by Jeremy W. Barrier, Brite Divinity School, Texas Christian University

1 TERTULLIAN AND THE ACTS OF THECLA OR PAUL? READERSHIP OF THE ANCIENT CHRISTIAN NOVEL AND THE INVOCATION OF THECLINE AND PAULINE AUTHORITY by Jeremy W. Barrier, Brite Divinity School, Texas Christian University Within this essay, I intend to discuss the Acts of Paul and Thecla 1 in conjunction with Tertullian s de Baptismo for the purpose of shedding some light upon several issues surrounding the teaching and baptism of Thecla, as well as the social and historical impact that the Acts of Paul and Thecla had upon several communities within early Christianity. In particular, I am interested in the Acts of Paul and Thecla (APTh) as an early Christian novel 2, the readership of the novels 3, and the impact that they may have had upon their readers. Within this essay, I intend to make the claimthat Tertullian is uncomfortable with an authoritative text, entitled the Acts of Paul, which records a tradition of Paul, where Paul authorizes a woman to teach, and as a result of her teaching authorization, she also has the right to baptize. This Pauline tradition is threatening to Tertullian because it threatens to undermine the necessity of a Bishop, who plays a significant role in the baptismal process. I am going to make the argument that Tertullian is concerned that the Cainite woman and others have found and are using a Pauline tradition that threatens to eliminate the need for the hierarchical episcopate of the early church, rendering the dominant orthodox model as useless. I. Date One of the first persons to make any mention of the APTh is Tertullian, who comments on the writing in De Baptismo 17, when he states, But if those Acts of Paul, which have been written wrongly, defend the example of Thecla for allowing women to teach and baptize, know that the presbyter in Asia who arranged those scriptures, as if to add a title of honor for Paul from

2 himself, was proved mistaken and confessed of doing it out of love of Paul, having to withdraw from his place. Indeed, how could we see to believe that Paul would give away to women the ability to teach and baptize when it was not allowed for a woman to learn by her own right? Let them keep silence, he says, and ask their husbands at home. 4 This quote, along with the rest of de Baptismo was written sometime between the years 196 and 206. 5 It is the dating of de Baptismo that provides the terminus a quo for the APTh. On the other hand the terminus ad quem is undecided. Jan Bremmer suggests a date of 160 CE, because of the evidence on a Roman inscription of a Pompeia Sosia Falconilla, the wife of a Roman consul in Sicily around the year 169 CE. 6 Bremmer is convinced that this Falconilla is the same one, mentioned in the APTh, who is the daughter of Queen Tryphaena. 7 If this is true, then the date for writing the APTh falls within a space of 40 years, being compiled within the peak of the popularity of the ancient novel. 8 On the other hand, Hilhorst suggests that the passage of Jerome, commenting upon Tertullian s comment is significant in regards to the composition of APTh. 9 This is do to the fact that in addition to essentially repeating what Tertullian had to say, Jerome adds conuictum apud Iohannem. With Jerome not being mistaken in his assessment of Tertullian, this addition leads Hilhorst to conclude that the Acts of Paul must have been written after Paul s death and before the death of the apostle John. This would make the terminus ad quem between 68 CE and 98 CE. 10 Peter Dunn makes several calculations in regards to the age of Thecla at the time of meeting Paul in the late 40 s, and in turn settles on the date of 120 CE as the terminus ad quem. 11 The dating of the material is significant in part because it possibly changes who the readers of the text would have been, roughly adding a potential 40 to 60 years on the estimates of Bremmer.

3 II. Issues of Interpretation: The Document or the Doctrine In addition to the problem of dating the text, several other issues within the text must be dealt with. 12 First, one needs to ask in what ways had the Acta Pauli been written wrongly? 13 A likely conclusion is that Tertullian is addressing several problems in regards to the incorrect teaching on the doctrine of baptism. In particular, he addresses incorrect procedures of baptism and incorrect groups of people to perform baptisms. In this discussion, Tertullian excludes women from performing baptisms. So, is this a condemnation of the Acta Pauli as a false document, or a condemnation of a false doctrine within an otherwise generally received text of Christian communities? Or is it possible that Tertullian is condemning the doctrine and the document? For instance, notice the ambiguity of the language of Tertullian in regards to what to call the Acta Pauli. 14 I am not addressing the textual debate over Codex Trecensis 523 and Mesart s 1545 text on whether or not the text actually says Acta Pauli. I believe that the responses to Stevan Davies by Thomas Mackay and Willy Rordorf have been conclusive that we are speaking of the Acts of Paul. 15 I think the ambiguity of Tertullian s language is over whether or not to consider the text as a respectable or disrespectable writing. In the text, Tertullian suggests that they know that in Asia the presbyter who compiled 16 that document, thinking to add of his own to Paul s reputation was found out. 17 First, one cannot overlook the fact that the verb compiled (construxit), is clearly not a verb indicating to write, which would typically go back to scribo, and does so in Tertullian as demonstrated in the previous sentence in De Baptismo 17.5. 18 This suggests that the Asian presbyter did not write these Acta, but rather is an arranger, a compiler, or as one might say within the modern era, a redactor. Typically, this fact is often overlooked in

4 the literature. 19 It is generally assumed that the presbyter wrote the Acts of Paul, or else assumed that Tertullian was just wrong about the author. 20 If nothing else, the use of the verb construxit is evidence that testifies to the difficult manuscript history of the Acts of Paul. This especially demonstrates and explains how these writings (namely the Acts of Paul and Thecla, 3 Corinthians, and Martyrium Pauli) circulated independently and also as a unit. 21 This brings up another question (of which I do not believe can be answered fully at this time). What contribution did the presbyter of Asia make to the compilation? Interestingly enough, this allows for the possibility that Dunn, Hilhorst, and Bremmer are correct in regards to the dating of the APTh. Some of the texts could go back to the late first century, while others (specifically the sections dealing with Queen Tryphaena and Falconilla) are written later. Unfortunately, the text is not as clear as would like to be assumed. In sum, the first point to be observed is that Tertullian does not doubt the historical reality of a Thecla, but rather the disagreement is over the truth of Thecla s relationship with Paul, and in the role of women in Christianity. This is further reinforced by the fact that Tertullian recognizes that this is not a text written out of someone s imagination, but might actually be a writing with pre-existent traditions that have been placed together into one volume. Moving on, this leads us to the second point concerning the problem of whether Tertullian is condemning the document or the doctrine. Tertullian criticizes the example of Thecla for allowing women to teach and to baptize. Hilhorst and others makes the case that one must realize that Thecla never actually baptizes anyone, other than her selfbaptism. 22 This point is equally contended by Rordorf and Dunn from the opposite perspective, where he claims that it was God who did the baptizing. 23 At this point, I

5 am bringing up both sides of the argument to demonstrate the potential discrepancy between what Tertullian says about the APTh and what the APTh actually say. If Tertullian is aware of the Acta Pauli, it appears that (1) he has a different variant than the manuscripts that have come down to readers today, (2) Tertullian is twisting a text to suit his condemnation of the role of women teaching and baptizing within his social context, or (3) we have yet to determine the meaning of Tertullian s words. 24 So far, only the first two options have been conceded by scholars. Misunderstanding has not been an option. It seems to me that we have been misunderstanding Tertullian. In regards to this matter, I will comment again on this point later. At this point, allow me to suggest that our misunderstanding of Tertullian has shadowed our ability to see that Tertullian is condemning not the text, but is indeed condemning the doctrine. The third point that I want to emphasize in the text deals with Tertullian s mentioning that the presbyter arranged eam scripturam (that document). What is the scripturam referring to? Could this suggest a higher respect within his social context for these writings that he is referring to? Obviously I am not suggesting canonical status, which does not develop for another 120 to 150 years, but rather a regard for the Acta Pauli, in the same way that he mentions the scripturae divinae just a few lines later in 18.2. Scriptura is mentioned again in the next sentence of 18.2. To contrast this use of scriptura with other examples, one only has to look at the first lines of the Adversus Marcionem, which state Nothing I have previously written against Marcion is any longer my concern. I am embarking on a new work to replace the old one. My first edition, too hurriedly produced, I afterwards withdrew, substituting a fuller treatment...thus this written work... 25

6 Within this brief passage, Tertullian refers to his present writing in five different ways, yet never uses the word scriptura. On the other hand, the first time that Tertullian refers to a passage from the Hebrew Bible, he expectedly states, quia scriptum sit (because it is written). 26 This high respect for the Acts of Paul seems to be supported by Hippolytus reference to Paul and the lion without hesitation as an orthodox tradition in his Commentarium in Danielem 3.29. 27 Another possible support for this claim is Codex Claromontanus, which locates AP within the Pauline epistles. Summarizing the three major points stated thus far: (1) Tertullian is uncomfortable with the compiled documents entitled the Acts of Paul, (2) There is a discrepancy between the Acts of Paul and Tertullian regarding whether or not Thecla was authorized to teach and baptize, and (3) it appears that Tertullian (accidentally or intentionally) refers to the Acts of Paul as Scripture, indicating a high regard for the writings. While this evidence is more suggestive than definitive, it is nonetheless worthy of consideration that even Tertullian s language is incidentally respectful of the authority of the Acta Pauli within the Christian communities that he is dealing with. If this be the case, then two things need to be assumed concerning the readers of the APTh: (1) women (the ones baptizing) and men (Tertullian) were reading this Christian novel in North Africa and Asia, and (2) it was regarded as possessing authority within the Christian community 28 possibly at the authoritative level of scriptura. If Tertullian is threatened by the doctrinal authority of the APTh and not the document in it s entirety, then why does he feel threatened? Scholars have gone to great lengths attempting to determine the orthodox/heterodox tendencies of the APTh, but up to this point the major theories being put forward see a dialogue between the APTh and the

7 Pastorals, separate and apart from any relationship with the Acts of the Apostles. 29 While much has been gained in this endeavor, one weakness that seems to plague some of these studies is the necessity to discredit Tertullian s claim that an Asian presbyter put the Acta Pauli together. 30 I find this to be a substantial weakness, not dealing with the evidence carefully, even to the point of choosing textual possibilities merely because they work to make a particular theory plausible. So, before proceeding forward, the question remains unanswered, what was Tertullian s problem with the APTh? III. Tertullian s problem with the APTh Tertullian recognizes the inherent authority within the document. Is this authority supported in any other way? Is there any other evidence to suggest that the APTh were a real threat to Tertullian? Consider de Baptismo a little closer. In chapter one, the text is addressed to a certain woman teacher, apparently of Gnostic or Marcionite connections, and perhaps an adherent of the Cainite sect., 31 She has been accused of withholding baptism from people and denying the necessity of the sacrament of baptism. What is the problem? Is it the woman? The lack of administering baptism? Both? Consider the following. Tertullian complains of the woman not administering baptism. Problems: he says in chapter one that a woman has no right to teach even correctly. This is compounded by Tertullian s emphasis upon the moving of the Holy Spirit in the water. Chapters 5 through 8 emphasize this point strongly, looking at the example of Jesus at the pool of Bethsaida when the angel would move over the water and a healing would take place. 32 Tertullian makes the argument, most explicitly in chapter eight that the imposition of the hand in benediction invites and welcomes the Holy Spirit. He goes on to say that (h)uman ingenuity has been permitted to summon spirit to combine with

8 water. This is followed by a continuation of the panegyric on baptism 33, where Tertullian strongly reinforces his arguments for baptism. What I want to emphasize at this point is the connection that Tertullian makes between the individual who administers baptism, the water, and the Spirit are all present to make this act of initiation a success. But the key to understanding Tertullian s comments in regards to Thecla in de Baptismo 17, are found in chapter 14. The usual discussion of Tertullian s comments concerning the APTh revolves around the accuracy of Tertullian s assessment that Thecla was giving authorization to baptize. This discussion usually moves from Tertullian, back into the APTh, where a search begins to see whether or not there is any evidence of Thecla baptizing. 34 The discussion then moves to Thecla s (self?) baptism and whether or not the Spirit baptized her, God baptized her, or she baptized herself. Before proceeding any further, let us go back to Tertullian to look a little closer at Tertullian s comments in de Baptismo 13 and 14. In chapter 13, Tertullian repudiates his critics by reminding them that: there has been imposed a law of baptizing, and its form prescribed: Go, he says, teach the nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. When this law was associated with that {well known} pronouncement, Except a man have been born again of water and the Holy Spirit he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven, faith was put under obligation to the necessity of baptism. Tertullian moves from these affirmations of baptism in conjunction with the activity of the Spirit to Paul s baptism. This requires an altogether shift in his argument, almost as if Tertullian is reminded of the specific accusations made against Paul. Thus a full discussion ensues in chapter 14 about Paul. He begins by saying Moreover they have something to say about the apostle himself, immediately addressing an attack against Paul himself. The defense of Paul centers on Paul s claim in 1 Corinthians 1:14-16 that

9 he did not come to Corinth to baptize, but to teach. The opponents of Tertullian have deduced from this comment of Paul that baptism is unnecessary. Tertullian attempts to explain Paul s comment, and then concludes his argument on Paul by stating, On this account the apostle, a lover of peace, so as not to seem to claim everything himself, said he was not sent to baptize but to preach. For preaching comes first, baptizing later, when preaching has proceeded. But I suppose one who had permission to preach had also permission to baptize. 35 Tertullian has just reinforced his arguments for baptism by using a text, conjured up by a dissenting party, where Paul states plainly that he did not come to baptize, and Tertullian has made the extension that if one has the authority to teach, then they have the authority to baptize also. De Baptismo 17 is becoming clearer. It is not a discussion of who baptized Thecla in the APTh, but the discussion centers rather on the last conversation between Paul and Thecla in APTh 3.41. Immediately after Thecla s baptism she finds Paul and says to him I have received baptism, O Paul; for he who worked with you for the gospel has worked with me also for baptism. And Paul, taking her, led her to the house of Hermias and heard everything from her...and Thecla rose up and said to Paul, I am going to Iconium. Paul answered, Go, teach the word of God. This small pronouncement for Paul is the sticking point for Tertullian. At this point Paul has clearly given a directive with authority to Go, teach the word of God reminiscent of the statement made by Jesus to his disciples in Matthew 28:19, which Tertullian quoted in chapter thirteen. Tertullian knows, because he has just argued for this, that if one is authorized to teach, then they are authorized to baptize. Now the question is: Why is this a problem for Tertullian? Is Tertullian really one who is so strongly opposed to the leadership and speaking of women? Is this not the same

10 Tertullian, who is beginning to show Montanist tendencies, where it is common knowledge that two women prophets stand at the origins of this movement? The issue at stake is authority. Tertullian is concerned that the Asian Presbyter is drawing from a tradition, possibly oral or possibly a written tradition that suggests that Paul has directly supported and empowered a woman to teach and to baptize. This is a threat to authority for Tertullian who is now facing threats to a system of authority within the local church that cannot be overlooked. Look closely how Tertullian begins chapter 17 of de Baptismo. He states: To round off our slight treatment of this subject it remains for me to advise you of the rules to be observed in giving and receiving baptism. The supreme right of giving it belongs to the high priest, which is the bishop: after him, to the presbyters and deacons, yet not without commission from the bishop, on account of the Church s dignity: for when this is safe, peace is safe. Except for that, even laymen have the right. Tertullian is aware that this tradition does not go back to the apostles, and concedes that anyone has the right to administer baptism, knowing that the Lord s disciples were not bishops, presbyters or deacons, but then he highlights the thrust of his argument. 36 He states, (o)pposition to the episcopate is the mother of schisms. Breaking outside of the authorized hierarchy for baptizing is an emergency situation, and must regarded as such and not standard practice. 37 Going further, Tertullian goes on to criticize not the emergency/necessary rite of baptizing, but the problem of some women who are willing to arrogate to themselves the function of a bishop and the right to baptize. The problem here is whether or not the Cainite woman has the authority to teach. If so, according to Tertullian s earlier reasoning, then she has the right to baptize or not baptize. Interestingly enough, Tertullian concedes at this point, that the Cainite woman is apparently acting with some authority granted within a community. Tertullian goes so far

11 as to say But the impudence of that woman who assumed the right to teach is evidently not going to arrogate to her the right to baptize as well. If this be the case, Tertullian may be aware of his obvious limitations in restricting the ability of this woman to teach, but if he can break the chain of reasoning that suggests that she can baptize also, then the authority of the Bishop can be preserved and protected. The problem with the APTh is that the Asian presbyter is drawing on a possible tradition of Paul that suggests that what the Orthodox church has fought so hard to accomplish in the supremacy of the Bishop can be countered by the words of Paul himself, the one apostle, other than John who is most closely associated with Asia. After all, one only has to look at Ignatius to see what a difficult and persistent verbal battle that was waged to ensure the role of the bishops in Asia, while knowing that this form of organization had probably not reached Rome yet, in Ignatius day. The problem with the APTh is not that Thecla has baptized herself or not. Paul has sanctioned her to teach, thus, in effect, she may baptize also. The startling fact is not, as Dunn suggests, God himself baptizes her, but rather there is no hand of a bishop to conjure the Holy Spirit in the rite, and the Holy Spirit still moves in the water. 38 This clearly cuts out the necessity of a bishop, presbyter, or deacon in baptism. This is a direct threat to Tertullian, who is being opposed by a Pauline tradition that supports the teaching and preaching of Thecla, and more importantly undermines the hierarchy of the church. I believe that this is further supported by the fact that it has been sufficiently demonstrated that the Acts of Paul show an independence from the Canonical Acts of the Apostles. 39 This has especially been demonstrated in the relationship of the conversion stories of AA and the AP. It has been demonstrated that the author of the AP has been

12 gathering most of his information from such texts as Galatians, in contrast to the evidence put forward from the AA. 40 Other evidence showing the influence of Galatians upon the AP is witnessed in other places such as 3 Corinthians that begins with an exhortation to the Corinthians, very much like the rebuke of Galatians. To add to this, 3 Corinthians quotes and modifies Galatians 3.17, at the close of 3 Corinthians. This letter of Paul has clearly been an influencing factor on the Asian Presbyter. This is significant to my argument, because it appears that the Asian Presbyter is following more closely the process of the apostolic conversion more so than the account found in the AA. In thethe AP and within Galatians, no presbyter or ordained leader of the church is necessary for the conferral of baptism or of the Holy Spirit. This further intensifies the problem of Thecla, who experiences conversion in a manner on par with Paul. This is significant due to the fact that the conversions of Paul and Thecla look more like the Pauline tradition than do the AA. This is clearly a problem. Tertullian is forced to resist a pattern that needs no water, no bishop, and no leader to wave the hand and conjure the Holy Spirit. Tertullian is being forced to confront a conversion process that is clearly within the Pauline tradition. What I am suggesting is that the presbyter who has compiled the APTh is threatening the leadership of the church by recalling a possible tradition that provides women with the right to teach, and therefore the right to baptize is assumed. After all, it has become clear that one cannot rule out the evidence of early women missionaries working alongside Paul even from the texts that Tertullian and the Asian Presbyter are aware of, namely the Pauline Epistles. One only has to go so far as 1 Corinthians 9:5, and realize that the word gun» usually rendered wife, has been argued strongly as possibly being

13 simply woman, thus leaving one with the possibility of women missionary partners. 41 This was first suggested by Clement of Alexandria 42, contemporary with Tertullian in the second century. The APTh stands as a concrete example of this relationship of women missionary partners working along with Paul. Conclusion: Such a view as this helps resolves several problems: First, the issue being addressed by Tertullian is whether or not the APTh sanctions Thecla with authority to preach. If so, this provides an alternate understanding of the Apostolic tradition. Second, it further explains the heterodoxy of the APTh. While scholars have quickly acknowledged the orthodoxy on most points of the APTh, this could be an explanation of the problem, as specifically mentioned by Tertullian. Third, it clearly tells us something of the readership of the APTh. While being read as a novel in Asia, it is a loaded gun, in regards to issues of authority, especially apostolic authority and tradition. Why? What has the potential of greater influence? Ancient Novels or theological treatises and epistles? I think novels. In conclusion, I am arguing for the recognition that (1) Tertullian is accurately portraying the Acta Pauli, (2) he is indeed concerned about the authority that the Acts of Paul possesses. (3) While Tertullian may be concerned about the document in general, I believe that he is more concerned with the fact that the Asian presbyter has included a tradition of Paul that undermines the necessity for a bishop, presbyter, or deacon to take part in baptism, and (4) with the undermining the authority of these positions, the Asian presbyter has elevated a variation of the Apostolic tradition, and as a result has made an indirect push for the recognition that Paul ordained women to apostolic status.

14 1 The examination that I will provide will include the Acts of Paul and Thecla in a strict sense, excluding 3 Corinthians, and the Martyrium Pauli. For complete texts of the Acts of Paul in English see J. K. Elliott, Ed., The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation based on M. R. James (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993); or Wilhelm Schneemelcher, Ed., New Testament Apocrypha, Volume Two:Writings Relating to the Apostles; Apocalypses and Related Subjects (Trans. R. McL. Wilson; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992); and for Greek and Latin texts see Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha (Ed. Ricardus delbertus Lipsius and Maximilianus Bonnet; 2 vols.; Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1990). The most recent text that includes all of the published manuscripts of the Acts of Paul is the French translation of Bovon, François, and P. Geoltrain, Écrits apocryphes chrétiens, I (Bibliothèque de la Pléiade; Index établis par S. J. Voicu; Paris: Gallimard, 1997), 1115-77. 2 To begin a study on ancient Novels, see Niklas Holzberg, The Ancient Novel: An Introduction (Trans. Christine Jackson-Holzberg; London and New York: Routledge, 1995), 1-27; Tomas Hägg, The Novel in Antiquity (Berkeley and Los Angeles: U of Cal P, 1983); James Tatum (ed.), The Search for the Ancient Novel (Baltimore and London: John Hopkins UP, 1994); or Gareth Schmeling (ed.), The Novel in the Ancient World (Leiden: Brill, 1996). For several examples boosting and emphasizing the ancient Christian novel see Studies on the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, a seven volume series edited by Jan N. Bremmer that highlights the significance and impact of these texts. See also Christine M. Thomas, The Acts of Peter, Gospel Literature, and the Ancient Novel: Rewriting the Past, (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2003; Steven L. Davies, The Revolt of the Widows: The Social World of the Apocryphal Acts (Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1980); also see Robert F. Stoops, Jr., Guest Ed., Semeia 80: The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles in Intertextual Perspectives (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990); and Dennis Ronald MacDonald, Ed., Semeia 38: The Apocryphal Acts of Apostles (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986). 3 Christine Thomas The Acts of Peter, 1-7; Jan N. Bremmer, The Apocryphal Acts: Authors, Place, Time and Readership, The Apocryphal Acts of Thomas (Leuven: Peeters, 2001) 149-50. 4 Tertullian, De Baptismo 17 lines 22-29. Taken from Latin and English texts in Ernest Evans, Tertullian s Homily on Baptism: The text edited with an Introduction, Translation and Commentary (London: SPCK, 1964), 36-7. The translation above is from Ernest Evans, Tertullian s Homily On Baptism, London: SPCK, 1964, 36-7, with some emendations of my own. 5 See Ernest Evans, Tertullian s Homily, 35-37, 97-101; or Tertulliani Opera: Pars I (Corpus Christianorum; Ed. J. G. Ph. Borleffs; Turnholti: Typographi Brepols Editores Pontificii, 1954) 291-92. See also several translations together in one article with thorough discussion by A. Hilhorst, Tertullian on the Acts of Paul, The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla (Ed. Jan N. Bremmer; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996) 150-53; and Hilhorst acknowledges that a more thorough discussion is provided by Willy Rordorf in Tertullien et les Actes de Paul (á propos de bapt. 17,5), Lex orandi, lex credendi: gesammelte Aufsätze zum 60, Geburtstag (Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag, 1993) 475-84. 6 Bremmer, Apocryphal, 153. 7 APTh 28-36; Bremmer, Apocryphal, 153. 8 Ewen Bowie, The Readership of Greek Novels in the Ancient World, in James Tatum, Ed., The Search for the Ancient Novel (Baltimore and London: John Hopkins UP, 1994) 442-43; and Holzberg, The Ancient, 43. For an earlier dating, see Hägg, The Novel, 5-6. This is reinforced by J. Perkins, This World or Another?, 248; Bremmer, Apocryphal Acts, 154. 9 Tertullian, 158-59. 10 Ibid., 158-61. 11 Dunn, Peter Wallace, The Acts of Paul and the Pauline Lecacy in the Second Century (Unpublished Dissertation at the Queen s College, University of Cambridge, 1996), 8-9. 12 Here is a reproduction of most of 17.5 for further use in the section dealing with Tertullian is: quod si quae Acta Pauli, quae perperam scripta sunt, exemplum Theclae ad licentiam mulierum docendi tinguendique defendant, sciant in Asia presbyterum qui eam scripturam construxit, quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans, convictum atque confessum id se amore Pauli fecisse loco decessisse. This was taken from Evans, Tertullian s Homily 36-37, which is consistent with Codex Trecensis 523 and the edition produced by Martini Mesnartii in 1545. 13 Or, if using Evans text, quod si quae Acta Pauli, quae perperam scripta sunt.

15 14 I am assuming that Acta Pauli is the likely reading of the text, thus agreeing with the response presented by Thomas W. Mackay to Stevan L. Davies article, Women, Tertullian and the Acts of Paul, Semeia 38, 139-49. 15 Response of Thomas W. Mackay to Stevan L. Davies article, Women, Tertullian and the Acts of Paul, Semeia 38, 139-49; and Willy Rordorf, Tertullien et les Actes de Paul (à propos de bapt. 17,5) Autor de Tertullien (Hommage à René Braun; Nice: Association Publications de la Faculté des Lettres et Sciences Humaines de Nice, 1990) 2:153-60. Reprinted in Lex Orandi-Lex Credendi: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum 60. Geburtstag. (Paradosis 36: Freiburg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz, 1993), 475-84. 16 Schneemelcher, Wilhem translates this as produced, in New Testament Apocrypha, 214. 17 Quoting from Evans, Tertullian s Homily 37. 18 Look at the Latin text of De Baptismo in footnote 42. For definitions, see Cassell s Latin Dictionary (D. P. Simpson; New York: Macmillan, 1959), construo, contruere, construxi, constructum on 143 and scribo,scribere, scripsi, scriptum on page 539. 19 Dunn, Peter W., L image de Paul dans Les Acts de Paul, Foi et Vie 44.4 (1995) 75; Davies, Revolt, 108; MacDonald, Legend, 17. 20 Davies, Revolt, 108. 21 The unit is best demonstrated through the Coptic manuscript P. Heidelberg (5 th -6 th Century) that was pieced together by Carl Schmidt; and also Bodmer X, a 3 rd century document demonstrating the independent circulation of 3 Corinthians. See Elliott, The Apocryphal, 352. 22 Hilhorst, Tertullian, 157-58. See also MacDonald, Dennis R. The Legend and the Apostle: The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983) 33. 23 Dunn, Acts of Paul, 67. 24 The sciant refers back to the mulierum. Hilhorst, Tertullian, 153. 25 Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem 1.1.1 as reproduced in Tertullian: Adversus Marcionem (Ed. And Trans. Ernest Evans; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972) 2-3. 26 Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, 1.7.1 27 See Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. 28 The point of authority is hardly arguable, since the discussion in 17.4 begins by considering that the text is discussing some other (woman) should of her own authority confer it (baptism). 29 Dunn, Acts of Paul, Part Two: The Relationship between the Acts of Paul and the Pastoral Epistles, 45-200; MacDonald, Legend, 54-77; Willy Rordorf, Lex Orandi-Lex Ceredendi: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum 60. Geburstag. (Paradosis 36; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz, 1993). 30 Davies, Revolt, 108; MacDonald, Legend, 17-18. 31 Evans, Tertullian s Homily, xi-xii. 32 De Baptismo 5. 33 Jensen, Robin M., Baptismal Rites and Architecture, A People s History of Christianity: Volume 2, Late Ancient Christianity (Ed. Virginia Burrus; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005) 120-22. 34 Rordorf, Tertullien, 157. 35 De baptismo, 14. 36 Jensen, Late Ancient, 123-24. 37 De Baptismo 17. 38 Dunn, Acts of Paul, 67. 39 Rordorf, Willy, Paul s Conversion in the Canonical Acts and in the Acts of Paul, Semeia 80: The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles in Intertextual Perspectives (Ed. Robert F. Stoops, Jr.; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997),137-44. See also the Kasser text translated into French in Bovon, François, and P. Geoltrain, Écrits apocryphes chrétiens, 1151-54. 40 Rordorf, Paul s Conversion, 141. 41 Osiek, Carolyn and Margaret Y. MacDonald with Janet H. Tulloch, A Woman s Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 27, 33. 42 Miscellanies 3.6.53.3. As cited in A Woman s Place.