Studies in Christianity and in Judaeo Ch-Rotado Shlomoh Pines

JSAL 6, 1985
STUDIES IN CHRISTIANITY AND IN

JUDAEO-CHARISTIANITY
BASED ON ARABIC SOURCES
S. Pines
Both the paper on Paul according to “Abd al-Jabbár's Tathbit Dala'il al-Nubuwwa
and the Preliminary Note published below form a part of a series of articles bearing
the title Studies in Christianity and Judaeo-Christianity according to Arabic
Sources. Other articles belonging to this series will likewise appear in JS41. One of
them will deal with the account given in the Tathbít Dala'il al-Nubuwwa of events
pertaining to the history of the first Christian community of Jerusalem; these events
were probably regarded as anteceding Paul's activities. Another article will treat of
the notices in the Tathbrt concerning the Emperor Constantine and various Church
Councils. A third article will discuss at some length questions touched upon in the
Preliminary Note. Various other topics will also be examined within the framework of
the series,
PAUL ACCORDING TO THE JUDAEO-CHRISTIAN SOURCES

UTILIZED BY “ABD AL-JABBAR IN THE
TATHBIT DALA'IL AL-NUBUWWA
he story of Paul as told in the documents utilized in the Tathbit Dalád'il

1-Nubuwwwa may for our purposes be divided into two parts. The first
pp. 156-157) offers an abridged, malicious and scurrilous version of the
ecount of Paul's activities found in the Acts of the Apostles. In one
assage 2 Corinthians is also drawn upon. This and other facts suggest the
urmise that the original author of the document, i.e. not “Abd al-Jabbár,
1ay not have made direct use of the Acts; he conceivably could have
d access to an account of the first part of a Vita of Paul into which
th the information given in the Acts and the autobiographical details
'hich may be gleaned from the Pauline Epistles were incorporated. The
elevant New Testament passages will be quoted in the annotations to
translation of this part of the story, and the relation between these
es and the story discussed in the text. The second part of the story
57-160) recounts Paul's stay and activities as a missionary and a
108 S. Pines Christianity and Judaeo-Christianity 109
magician in a Constantinople (al-Qunstantiniya) ruled by Nero. The night in its darkness came upon me, a strong wind blew and Í lost my
name of this capital of the Rúm(the Byzantines) has obviously been sight. Thereupon the Lord called me, saying: “Will you beat the
substituted for that of Rome; this may have been done by a Judaeo- miserable and harm the companions of my Son.* Í said to Him: *O Lord,
Christian, or a Moslem redactor whose knowledge of history and of I have already repented.” He said to me: “If this is as you say go to the
geography was inadequate. The translation of this part will be followed Jew Hayim ? the Cohen (a/-kahin) in order that he should give back to
by an attempt to situate the latter within the context of other legends you your sight.” ] went to him and apprised him (of this matter).
concerning Paul. lt will be shown that it relates in an indirect and Thereupon he drew (masaha) his hand across my eyes? and there fell
complicated way both to one of the versions of the so-called Passio therefrom something like egg-shells ? (qushúr al-bid) and like the scales
Sanctorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli and to certain texts of the of a fish (fulus al-samak), and I (could) see as I used to do.!” God
Pseudo-Clementines. called upon me (to come) to Him in heaven, and I sojourned with Him in
heaven fourteen days and He instructed (was) me in many matters.
About you He told me bad things which 1 will not repeat !! to you.” *?
Translation of pp. 156-160 of Dala'il al-Nubuwwa The Jews scoffed at him, marvelled at his stupidity and impudence,
[pp. 156-157]: This Paul! was a villainous wicked Jew,? actively and conducted him to the companion (sáhib) of Caesar appointed by the
committed to evildoing, a helper of the wicked one who stirs up schisms Romans (to: rule or be king) over them.!* For at that time they were
(fitan) and seeks power (ri'asa) and dominance, resorting with (a view (people) defeated at the hand of the Romans.'**
to) this (end) to all kinds of stratagems. While he was a Jew, he was “Rise and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all that is appointed for you to
called Shá'úl. He helped (to persecute) the Christians (al-Nasaára). do.” And when 1 could not see for the brighiness of that tight, 1 was led by the hand by
Then he left Jerusalem (Bayt al-Magdis) and was absent for a long time. those who were with me and came into Damascus. And one Ananias, a devout man,
according to the Law, well spoken of by ali the Jews who lived there, came to me, and
He returned to Jerusalem and began to help the Christians against the standing by me said tome, “Brother Saul, receive your sight”. And in that very hour 1
Jews. He told them (the Christians): “Say this and do this. Dissociate received my sight and saw him.”
yourselves from them (the Jews) and get closer to the peoples that are Up to the tenth century or later this name occurs very seldom.
3 Basr in the singular,
hostile to the Jews”. Thereupon the Jews said: “How did you become a 2 Acts, 9:17-18: “So Ananias departed and entered the house. And daying his hands on
Christian and what induced * you (to go) in this (direction)”. He said: him he said: 'Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which
“The Lord, may He be blessed and exalted, induced me (to do) this. My you came, has sent me that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy
Spirit. And immediately something like scales feH from his eyes and he regained his
story is that 1 left Jerusalem, intending (to go) to Damascus.* Then f the
sight”. The Greek word rendered as “scales” is lepides. In the Syriac transtation the
corresponding word is gelaphé. Both the Greek and the Syriac mean “egg-shells” as
: Báls hadhá. The occurrence of hadhá in this context does not square with Arabic usage well as “scales of fish”; see Liddell-Scott, Greek-English Dictionary, s.w. lepis;
Hadhá probably renders the Syriac hawb. Cf. above. K. Brockelman, Lexicon Syriacum, s.v. Qeláfiá; and R. Payne-Smith, Thesaurus
The fact that Paul was a Jew is also mentioned in the discourse attributed to him iin: Syriacus, sy. gelaphá.
Acts 21:39 and 22:3, 10 Absartu kamá kunta.
3 Cf. Acts 8:3: “But Saul taid waste the church, and entering house after house, he 1 Literally: tell.
dragged off men and women and committed them to prison”. Cf. 2 Cor., 12:2-4: “*I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to
4 Da“a; literally: “call”. the third heaven - whether in the body or out of the body 1 do not know, God knows.
5 Acts 22:5: “I journeyed to Damascus”. And 1 know that this man was caught up into Paradise — whether in the body or out of
6 Cf. Acts 22:6-12:“As l made my journey and drew near to Damascus, about noon, a the body 1 do not know, God knows —- and he heard words that cannot be told, which
great light from heavensuddenly shone about me. And 1 fell to the ground and heard a man may not utter.”
voice saying to me, “Saul, Saul; why do you persecute me?” And I answered, “Who are The Arabic phrase is somewhat confused. The text may be in need of an emendation.
you, Lord?” and he said to mc, “I'ám Jesus of Nazareth whom you are persecuting” The ruler referred to seems to be King Agrippas.
Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of 1he one w Maghlúbin mata al-Rúm. ln this context the preposition ma“a docs not make sense. It
was speaking to me. And I said, “What shall I do, Lord?” and the Lord said to me, is probably a mistranslation of the Syriac preposition lewath.
They said to him: “Do you know this Sha'11?” He said, “Yes, 1 know incorporated into Dala'il al-Nubuwwa is based on passages of the Acts,
him because of his wickedness. (For) he comes to us with slanders about or in one case on 2 Corinthians, which generally have been modified and
people.” They said to him: “He has claimed this and this.” The Roman falsified, occasionally with a certain ingenuity. This ingenuity is clearly
fell into a rage against him and gave the order that he should be laid at work in the account of Paul's conversion, the circumstances attending
(upon the ground) in order to be beaten. Hereupon Paul said to him: which are not reported by a narrator, who is automatically presumed by
“Will you beat a Roman?” (the governor) said: “Are you a Roman?”!5 the reader to tell the truth as in Acts, 9, but by Paul himself (cf. Acts
He said: “Yes, 1 (belong) to the religion of Caesar (din Qaysar) the king 22) when he returns to Jerusalem from a prolonged absence (i.e. from his
of the Romans and am exempt (from any obligation) (bari”) towards missionary travels recounted at length in the Acts).
Judaism.”!* Thereupon, because of his having adopted the religion of the Thereby the suspicion that the report may be a tissue of lies is cre-
king, (the Roman) refrained (from doing him any harm). He said to him: ated. lt may be noted that tlie author's reliance on Acts, 22, does not
“Here is a ship going to Constantinople, (now) you are a Roman, and prevent him from inserting the detail about something like scales (or
belong to the religion of the Romans. Go there, if you are what you say egg-shells) falling from Paul's eyes, which is mentioned in Acts 9, but
(you are).” (Paul) said: “I shall do so. Make me reach the land of the not in 22 (or 26, where, addressing King Agrippas, Paul also gives an
Romans.'”*” And he came to Constantinople (Qunstantiniya).'$ account of. his conversion).
The following examples of tendentious and probably deliberate
lt is evident that this part of Paul's story as told in the documents falsification may be quoted. z
1. Whereas Acts 9:3, 22:6 and 26:13 refer to a light from heaven which
15 Literally: “Or are you a Roman?” Cf., Acts, 22:24-28: “The tribune commanded him to is seen just before Paul on his journey to Damascus hears the voice of
be brought into the barracks, and ordered him to be examined by scourging to find out Jesus, according to. “Abd al-Jabbár's document, the revelation which
why they shouted this against him. But when they had tied him up with the thongs,
Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, “Is it lawful for you to scourge a man
preludes Paul's conversion comes about in the darkness of night and
who is a Romancitizen and uncondemned” When the centurion heard that, he went to - while a strong wind isblowing. The fact that in this account it is not the
the tribune and said to him, “What are you about to do? For this man is a Roman ' voice of Jesus, but that of the Lord (al-rabb) who speaks of His Son that
citizen”. So the tribune came and said to him, “Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?” And
s, according to Paul's story, heard by the latter, appears to be
pr.»
he said, “Yes”, The tribune answered, “1 bought this citizenship for a large sum'. Paul
said, 'But | was born a citizen',” significant. It does not seem to be likely that this deviation is due to the
Cf. Acts, 25:9-10: “But Festus, wishing to do the Jews a favour, said to Paul, 'Do you author of the document using a version of Acts which as regards this
wish to go up to Jerusalem and there be tried on these charges before me” But Paul particular was different from ours. We may rather assume that this
said, I am standing before Caesar's tribunal, where l ought to be tried; to the Jews 1
have done no wrong, as you know very well. In this passage the words “Caesar's distortion of the original text was deliberate and was intended to secure
tribunal” render the Greek tou bématos Kaisaros; in the Syriac translation, these words some polemical purpose, which however is unknown to us.
read: bim de-gésar; bim being a loan-word from the Greek. The forms of the verb “to 2. Whereas according to 2 Cor. 12:4, the man who “was caught up into
be tried” that occur in this passage render derivatives of the Greek krinesthai, These
Paradise” (Paul) “heard things that cannot be told” (arréta) “which man
Greek forms are translated in the Syriac version by derivatives of the verb dan.This
may account for the occurrences of the expression dín Qaysar in “Abd al-Jabbár's text. ay not utter,” in “Abd al-Jabbár's account Paul said to the Jews that
Paul's words “to the Jews I have done no wrong”, in Syriac: “lá medem hatith God, having called him to Him, instructed him in many matters and told
yahidaye”, may account for the phrase in “Abd al-Jabbár's text bari' min al-yahúdiyya:
m “bad things about you that 1 will not tell you.” Thus the impossibility
(translated above: exempt from any obligation towards Judaism); for Arabic barf' may
also mean “innocent”. Yahúdiyya may be an attempt at the transcription of yahúdaye;: prohibition to divulge mysteries heard in Paradise is replaced in our
17 Cf. Acts, 25:12: “Then Festus ... answered, “You have appealed to Caesar; to Caes rabic text by Paul's refusal to repeat to the Jews the bad things he was
you shall go”, Acts, 27: “And when it was decided that we should sail for Ital told about them in heaven by God. This falsification is certainly due to
they delivered Paul... And embarking in a ship of Adramatyium... we put
sea...”, - le wish to emphasize Paul's anti-Jewish proclivities (see below). Ac-
18 Cf. Acts, 28:14: “And so we came to Rome”. ding to “Abd al-Jabbár's document Paul states that he stayed in heaven
S. Pines Christianity and Judaeo-Christianity 113
his numberis certainly derived from 2 Cor. 12:2: “I know Acts) may be laid at the door of an Arabic redactor, should not be used
rist:who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third to impugn the theory according to which this document is translated or
ubstitution of fourteen days for fourteen years may, though adapted from the Syriac. To my mind this theory is proved up to the hilt
ertáin, be a bona fide error, occasioned by a corrupt text in by the Syriacisms which occur in the text in question. These
sedby “Abd al-Jabbar. Syriacisms '* are: 1) The use of hadhá which apparently is meant to
ording to Acts, 25:10, Paul said: “I am standing before renderthe Syriac haw. 2) The use of ma“a which apparently is meantto
nal”. (in Greek: tou bématos Kaisaros; in Syriac: bim de- render the Syriac lewáth in the phrase: maghlúbin mata al-Rúm.
¿bic text ascribes to him the statement: “] (belong) to the 3) The use of the phrase dín Qaysar, which can be explained by
esar.(din Qaysar)”. As has been shown above the use of referring to the parallel passage in the Syriac text of the Acts.
“Abd al-Jabbár's document may be due to derivatives of 4) Perhaps the use of the form. Yahadiyya, which may be an attempt to
dan (judged) occurring in the Syriac text of Acts, 25:9 transcribe the Syriac Yahtidaye.
possibility may also be envisaged that the Syriac original of To sum up the first part of the account of Paul found in Dala'il al-
Arabic text is probably a translation or an adaptation Nubuwwais a kind of scurrilous parody of passages in the Syriac version
e word dena Gudgement), instead of bir in order to of Acts. Everything points to the original of this parody having been
written in Syriac. However, there are some indications % that the Arabic
egarded as standing for the cognate Syriac word. However, translation may have accentuatéd:or added to the negative characteris-
he correct supposition with regard to this point may be, it tics attributed inthe Syriac version to Paul. These characteristics in-
clude love of power, anti-Jewish sentiments and an inclination to accept
Paganism for reasons of expediency.?!
The second part of “Abd al-Jabbár's account of Paul deals with the
latters's activities in “Constantinople” and with his execution.
The tale begun in the first part is thus taken up without any
interruption. The reason which made me divide this tale into two is an .
external one, ¡.e. it is based on data which are not indicated in the text.
This division seemed to me justified because only the beginning of the
account is related however parodistically to passages of the Acts.
pt.“at. the transcription of the Syriac Yahúdaye, “Jews”, However
while i
i n“Syriac the verb brá may mean “to be free from” or “exempt [pp. 157-159]: (Having come to Constantinople Paul) forgathered
from”.no derivative from it seems to have the signification “innocent”. frequently (taraddada ilá) with the Romans, was assiduous (in going) to
Consequently, if barí' min al-yahúdiyya is considered as a distortion of a the king's gate and incited the Romans against the Jews. He reminded
phrase which originally, in accordance with Acts, meant “I am innocent them (dhakkarahum) of the latter's hostility towards them, of what the
towards the Jews”, this particular falsification must have been Children of Israel had done to them, and of those among them whom
introduced into the Arabic text of “Abd al-Jabbár's document (and not they (the Children of Israel) had killed. He made them fear the
into the latter's Syriac Vorlage), for the homonymity of the Arabic bar”> wickedness of the Jews and (be anxious on account of the latter) for the
which means both “innocent” and “exempt” has, as we have seen, no
parallel in Syriac. : 12. Noted above,
However the fact that oneor two apparently deliberate distortions in 20 See above points 3 and 4.
“Abd al-Jabbár's document(if it is compared to the parallel passages in 21 Cf. the sentence: “I belong to Caesar's religion,”
security of their domination (from) onslaught (?) against them.” And he Children of Israel. For they are a people whose foreskin is
in their
mentioned to them (dhakara lahum) the great wealth (of the Jews: heart”.28
kathrat amwaálihim). The Romans eat pork (al-khinzir). And he (Paul) said: “It is not
It is the custom among the Romans not to veil their women in (the forbidden. Nothing that enters his belly Gjawfahu) is forbidden to
man
presence) of men. The king's wife, her face uncovered, rode in the king's Only the lies 2% that came forth from him are forbidden to him>”.30
cortége, spoke to the people and issued orders and prohibitions. This The Children of Israel do not eat (animals) slaughtered by
Paul 2 accordingly approached her and spoke to her on the subject (min idolaters *! and those who are not people of the book (ahl al-kitab), and
sha'n) of the Jews. It is (also) the custom among the Romans that a man the Romans do not (act) in this manner.?? Paul approved of them
ln all
is not permitted (yahillu) to marry more than one woman. After (the this.2 He was respected by them with regard to everything and did
not
marriage) neither divorce,% nor old age nor some defect in her may sep- disagree with them on any point. The Romans had at that time various
arate the two in any way or for any reason. And no women besides her ” (muntashara) religious beliefs (diyanat). Most of them worshi
pped
is lawful (tahil!) for him until she dies. The Roman women * hate the (yu“azzim) the stars and held that they (gave) life and death,
(could) be
(religious) commandments (al-diyanat) of the prophets of the Children useful or do harm. There were temples (in honour of the stars)
and
of Israel because they permit (ibaha) divorce and allow a man to marry sacrifices (offered) to them.
as many (women as he can) support (má atága al-ma'ina). Some of them (adhered ) to the religion of the Greeks
(al-
Sha'úl was accordingly told: “You (belong to) a people (umma) Yawnániyyin) according to whuch these starsare living, rational
(which has) this way (of life; hadha sabíluha)”. He said: “No, no more (natiga), bountiful (ráziga) (beings): they are the lords..5 And
they
than one woman is lawful for a man (as) according to the laws (ahkám) believed in the reality 36 of magic. To sum up, all their beliefs
are
of the Romans”. Because of this he was (greatly) esteemed by the invalid, feeble, corrupt. Paul used to speak to them about
the grace
women. (fadl) and the asceticism of Christ?” whose prayers% were
fulfilleg>
He becameclose to the king's wife; and thereupon she asked the king and who resurrected the dead. (The Romans) forgathered with him
and
to send a military expedition against the Children of Israel. She told him listened to him. He was deceitful and villainous. The Roman
s (turned
what Sha'úl had said and asked him to listen to thelatter;”? and (the king) when) praying towards (the direction of) sunrise.“ They did not
regard -
did (this). And (Sh4'al) curried favour with them by adopting the name of as obligatory either ritual ablutions, or washing oneself for a
Búl.s, which is (one of) the names of the Romans.
The Romans have an extreme abhorrence for the circumcision of
men as well as of women, and they detest the peoples that practise it. 2% In the plural in Arabic.
They spoke to Paul about this, and he said: “Yes, it is as you ses (it): : 22 In the singular in Arabic,
Circumcision is not incumbent upon you. It is only incumbent upon the 2..Cf. Mark, 7:15-17 and 20-23, Matthew, 15:17 — 20.
Literally: sacrifices of idolaters (dhaba'ih alavathanipyin).
read-
22 The printed text has: al-karra, which can be rendered by “onslaught”. A possible a piterally are not like this.
of?)
ing would be: al-karh. 1f it is accepted, the phrase could be translated: (because e word kulluhá, which is missing ¡ i ¡ti i
the loathing (the Jews felt) for them. % Hadhihi al-kawakib, possibly aincio, prmiso sólos,oceurs
in the Mis.
hadhá is a
23 Written here Bal.s with a sín not a sád as in previous passages. Búl.s - Arbáb, perhaps despotai.
Syriacism; cf. above. - Sihha; literally: truth, correctness.
that the wife *.. Al-Masíh, the Messiah.
2 Cf. 1 Cor, 7:10-11: “To the married I give charge, not ] but the Lord,
else be
should not separate from her husband (butif she does let her remain single or Da“wá, in the singular in Arabic.
reconciled to her husbáñd) — and that the husband should not divorce his wife.” Mujab, literally: reccived a response.
25 His wife. o A literal translation might also be: The Fast of the Sun; mashrig al-shams
. in Jewish
polemics against the Christians the fact that the latter turn when
26 Or: the wives of the Romans. * praying to the East
22 Or obey the latter; yasma”. sometimes comes in for criticism,
menstruating woman or (after) ejaculation of semen. (Nor did they among the lower classes and the rifkraff. He fascinated them by (various
regard as obligatory) the taking of precautions against (defilement by) things) in the way of charms, medicine,” magic * and sorcery.
urine, excrement or blood; they did not hold that (defilement of) this The Romans and the Armenians hold all this to be true, for they are
(sort) was an abomination. The Romans marry idolaters and the other a grossly ignorant nation (uma), far-removed from (any understanding
peoples, (whereas) the Children of Israel do not do this. The Romans of) what may be apprehended by reflection or speculation (nazar).
spoke to Paul about this, and he said: “Let the believing woman (al- Duliness and stupidity are predominant particularly among the lower
mu'mina) marry an unbeliever (kafir); for she will purify him and he classes, (for) they know nothing beyond arts and crafts (al-mihan wa'l-
will not defile her, and the child (born) of the two will be pure”. He sand'is), whereas their kings excel in (what pertains to) appearance (in)
said: “This is only forbidden by the Torah, and the whole of the Torah is the life of this world (fí záhir abhayát al-dimya) and in royal
evil. Since people have been released from the commandments of the governance.*” .
Torah, the beneficence of God has become complete and His grace Oneof their kings saw through (fatana ff) Paul, examined carefully
(fad!) perfect”. Thus Paul abandoned the religious beliefs (al-diyánat) - his circumstances, summed him up and knew that he was deceitful, a
of Christ (al-masth) and adopted (sára ¡la) those of the Romans. If you : trickster, one who sought (to win) power and (the goods of) this world.
ra)
look at the matter lucidly, you find that the Christians (al-Nasá Accordingly he had him brought to him and asked him about circum-
became Romanized (tarawwamú) and went back to the religious beliefs cision. (Paul) disapproved of it and of (those who practised it).There-
of the Romans, and you do not find that the Romans became upon he questioned him about"Christ: had he been circumcised and was
Christianized (tanassarú). he circumcised,- had his* companions the apostles been likewise
Thereupon the king gave heed * to Paul's slanders against the Jews (circumcised)? (Paul) said: “Yes.” Then (the king) uncovered him, and
and (resolved) in his mind to punish them.% He set out against them, (o and behold) he was circumcised, He found that he abetted the
wrought great slaughter among them, took their riches, (appropriated) Romansin their religious beliefs,? which were contrary to the religious
the pick of them and returned from them (carrying off many) choice beliefs of Christ and his companions, and were in (the opinion of) Christ
objects.(Because of this) Paul became popular among them and their únbelief and error.
love for him increased. The king who sent a military expedition against Paul suffered * from elephantiasis in his legs,and (yet) he claimed
the Children of Israel was named Titus (7.£.5).4 that he (could) heal and cure.5 The King gave an order, and (Paul) was
The (prestige) “ of Paul stood high in the land of the Romans apped in the face, his beard shaved off, and he was crucified. He told
Abd al-Jabbar is an opponent of physicians; see S. Pines, “La coltusion entre les
brother has a wife w
31 Cf. | Cor., 7:12-16: “To the rest 1 say, not the Lord, that if any yzantins et la subversion musulmane et la lettre injurieuse d'un “rol” de Byzance”
is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 1f.any tudies in Memory of Gaston Wiet, Jerusalem 1977, p. 116ff. :
who is an unbelieyer , and he consents to live with her, she should r: jugglery; sha'badha.
woman has a husband
wife, and:
not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his adbir al-mulk; literally: the administration of royalty. These ethnographical
is consecrat ed through her husband. Otherwise , your children wo flections clearly point to a (perhaps late) redactor of this account having lived in a
unbdelieving wife
be unclean, but as it is they are holy.” gion inhabited by Grecks and Armenians, with possibly a predominance ofthe latter
2 Literally: received. hamma ahlaha; literally: disapproved of its people.
% Akhadha bi-ra'yihi fihim. hrist's,
4% Literally: objects of desire (al-ragha'ib). r: usages; diyánat.
or
45 Nero is named below,in accordance with Christian tradition,as the king who ead asába instead of asháb, wiich occurs in the printed edition.
Paul's execution, Átthis point the story of Paul is interrupte d by a passage perta his is possibly a scurrilous interpretation of 2 Cor., 12:7 - “A ihorn was given me in
whi
to the account concerning “the Emperor Constantine (p. 159, 1.3-1.16),
story of Paul is taken up again in 1.17. : erhaps this remark refers to the proverb quoted, according to Luke, 4:23, by Jesus:
translated below. The
36 Amr: literally: the matter. Physician, heal thyself”.
them: “Do not crucify me lengthwise, as was crucified our Lord Christ; the celebration of the new moon and (the observance of) the holy days
crucify me breadthwise.” The king who did this to Paul was named (prescribed by) the Law.
Nero,5%6 Paul answered them: (pp. 118 - 120) “You can test my being a true
Jew (Joudaion aléthinon) by observing my keeping of the Sabbath and
This account has points in common with some versions of the so-called true circumcision.% For on the day of Sabbath God rested from all His
“Acts of Paul” and “Acts of Peter”. An attempt will now be made to works. We have the Fathers, the Patriarchs and the Law; what does
compare our text with some Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles and in the Peter preach in the kingdom of the Gentiles? However, even if he wants
first place, with the Martyrion tón Hagión Apostolón Petrou kai to introduce a new teaching, report to him*! without (creating) a
Paulou.3 This confrontation seems to be called-for in spite of the disturbance, without jealousy and without boasting, so that we too should
flagrant differences between the two texts because a significant number see (each other),and in your presence 1 shall refute (eleyxó) him. 1£,
of similar or identical motifs is found in both of them. It seems to me however, his teaching is true, grounded in the Book and the testimony of
that the Martyrion and similar texts may help to assign to the Arabic the Hebrews, it will beseem us all to obey him.”
text its place within the vast body of traditions centred on Paul, Peter (p. 120), being told that Paul of the Hebrews having arrived
Two recensions of the Martyrion are extant. Both are published in from Spain asked him to come to him,* was very glad and went to him
Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, ed. R.A. Lipsius and M. Binnet, immediately. On meeting the two wept for joy and embraced each other.
Darmstadt 1959, I. One of them, which perhaps from our point of view In their conversation Peter tóld: Paul about the various acts of treachery
presents a somewhat greater interest is printed, accompanied by a Latin of Simon Magus..On returning the next day at the crack of dawn Peter
translation going back according to Lipsius' conjecture to the end of the found a multitude of Jews assembled in front of the door of the place
sixth century, on pp. 118-177. The second recension is printed under where Paul was lodged. An altercation was going on between the Jewish
the title Praxeis ton Hagión Apostolón Petrou kai Paulou on pp. and the Gentile Christians.**
173 - 222. Those who were'of Jewish (origin) % were saying: “We are a chosen
Before listing the motifs referred to above, the outline of the story of people, a royal body of priests (hierateuma), friends of % Abraham,
the Martyrion will be adumbrated, some passages translated and some Isaac, Jacob and all the prophets,” to whom God has spoken and whom
traits characteristic of these acts noted. he has shown his mysteries and his great wonders. You, on the other
The Martyrion starts with (p. 118) the arrival of Paul to Rome. In hand (who are) of Gentile (origin),have nothing great in your seed
that city he was approached by all the Jews (foudaioi) and asked to
vindicate the faith into which he was born. According to them, it was not
Just that he, being a Hebrew (Hebraios) of the Hebrews should describe
himself as a teacher of the Gentiles,and that, being circumcised himself, 9 Alethinen peritomneén. The term is perhaps ambiguous.
6! Perhaps: what 1 said.
he should abrogate the faith of circumcision. When he sees Peter, he 6 Hémeis idómen. The Latin version has: ut nos uideamus;, or according to varlants:
should oppose the latter's teaching because it abrogates all the observance uideamus nos inuicem, or inuicem uideamus.
of “our law”. Ht excludes (from religious practice) the keeping of Sabbath, 63 This request is explained in the texts as follows: *...as those who have brought him
(Paul) say that he may not meet whom he wants before he has been shown to Caesar”.
$% Metaxy ton loudaión Christianón te kai ethnikon (p. 122); inter Tudaeos Christianos et
gentiles (p. 123).
6 Birun in the printed edition. Read Nirun. $5 Hoi ex loudaión. The Latin version has: Judaei.
Qm
51 The precise titles of -sóme. of these Acts or Passions will be mentioned below. 66 Or: dear to (philoi).
38 The old Latin translation of this text bears the title: Passio Sanctorum Apostolorum 67 The Latin version is somewhat different (p. 123): “Nos genus sumus electum regale
Petri et Pauli. : amicorum dei, Abraham, Isaac et facob et omnium prophetarum...”
39 Or: nations, ethne. 6 Hoi ex ethnon.
(even) if you have not defiled yourselves and become impure through quoted and the statement made that “the chief priests and the rulers of
idols and carved images”. the people crucified him out of envy.”! He permitted for the sake of the
While (pp. 122-123) the believing Jews (tón pisteusantón salvation of the world that he should (be made to) suffer all this.
Toudaión) said this and (other) things that were similar, the (persons who Through this God has opened the entrancefor all the sons of Abraham,
were) of Gentile (origin) answered: “As soon as we heard the truth, we Isaac and Jacob and for all the nations of the earth. .. For the saviour
immediately followed Christ, (who is) indeed the truth and abandoned has become a priest, when he offered up his own body and blood as a
our errors. You, however, (who) had the powers (dynameis) of your whole burnt-offering in sacrifice for the sake of the world”.
fathers and had (at your disposal) the teachings of the Law and the The Latin translation of Peter's exhortation differs on several points
prophets, who have crossed the sea with your feet dry while seeing your from the Greek recension under discussion. The following divergences
enemies as they were being submerged, for whose (behoof) a pillar of may be mentioned. After the words (see above) “he permitted... that he
fire appeared at night and a (pillar) of mist in the daytime, to whom should (be made to) suffer all this”, the Latin version inserts a phrase,
manna was given from the sky and for whom water flowed from a rock, part of which reads: “in order that. .. the Church, which should have no
you have not believed and after all these (events) have fashioned for spot or wrinkle, be fashioned out of the flank of Christ put on the cross”
yourselves a calf as an idol and have worshipped (this) carved image. We (pp. 127,11 11-44). After the words (see above) “the sons of Abraham,
on the other hand believe, without having seen any of the signs, that (the Isaac andJacob”, the Latin version 7? reads: “In order that they should
God) Whom you have abandoned in your unbelief, is the true God”. be “in fide ecclesiae et non in infidelitate synagogae. Be therefore
Thereupon Paul is said to have exhorted them to refrain from thus converted and enter into the joy of Abrahamyour father...” (p. 126, ll.
bandying words. They (should rather) pay heed to the fact that God has 16-18). o
fulfilled the promises (which He made) to our father Abraham (when) Peter and Paulpreached with great success and increased every day
he swore “that in your seed all the nations will be blessed” (Gen. 22:18, the number of those who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ. Nero's wife,
cf. Galat. 3:8).2 “For God shows no partiality. All who have sinned Livia, and a prefect's wife called Agrippina were among Peter's converts;
under the Law will be judged by the Law. All who have sinned without because of their faith both of them abandoned their husbands. Paul's
the Law, will (also) perish without the Law” (Romans, 2:11 -—12) (As preaching too met with success; for many soldiers abandoned the army
for) us, brethren, let us thank God, because in His mercy he has chosen in order to adhere to God; some also left the Emperor's bed-chamber.”
us to be His holy people, so that we, both Jews and Hellenes, should When the chiefs of the synagogues and the priests of the Hellenes,
glory in Him. “For you are all one in the faith of His name” *(cf. perceived that through the activities of Peter and Paul nearly the whole
Galat. 3:28). of Rome came to believe in Jesus, they started to praise Simon Magus,
Speaking in this way Paul (p. 126) calmed down both those who speaking highly of him both to the people and to the Emperor, while
were of Jewish and those who were of Gentile origin. Peter too instructed they disparaged Peter and Paul (126). Simon himself, who was admired
them. His exhortation, as quoted in our text (pp. 126-128), differs from by many because ofhis “signs” (sémeia, signa), such as causing a brazen
Paul's inter alia in the following respect: it is centred to a much greater serpent to move and so forth, asserted that Peter was a magician
extent on Jesus. Some biblical testimonia concerning the latter are (magos) and a trickster. In his turn Peter who by means of the Word
(logoi) cured the sick and resurrected the dead warned people against
$9 This verse reads: “And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by
faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying: “in you shall all the nations
1 Cf. Matthew, 27:18: “For (Pilate) he knew that it was out of envy that they had
be blessed”. o A delivered him up”; Mark, 15:10: “For he perceived that it was out of envy that the
10 Pantes gar hymeis heis este en tei pistei tou onomatos autou. The last part of Gal., 3:28
chief priests had delivered him up”.
reads: pantes gar hymeis heis este en Christói Tésou; “for you are all one in Christ
12 In which the reference to “all the nations of the earth” is missing.
Jesus”. This may refer, inter alía, to Nero's cupbearer (see below).
Simon, who was liable to turn them into the slaves of the devil. Simon's conditor rerum deus. Paul (152) concludes this apología pro domo sua by
adherents designated Peter as a magician while the latter's partisans the statement that his teaching (as) given to him (did not come) from
used this term to describe Simon (128 - 130). men nor through a man, but was given to him by Jesus Christ,” who
Coming to Nero Simon, who had impressed the Emperor by means spoke to him from heaven.
of his magical powers, complained of having to bear not only with Peter, Peter, having been asked by Nero as to what he had to say regarding
but also with Paul; both of whom proclaimed the same teaching. Unless Paul's remarks, describes them as true. in other words, he at this point is
the two were destroyed Nero's kingdom could not be firmly established. madeto figure as Paul's defender, and to some extent, as his protector.
Hereupon the two were brought to Nero. At this meeting in which By assigning this role to Peter the author of our text provides an indica-
Simon takes an active part, Nero asks: what is a Nazarene, and who was tion — one of several — as to the relationship between the two apostles
Christ? Answering the latter question, Peter suggests that a report (see and their respective ranks in the Christian hierarchy. Peter's position is
above) relating the death of Jesus which was sent by Pontius Pilate to clearly superior to Paul's,”
Claudius be read. This was done. In the exchanges between Peter and Peter's defence of the latter (p.152 ff.) refers, inter alía, to “his not
Simon and in their display of magical or miraculous powers, the apostle having been an enemy (ekhthros) of our faith out of envy, but rather out
has the advantage (pp. 132— 142). of ignorance.” The word ekhthros calls to mind the use in the Pseudo-
At a certain point in the discussion Nero asks Paul, why he says Clementiñe Homilies of the term ekhthros anthrópos to designate
nothing. Thereupon Paul warns him against letting the Magus engage in Paul.” As it would seem, thé Martyrion with which at present we are
his evildoing; this would bring about the downfall of the realm (pp. concerned is, if our hypothesis is correct, by way of being a counterblast
142 — 144). against certain'parts of the Pseudo-Clementines and other anti-Pauline
Later in the discussion Nero put again (p. 148) the same question — texts; one of its objectives being to ward off these attacks, and to ensure
couched in injurious terms: “Why, Paul, don't you utter a sound? Who Paul's reception into the Catholic hierarchy (in a position inferior to that
has taught you, and what teaching do you have? In what manner did you of Peter). A further argument in favour of the hypothesis (suggested by
teach in the cities, and what came about through your teaching?... 1 the use of the word ekhthros anthrópos) according to which the author
believe that you possess no wisdom whatever, and that you are incapable of the Martyrion may have been cognizant of some of these texts or may
of manifesting ?* any power (dynamin) whatsoever”. have drawn upon the same sources, may be sought in the fact that Peter
In his reply Paul reiterates in other words his denunciation of Simon in his defence of Paul (p.152) refers to pseudokhristoi (like Simon),
and expounds (pp. 150— 152) his teachings; these are in the main rules
of conduct, apparently culled in some measure from the Pauline Epistles; 75 Cf. Galat., l:l and 11.
the only reference to a theological doctrine occurs in the exhortation 76 In a later episode in which the two aposiles are called upon to foil Simon's attempt to
use his magical powers in order to ascend to heaven, and to bring about the impostor's
addressed to “the churches (ekklesias) of the believers to worship the
death, Paul indicates his awareness of his inferiority to Peter (p. 162). Addressing the
almighty (pantokratora), invisible and incomprehensible God”. One of latter he says: “It is my (task) to bend (my) knee and to implore God, and it is yours to
the precepts reads translated from the Greek: “] taught... the men to accomplish (arysaí) for you were the first (who was) chosen by the Lord”. The
corresponding passage in the Latin version reads: “Meum est genibus positis deum
keep faith with their wives”. The commandment relating to monogamy,
exorare, tuum est impetrare si quid uideris eum conari, quoniam tu prior electus es a
which may be implied in this formulation, stands out very clearly in the domino”. In the event cach of the two apostles acts out the role thus assigned to him; it
enlarged Latin version of this rule: (p. 151) Docui uiros fidem seruare is through Peter's agency that Simon's destruction comes about (sce below). To my
coniugibus, sicut illi sibi seruare pudorem omnimodis uolunt. Quod enim mind it is significant that the passage quoted above, which expresses Paul's knowledge
of his inferiority to Peter, is missing in the version of our text entitled Praxeis (p. 210).
punit maritus in uxoréadultera, hoc punit in marito adultero ipse paterel - EE
lt seems to me to be probable that in the Pseudo-Clementines this Greek designation
refers to Paul; the ekhthros anthrópos is referred to in Epistolé Petrou, 2, 3, and (as
homo inimicus) in Recognitiones; 1 c.70.
14 Literally: fulfilling (plérosal).
pseudapostoloi and pseudoprophétai;, this is reminiscent of a logion good (thing), why did you, Simon, give up cireumcised men (to the
attributed to Jesus in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies (16,21); this authorities) and had them condemned and executed *! (apoktanthenab)?”
logion which refers, inter alia, to pseudapostoloi and pseudeis prophetai Within the rather loose framework of the story this, on the face ofit
(and also to “heresies” and love of domination), alluded, according to the dangerous, question does not receive an answer. The death of Simon
Peter of the Pseudo-Clementines, to the blasphemies which originated results from his attempt to fly from a high tower erected at Nero's
with the Simon of the Pseudo-Clementines. behest to heaven. Adjured by Peter, Satan's angels, who bore him aloft,
Circumcision was one of the topics referred to according to the let him fall and he was killed. As has been related above, Paul played a
Martyrion in the verbal sparring which went on in the presence of Nero. subordinate role in this incident.
Addressing the latter Simon said: (p.156) “Do not trust them (Peter and Arrested at Nero's order, Peter and Paul were sentenced to death.
Paul): for these circumcised (men) are knaves (panourgoi)”.Paul re- Paul was beheaded whereas-Peter (apparently in order to punish him for
torted: “Before we knew the truth, we were circumcised in the flesh. But killing Simon) was crucified, in the position which he had chosen: the
when the truth appeared, we are being circumcised and circumcise (in cross having been turned upside down, his feet were nailed to what had
our turn) with the circumcision of the heart.” Peter said: “Why were you become the upper part, and his hands to the lower. His request to be put
circumcised, Simon, if circumcision is bad?” (Hereupon) Nero said: on the cross in this position was due, according to his explanations, to
“And is Simon too circumcised”. After a short digression the subject of his not being worthy to be crucified in the same way as his Lord. From
circumcision came up again: (pp. 156-158) Simon said: “The Christ was the cross he recounted to thé assembled multitude the quo vadis story
not Paul's teacher”. Paul said: “Yes (he was): (for) he by means of a (p. 170): several days before his execution he had at the urging of the
revelation (di'apokalypseos) he instructed (epaideuse) me too.” But “brethren” left the city. On his way he met Jesus Christ, whom he
tell (me) that (about) which I asked you: Why were you circumcised?” $0 asked: “O Lord; where dost thou go”; Jesus answered him that he was
. . Sensing Simon's reluctance to reply to this question Nero asks: “Why going to Rome to. be crucified.*2 As he explained, he wanted to be
are you afraid to answer these (men)”. (Hereupon) Simon said: “...at crucified instead ofPeter, when he knew that the latter was fleeing
the time when l received circumcision it was ordained by God; 1 was death. Hereupon Peter told him that he was going back in order to fulfil
circumcised because of this”. Paul said... “If then circumcision is a his command. .
The last section of the Martyrion (pp. 172-176) which deals for the
78 The Latin version has a somewhat different text (p. 157) “...quia hi sunt quí most part with the posthumous disposal of the bodies of the two apostles
circumciduntur el circumcidunt”. need not concern us here.
23 As well as Peter. The Latin version has (p. 157) “Qui Petrum praesens docuit, ipse me
per reuelationem instruxit”. Cf, Galat., 1:11, where Paul says that he received the
gospel “through the revelation (dí" apokalypseós) of Jesus Christ”. Perhaps in contrast Á summary of the contents of the Martyrion has been given here be-
in 2 Peter 1:16 the author says: “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we cause some particulars occurring in this text appear — especially if the
made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus, but we were eye-witnesses
transposition to which they were probably subjected is allowed for — to
(epoptai) of his majesty”. Cf. Luke, 1:2 — autoptal. In the Pseudo-Clementine
Homilies Peter affirms that revelation (apokalypsis) does not come through visions or be parallel or similar to details found in the account of Paul preserved in
dreams, which even impious people may have. He goes even further; the fact that some- the Tathbit. These particulars will presently be listed. However, before
thing is disclosed in a vision or a dream is not a characteristic of revelation but rather
of (divine) wrath (orgé) (Hom. 17, 17 and 18). Simon on the other hand, who in this
case seems to represent to some extent Paul, maintains the superiority of vision over
what may be cognized in the waking state; the former is divine, the latter human (37, 5 él The Latin version has (p. 159): “Sí ergo bona est circumcisio, quare tu circumcisos
and 14ff.). In the Martyrion both modes of divine instruction are regarded as valid; but tradidisti et coegisti eos precipitanter occidi.”
that vouchsafed by Jesus “to Peter, in contradistinction to that granted to Paul, as
82
Stauróthena. The Latin translation, which offers a somewhat different version of this
immediately recognizable as genuine... meeting, has (p. 171): iterum crucifigt. In this version Jesus orders Peter to follow him
$0 According to our text this question was put by Peter (and not by Paul). because he was going to Rome to be crucified once more.
this is done it seems in order to point out certain significant character- The Pseudo-Clementines are very different from the Martyrion in
istics of the Martyrion. their general ideology, in subordinating Peter to James and in the
We may first note the fact that Jewish Christians play a incomparably greater strength of their anti-Pauline bias. Nevertheless,
considerable part in the story; there is a sharp antagonism between them the two works, which have the same three protagonists, Peter, Paul and
and the Gentile Christians and they lay claim to superiority over the Simon, may with regard to some points be legitimately compared; thus,
latter. for instance, the authors of both of them take care not to make explicit
Both Peter and Paul are represented as teaching that Christianity is statements derogatory to Paul.* It has been argued — on one count at
different from Judaism; both believe that the “true” circumcision should least correctly (see above) — that Simon in the Pseudo-Clementines is in
supersede the circumcision of the flesh; but Paul, before his meeting in part a stand-in for Paul. It seems to me that with regard to at least one
Rome with Peter, is said to have approved of the Jewish observance of incident (see below) the Simon of the Martyrion may have been assigned
the Sabbath and to have blamed Peter for preaching in the kingdom of a similar role. There exists a parallel phenomenon with regard to Peter
the Gentiles. Peter is shown as being more consistent than Paul was and Paul: stories which. in the Martyrion and other sources are told
before their encounterin rejecting the Jewish observances.% In fact Paul about the former are also recounted in yet other texts concerning Paul.
announces his intention to take issue with him on this matter, however he These discrepancies may possibly be due to the controversy with regard
does nothing about it when they meet. to apostolic-primacy.
Indeed, it may seem that in the framework of the Martyrion it The narrative elements which the story about Paul occurring in the
would be impossible for him to carry out this intention; for the text does Tathbit Dala'il salaNubuwwa has in common with the Martyrion are as
not leave any room for doubt as to Peter”s superior status and Paul's follows: l
recognition of this fact. The description given in the Martyrion of the 1. In the TathbitPauliis said to have approached the king's wife and to
respective attitudes of Peter and Paul towards Judaism clearly does not have exerted influence over her (see above). In the Martyrion (pp. 128
tally with the evidence of the New Testament, which shows that Paul and 129) Peter is reported to have converted Nero's wife Lybia.3% Her
rather than his fellow apostle should be credited with a radical rejection faith was so strong that she quitted the side of her husband.*” John
of Judaizing practices. The Martyrion falsifies in this respect the Chrysostom remarks referring to Paul:%% “He is said to have kissed (or:
historical truth; but the falsification is a significant one. For it is tied-up
with the paradox that is constituted by the fact that the Catholic church, Marcionites regarded Paul as the only true apostle, and jt has been argued that the
which is a church of the Gentiles, on the one hand adopted a theology belicf in, and the denial of, his primacy should be viewed in the context of the struggle
between the Catholic Church and this heresy. 1t seems to me that this explanation docs
based on the teachings of Paul the apostle to the Gentiles, but is, on the
not account for all the facts; nevertheless the factor to which it points should be
other hand, because of its conception of the apostolic succession, reckoned with.
committed to the affirmation of the primacy of Peter, the apostle de 35
The remarks impugning Paul's knowledge and intelligence which are attributed in the
Martyrion to Nero (see above) cannot of course be imputed to the author of this work.
circumcisione. This paradox suggests the existence of a body of opinion,
36 Or in Latin Livia.
perhaps a sort of Petrine mission, bent on asserting this primacy of Peter $7 The sameis told in Praxeís (see Lipsius, op. cit., p. 193).
at the expense of Paul.3% 88 IVY. Acta Apostolorum Homilia XLVI, Migne, Patrologia Graeca 60, col. 325. In
another work (Ad Thimotheum, Homilia X Patrologia Graeca 62, col. 657) John
Chrysostom writes referring to Paul: “He had already been in the presence of Nero and
83 The Praxeis and the Latin version of the Martyrion accentuate more than the Greek had escaped. When, however, he gave religious instruction to the latter's cupbearer,
text summarized above the anti-Jewish aspect of Peter's teaching: according to them (Nero) cut off (his head; auton apetemen. lt is not explicitly stated that Paul was
(pp. 127 and 192) he. referred to the “faith of the church (ekklésia) and the infidelity beheaded).” The conversion of Nero's cupbearer, whose name is said to have been
of the synagogue”. Patroceus, is referred to in two texts published in the Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, in
3% There was also a group which affirmed the primacy of Paul; this thesis was opposed by the Passio Sancti Pauli Apostoli (pp. 23 — 44) and in Passionis Pauli Fragmentum(pp.
Tertullian, who maintained that Paul and Peter were equals (see below). The 104 — 111). It is not mentioned in the text of the Tathbit that treats of Paul.
saluted; aspasai) both Nero's cupbearer (oinokhoon) and his concubine. teaching. Many other Christian authors can of course
be adduced in
How many (things), do you believe, (directed) against him did they say? support of this position. The prohibition of divorc
e is taught, for
because of this. But (this was) unjust. For if he had kissed (them) out of instance, in the writings of Tertullian.2
licentiousness (epi aselgeiai) or in evil circumstances (their obloquy Both this prohibition and monogamy are said
in the passage of the
would have been) fair. 1f, however, (he did it) in (the context of) an Tathbtt which is under consideration to form a part of
the way oflife of
upright life for the sake of whom (or: of what) did they proffer these the Rúm characterized in unmistakable terms as Pagans
. The original
allegations? author of the passage may conceivably have had a vague
knowledge of
2. Whereas in the Tathbít Paul is said to have been popular with the the fact that monogamy was practised by the Pagan
Romans. However,
Roman women, because contrary to the Jewish law he enjoined mono- the latter did not eschew divorce. On the whole it
seems that (as in the
gamy and forbade divorce, in the Martyrion (p. 128) Peter is said to case of the substitution of Constantinople for Rome)
the passage
have converted not only Nero's wife, but also Agrippina the prefect confuses with regard to the rules governing marri
age the subjects of
Agrippa's wife. Nero with the Byzantines who were also called Rúm.
According to the Martyrium Beati Petri Apostoli attributed to This confusion is also in evidence in the following
passage of the
Linus” the preaching of Peter aroused a passion for chastity among Tathbit (see above): “The Romans marry idolat
ers and the other peoples
many Roman women. The reasons given in the Tathbit for Paul's (ta ethne, ha-goyim), (whereas) the Children of Israel do not do
this. The
popularity with the Roman women are not referred to in a similar Romans spoke to Paul about this, and he said:
Let the believing woman
context in the Greek or Latin texts that have been cited.?! marry an unbeliever, for she will purify him, and he
will not defile her,
However, neither of these texts accounts for this popularity; they do and the children(born) of the two will be pure”.
The Children of Israel
not mention in this context the two reasons which according to the story mentioned in thispassage may include Judaco-Christians,
who did not
found in the Tathbit explain the fact that the Roman women preferred accept Pauline Christianity. The rule attributed to
Paul is a variation on
the doctrine preached by Paul to orthodox Judaism. These reasons are 1 Cor, 7:12-14: “To therest speak I, not the Lord:
if any brother has a
a) his prohibition of polygamy, and b) his prohibition of divorce. Both wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to
live with him, he should
are in accord with the tenets of the Christian church. not divorce her. If any woman has a husband
who is an unbeliever, and
As has been indicated above, monogamy is enjoined by implication he consents to live with her, she should not divorc
e him. For the
in the exposé in which Paul according to the Martyrion set forth his unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife,
and the unbelieving
wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise
your children would
$ Or: “They might have said”. In the context of the homily the men referred to arc the be unclean, but as it is they are holy”.
Jews in Jerusalem, who according to Acts of Apostles, 21:20ff, distrusted Paul because In the opinion of Tertullian% (born somewhere about
the middle of
of the reporis they had heard concerning his activities. the second century) the marriage of a Christian
20 See Lipsius, op. cit, p. 1ff. Lipsius, op. cit., p. 2 “Unde factum est ut beati Petri with an unbeliever was
objectionable. The length at which this question
sermonibus magnus pudicitiae apud multas diversae aetatis ac potestatis seu is discussed in Ad
nobilitatis feminas amor exarserit, ita ut pleraeque etiam Romanorun matronae a Uxorem V, 1ff. may prove that in this theologian's
time such marriages
commixtione uirilis thori seruare munda corda simul et corpora, quantum ex ipsis were not uncommon.
erat, diligerent”. The passion for chastity inspired by Peter's preaching in many Roman
matrons is also referred to in Actus Petri cum Simone, see Acta Apostolorum
Apocrypha, pp. 86 and 88. , . 22 CE De Monogamia, 9 and Adversus Marcionem,
YY, 34,
%% In Praxei Paulou Kai Theklés (1.71f., Lipsius, op. cít., p. 24011.) Paul's discourse is % In 4d Uxorem 2, 1 Tertullian refers to people
who quote 1 Cor. 7 in order to prove the
said to have exercised:ansimmense influence upon Thecla who lived in Econium (and lawfulness of marriages with unbelievers. He points
out that in the passage in question
was betrothed to Thamyri)-and (1.9, p. 242) upon other women of that town. In the Paul merely makes it clear that he recommends
that a marriage of this kind, if it
Praxeis Paulou published by C. Schmidt (Gluekstadt and Hamburg, 1936) Paulis said already exists, should continue. This does not mean
that he lends his countenance to an
to have converted two women of Ephesus. unmarried Christian entering upon a: matrimonial union
with an infidel,
130 5. Pines Christianity and Judaeo-Christianity 131
What was the relation to Judaism of the author of the account of themselves to taking more than one wife, but) should
also get circum-
Paul occurring in the Tathbit? With respect to this question, which will cised, The thrust of this argument proves that the oppone
nts in question
have to be faced in the conclusion of our enquiry, the following were polygamous Christians, who were uncircumcise
d; hence t hey were
statement found in this account is of some interest: “The Roman women probably Gentiles.
hate the (religious) commandments of the Children of Israel because 3. According to what is reported in the Tathbit, Paul declared that
the
they permit divorce and allow a man to marry as many (women as he Gentiles were exempt from the obligation of circumcision of which
he
can) support”. disapproved.% However, on being examined by the king of the Romans
These two statements concerning the Jewish Law conform both to hé had to admit that Christ and his apostles were circumcised: thereup
on
Rabbinic and Qaraite halacha; the second seems to imply a degree of the king uncovered Paul and found out that he too was circumcised;
at
accurate knowledge in this field which should be taken into account in this point the narrative gets confused, but it seems clear that
this
any attempt at the characterization of the original author of the story of discovery brought about Paul's execution.
Paul recounted in the Tathbit; the fact is that the economic factor which In the Martyrion Simon adduces as a proof of the knavery of Peter
according to this statement determines the number of wives a man is and Paul their being circumcised. Nero, however, is informe
d that
permitted to have is also mentioned in an opinion on this question cited Simon too. is circumcised, and the latter is asked by Paul why, if, as
he
in the Babylonian Talmud (Yevamot, 65a).2* According to this opinion a claims, circumcision was oncg upon a time a good thing, did he
give u
man may have as many wives as he can feed. circumcised men (to the authorities) and had them condem
ned and
One of the charges brought in this account against Paul is that in executed. In the"context of the story Simon is at this point
in a
prohibiting polygamy, he deviated from the religious commandments of dangerous predicament: the logic of the plot may seem to require
that
the Children of Israel. As the original author of this text seems to have his duplicity having been exposed, he should be put to death, this being
belonged to a Judaeo-Christian sect of some sort and regarded himself as the punishment meted out to Paul in the Tathbit after a compara
ble
a Christian, the accusation levelled against Paul appears to imply that exposure; the similarity of the two episodes suggests that the role which
there were Christians who were in favour of polygamy.% This inference in the source of the Tathbrt story of the incident in questio
n was
is borne out by Tertullian's De Monogamia, VI; in this chapter he re- ascribed to Paul is transferred in the Martyrion to Simon (or
vice
futes the arguments of those who justify bigamy by invoking the versa),” However, Simon's story, as related in the text, contain
s several
example of Abraham. Inter alía, Tertullian points out that in his later disparate elements; in consequence his death is attributed
to a quite
years Abraham was not only bigamous (digamus), but also circumcised different cause; it is due to the fact that his magical arts were
no match
Consequently, his opponents, if they wished to model themselves on the for Peter's powers.
patriarch as he was at this period of his life” (should not confine 4. The reference in the story occurring in the Tathbit to Paul's
activities
as a sorcerer and physician may be compared with an outburst of
Nero's
9% According to Maimonides” Mishneh Torah (Nashim, Hilkhot Ishut, 14, 3), a man ca
marry even one hundred wives if he can feed, clothe and carry out his marital obliga
tions towards them. Maimonides does however mention that because of the last requ
fifteent
ment some sages limited the number of wives to four. Eliyahu Bashyachi, the oredAbraham as an esomplar is of somesignificance
; it may hayc a bearing
century codifier of Qaraite law, considers that a man may marry as
many wives as h . ne notion of the religious community of Abrah h ahí,
wishes (Aderet Eliyahu, Odessa 1870, reprinted in Israel, 1966, p. 304a). found in the Qur'án and
1 elsewhere,c, O. On the attitude
i of ,Paul towards
A Abraha) m
In the [st letter to Timothy (3:2), i.e. at an earlier period, it is stated that a bisho; er ma S Sara, “Who sanctified the well-beloved
94:
in (lit. Trom') the Aute
must be “the husband of one wife” only; this means that all Christians who were no . in Bible and the Ancient Near East, Jerusalem, 19
bishops could lawfullytakemore than one wife. This opinion appears to contradict' f. Galat., 5, 2ff.; ef. also below. PE ebro.
doctrine implied in a precept of Paul formulated in the Martyrion (see above).
. h should be noted in this context that nothing seems to be
known about a critique of, or
95 According to Tertullian they should rather imitate the monogamous and uncircumci opposition to, the commandment of circumcision on th e part
of Simon. On the position
:
Abraham of an earlier period. The fact that in the second century there existed peopl f Paul in this matter see above,
Christianiúy and Judaeo-Christianity 133
132 S. Pines
in which this apostle is adds to the original story a characteristically scurrilous and grotesque
(quoted in the Passio Sancti Pauli Apostoli),% note by its statement that Paul was crucified breadthwise.
tollite maleficum,
likewise accused of magical practices: “Tollite,
uluer e carmi natorem, perdite However, there is one indication which may perhaps be interpreted
decollate impostorem, nolite sinere as pointing to a different conclusion. lt is connected with the well-known
terrae mentium
sensuum alienatorem, auferte de superficie
u (p. 38) the populace a quo vadis story. According to this tale Peter, when he was about to leave
immutatorem”. In Schmidt's Praxeis Paulo
st Paul: “Away A Rome for good, met at the gate of the city Christ, who when asked by
Ephesus gathered in the stadium to cry out again him where he was going, said: 1 am coming to Rome to be crucified
be found in a passage o J Ñ
the magician (magon)”. Á parallel may again. Peter said that he would go back and follow Christ. Thereupon
cured the sick an to
Martyrion (p. 130), in which Peter is said to have the latter ascended to heaven, and Peter understood that the Passion
a magician (magon).
have been regarded by the adherents of Simon as spoken of was his (Peters), as Christ would suffer in him. He then went
rt, Paul at his So
5. According to the account given in the Tathb back to Rome.!%
Jesus, but breadthwise. .
request was crucified not lengthwise as was
in the extant Greek and Now, Origen in his Commentary 7a Toannem, 20, 12 states that it is
is not the mode of Paul's execution as recounted written in the Praxeis Paulou that the Saviour said: “1 am going to be
the Passio Sancti Par
Latin martyrological sources: According to crucified again”,
(p. S6ft-), a text whic | is
Apostoli, e. 16% and Schmidt's Praxeis Paulou The words attributed in this passage to Jesus correspond to those
um, €. 5, the Martyrion
identical with the Passionis Pauli Fragment
p. 170), the paras tón which he is supposed to utter'in:the quo vadis story. Hence Lispius, who
tón Hagión Apostolón Petrou kai Paulou (c. 59, together with the generality of the scholars of his time believed that the
p. 214) and E assio
Hagión Apostolón Petrou kai Paulou (c. 80,
was behea ed.
Apostolorum Petri et Pauli (c. 13, p. 233f.), Paul Petri cum Simone,€. 37£., p. 93f.; Martyrion tón Hagión Apostolón Petrou kai Paulou,
and Latin sources, was
It was Peter who, according to the Greek c. 60, p. 170; Praxeis ión Hagión Apostolón Petrou kai Paulou, c. 81, p. 214f.; Passio
Paul did, according to the
crucified. He too is reported to have asked (as Apostolorum Petri et Pauli €. 13, p. 233, These are martyrological writings. References
in the position in o or supposed references to Peter's crucifixion or martyrdom may also be found in carly
account of “Abd al-Jabbár) not to be executed Christian works which do not belong to this literary genre. Thus the Gospel according
consequently cruci pe
this punishment was meted out to Jesus, and was to John, 21: 18-19 has been interpreted as alluding to his crucifixion (the verses may
ding to the Tathbit)
at his request (not breadthwise as was Paul accor be a relatively late interpolation). The crucifixion of Peter, head downwards, is men-
tioned by Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, WI, k: O. Cullmann's assumption (Petrus,
wnwards.!%
to call for the conclusion Munich-Hamburg 1967, p. 127) that this piece of information has been taken over from
e dones referred to above would seem Origen, mentioned by Eusebius in the same context in connection with Pauls
Paul is a take-off of ne
that the Tathbít account of the crucifixion of martyrdom, seems not quite certain. Tertullian (b. 150-166) refers (De Praescriptione
this view, the take-o
story concerning the crucifixion of Peter.. On
Haereticorum, 36, 3) to the similarity (adaequatur) of Peter's Passion to that of Jesus,
whereas Paul's was similar to that of John (the Baptist, who was beheaded. Cf. also
Tertullian, Scorpiace, 15, 2; Adversus Marcionem, 4, 2).
p. 31. , 103
98 Lipsi . cit, Martyrium Beati Petri apostoli a Lino Episcopo Conscriptum (pp. 7-8): “Ut autem
J ulian states ina referendo to pate
96 Le Contra Galilacos (100A) the emperor portam ciuitatis uoluit egredi, uidit sibi Christum occurrere. Et adorans eum ait:
the sorcere rs and charlat ans (gogtas kai apateónas) of every p
“surpassed all Domine, quo uadis? Respondit ei Christus: Romam uenio iterum crucifígi, et ait ad
eum Petrus: Domine, iterum crucifigeris? Et dixit ad eum dominus: Etiam, iterumn
Paul, before being executed,returned to
9 Lipstas,op. cit. p. 40, According to both texts crucifigar. Petrus autem dixit: Domine, reuertar et seguar te. Et his dictis dominus
ce). His head, after anne cona
the East and prayed in Hebrew (hebrai ascendit in caelum. Petrus autem presecutus est eum multo intuitu atque dulcissimis
likewis e in Hebrew , the name of the Lord cs c is teported
body uttered clearly, lacrimis. Et post haec rediens in se ipsum intellexit de sua dictum passione, quod in eo
ng in both sources, au o
100 Lipsius, op. cit., p. 115. 1n this passage occurri dominus esset passurus, qui patitur in electis misericordiae compassione et
before: his executi on turning to the East. Int is praye ads
to have prayed glorificationis celebritate. Conversus in urbem rediit... .? Cf. above a similar version of
hebrais ti tois patrasin. On
with his ancestors in Hebrew o, the story in the Martyrion.
to Paul's martyr dom see below). El toi de philon paradexasthai to en tois Paulou Praxesin anagegrammenon hos hypo
ned in the Actus Petri so Cs
101 ereason for Peter's request is not mentio . toú Sóteros anagegrammenon; anóthen mello staurousthat.
li Petri a Lino Episco po Conscriptum c. 12f., p.
192 Martyrium Beati Aposto
Praxeis Paulou quoted by Origen were lost,!% had a certain justification resolution of important issues. The forces referred to are those wielded
for his assumption (op. cit., p. X1) that this work was not only concerned by the two rival missionary enterprises, the Pauline and the Petrine;
with Paul but also contained an account of the martyrdom of Peter. In these were at odds since their beginnings,'” but the conflict between
other words he supposed that these words of Jesus were addressed in the them seems to have entered upon a new phase when the Marcionite
Praxeis in question (as they are for instance in the Martyrium Beati heretics made an attempt to set up Paul as the only genuine apostle and
Petri Apostoli) to Peter. as a partisan of their creed. Patristic writings, e.g. those of Tertullian
This supposition was, however, as it seems, proved false when C. and Irenaeus, resist these claims without denying Paul his “rightful”
Schmidt published (in 1936) fragmentary Praxeis Paulou. For the place in the Church hierarchy.!% He was merely an apostle like the
utterance of Jesus as quoted by Origen occurs in this text (p. 55), and others.!% It is apparently in this context that a passage of Tertullian (De
the words are addressed to Paul. Rather curiously, however, this apostle Praescriptione Haeresium, 24, 4) should be placed. The passage reads:
is not reported to have been crucified, a mode of execution to which “Uiderint qui de Apostolis iudicant. Bene quod Petrus Paulo et in
Jesus's phrase may be interpreted as referring;!1% Paul is said to have martyrio adaequatur”.1% Quite clearly the assertion of the equality of
been beheaded (pp. 62ff.), This being the case, Schmidt argues (pp. the two apostles in martyrdom has both doctrinal and, as far as the
127ff.), that the encounter with Jesus was inserted into the Praxeis church hierarchy is concerned, political implications. This being the
Paulou under the influence of Acts of Peter, which consequently must case, the question may be posed whether a political significance should
have antedated the Praxeis in question. This explanation clearly not be attributed to yet another passage of Tertullian's occurring in the
accounts for the discordance that seems to exist in these Praxeis same work (De 'Praescriptione Haeresium 36, 3, pp. 216-217): “Ista
between Jesus's words and the story of Paul's decapitation. Schmidt's quam felix ecclesia cui totam doctrinam apostoli cum sanguine suo
supposition evidently also leaves open the possibility that some later Acts profunderunt, ubi Petrus passioni domini adaequatur, ubi Paulus
of Paul may have contained not only an incident similar to the quo vadis lohannis exitu coronatur..."Ul The fact that Peters execution is
story, but also an account of Paul's crucifixion. represented as modelled upon Jesus's crucifixion and PauP's upon John
However, an altogether different alternative hypothesis may also be the Baptist's decapitation seems to imply or suggest the superiority of
envisaged. It can be maintained that there may have existed Praxeis the former apostle over the latter. :
Paulou antedating these published by Schmidt and that these earliest Given the political interests involved, it is conceivable that a story
Acts of the apostle may have included not only an incident parallel to recounting Paul's crucifixion pre-dated the one concerning Peter's,!!?
the quo vadis story, but also a relation of PauPs crucifixion, which was
107 The New Testament records both the attempt to define the limits of the missionary
suppressed in later versions of these Acts. This alteration, as well as the activities of each of them and the conflict between Paul and Peter.
hypothetical replacement of Paul by Peter in the story concerning an 108 Le, a place which corresponds by and large to the one which is regarded by present-
encounter with Christ in the vicinity of Rome, can be accounted for if day Catholic theologians as legitimately his.
102 Cf, J. Pelikan, The Christian Tradition l;, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition,
one takes into consideration the fact that the various modifications of
The University of Chicago Press 1972, p. 113: “Paul's visit to Peter, referred to in
these hagiographical tales could impinge upon the interests of powerful Galat. 1:18, was an acknowledgement of Peters office and of a shared belief and
forces that were confronting each other; it is conceivable that the message. (Tertullianus, De Praescriptione Haeresium 23, 6) Having been converted
from a persecutor to a preacher, he is introduced as one of the brethren to brethren, by
modifications under discussion may have appreciably affected the final
prethren — to them, indeed, and by them, who had put on faith from the apostles*
ands”.,
105 Lipsius (op. cit., pp. Xl and XII) cites various references to this. 110 Tertullianus, Opera, L, Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, Turnhohti 1954, p. 206.
106 This is Schmidt's opinión (p. 128; see also below). This interpretation, which on the !!l The passage goes on as follows: “Ubi Apostolus lohannes posteaquamin oleum ignetm
whole appears to be probably'correct, fails however to account for Paul's response to demersus, nihil passus est. in insulam relegatur”.
Jesus's words. Paul replics (p. 54): m8 genoito kprie, hina touto egó ido; “May it not 112
It has been suggested by K. Heuss that the story concerning the martyrdomof Peter is
betide, O Lord, that I should see this”. a transposition of a report concerning Paul and that Peter did not die a martyr's death;
whose prevalence is due to. the widespread recognition of Peter's much more complicated problem. Most of its contents have parallels in
primacy. Our analysis ofthe Tathbit account is however by no means Christian hagiographical and martyrological writings or in the Pauline
predicated upon this hypothesis. The report regarding Paul's crucifixion epistles (see above), and may be presumed to stand to one or several
may also have been posterior to and have derived from the similar story Christian sources in a relation similar to that which exists between the
concerning Peter; this may also apply to the parallel of the quo vadis first part of the account and the relevant passages of the Acts. It would
story occurring in Schmidt's Praxeis Paulou and alluded to by Origen. of course be an economical hypothesis to suppose that most of the
However this may be, it seems to me probable that the Tarhbit account second part was adapted and distorted (as were the relevant verses of the
is based upon some unknown version of Acts of Paul. Acts) by a redactor hostile to Paul from one single Christian text, but
An argument in support of this supposition is furnished by another there is a difficulty, though perhaps not an insuperable one, which stands
detail occurring in the account in question, In the latter Paul is said to in the way of this supposition. This difficulty arises from the fact that
have had a close relationship with the king's wife. This circumstance some biographical particulars occurring in the Tathbit account, for
does not seem to be mentioned elsewhere in the extant hagiographical instance the story of Paul's crucifixion, seem according to the evidence
and martyrological texts; it is Peter that in the Martyrion tón Hagión of extant Christian texts, to pertain rather to Peter's martyrology. There
Apostolón Petrou kai Paulou is reported to have had such a is moreover one detail, namely the statementthat Paul was sentenced to
relationship. However John Chrysostom states (4cta Apostolorum, death because he was found to be circumcised, which is to some extent
Homilia XLVID, as has been mentioned above, that Paul was said to reminiscent, though the similarity is admittedly not a close one, of an
have kissed (or saluted) both Nero's cupbearer and his concubine and incident which:in the Martyrion tón Hagión Apostolón Petrou kai
came in for criticism on that score. Now the conversion of Nero's Paulou involves:Simon Magus (see above). These facts may suggest the
cupbearer by the apostle in question is mentioned in extant alternative supposition according to which the redactor hostile to Paul of
martyrological texts (see above), but his dealings with the emperor's the Tathbit account gleaned from various accounts relating to Peter,
concubine are not. Accordingly, given the fact that the latter detail is Paul or Simon Magus details which might be twisted so as to answer his
referred to both by John Chrysostom and by the author of the Tathbit purpose. However, the following considerations seem to render our econ-
account,!!3 the conjecture may be legitimately made that this detail omical hypothesis as probable as, or more probable than, the one that
occurred in a text (probably some unknown Praxeis Paulou) that has not has just been referred to: As has been indicated above,
been preserved. This hypothetical text may have been at some remove 1. the inter-action and clash of various tendencies brought about the
one of the sources of the account in question. consequence that in the Church tradition and in the hagiographical
literature, Peter was sometimes substituted for Paul and vice versa; it
The analysis of the first part of this account was, as we have seen, a is accordingly conceivable that various details figuring in the extant
straightforward matter and left no room for doubt. 1t could be shown texts as pertaining to Peters biography occurred in an early vita or
that this part was a malicious take-off of several passages occurring in martyrion of Paul. This hypothetical text may be supposed to have also
the Acts of the Apostles. The analysis of the second part presents a contained quotations from this apostle's epistles, which may have served
see Cullmann, Petrus, p. 94, n. 86. It may be further remarked that the quo vadis story 114 The tug of war between the various tendencies may account for the story concerning
and its parallel in Schmidt's Praxeis Paulou is in an indirect way reminiscent of Paul s the appeal of the Jews to Paul occurring in the beginning of the Martyrion tn Hagión
statement in Galat. 2:19 (or 20): “I have been crucified with Christ”, Khristói Apostolón Petrou kai Paulou, This story may perhaps be due to the desire to show that
synestauromai. In Passionis Pauli Fragmentum (see Lipsius, op. cit., p. 112) a rather the anti-Jewish proclivities of Marcion should not be laid at Paul's door or alternatively
elliptic suggestion-ismáde that the choice of decapitation as the mode of Paul's execution to the wish to indicate that Paul's relationship to Judaism was closer than that of Peter
may have been due to his'being a Romancitizen, and in this way to help to establish the latter's primacy. PauPs ties with his Jewish past
n The fact that the former speaks of "Nero's concubine whereas the latter refers to his are also shown (in other martyrological texts, see above) in the details concerning this
o
wife has no significance in this context. apostle's praying and communing with his ancestors in Hebrew.
as a source for some of the opinions ascribed to Paul in the Tathbít in order to cast Paul in a ridiculous and objectionable role. It seems that
account (see above). It may be assumed that the hypothetical text in this episode belongs to a component of the Tathbit account which has not
question was favourable to Paul; this observation may be supposed to yet been discussed and which was combind with the parodies of Christian
apply, inter alía, to the biographical details with regard to which the texts discussed above,
martyrology of Peter and the Tathbft account accord by and large. The The reference to the propaganda by means of which according to
scurrilousness of this account may be considered as due to the opponents this account Paul sought to incite the Romans against the Jews because
of Paul who used for their own purposes an originally pro-Pauline text. of the latters” hostility to the Roman domination and also because of
2. Simon Magus may likewise occasionally substitute for Paul, as is their wealth,''* as well as the statement that it was as a result of this
evidenced by some portions of the Pseudo-Clementines. In these texts propaganda that a military expedition was sent against the Jews by a
the camouflage in question may be accounted for by a reluctance to King named Titus also pertain in addition to the episode of Paul's
attack directly this apostle, who was integrated into sacred history and crucifixion to this component. These passages quite evidently take it for
the canonical writings of the Church. It seems to me not impossible that granted that anti-Jewishness is an objectionable trait, a fact which
the episode in the Martyrion tón Hagión Apostolón Petrou kai Paulou appears to justify the conclusion that they (and it may be assumed the
which relates to circumcision (see above) may be a vestige or an Tathbitaccount as a whole) were originally composed for the behoof of
edulcorated version of the story in the Tathbit account according to readers Who regarded themselves as Jews. Considered from this point of
which Paul was put to death because he was found to be circumcised. In view the episode of Paul's execution seems to belong to a type of Jewish
other words, in this episode of the Martyrion Simon Magus also story, which maybe encountered throughout the ages: an apostate Jew
substitutes to some extent for Paul — albeit not as far as the mode of his comes to gricf' because his connection with Judaism or a Jewish
death is concerned: in the Martyrion Simon died because he was no characteristic of” his becomes known. All this adds up to the conclusion
match for Peter. that the original author of the Tathbit account of Paul was a Jew.!!S This
These considerations do not add up to a conclusive argument. But bold statement requires however an explanation or a qualification; there
they suggest that we should not rule out the hypothesis that the section of is evidence to show that he was a particular kind of Jew, namely a
the passage in the Tathbit which recounts the story of Paul in his Roman Judaeo-Christian. This is, of course, an obligatory corollary of the
period is a parody of one no longer extant Vita or Passio Pauli, and not arguments set forth in the first part of the present study, if the texts
of several compositions pertaining to this genre; this hypothetical shown in that part to be Judaeo-Christian and the Tathbr account of
hagiographic text may be supposed to have introduced into the account of Paul are regarded as having originally formed parts of one and the same
Paul's life and death events or details of events which are usually regarded work,!!? a view which in my opinion is very probable.
as belonging to the biography of Peter. Á sentence in the Tathbit account of Paul also points to the
There is a difference between the Tathbit story of Paul's death and conclusion that this account originated with Judaco-Christians. This
other episodes of the account in question which are clearly parodies sentence reads (see above): “If you look at the matter lucidly, you find
of Christian (G.e. Catholic, not Judaeo-Christian) texts. These other ihat the Christians (a/-Nasára) became Romanized (tarawwamú) and
episodes were, before they were parodied, conceived and told in a
way favourable to the person, Peter or Paul, who was involved in them.
US This statement probably indicates that at the time when the story was invented Jewish
This statement does not however apply to the tale of Paul's execution. wealth was a theme used in anti-Jewish propaganda. There is no need to labour the
We do not know the original form of the story according to which Paul point that this was the case at various periods and in many countries,
was condemned to éath because, while being a violent opponent of 116 This statement may, but need not necessarily apply to the last redactor of the account
(if one abstracts from “Abd al-Jabbar).
circumcision, he was discovered to be circumcised himself, but it is * Namely the work which 1 have tentatively defined as the Judaco-Christian 4cts and
difficult to imagine that this episode was not invented in the first place Ecclesiastical History. :
went back to thereligious beliefs of the Romans and you do not find that authors. Another difference may be found in the fact that because of the
the Romans became Christianized (tanassarú)”. chronological remoteness of the events and the clean break between
Obviously, the interpretation of the word tarawwamú “became Christianity and Judaism that had occurred, the authors in question had
Romanized” is crucial for the comprehension of the passage. Who are no call to consider themselves necessarily as the representatives of the
the Rúm referred to? As has been pointed out, the Tathbit account defeated party, a role which had to be assumed by the Judaeo-
confuses Rome with Constantinople, and the statements contained in it Christians, who had been powerless to stem what they considered as the
concerning the Roman marriage customs may have been partly inspired progressive corruption of their religion.'?
by the usages obtaining in Pauline Christianity. Nevertheless, in spite of As has been noted, blunders and incongruities may be encountered
these anachronisms, for which the author of the sentence under in several passages of the Tathbft account; thus to mention a few
discussion may or may not be responsible,!!' it seems to me evident that instances, Constantinople is substituted for Rome;it is stated that among
the meaning of the sentence would not be falsified to any significant the Romans of Paul's time, who in another passage are described as
extent if tarawwamú were translated “became Paganized”, the being in their majority star-worshippers, marriage is regarded as indissol-
Paganism in question being the religion of pre-Christian Rome, in which uble; we are also informed that the Romans marry idolaters. There is
Paul pursued his activities. According to the Tathbit account, this also a reference to the Romans and Armenians. All this indicates that in
religion consisted, as far as the majority of the Romans were concerned, some passages the Pagan Romans are confused with the Christian
in star-worship. The sentence quoted above indicates therefore that (in Róomaioli, i.e. the Byzantines. Who was responsible for this confusion? On
consequence of PauPs currying popularity) Christianity was corrupted the face of it, it.is not likely (though the possibility cannot be wholly
into Paganism while the Romans did not become genuine Christians. The dismissed) thatthis responsibility lies with the original author of the
authentic original Christianity, whose corruption is deplored, is, as is Tathbít account, who must have been, as has been shown, well grounded
made clear in the Tathbit account, the Christianity of the circumcised, in the New Testament and the Christian hagiographical and
who keep the commandments of the Torah and believe that polygamy is martyrological literature. Again the various blunders may be due to the
permitted. In other words it is a Judaeo-Christian brand of thereligion. translator!?! of the presumably Syriac original of the account in question
It may be added that in a way the sentence in question carries into Arabic; this too is of course a mere hypothesis, but in my opinion it
curiously modern associations. 1t is reminiscent of a conception which has a certain plausibility.
was in vogue in Jewish philosophy and historiography in the 19th and
early 20th century and which may still be encountered.''? According to
120 According to the Judaco-Christian texts incorporated by “Abd al-Jabbár this corruption
this view, Christianity regarded as a historical phenomenon represents was due to the lust for power which characterized Paul and other Christian leaders who
the coming to terms of Judaism with Paganism or the defeat of the contributed to the degeneration of Christianity. In early Christian history heretics and
former at the hands of the latter. The Tathbft account expresses a schismatics are sometimes accused of having an inordinate wish for domination. Thus
Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica Y, 16, 7, Kirsopp Lake's translation: “.,. They say
similar view, with the difference that in the Arabic text pure primitive that a recent convert to Christianity called Montanus ...in the unbounded lust of his soul
Christianity takes the place assigned to Judaism by modern Jewish for leadership (en epithymiai psykhés ametrói philoproteias) gave access to himself to the
adversary, became obsessed and suddenly fell into frenzy and convulsions”. The early
protestants charged the Catholic hierarchy throughout the ages with a desire for
118 The anachronisms may have been introduced by some later redactor, see below. domination; this being one of the main points of their indictment. HK may be noted that
119 lt sometimes is encountered in works of authors who do not intend to propound the Qaraite 10th century author al-Qirqisáni (Kitab alAnwár wa'l-Marágib, ed. L.
specifically Jewish. conceptions. Cf., for instance, M. Horkheimer and Th. W. Adorno, Nemoy, New York 1939, L p. 5) ascribes to the Qaraite theologians “a desire for
Dialektik der Aufkláring, Frankfurt 1980, p. 159; “aber kraft der gleichen Momente, domination” talab al-ri'ása. Ri'ása is the word occurring in the Judaeo-Christian texts
durch welche das Christentum den Bann der Naturreligion fortnimmt, bringt es die under discussion when the lust for domination of Paul and other Christian leaders is
Idolatrie, als vergeistigte, nochmals” hervor”. This sentence occurs in a context in referred to.
which Christianity is compared with Judaism. 121 Or adapter.
The Tarhbit contains two remarks, but not more than two, which against the Jews.!* This story, which is wholly divorced from historical
may be indicative of the fact that their author had in view readers living reality, may be a late addition. But in one respect it is in keeping with
in an Islamic miliecu. One of them reads: “It is the custom among the the rest of the account; in it too the reference to Paul's anti-Jewish
Romansnot to veil their women in the presence of man”. This could well activities is, inter alía, obviously intended to blacken his character. For
be an explanatory sentence inserted into the Arabic version whose the Judaeo-Christians as for the Jews it was self-evident that an anti-
potential readers were used to the Islamic society in which women were Judaic attitude was proof of a man's obnoxiousness.
habitually veiled when they appeared in public. In the whole account the only possible references to the Moslem
The second remark may also be interpreted, albeit not with the same milieu with which the readers of its Arabic version may be supposed to
degree of probability, as addressed to readers familiar with Islamic have been familiar are constituted by two explanatory remarks which do
society. The remark reads: “The Romans have an extreme abhorrence not impinge on the narrative.!?
for the circumcision of men as well as of women”. So-called female The negative characterization of PauP's activities in the Tathbit
circumcision, i.e. excision of the clitoris and sometimes of the labia, was account forms a contrast!?S with the positive view taken of these
not practised in any Jewish community of which we have knowledge,'?? activities in the Toldot Yeshu, a work composed by rabbinic Jews. In
but was customary in various Islamic communities. this purportedly historical narrative Paul is presented as an agent of the
Jewish Sages!'?% and is approved of because he brought about the
To sum up: The Tathbit account of Paul is marked by hostility against separation of Christianity from Judaism.!?”” From a rabbinic point of
him. In this account it seems to be taken for granted that his anti-Jewish
sentiments and activities and his opposition to the Mosaic 123 Rather curiously'the destruction of the Temple in the course of this expedition is not
commandments are indicative of his villainous character. The account mentioned.
12% In order to refute my thesis concerning the Judaeo-Christian origin of the Tathbír
deplores that his efforts have led to the Romanization (or account of Paul, S.M. Stern quotes (The Journal of Theological Studies, New Series,
“Paganization”) of true Christianity. All this points to the Judaeo- vol. XIX, part I, 1968, p. 177ff.) several storics dealing with Paul that occur in Arabic
Christian origin of the text. texts. One of these is attributed by al-Damúri in the 15th century to al-Kalbt (d. in
763) while the 11th century al-Isfara'in ascribes 1 to exegetes of the Qur'án and
The first section of the text is a take-off or parody of certain
historians. Another story occurs in al-Qarafí (d. 1285), a third in al-Dimashql (d. 1327).
chapters of the Acts of the Apostles. Most of the text of the second As Stern himscif observes (p. 181) the Tathbrt is not particularly connected with these
section, which has also a parodistic character, can either be shown to texts. Nevertheless he argues that given the fact that the latter are clearly Moslem
have parallels in the hagiographic and martyrological literature or refers inventions the Tathbít account should also be regarded as falling under the same
category. In fact a comparison of the texts quoted by Stern with the account in
to passages in Paul's Epistles, This statement does not apply to the story question shows that this position is untenable, In contradiction to this account, which is
according to which Paul's propaganda brought about Titus” expedition largely drawn from or paralleled in the New Testament or in the hagiographic or
martyrological literature, the texts under discussion do not contain a single particular
which is reminiscent of the Christian writings referred 10, Nor do they show such basic
tendencies of the Tathbít account as solidarity with the Jews, abhorrence of anti-Jewish
122 We cannot, of course, affirm with certainty that no Jewish sect had ever adopted this sentiments and propaganda, attachment to the Mosaje commandments and also to
custom. According to Strabo Jewish women were subjected to excision (Geographica, authentic pre-Pauline Christianity, Ht is only because of his ignoring these tendencies
XVI, 4, 9): Elta ho Antiphilo limén kai hoi hyper towow Kroophagoi, koloboi tas and of his apparent unawareness of the close connection between the details of this
balanous kai hai gynaikes Hloudaikós ekletimemenat; “And then to the Harbour of account with particulars found in the above-mentioned Christian works that Stern could
Antiphilus, and above this, to the Creophagi, of whom the males have their sexual propound his thesis.
glands mutilated and the women are excised in the Jewish fashion” (see M. Stern, 12
As is pointed out in my study The Jewish Christians of the early centuries of
xn
Greek and Latin Authorson Jews and Judaism, 1, Jerusalem 1974, no. 118, p. 312). In Christianity, p. 2781.
Geographica, XVI, 2, 37 (Stern op. cit. No. 115, p. 295), Strabo similarly speaks of 126
In some versions of the Toldor this role is primarily assigned to Simon Kepha (Peter).
ektomai (i.e. excisions) as well as peritomati (circumcisions) among the Jews. Cf. also 12 The Qaraite author al-Qirqisáni (op. cit. 1, p. 43) adopts towards Paul an attitude which
Stern op. cit., p. 306. is somewhat reminiscent of that of the Judaeo-Christians. According to him, “the
view this approbation appears to be justified. Pauline Christianity and

rabbinic Judaism may be regarded as objective allies in their efforts to
A PRELIMINARY NOTE ON THE RELATION POSITED BY IBN HAZM
achieve, through the suppression of the Judaeco-Christians, the severance
BETWEEN THE AUTHOR OF THE B00K OF YOSIPPON AND THE
of the two religions and thus to prevent the realization of a great “ISAWIYYA SECT AND ON THE ARABIC VERSION OF THIS BOOK
historical might-have-been.
I. The critical edition, prepared by D. Flusser, of the Hebrew Book of

religion to which the Christians (al-nasára) (adhere) at present was invented (ibrada'a,
literally: was innovated) by Paul (Fils) and publicly proclaimed by the latter. He Yosippon makes it possible for the first time to tackle, with some
attributed Divine Lordship (rubabiyya) to Jesus and claimed for himself prophethood prospect of arriving at a conclusion based on exact philological research,
by ihe authority of (min) Jesus his Divine Lord. He did not lay down any the problem posed by the relation between the Hebrew and the Arabic
commandment and put no obligation at all upon anyone, (for) he considered that
religion (consisted) only in humility (tawadu"). (Accordingly) they consider that the
versions of this work; all the views enounced up to now regarding this
fast(s) which they observe and the prayer(s) (which they say) are not commandments puzzling question originate in mere conjecture.
but voluntary actions. He (Paul) did not forbid any food, permitting to eat all animals, It is “generally recognized that the most important testimonium
from a gnat to an elephant”. The main point of similarity between this passage and the
concerning the Arabic version of this text is a passage in Ibn Hazm's K.
Tathbít account may be found in the fact that the former refers to and the latter
clearly implics the invention of a newreligion by Paul. Al-QirgisánT is less antagonistic al-Fasl S'I-Milalvwa'LAhwa" wa'!-Nihal, However, for some reason, the
to Paul than the author of the account; possibly, the literary genre to which his work significance of á statement made in this passage does not seem to have
belonged did not permit him to be as abusive. The passage quoted above from this work
continues as follows: “The religion to which the Christians (adhere) at present is (a
: attracted the atténtion it merited.!
fully) existent infidelity (or heresy; ¡Hhad). For they consider that the Creator is one I refer to the connection posited by Ibn Hazm between the work in
substance (jawhar) (having) three persons (agánim) and that He is one (in) three and question and its author on the one hand, and the Judaeo-Christian sect
three (in) one. For according to them He is Living (ayy) and knowing (“álim). Now designated as the “Isawiyya ? on the other. The passage under discussion
Life and Knowledge are Attributes of the Substance, the Substance being a Person and
the two Attributes two persons. For this (reason) there are three Persons. And they
may be translated as follows:? .
consider that the Messiah who was announced and whose coming was promised by the [L 98—100] “The Jews are divided into five sects: the Samaritans (al-
prophets was Jesus and that he was one of the Persons.... .” The phrase concerning the Samiriyya), the Sadducees (al-Sadúgiyya)..., the “Ananiyya?..., the
Messiahship of Jesus reads: “wa-zatamá anna'l-masth alladhí bashsharat al-anbiya”
Rabbanites (al-Rabbaniyya)..., and the “Isáwiyya. These are the
wa-watadat bi-majlihi hiuwa Yeshu (in Hebrew characters)”. This phrase ¡is
reminiscent of (though not identical with) a sentence that occurs in the various versions ollowers of Abú “Isa al-Isbáhánt, a Jew,* who lived in Isfahán. (The
of the so-called Testimonium Flavianum (see my study An Arabic Version of the nformation) .has reached me that his name was Muhammad b. cÍsa,
Testimonium Flavianum and ¡ts Implications, Publications of the Israel Academy hey profess (belief) in the prophethood of “Isá son of Maryam and of
Jerusalem 1971, p. 14ff.). In the continuation of the passage translated above al-
Qirgisáni quotes (p. 44f.) the Jewish theologian and polemist D'ud b. Marwan al- Muhammad, may God pray for and greet him; in “Isa's having been sent
Raqaí al-Muqammis as saying (what follows is a résumé of the passage) that because o y God, may He be honoured and exalted, to the Children ofIsrael, as is
the absence of clearly formulated (qútifa, literaliy “trenchant”) laws (ahkdm) in the tated in the Gospel; and in his being one of the prophets of the Children
Gospel, Paul and Peter laid down laws and regulations which are not found either in the
Gospel or in the Torah. These two men stated that these laws were secretly made
known to them by Jesus. However, as the laws laid down by Peter and Paul did not At my previous reading of the passage Í totally missed some of its implications.
provide that which was needed (má punbaghi), bishops assembled in the city of Nicea Cf. S. Pines, Al-*Tsawiyya in the Encyclopaedia of Islam?.
and laid down laws whiéh are not found either in the Torah or in the Gospel or in the Slight emendations of the printed text are not indicated in what follows. The edition of
legislation (gánin) of Peter and Paul. This definition of PauY's role is obviously notis Ibn Hazm's work which has been used is the one published by al-Khánj in 1321 H
accord with the report on Paul's teaching previously given by al-Qirgisáni (and quote Le., the Qaraites.
above in this footnote). Rajul min al-Yahúd, literally: a han from among the Jews,
of Israel. They also (profess) belief in Muhammad's having been a more than this. Abú Muhammad, may God be pleased with him, says: I
prophet sent by God... (to bring) the commandments (al-shara'i%) of have mentioned what (he) says (about these matters), solely in order to
the Qur'án to the Children of Ismá“il and the other Arabs in the same show that this doctrine?' (that of the “Isáwiyya) was in evidence and
way as, according to what is acknowledged by all the Jewish sects, widespread (zahiran fashiyan) among their leaders 2 (those of the Jews)
Ayyúb” was a prophet for” the Children of “Is Esau and Balam a prophet from that time till now.”
for? the Children of Mu'ab (Moab). Abú Muhammad? may God be
pleased with him, says 1 have often met members of the Jewish élite This passage seems to me to carry the following implications. Ibn Hazm,
(min khawass al-Yahúud) who incline towards this sect. I have read in an who frequented men belonging to the Jewish élite who adhered to or
historical work of theirs,'? compiled by a man who was a descendant of sympathized with the “Isawiyya sect, considers that “a historical work of
Barún *! (Aaron), (had lived in) ancient (times) among them !? and had theirs” - meaning probably the Jews - namely the work known to us in
been one of their leaders (a'imma) and chiefs (kibár). A third part of the Hebrew version as Sefer Yosippon, whose author was according to
their country, of their wars and their armies was allotted to him in the him a general in the Judaeo-Roman war, in other words Josephus,
days of the war of Titus and the destruction of the Temple.!* He had a establishes the antiquity of this sect and the fact that it had a great
great impact ' on these wars. He grasped the matters (concerning) the followingamong the Jews of the Period of the Second Temple. His
Masih "5 peace be on him. His name is Yusuf b. Hárin. He gives an reason for"thinking so is that the writing refers to matters concerning
account (dhakara) of their kings and wars *$ until he comes to the killing Jesus. However, as he observes himself, Jesus is either not alluded-to at
of Yahyá b. Zakariya,'? peace be on him. He gives a most excellent all in this work,:or, if he is, only in a very oblique manner. A probable
account of him, extols his rank '$% and (states) that his killing was unjust inference appears to be that the notion that the author of the book had a
being due to his having said the truth. He (also) refers in a fine way to good grasp of what Jesus was did not occur to Ibn Hazm himself, but
baptism,'? without (expressing) disapproval of the latter or (requiring) its was suggested to him by members of the sect. Concomitant inferences
abolition. Thereupon he refers in (the context of) his account of this are: that the *Isawiyya laid great store by what they believed was the
(matter) to King Herod the son of Herod andhis killing of some (jama“a) antiquity of their sect, that they considered that the Arabic version of
of the sages of the Children of Israel, of their best men and their the Sefer Yosippon proved the validity of this claim, and that, in
scholars. He does not mention with respect to (min sha'n) the Masih . consequence, they regarded this book as having a special connection with
. their sect — it was their credentials. It may also be surmised that they
Job. - may have considered the author of the book to have been a member of
IS
Literally: in; fh. . their sect. It may be added that the historical work he composed
Literally: in.
Ibn Hazm. . appears, according to a list occurring in the Paris Ms. of the Arabic
10. Frta'rikh lahuem. Y is not clear whether falium refers to the Jews in general or only to version of Yosippon (ms arabe 1906), to have formed a part of their
the members and sympathizers of the “Isawiyya sect, The tenuousness of the text seems canon.
to suggest that the first explanation may be the correct one, but the second can by no
means be ruled out.
1 Rajul Harant, an Atharonid.
1. Kana gadiman fíhim., - Hadhá al-kalám, literally: this discourse.
13. Cf. Sefer Yosippon, ed, D. Flusser, Jerusalem 1978-1980, 1, pp. 299--30, : Madhhab.
14 This appears to be the probable meaning of áthar in this context. “Fi a'inmatihim.
iS Amr al-masíh, literallythe matter of the masíh (Jesus is meant). “According to the Hebrew Book of Yosippon this historical work was divided into six
16 The kings and wars of-the Jews. parts, whereas the Arabic version of the Book of Yosippon is divided into cight parts.
“But this discrepancy does not seem to me to constitute an insuperable obstacie to the
17 John the Baptist. EN
18 Shán. In this context the word may refer to what John the Baptist did. identification of the two works. The' Arabic version of 1he Book of Yosippon is often
19 Dhakara amr alumamadiyya dhikran hasanan. entitled K. al-Magabiyyin, The Book of the Maccabees. This may point to a desire to
The passage concerning John the Baptist on which Ibn Hazm based
al-matáamid bil-Yahad (%) mata takfir al-khatáya wa-huwa musamma
“inda qawm Yahya ibn Zakariyá wa'l-nasará yusammuna(huj Yúhánna
his assertion concerning the antiquity of the “Isáwiyya sect occurs in the
al-sabigh ibn Zakariya. “He (Antipas) was (the man) who took the wife
Paris Ms., but not in the Ms. of the British Museum, Or. 132, which
of his brother Philippus, (though) the latter was alive, and had from her
could be examined at the time of writing the present article.” The list of
two sons. When the scholars of the Jews reprehended him for this, he
the works forming the canon of the Old Testamentis also missing in the
killed many of them. And he killed Yóhánan son of Zakariya, the
British Museum Ms.? In subsequent articles I plan to study the relation,
outstanding rabbi and the greatest priest, because he had reprehended
which is possibly one of identity, between the eIsawiyya and the sect
him for his taking the wife of his brother (though) the latter was alive
which provided the source for the Judaeo-Christian materials found in
and had from her offspring, two sons. This Yóhánan was he who
<Abd al-Jabbar's Tathbit Dala'il al-Nubuwwa.%
(introduced) among the Jews baptism with atonement for sins. He is
called by (some) people [apparently the Moslems are meant] Yahya ibn
IL. The passage treating of John the Baptist reads in the Paris Ms. 1906
Zakariyá. The Christians call him
(Bibl. Nat., M. de Slane, Catalogue des manuscrits arabes, r. 342) of Yohanna the Baptist son of
Zakariya.”
the Arabic translation of the Book of Yosipponas follows:
[fol. 77b] wa-huwa alladhí akhadha imra'at Fil.fas akhahu (sic!) wa- The Arabic version of Sefer Yosippon contained in Ms. British
Museum'Or. 1326 (see Ch. Rieu, Supplement to the Catalogue of the
huwa hayy wa-lahu waladáni ¡thnani minha wa-ism al-imra'a
Arabic Mss., p. 2) has: [fol 154b] wa-huwa alladhí akhadha imra'at
Hiiradiya. Fa-lammaá ankara “ulama' al-Yahúd “alayhi dhálika gatala
Filifus akhúhu (sic) wa-huwa hayy wa-lahu waladani minha wa-ismuhá
minhum jamáta kathira wa-qatala Yúhanán ibn Zakariya al-hibr al-
cazim wa'l-kahin al-akbar liannahu kána ankara “alayhi akhdh imra'at Htradiya fa-lammá ankara “ulama' al-Yahúd gatala minhum jamáa
akhthi wa-huwa hayy wa-lahu minha nasl waladáni ithnáni wa- kathira wa-qatala Y.húhanáan bn. Zakariya al-kahin aydan li-annahu
Yuhánán hadhá huwwa alladhi (the word “amala, see below, is missing)
gad ankara “alayhi akhdh imra'at akhíhi wa-huwwa hayy wa-lahu minha
nas! waladani ithnáni wa-Y.húhánán hadha huwa alladhií “amala al-
claim for the Book of Yosippon a canonical status; for the Book of the Maccabees
was matamid IPl-Yahúd wa-huwa al-musammá Yahyá bn Zakariya wa'l-
according to the opinion of various Christian churches included in the Old Testament Nasára yusammúhu Yuhanna al-m.samádant ibn Zakariya.
(al-kitab al .
canon. According to the Paris Ms. (fol. 77) the Book of the Maccabees . The particulars with respect to which the passages disagree are:
Makabipyin sic.) is supposed to end with the death of Herod. The title is clearly more
justified, if it designated only the first part of Yosippon and not the whole. The Paris
Ms. 1, The form of the name Yúhánan in the Paris Ms. and Y.húhaánán in
Welihausen: Der
of the Arabic version of the Book af Yosippon has been studied by J. the Br. Mus. Ms. Both forms occur in the Hebrew Mss.of the work in the
ten.
Arabische Josippon, Abhandlungen der kóniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaf corresponding passage (see Flusser, 1, 271, Il, 315). 2. The beginning of
24 A study of the second B.M. Ms. containing the Arabic version of the Book of Yosippon
of . the passage concerning the killing of John the Baptist occurring in the
(Ms. Or. 1336) might provide additional material which could modify the assessment
the probability of various hypotheses enounced in the present article. Br. Mus. Ms. may be translated as follows: “He also (the word
of the Tora use
25 It may be noted that Ibn Hazm states (1, 117 and 186) that the text rresponding to “also” is missing in the Paris Ms.) killed Yhúhánán son
th
by the “Isawiyya is identical with the text utilized by all other Jewish sccts, with of Zakariya the priest”, whereas the Paris Ms. describes him as “the
sole exception of the Samaritans, and also by the Christians.
26 The following lines of inquiry will also be gone into: The relation of the
sect o outstanding rabbi and greatest priest (a possible designation of the high
th
cIsawiyya to lbn Hazm's polemics against the Old and the New Testament; priest). 3. In the sentence which follows and which refers to the baptism
Gospel of Barnabas, the Isáwiyya (and other Judaeo-Chri stia
cisawiyya and the so-called roduced by John the words “with atonement for sins” are missing in
of Josep
sects) and the account of Jesus occurring in the mediaeval Russian translation
B.M. Ms. 4. In the last sentence of the passage the words “by some
us' Bellum Judaicum (the well-known hypothesis of R. Eisler in Jésous Basileus ou Ba.
ileusas appears to: bewithout solid foundations, but some of his subsidiary suppositio ople” probably referring to the Moslems are missing in the B.M. Ms.
196
should be re-examined; tf. also S.G.F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, Manchester The Christian designation of John is according to the Paris Ms.
pp. 352—-368). The mediaeval Russian translation of the Book of Yosippon shoul
'anná al-Sabigh while according to the B.M. Ms. it is Yahanna al-
course be also studied in the context of the enquiry suggested here,
M.'amádáni. Both al-Sabigh and al-M.“amádáni mean: the Baptist. Book of Yosippon which treats of John the Baptist with the texts quoted
In spite of such puzzling details as the difference in the form ofthe above. This passage (Flusser, L, 271) may be translated as follows: “He
name Yohanan it does not seem probable that there were two (Antipas) took the wife of his brother Philippus (though) the latter was
independent translations of the passages in question. If this possibility is alive and had also children from her and took her as his wife; and he
disregarded we are left, given the fact that in contradistinction to the killed many Jewish scholars, and he killed John because he said to him:
British Museum Ms., the Paris Ms. mentions the high rank of John the You are forbidden to take your brother's wife and he killed him. This is
Baptist and the remissions of sins by means of his baptism with two John who introduced (“asa) baptism prior to everybody else.”
hypotheses: 1. The traits peculiar to the Paris Ms. may be later additions The last part of the passage, which is directly concerned with John
made under Christian or Judaeo-Christian influence; or 2. These traits the Baptist, differs only stylistically, in what seems to be a not very
may have occurred in the original translation, and were eliminated in the significant way, from the corresponding text in the B.M. Ms. 1326. The
version found in the B.M, Ms. Or. 1326. On the face of it, the first fact that in the latter the names under which John was known are noted
hypothesis seems to be more probable. Its acceptance entails, however, a at the end of the passage may indicate that this text was meant to be
further consequence: we must suppose that these additions were made at read by Christians and by Muslims or by Jews who had some knowledge
a fairly early date for the remarks of Ibn Hazm quoted above fit the of the traditions of the two other monotheistic religions. Obviously these
version of the Paris Ms., but are by no means applicable to that of the two suppositions need not be mutually exclusive.
British Museum Ms. According to the Arabic Mss., Antipas killed many Jewish scholars
In the context of this discussion the following fact may be because of theirreprehending him for his transgression. In the Hebrew
mentioned: marginal notes occurring in the B.M. Ms. show that at least text the killingis mentioned, but the reason for it is not explicitly stated.
one of its readers had some knowledge of the Gospels and other Hegesippus does not refer to the execution of Jewish scholars by
Christian literature and was, therefore, presumably, a Christian or a Antipas. In Flusser's view (1, 271, n. to 4-5) the belief that he had them
Judaeo-Christian. These are: killed was due to a mistaken interpretation of Hegesippus” sentence:
1. [fol. 154b] huwwa hadhá alladhi dhakara al-Injil anna Yúuhanná “Hinc excitata ludaeorum fere omnium in Herodem odia et poena
ibn Zakariyá bakkatahu bi-sabab imra'at akhthi wa-daraba “anqahu li- adcelerata.” Flusser considers that this sentence was construed to mean
ajlihá (2) “He is one with regard to whom the Gospel mentions that that the hate of almost all the Jews was directed against Herod
Yiihanna son of Zakariyaá rebuked him because ofhis brother's wife and (Antipas) because of his transgression (and not because of the killing of
that he beheaded him because of her.” John the Baptist, which is the reason propounded by Hegesippus) and
The marginal note refers to Antipas mentioned in the text. that poena adcelerata was taken to refer to punishment meted out to the
2. [fol. 154b] Fi zamán hadhá ¡tamada al-masih wa-bada'a Jews and not the punishment (alluded to in these words by the author)
yuallimu wa-ayyam Filat.s suliba al-Masih “In the timeof this one al- which befell Antipas. However this may be, the version of the Arabic
Masih was baptized and began to teach and in the days of Pilate, al- Mss., whether based or not on Hegesippus, appears to be, as far as the
Masih was crucified”. point under discussion is concerned, more coherent than the Hebrew text
The marginal note refers to Tiberius mentioned in the text in the passage and may reflect an earlier redaction of this text.
which follows immediately upon the one treating of John the Baptist. In comparing the Paris Ms. and the British Museum Ms. of the
3. [fol. 64b] Nirús hadhá huwa alladhtí salaba Butrus munakkasan Arabic version of the Book of Yosippon a divergence as significant as
fí Rumiya wa-qatala Búlus bi'l-sayf “This Nero is (the man) who the one regarding John the Baptist may be discovered; it concerns the
crucified Peter upside down in Rome and killed Paul with a sword.” story of the translation of the Bible into Greek, ¡.e. the story of the
(Nero is likewise mentioned in fol. 64b.). Septuagint. The B.M. passage (fol. 124) conforms by and large, though
At this point we may compare the passage in the Hebrew text of the not in every particular, to the Hebrew text (Flusser, 1, 64-65). It may be
either on Saturday or during their Passover... or by Saint John the

noted that in this Arabic version, like in the Hebrew one, it is stated that
Baptist. The reference to John the Baptist in this context is most
twenty-four books, whose names are not listed, were translated; this is
puzzling; as far as 1 know, no attempt has been made to accountfor it.
the number of the books comprised in the Jewish Bible. The name of the
In default of other explanations, the following hypothesis may be put
king who ordered the translation to be made is stated in this Arabic
forward: The Arabic translation of the book of Yosippon, including the
version to have been Th.!.máy. This is quite evidently a transliteration of
version found in the Paris Ms., which apparently was current among the
Talmay, the Hebrew form used in the Book of Yosipponof the name of
“Isawiyya, was regarded by these Judaco-Christians as proving the anti-
Ptolemaeus.
z quity of their sect (see above). And yet it contains no reference to Jesus
The king's name as given in the Paris Ms, (fol. 19b) may
in whose prophethood they believed. A remark of Ibn Hazm, quoted
approximate B.t.límus (there being no absolute certainty as to the
above, may imply that this fact does not quite fit in with the claim made
diacritical points). Also with regard to various other particulars of the
by the “Isawiyya on behalf of the work under discussion. On the other
story this manuscript (fols. 19b-21a) tends to diverge more pronouncedly
hand, the account of John the Baptist occurring in the Paris Ms. appears
than does the B.M. one from the Hebrew version. However the most
to indicate sympathy with Christianity (or pre-Christianity).
significant point in this context is the fact that the list of the works
- These facts should perhaps be juxtaposed with the reference to John
comprised in the canon of the Old Testament, as given in this Ms., seems
the Baptist in the Fuero of Ledesma. The “isawiyya may have
to be based on a canon which is similar to Christian canons of the Old
considered that it was dangerous to permit an allusion to Jesus regarded
Testament. Many works are included which do not form a part of the
:a prophet and.not a divine being in a historical work adopted by them
Jewish Bible. 1 cannot go here into the problems posed by this list (as
lo swear by-him. Both Jews and Christians were liable to persecute
regards one point, see above). It may however be observed that the
them for their attitude in this point. To take a favourable view of John
existence of such a list suggests, as does the passage concerning John the
0 e Baptist or to swear by him must have seemed much less
Baptist, that this Ms. conforms more than the B.M. Ms. 1326 to
bjectionable or not objectionable at all. Possibly the person who named
Christian and possibly Judaeo-Christian ideas.
him in an oath indicated thereby to the initiated that he was a member
It seems to me to be in order to mention in conclusion a curiousfact,
he sect in question,
which may be connected with matters discussed in this Preliminary
Note. The so-called Fuero of a township called Lédesma (in Spain)
prescribes ($393) certain rules which should be followed when Jews are
called upon to make an oath. The passage which is relevant for our
inquiry reads as follows:” “Judio... desde medio moravi ariba iure per
carta en sinagoga. E non iure en sabado nin en suas pascuas, ... nin
¡jure per san Joham babtista.”2
According to this passage, in matters concerning half a moravi or
more (moravi being a coin) Jews must swear in a synagogue and use a
carta (a form to be filled-out intended for oaths). They should not swear
deeply
2 See LF. Baer, Die Juden im Christlichen Spanien, Berlin 1936, U, p. 31. ] am
indebted to Professor,_H. Beinart, who in a lecture which 1 attended mentioned the:.
the relevant
peculiar prohibitión “ofthe Fuero of Lédesma;, let me have the text of
passage and referred me to Baer's work.
2% According to Baer (op. cit., U, p..32) the Fuero, as it is known to us, dates from the
13th century, but contains older parts.
JERUSALEM STUDIES IN ARABIC AND ISLAM Institute ofAsian and African Studies at the Hebrew University
Editorial Board: S. Pines (Chairman), M.J. Kister, S, Shaked The Max Schloessinger Memorial Foundation
The Max Sehloessinger Memorial Foundation Board:

D. Ayalon, J. Blau, Y. Friedmann, M.J. Kister, M. Milson, 5. Pines,
S. Shaked, P. Shinar, H. Ben-Shammai, N. Levtzion, A. Levin
Director ofpublications: Jonathan Naday
JERUSALEM STUDIES IN
ARABIC AND ISLAM
1985
Manuscripts for JSAI to be sent to: Professor M.J. Kister, Institute of Asian
and African Studies, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel

Studies in Christianity and in Judaeo Ch-Rotado Shlomoh Pines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Studies in Christianity and in Judaeo Ch-Rotado Shlomoh Pines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Studies in Christianity and in Judaeo Ch-Rotado Shlomoh Pines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JSAL 6, 1985

STUDIES IN CHRISTIANITY AND IN

PAUL ACCORDING TO THE JUDAEO-CHRISTIAN SOURCES

he story of Paul as told in the documents utilized in the Tathbit Dalád'il

view this approbation appears to be justified. Pauline Christianity and

I. The critical edition, prepared by D. Flusser, of the Hebrew Book of

either on Saturday or during their Passover... or by Saint John the

The Max Sehloessinger Memorial Foundation Board:

Director ofpublications: Jonathan Naday

You might also like