falsification
of Scripture (or in the case of Polycrates, falsifying the Quartodeciman
paschal practice inherited from the Apostles).94
Revelation, ca. 95
§ãn tiw §piyª §pÉ aÈtå . . . ka‹ §ãn tiw éf°l˙ épÚ t«n lÒgvn toË bibl¤ou t∞w
profhte¤aw taÊthw. (Rev 22.18–19)
Irenaeus, 175–90
neque additamentum neque ablationem recipiens (pertaining to the heretical
forging or falsifying of Scripture). (AH 4.33.8)
¶peita d¢ toË prosy°ntow µ éfelÒntow ti t∞w graf∞w (of those who have
seized upon the number 616 instead of 666 for the Antichrist). (AH 5.30.1)
Polycrates, 190–95
tØn ≤m°ran mÆte prostiy°ntew mÆte éfairoËmenoi (speaking of the 14th of
Nisan). (Euseb. HE 5.24.2)
Tertullian, 198–201
detractione, vel adiectione vel transmutatione (of those like Valentinus and
Marcion, who corrupt Scripture). (De praescr. heret. 38)
94. The phrase occurs in the “Two-Ways” tradition in the Didache 4.1, repeated in
Barn. 19.2, 11, but its use in these works is to emphasize the completeness of
obedience to the Lord’s commandments, and “remonte directement au Deutéronome”
(W. C. Van Unnik, “De la règle MÆte prosye›nai mÆte éfele›n dans l’histoire du
canon,” VC 3 [1949]: 1–36, at 35), that is to Dt 12.32 (13.1 Heb; LXX): Pçn =∞ma,
˘ §g∆ §nt°llomai soi sÆmeron, toËto fulãj˙ poie›n: oÈ prosyÆseiw §pÉ aÈtÚ oÈd¢
éfele›w épÉ éutoË. cf. 4.2 oÈ prosyÆsete prÚw tÚ =∞ma ˘ §g∆ §nt°llomai Ím›n, ka‹ oÈk
éfele›te épÉ aÈtoË: fulãssesye tåw §ntolåw kur¤ou toË yeoË Ím«n. The Didache is
probably the source of the saying in the fourth-century Ecclesiastical Canons of the
Holy Apostles 14, 30 (see Quasten, Patrology 2: 119–20).
HILL/THE EPISTULA APOSTOLORUM 27
Van Unnik points out that all the authors who use the warning in this
way in this period have some close connection with Asia Minor: “Tous
ces textes datent de la même époque (6170–200),95 en partie du même
milieu (l’Asie Mineure avec laquelle Tertullien paraît avoir été en
relation).”96 As to the Ep. Apost. itself, the Coptic translation of Ep.
Apost. 29.1 clarifies that the commandments of Jesus in view are
associated with a written text or texts. The malediction in Ep. Apost.
thus aligns itself with these other authors and reveals both a concern and
a customary response which must have been fairly widespread in Asia
Minor in the second century. The phrase seems to be operating as a
well-known, general rule.
95. Van Unnik does not have Rev 22.18–19 in view at this point, which, of course,
shows the familiarity of this rule in Asia Minor from a much earlier time.
96. Van Unnik, “De la règle,” 9. Cf. a striking example from a pagan writer,
Artemidorus, in his Oneirocriticon 2.70 (which Van Unnik dates to ca. 130, though
other sources place it later in the second century) who uses it in regards to his own
writings, and invokes the wrath of Apollo for violation. It is of interest to note that
Artemidorus was an Ephesian! See Van Unnik, “De la règle,” 25, for text. R. H.
Charles, The Revelation of St. John, 2 vols., ICC (Edinburgh, 1920), 2: 223, cites
something similar from I Enoch 104.10, “And now I know this mystery, that sinners
will alter and pervert the words of righteousness in many ways, and will speak wicked
words,” and so they should “not change or minish aught from my words,” 104.11.
See Van Unnik for other examples.
28 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES
22, 24, 25, 26).101 The author of Ep. Apost. in ch. 50 threatens eternal
retribution against those who use Christ’s word and commandment for a
pretext, and against those who follow their teaching. And in ch. 7 similar
words are used of the false apostles Simon and Cerinthus, the similarity
being especially marked in the Coptic version cited above (“for they
pervert the words and the object, which is Jesus Christ”). The Ep.
Apost.’s concern about “taking from or adding to” (29.1) is of a piece
with its concern about using Christ’s word as a pretext, known to be a
concern in early second-century Asia through the writings of Polycarp,
Papias, and Irenaeus.
Though we have put off to another place the detailed consideration of
the traditions concerning Cerinthus, his name comes up unavoidably
here. The doctrinal problem in view in Polycarp, Phil. 7.1 and Ep.
Apost., the denial of bodily resurrection, particularly if this was con-
nected with a denial of retribution for deeds done in the body (the
“lusts” in Polycarp, Phil. 7.1 taken in a carnal sense), would be
appropriate to what we know about Cerinthus, at least as he was
understood by the critics of his legacy. In fact, as I hope to show in
another place, the errors combatted in our apocryphon coalesce more
completely with those of Cerinthus than with any other known teacher
or group. At any rate, Cerinthus is specifically named by our author. It is
significant that besides the author of the Ep. Apost., Irenaeus is the only
writer whose extant works seem to show a considerable knowledge
about Cerinthus.102 And we know that at least some of his information
on this heretic came from his prominent Asian mentor, Polycarp of
Smyrna (AH 3.3.4).
3. Social Setting
Another line of new evidence to which I would like to call attention
has to do with social factors pertaining to the Christian community
discernible in the Ep. Apost. Most of the points of comparison come
from the situation of the church in Polycarp’s Smyrna in the first decades
of the second century.
103. See C. Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in their Local
Setting, JSNT Suppl. Ser. 11 (Sheffield, 1986), 68, for probable causes for this poverty.
32 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES
104. J. Albert Harrill, “Ignatius, Ad Polycarp. 4.3 and the Corporate Manumission
of Christian Slaves,” JECS 1 (1993): 107–42 at 136.
105. Harrill, “Ignatius,” 137.
106. Cf. Ignatius’ counsel to the Smyrnaeans (Smyrn. 6.2) about some who have no
care for love, “none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the distressed, none
for the afflicted, none for the prisoner, or for him released from prison, none for the
hungry or thirsty.”
107. Hills, Tradition, 140, citing the occurrence of the motifs of (a) the disciples’
warning or reproof; (b) the absence of fear; (c) the absence of partiality; (d) the
ignoring of others’ riches; and (e) the keeping of the commandments in chs. 24; 37;
38; 46; 47, says, “The fivefold occurrence of this group of ideas puts it beyond doubt
that there is a communal reality in the author’s mind. The question arises whether this
is merely an ideal or perceived reality or an actual one . . .” (141). After
acknowledging the “typical nature of the characterizations of the opponents” (141),
he later conjectures, “that the strong we/they dichotomy reflects a real situation of
competing Christian groups. The community of the Epistula has made its appeal to
the rival group, who are possibly in the majority. Of those ‘warned’ at least some have
‘turned back’” (145). Hornschuh, Studien, 96, points out that in a work addressed to
the orthodox against Gnosis we might expect a reference to episcopal authority, but
we have no recourse to this in the Ep. Apost. He says in fact that “daß das Amt in die
Hände der Gnostiker gefallen war.” He speaks of a “Brüderethik” of brotherly love in
the epistle, like that of a minority sect or conventicle, an ecclesiola in ecclesia (97).
108. On the persecution and martyrdom endured by the Ep. Apost.’s community,
see Hills, Tradition, 111–15, who refers to chs. 15, 36, 38, 50.
HILL/THE EPISTULA APOSTOLORUM 33
wonders; Paris No. 199 has a scribal error) reaching from heaven to earth, and stars
that are like fire falling down [cf. Mt 24.29; Rev 6.13; 12.4, 9) and great hailstones
of severe fire, and how sun and moon fight against each other, and constantly the
frightening of thunder and lightning, thunderclaps and earthquakes. . . .’”
111. In 36.3 the disciples ask Jesus if the faithful will exit from the world “through
a plague that has tormented them.” He replies, “No, but if they suffer torment, such
suffering will be a test for them, whether they have faith. . . .” This seems to imply
that relatively few of these Christians will actually die as a result of the plague. We
have other reports from antiquity of Christians staying behind to help the sick when
others fled a plague-infested city (see note 114). For Christians, “care of the sick, even
in time of pestilence, was . . . a recognized religious duty” (W. H. McNeill, Plagues
and Peoples [Garden City, N.Y., 1976], 121). Interestingly, it has been estimated that
Christian nursing of the plague-stricken, even by providing the most elementary forms
of care, would have greatly reduced the mortality rate (McNeill, Plagues, 121; R.
Stark, The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History [Princeton, 1996],
88–89). Stark credits much of the church’s remarkable numerical growth in the first
three centuries to its ability to weather plagues, and win allegiance and favor as a
result of such ministries of mercy.
HILL/THE EPISTULA APOSTOLORUM 35
112. The plague’s “extensive and often quick death” mentioned in 34.9 would also
be very compatible with cholera’s symptoms. McNeill, Plagues, 261, “Once swal-
lowed, if the cholera bacillus survives the stomach juices, it is capable of swift
multiplication in the human alimentary tract, and produces violent and dramatic
symptoms—diarrhea, vomiting, fever, and death, often within a few hours of the first
signs of illness. The speed with which cholera killed was profoundly alarming, since
perfectly healthy people could never feel safe from sudden death when the infection
was anywhere near. . . . The effect was to make mortality uniquely visible: patterns of
bodily decay were exacerbated and accelerated, as in a time-lapse motion picture, to
remind all who saw it of death’s ugly horror and utter inevitability.” We have
descriptions of cholera in antiquity from Hippocrates (460–370 b.c.e.), Aulus
Cornelius Celsus (25 b.c.e.–c.e. 50), Galen (131–200), and Aretaeus, a Cappadocian
also of the second century; see G. Sticker, Abhandlungen aus der Seuchengeschichte
und Seuchenlehre, 3 vols. (Gießen, 1912), II. Band, 1–3.
113. Lucian, Peregrinus 19, notes the outbreak of some kind of disease(s) as the
effect of a drought of water at the Olympic games in 165 and its amelioration through
the provision of water (see J. P. Gilliam, “The Plague under Marcus Aurelius,” AJP 82
[1961]: 225–51, at 230 n. 18).
114. Note the report of Dionysius of Alexandria in 252 or 253 about Christian
behavior during the plague which had struck that city: “The most, at all events, of our
brethren in their exceeding love and affection for the brotherhood were unsparing of
themselves and clave to one another, visiting the sick without a thought as to the
danger, assiduously ministering to them, tending them in Christ, and so most gladly
departing this life along with them; being infected with the disease from others,
drawing upon themselves the sickness from their neighbours, and willingly taking
over their pains. And many, when they had cared for and restored to health others,
died themselves . . . so that this form of death seems in no respect to come behind
martyrdom, being the outcome of much piety and strong faith” (Eusebius, HE
7.22.7–8). Cf. also, Cyprian, De mortalitate 16. Dionysius contrasted this with the
36 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES
behavior of the heathen: “Even those who were in the first stages of the disease they
thrust away, and fled from their dearest. They would even cast them in the roads
half-dead, and treat the unburied corpses as vile refuse, in their attempts to avoid the
spreading and contagion of the death-plague . . .” (7.22.10). Stark, Rise, 83–88,
shows that the attitudes which Dionysius attributes to the pagans in Alexandria were
characteristic of the time. Galen, the famous physician, himself fled Rome during the
epidemic of 165.
115. See the citations from Ps 49.20 LXX in 35.7, “While you sit there”
furthermore “you slander your brother, and set a trap for the son of your mother.”
116. Stark, Rise, 74, chides scholars of early Christianity for failing to reckon with
the effects of plagues, epidemics, and disease on the early history of Christianity.
HILL/THE EPISTULA APOSTOLORUM 37
first two centuries c.e.117 This province was afflicted like no other,
certainly more adversely than Syria or Egypt.118 In addition, as we shall
see below, the civil unpopularity and open persecution suffered by
Christians in the second century was nowhere at a higher pitch than in
Asia Minor. An attempt will be made below to correlate our data from
Ep. Apost. with the available historical records of these disasters and
persecutions. For now we note simply that the earthquake, drought,
plague, and persecution which must have played an important role in the
recent experience of the Christians for whom Ep. Apost. was written,
have an available and credible historical correspondence in the range of
natural disasters which ravaged Asia Minor and in the popular hostilities
which vexed its Christians, throughout most of the second century.
5. Smyrna of Revelation 2
Finally, I set out what strikes me as a fairly remarkable set of
coincidences, which touch upon literary, social, and historical aspects of
the author’s community:
Rev 2.9–10 Ep. Apost. 36
I know your tribulation and your He answered and said to us, “Thus
poverty (but you are rich) and the will the elect be revealed, in that
slander of those who say that they they go out after they have been
are Jews and are not, but are a afflicted by such a distress.” And we
synagogue of Satan. Do not fear said to him, “Will their exit from
what you are about to suffer. the world (take place) through a
Behold, the devil is about to throw plague that has tormented them?”
some of you into prison, that you And he said to us, “No, but if they
may be tested, and for ten days you suffer torment, such suffering will be
will have tribulation. Be faithful a test for them, whether they have
unto death, and I will give you the faith and whether they keep in mind
crown of life. these words of mine and obey my
commandment. They will rise up,
and their waiting will last (only a)
few days, that he who sent me may
be glorified, and I with him. For he
has sent me to you. I tell you this.
But you tell (it) to Israel and to the
Gentiles, that they may hear; they
also are to be saved and believe in
me and escape the distress of the
plague. And whoever has escaped
the distress of death, such a one will
be taken and kept in prison, under
torture like that of a thief.”
119. “Behold, out of the land of Syria I will begin to call a new Jerusalem, and I
will subdue Zion and it will be captured; and the barren one who has no children will
HILL/THE EPISTULA APOSTOLORUM 39
crown of life (Rev 2.10), does not occur in the section cited above, but is
perhaps reflected in Ep. Apost. 38.1, “they will be crowned in the
presence of the Father.”
It is, I think, a singular coincidence that so many correspondences
should exist between the Ep. Apost. and Asia Minor in general and
Smyrna in particular. While there is nothing we have uncovered which
makes a case for Smyrna conclusive, it has to be seen that, so far as our
present knowledge goes, circumstances favor Smyrna or its environs as
they favor no other place.
II. DATE
There are many factors which bear upon a determination of the date of
the Ep. Apost., several of which we have already commented upon.
None of these, unfortunately, offers more than a rough approximation.
Here we shall attempt to assess the information available from the
second century about natural disasters, in particular earthquakes, plagues,
and drought, along with some reference to the experience of persecution,
and relate it to the Ep. Apost. With these the possibility, at least, exists
for the proposals of some more specific dates.
be fruitful and will be called the daughter of my Father, but to me, my bride; for so
has it pleased him who sent me.”
120. Sticker, Abhandlungen, I.1.23. Gilliam, “Plague,” 227, cautions, however,
that this is uncertain.
121. Stark, Rise, 73, says it lasted for fifteen years and wiped out “from a quarter
to a third of the empire’s population,” including, in 180, Marcus Aurelius. The plague
hit Rome in 165 or 166, and Lightfoot, AF, II.1.665–66, deduces it must have struck
Smyrna in 162–65. Sticker, Abhandlungen, I.1.22, mentions an outbreak of bubonic
plague recorded by Rufus of Ephesus for the reign of Trajan (98–117) which spread
at least through Libya, Egypt and Syria.
122. From Caesarea Trocetta (south of the Hermus river, near Kassaba, within
about thirty miles of Smyrna to the east) and from Pergamum. See Gilliam, “Plague,”
235 n. 38, who says the Caesarean oracle “speaks of failure of crops and famine as
40 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES
set up to honor the river god Meles whom it praises as savior from
plague and pestilence, could be meaningful.130 In a time of drought or
plague, citizens may have had to go to the nearby Meles river to find a
new supply of uncontaminated water.131
On earthquakes, we know that a particularly devastating one hit
Smyrna in 177–78, almost destroying the city.132 The writings of Aelius
Aristides, who lived just outside Smyrna at the time, allude several times
to earlier earthquakes in the region, but it is not always possible to
determine their dates. A terrifying series of earthquakes which battered
Smyrna and Ephesus striking as far away as Mytilene on the island of
Lesbos and felling entire villages,133 is placed by Aristides in the
proconsulship of L. Antonius Albus (Sacred Tales 3.38). Albus’
proconsulship has been dated to 149–50, to 147–49, or to 146–47.134
C.␣ A. Behr assigns more quakes mentioned by Aristides (Letter to the
Emperor 12) to 161,135 but the dating is uncertain. These could be the
quakes under Albus (sometime between 146 and 149) or the great quake
which struck the island of Rhodes and cities in Lycia, Caria, Cos, and no
doubt elsewhere on the mainland in the year 142.136 In addition, Cassius
130. Ímn« yeÚn M°lhta potamÚn tÚn svt∞rå mou, pantÚw d¢ loimoË ka‹ kakoË
pepaum°nou. The inscription has most often been assigned to the plague under Marcus
Aurelius, but this is not indicated in the inscription itself. Gilliam, “Plague,” 234–35,
reminds us that Ramsay, JHS 3 (1882), 57, thought its form of letters dated it to the
end of the second century b.c.e., “But apparently no one since Ramsay who has seen
the stone has expressed an opinion.”
131. Aelius Aristides, The Smyrnaean Oration (II) 14–15 mentions the remarkable
constancy of the Meles river during rains and drought, “but as if it were some kind of
changeless object, it always preserves one shape, one appearance.”
132. A. Schoene, ed., Eusebi Chronicorum, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1967), 2: 165.
133. Cadoux, Ancient Smyrna, 266–67.
134. An inscription of an edict from Albus has been found in Ephesus, dated 146–
47 by Wankel, in H. Wankel, C. Börker, R. Merkelbach, et al., eds., Inschriften
griechisher Städte aus Kleinasien XI–XVII. Die Inschriften von Ephesos I–VIII (Bonn,
1979–84), I: 23. G. H. R. Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, 4
(Macquarie University, 1984), 170, accepts this date. W. Eck, Epigr. Studien 9 (1972),
17–23, places Albus’ proconsulship in 147/149. C. A. Behr, Aelius Aristides and the
Sacred Tales (Amsterdam, 1968), 74 n. 49, dates Albus’ proconsulship to 149–50 and
the quake to 149. Cf. Lightfoot, AF 2.1.461; Cadoux, Ancient Smyrna, 266.
135. Behr, Sacred Tales, 92 n. 1b. Behr cites Cassius Dio 69 [sic, should be
70].15.4, for this, but Dio says specifically that it happened in the days of Antoninus,
and therefore prior to 161.
136. The dating is based on an inscription from Opramoas (IGGR III, 739). It is
recounted in Ps.-Aristides, The Rhodian Oration. See Behr, Complete Works, 2: 371
n. 1. D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after
Christ, 2 vols. (Princeton, 1950) 2: 1492, dated this quake to 139; in Hermann’s list,
“Erdbeden,” 1105, it appears for 144 c.e.
42 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES
149. Magie, Roman Rule, 1: 615; also, A. D. Macro, “The Cities of Asia Minor
under the Roman Imperium,” ANRW II.7.2.659–97 at 694.
150. This aqueduct is not the one formerly mentioned, which carried water up to
the acropolis. See Weber, “Wasserleitungen,” 6, 174, Tafel 2; Cadoux, Ancient
Smyrna, 254. This would have been the year in which, according to Eusebius, three
Galatian cities were struck by earthquake and four years after Smyrna’s Aiolian
neighbors to the north, Elea, Myrina, Pytane, and Cyme, were devastated.
151. Cadoux, Ancient Smyrna, 177, 254; Broughton, “Roman Asia,” 751. The
aqueduct was constructed when Trajan’s father was proconsul of Asia in 79–80. The
Trajanic repairs were made under the proconsulship of L. Baebius Tullus, whose years
in office are given as 110/111. See Inscriften Griechischer Städt aus Kleinasien 42.1,
Die Inscriften von Smyrna, G. Petzl, ed., II.1 (Bonn, 1987), 163–64; Weber,
“Wasserleitungen,” 174.
152. Sib. Or. 12.157–58 mentions “earthquakes and great famines throughout the
whole earth, and snowstorms out of season and fierce thunderbolts” apparently late
in the reign of Trajan, though with no geographical specification. This comes just
after a mention of the “very great evil” which comes upon the Jews, no doubt the
disaster of the uprisings that began in 114 or 115, and just before a description of
Trajan’s death.
153. See G. Dindorf, Aristides, 3 vols. (Hildesheim, 1964), 1: 766.
154. P. Keresztes, “The Emperor Hadrian’s Rescript to Minucius Fundanus,”
Phoenix 21 (1967): 120–29, at 122.
44 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES
155. Keresztes, “Rescript,” 124, “In his First Apology, undoubtedly on the basis of
much personal experience, Justin wrote of contemporary Christian persecutions in no
area of the Roman Empire other than Asia Minor, or, more strictly, the province of
Asia.”
156. The mentions of the Tiber in the first clause and the Nile in the second clearly
locate the scene of these imagined or real complaints. It is not much of an
exaggeration to say that the mention of drought, earthquake, plague, and pestilence
point as accurately to Asia Minor.
HILL/THE EPISTULA APOSTOLORUM 45
163. Grant, Apologists, 34; Cadoux, Ancient Smyrna, 349, gives 124/125;
Lightfoot, AF 2.1: 658, gives 124.
164. For the text, see Lightfoot, AF 2.1: 476–77.
165. Hadrian’s relative leniency towards the Christians (Sordi, Christians, 66–67)
can be contrasted with the obvious sentiments of much of the pagan populace of Asia
Minor. It is of interest to recall that Hadrian’s much less tolerant successor, Antoninus
Pius (under the name T. Aurelius Fulvus), had been proconsul of Asia during
Polycarp’s episcopacy, about 135 c.e. according to Cadoux, Ancient Smyrna, 261.
166. “If, therefore, the people of the province are able to support this demand of
theirs against the Christians with evidence so as to plead it even before court, let them
resort to this course alone and not to merely shouting their demands” (Justin, I Apol.
68.10, in Keresztes’ translation).
167. Keresztes, “Rescript,” 122.
168. After his visit to Asia in 124, Hadrian went on the Athens, where he was
probably presented with another early apology, that of Aristides, who notes the
oppression of his fellow believers and calls for “the tongues of those who utter vanity
and harass the Christians” to “be silent” (Apol. 17). Aristides’s Apology is sometimes
dated later, to about 145, but see D. M. Kay, in ANF 10: 261.
HILL/THE EPISTULA APOSTOLORUM 47
169. We shall here focus our attention for the most part on Smyrna, as it has
repeatedly come up from our discussions of various kinds of parallels. This is not, of
course, to rule out other locations.
170. Hermann, “Erdbeden,” 1105.
171. “In addition, many places also suffered about this time on account of the
failure of the harvests, which wrought famine and suffering and caused men to leave
their homes in search of better circumstances. Although the combined pestilence and
famine do not appear to have damaged permanently the general prosperity of the
Asianic cities . . . these evils could not fail to have an adverse effect on economic
conditions,” including a rise in the cost of living documented for Asia in the second
century (Magie, Roman Rule, 1:663; cf. 2:1534).
48 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES
172. George dates his chronology from the beginning of the world and from the
incarnation, which he puts at year 5,500 of the world. His commencement of the time
of the incarnation is, however, seven to eight years low (according to our present
calendar). Therefore, as the Smyrnaean earthquake is the last event recorded between
the years 165 and 172 anni divinae incarnationis (misread by Hermann to indicate the
year 165 in our reckoning) this could easily place it in the year 178 or 179. Jerome’s
translation of Eusebius has for the year 179, Zmyrna urbs Asiae terrae motu ruit. ad
cuius instaurationem decennalis tributorum immunitas data est (the Armenian
version agrees with this date; Shoene, Eusebi Chronicorum, 172–73), while George
has, SmÊrna pÒliw t∞w ÉAs¤aw seism“ katept≈yh ka‹ prÚw énoikodomØn éne¤yh t«n
fÒrvn ¶th ¤ (G. Dindorf, Georgius Syncellus et Nicephorus cp., CSHB [Bonn, 1829],
1: 667). The coincidence in wording, including the decade of remission of tribute,
shows this to be the same event.
173. Gilliam, “Plague,” 235 n. 38. Caesarea Trocetta and Kassaba are within
about thirty miles of Smyrna, to the East.
174. Gilliam, “Plague,” 235. They are found in IGRR, IV, 1498; IGRR, IV, 360 (=
CIG, 3538); Kaibel, “Epigrammata,” 1034.
175. Gilliam, “Plague,” 235–36, following the study of Keil and Premerstein in
Denkschr. Akad. Wien 53.2 (1908): 8–12.
HILL/THE EPISTULA APOSTOLORUM 49
an earlier time. Dating the Ep. Apost. to around 166 or 167 would also
probably necessitate accepting the Ethiopic version’s less likely figure of
150 years, starting from the ascension; or, if the 120 years of the Coptic,
also accepting a lengthened lifespan for Jesus as Irenaeus argues for in
AH 2.22.5.
More likely on these grounds would be that Ep. Apost. was written in
the wake of one or more of the earthquakes of the 140s, any of which
could have been attended by drought and followed by an outbreak of
disease. A date in the 140s would also fit well with the rescript of
Antoninus Pius mentioned above, which seems to evince a scapegoating
of Christians for the occurrences of earthquakes in Asia Minor at
roughly this time. Aristides, when praising Smyrna’s past generosities,
remembers a time some years (how many, we do not know) prior to the
quake of 177–78 when earthquakes and famines (seism«n ka‹ lim«n)
afflicted many of Smyrna’s neighbors on or near the Asian coast and
Smyrna was in a position to rescue these cities (he mentions Chios,
Erythraea, Teia, and Halicarnassus) with gifts of wheat and money
(Letter to the Emperors 12). This shows the possibility that Smyrna itself
would have suffered famine in close proximity to any earthquake it
experienced at about this time, and the certainty that some of its
neighbors did. Aristides does not date these disasters for us, but there is
a good possibility that they fell at the time in the late 140s spoken of in
Sacred Tales 3.38 when the “many frequent earthquakes” tormented the
region, when “Mytilene . . . was nearly all leveled and . . . in many other
cities there were many shocks, and some villages were wholly de-
stroyed,” when “the Ephesians and the Smyrnaeans ran to one another
in great agitation. The series of earthquakes and terrors was extraordi-
nary.” We recall here the undated inscriptions mentioned above which
speak of famine and pestilence. This date also has the advantage of
accommodating a reasonable interpretation of the 120 years of Ep.
Apost. 17. Commencing the 120 years from the time of Jesus’ ascension
would yield a date of around 150 for the expected parousia. For an
author writing not long after a quake in 142–43, this date would be quite
plausible, only slightly less so just after the quake(s) of the later 140s.
The nonappearance of the heresies of Valentinus or Marcion in the Ep.
Apost., still mildly surprising, could then be explicable on the grounds
that they were brand new and only beginning to emanate from Rome.
This date also corresponds reasonably well to the independent judgment
of several recent scholars who have considered the subject.
But we cannot rule out an even earlier time, perhaps just before 120.
Leon Gry proposed this early date for the Ep. Apost. based partly on a
50 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES
176. L. Gry, “Date.” His conclusions for the Jewish works are found in “La date
de la fin des temps . . . ,” RB 39 (1939): 337–56.
177. L. L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, vol. 2: The Roman Period
(Minneapolis, 1992), 598–99.
178. See C. E. Hill, Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Future Hope in Early
Christianity (Oxford, 1992), 18–20, 57–63.
179. See S. van Tilborg, Reading John in Ephesus, Suppl. NovT 83 (Leiden, 1996),
146, 211–12.
180. Ep. 10.96. See Sordi, Christians, 60.
HILL/THE EPISTULA APOSTOLORUM 51
reason to date the latter as early as the second decade of the second
century.181 But neither of these factors is conclusive. As to its use of the
NT materials, apart from Ep. Apost.’s greater use of Johannine materials
and perhaps a more developed sense of “canon consciousness,” the
extent of its knowledge of the NT writings is not far advanced from what
can be found in I Clement, the Ignatian letters, Polycarp, and Papias.
And though the Apoc. Jas. seems to presuppose the traditions about the
Gospels preserved by Papias (Euseb. HE 3.39.16; Ap. Jas. 1), it is also
true that this information preserved by Papias came to him from earlier
tradition, and presumably this could have been known to other Chris-
tians for some time.
Thus, the later date of sometime in the 140s would require less
adjustment of current constructs, but the earlier date is not at all
impossible.
III. CONCLUSION
The Ep. Apost.’s prominent use of the Fourth Gospel certainly says
something about its provenance, but scholars have been unable to agree
on the evidentiary value of this literary factor. We are now able to
propose that the provenance of the Ep. Apost. can be established
independently of any argument from its use of the Fourth Gospel. In fact,
rather than depending heavily upon the Fourth Gospel to situate the Ep.
Apost., the Ep. Apost., because its Asian provenance is now established
from a large amount of other data of various kinds, can be used as
evidence for the way the Johannine literature (and other literature, of
course) was received at this time by at least one group in Asia Minor.
Therefore, what the Ep. Apost. yields for the study of the history of the
Christian canon, of Christian theology, of the struggle between compet-
ing theological and social factions within Christianity, and of the
conditions of Christians within Roman society in this period, should thus
be set first within the landscape of Asian Christianity. If, on other
grounds, the Fourth Gospel and the activity of Cerinthus are thought to
have emanated from Asia Minor also, the knowledge of both of these on
the part of the Epistula’s author may certainly be regarded as further
confirmation of our results here.
181. For elaborate theories as to the compositional history of this work which
might allow for certain stages to have been reached by this time, see R. Cameron,
Sayings Traditions in the Apocryphon of James, HTS 34 (Philadelphia, 1984); H.
Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (Philadelphia/
London, 1990), 187–200.
HILL/THE EPISTULA APOSTOLORUM 53
The Ep. Apost. may be viewed as one Asian author’s attempt, through
the medium of an openly fictional but seriously purposed pseudepigraphon,
to provide edificatory182 resources to his Christian community in its
struggle against false teaching, outside persecution, and tribulation
common to the Asian situation. It reveals many links to the environment
of Smyrnaean Christianity and should be regarded as written sometime
during the episcopacy of Polycarp. That it ever enjoyed any official
ecclesiastical sanction, however, from Polycarp or anyone else is of
course unlikely. As far as we know, it is never cited or alluded to by any
later Asian writer. As the example of the author of the Acta Pauli shows
(Tertullian, de bapt. 17), attitudes soon hardened in many quarters
against known pseudepigraphal works, even those whose content was
perceived as essentially orthodox.183 But its pseudepigraphy notwith-
standing, the Epistula’s earnest communal and doctrinal concern can be
seen as bridging the gap between earlier Asian Christian writings of
serious theological intentions, such as (in my opinion) the Johannine
corpus, the letter of Polycarp, and Papias’ Exegesis of the Lord’s Oracles
on the one hand, and the later works of Irenaeus, Melito, and the
Quartodeciman and anti-Montanist writers later in the second century
on the other. Its portrayal of an orthodox community at odds both with
its larger culture and with another type of Christianity in its local
situation offers a valuable prospect on developing Asian Christianity.
182. Hills speaks of the Ep. Apost. as having “a catechetical purpose” (172), as
constituting “a fresh appeal for a missionary endeavor” (171), and as having as its
chief concern “the definition of the community . . . not so much on doctrinal as on
ethical grounds.”
183. The Shepherd of Hermas furnishes another example. The Muratorian
Fragment rejects it as Scripture for being later than the apostles, but encourages its
reading for edification. But Tertullian in De pudicitia 10 reports that more than one
synod had rejected this work as both “apocryphal” and “false.” If we may judge from
the usage of Clement and Origen, attitudes may have been somewhat more flexible in
Egypt. It is there that the Ep. Apost. was preserved.