Epistula Apostolorum by Hills

The Epistula Apostolorum: An Asian Tract from the Time of
Polycarp
Charles E. Hill
Journal of Early Christian Studies, Volume 7, Number 1, Spring 1999, pp.

1-53 (Article)
Published by Johns Hopkins University Press

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/earl.1999.0017
For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/10017
Access provided by Durham University (22 Jan 2018 19:17 GMT)

AUTHOR’S LAST NAME/SHORT TITLE 1
The Epistula Apostolorum:

An Asian Tract from the
Time of Polycarp
CHARLES E. HILL
Despite a clear preference for Egypt on the part of many recent scholars, a
review of the evidence shows that Carl Schmidt was correct in assigning the
Epistula Apostolorum to Asia Minor. Literary and theological affinities with
other Asian works, the social setting of the author and his group, and the
historical circumstances visible in this pseudepigraphon, including the
experience of earthquakes, plague, and persecution, combine to place the
Epistula in Asia Minor in the first half of the second century. Two dates
emerge as the most likely for the composition of the Epistula: just before 120,
or in the 140s. The Epistula may therefore be used with confidence to enhance
our understanding of the development of Christianity within the sometimes
hostile environment in Asia Minor in this period.
The trials and community concerns of one segment of second-century

Christianity are preserved in a fascinating pseudepigraphal document
now known by the name of the Epistula Apostolorum. Despite some
affinities with gnostic texts, this purported “epistle” from Jesus’ apostles
positions itself as staunchly “orthodox” as over against some other
group which bears the name of Christian but which holds to some form
of docetism. The self-understanding of the author’s community is defined
in no small measure by its difference from the rival Christian group, a
difference measurable in both sociological and theological terms. Though
its fictional setting as a dialogue with the Savior in the days immediately
following his resurrection logically precludes it from citing any New
Testament texts as such, it knows a great deal of our present New
Testament, and certainly some “apocryphal” sources (whether oral or
written). Its extensive knowledge of and special love for the Fourth
Journal of Early Christian Studies 7:1, 1–53 © 1999 The Johns Hopkins University Press
2 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES
Gospel is one of its remarkable features and has been noted widely by its
modern students.
But where and when did the community exist for whom this author
wrote? Neither the date nor the provenance of the Ep. Apost. has ever
been fully settled. In 1919 Carl Schmidt in his magisterial study and the
editio princeps of the Coptic version assigned the Ep. Apost. to Asia
Minor during the decade 160–70,1 but his position has been all but
abandoned by more recent scholars. Though some continue to prefer the
second half of the second century,2 the trend has been towards a
somewhat earlier date, with Hugo Deunsing, Manfred Hornschuh, J. J.
Gunther, and C. D. G. Müller all placing it at or before the midpoint of
the century. Asia Minor too has been all but eclipsed.3 Deunsing and
Gunther wrote in favor of a Syrian milieu, and Hornschuh theorized that
the author was a Jewish-Christian with roots in the primitive Palestinian
Church, writing in Egypt around 120.4 In the year before Hornschuh’s
study appeared, A. A. T. Ehrhardt had also argued for an Egyptian
origin, but for a later date towards the end of the second century.5 Since
the studies of Ehrhardt and Hornschuh in the mid-1960s, Egypt has been
in the ascendancy. An Egyptian origin has been decisively adopted by
1. C. Schmidt and I. Wajnberg, Gespräche Jesu mit seinen Jüngern nach der
Auferstehung: Ein katholisch-apostoliches Sendschreiben des 2. Jahrhunderts. TU 43
(Leipzig, 1919), 361–402. Asian provenance was also upheld by K. Lake, The
Beginning of Christianity, part I: The Acts of the Apostles, v (London, 1933), 44.
2. J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford, 1993) [ANT], 556, says
that “the consensus of opinion puts it in the third quarter of the second century.” H.
Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (Philadelphia,
1990), 312, specifies only the second half of the second century.
3. After submitting this article, A. Stewart-Sykes’ important contribution, “The
Asian Context of the New Prophecy and of Epistula Apostolorum,” VC 51 (1997):
416–38, appeared. Stewart-Sykes also argues for an Asian provenance for the
Epistula based mainly on similarities in theology and general religious atmosphere
between it and Montanism. Though I cannot endorse all of his arguments (in
particular cf. pp. 433–36 with C. E. Hill, “The Marriage of Montanism and
Millennialism,” Studia Patristica 26 [1992]: 142–48), I am pleased to observe that his
independent line of research supports and complements the present study.
4. Deunsing, “Epistula Apostolorum,” in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, New Testa-
ment Apocrypha, 2 vols. (London, 1963), I:191; M. Hornschuh, Studien zur Epistula
Apostolorum (Berlin, 1965), 116–19; J. J. Gunther, “Syrian Christian Dualism,” VC
25 (1971): 81–93 at 91.
5. A. A. T. Ehrhardt, “Judaeo-Christians in Egypt, the Epistula Apostolorum and
the Gospel to the Hebrews,” in F. L. Cross, ed., Studia Evangelica 3 (TU 88, 1964):
360–82.
HILL/THE EPISTULA APOSTOLORUM 3
C.␣ D. G. Müller in the second edition of New Testament Apocrypha6 and

is now accepted or advocated by a number of scholars in recent works.7
In the course of studying the early effects of the Johannine literature in
the church I have been drawn to the conclusion that there is much more
to connect the Ep. Apost. with Asia Minor than has been noted by the
published studies, even Schmidt’s, and that this material stands out more
clearly in comparison with the data cited for Egypt in particular. Most
past attempts to locate the life setting of the Ep. Apost. have, not
inappropriately, centered upon its apparent knowledge of NT materials
and on its literary or theological affinities with other literary sources. But
in the best of circumstances such literary comparisons can reveal only
part of the picture. And in the present case, the often disputed
provenance of the documents to which the Ep. Apost. has been
compared has not allowed secure conclusions. Relatively little attention
so far has been paid to historical or social factors that might be exposed
from the text, and yet, as we shall see, the text does offer us some helpful
possibilities.
The following study intends to reopen both questions. It will conclude
that Schmidt was justified in placing the work in Asia Minor, and will
propose and explore the most likely options for fixing the second-century
date more specifically.
PRELIMINARY INDICATIONS OF DATE
As preliminary to our investigation, two pieces of data internal to the

Epistula must be mentioned which have sometimes been used to
determine the time of composition. The one most often cited occurs in
ch. 17, where the author appears at first sight to offer the reader an easy
terminus ante quem by placing the future return of Jesus “when the
hundredth part and the twentieth part is completed” (Copt.). But this
6. C. D. G. Müller, “Epistula Apostolorum,” in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, New

Testament Apocrypha, rev. edn., 2 vols. (London, 1991), I:249–51 [NTA].
7. E.g., H. Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2: History and
Literature of Early Christianity (New York/Berlin, 1982), 236–39; M. Hengel, Die
johannaeische Frage: Ein Lösungsversuch mit einem Beitrag zur Apokalypse von Jörg
Frey (Tübingen, 1993), 59; R. J. Bauckham, “Papias and Polycrates on the Origin of
the Fourth Gospel,” JTS n.s. 44 (1993): 24–69, at 66. J. Hills, Tradition and
Composition in the Epistula Apostolorum, Harvard Dissertations in Religion (Phila-
delphia, 1990), 9, leaves the question open, listing the three most likely places of
origin as Asia Minor, Egypt, or Syria. Elliott, ANT, 556, also states simply that Asia
Minor and Egypt are “the two places most frequently favoured.”
prediction has proved disappointingly slippery. Julian Hills has discov-

ered eight different approaches among scholars, yielding a postulated
date for the parousia anywhere from 130 to 180.8 For starters, there is a
textual problem, for the Ethiopic version9 reads, “when the hundred and
fiftieth year is completed.” And even if we settle on the originality of the
120 figure in the Coptic, supposing it to be much more likely that the
date was extended by the Ethiopic translator than that it was curtailed
by the Coptic, there is then the question of when the count should begin.
Though it may seem more natural to begin from the point at which Jesus
is speaking, just before the ascension, some scholars have argued for
starting from the birth of Jesus.10 A common, working solution which
seems to have been adopted by several scholars is gained by accepting the
figure of 120 in the Coptic version and beginning the count from the time
of the fictional setting of the document, resulting in an expected date for
the parousia of around 150.11 Then, allowing that the author must have
given the world some years before its expiration, a date for composition
should be somewhere between, say, 135 and 145. If, on the other hand,
the starting point is to be placed at the time of the incarnation, and the
Coptic 120 is accepted, a date somewhat earlier than 120 would be
necessary.
Another peculiarity of the text which has been cited as an indication of
its date is the assertion in ch. 9 that Jesus was crucified by (Copt.; Eth.,
8. Hills, Tradition, 116.

9. The Ethiopic manuscripts offer the only complete version of the Ep. Apost., but
the Coptic translation is usually considered to be the earliest and perhaps the source
of the Ethiopic. See Müller, “Epistula,” 250.
10. Notably L. Gry, “La date de la parousie d’après l’Epistula Apostolorum,” RB
40 (1940): 86–97, and Hornschuh, Studien.
11. One could perhaps make a case that the second advent of Jesus was expected
by some other Christians to take place sometime near the middle of the second
century. Justin does not engage in any date-setting, but he does indicate that, since the
Lord’s ascension to heaven, the times are “now running on to their consummation;
and he whom Daniel foretells would have dominion for a time, and times, and a half,
is even already at the door, about to speak blasphemous and daring things against the
Most High” (Dial. 32). The Man of Sin, then, was about to be manifested. Also, the
Montanist theory of salvation history could be read as a response to the failure of an
expected coming of Jesus at about this time. This theory divided history into three
great epochs, the first characterized by the Father and extending to the first coming of
Christ, the second from Christ to Montanus and characterized by the Son himself,
and the third, the period of the Paraclete, beginning with the inspiration of Montanus
and extending to the end (Passio Perpetuae et Felicitatis praef.; Tertullian, De virg.
veland. 1), an end which Maximilla believed would follow shortly upon her demise.
The failure of an expected return of Christ could have been partly assuaged by the rise
of a new era of salvation when Montanus began to prophesy in the 160s.
“in the days of”) Pilate and one Archelaus. Mt 2.22 mentions an
Archelaus, the son of Herod the Great, who ruled Judea after the death
of his father. But Archelaus was removed from office in 6 c.e. and
banished. J. de Zwaan suggested that Julius Archelaus, son of Helcias, is
meant (see Josephus, Ant. 19.354-55; 20.140, 147; Ap. 1.51), which
would put the crucifixion in the 40s of the first century.12 De Zwaan ties
this to Irenaeus’ notion, based upon a free interpretation of Jn 8.57 and
supported by some Asian traditions, that Jesus lived between forty and
fifty years (AH 2.22.6). De Zwaan then takes the 150 years of the
Ethiopic version and arrives at the terminus ad quem of 200. But if the
author knew anything about Julius Archelaus, then he must have known
that this man was not a ruler of Palestine, least of all during the
procuratorship of Pontius Pilate.13 More plausibly, I think, the Ep.
Apost.’s assertion about Archelaus was simply based on too literal a
reading of Mt 3.1 without noting the temporal break from Mt 2.22.
After mentioning Archelaus in 2.22, Matthew leaps over nearly three
decades right to the ministry of Jesus, but introduces 3.1 with the words,
“in those days. . . .” To one unfamiliar with the governmental history of
Palestine, it could easily seem that Archelaus was still in office when John
the Baptist appeared on the scene. As for Irenaeus’ statement on the
length of Jesus’ life, it is possible that all Irenaeus had to claim from
Asian tradition before him was simply that the Fourth Gospel recorded
a longer ministry than did the Synoptics, necessitating the conclusion
that Jesus lived well beyond thirty years.14
So much for a preliminary discussion of dates. We shall have more to
say on the subject after we examine other possible indications of the
circumstances of composition. We now treat the main proposals for the
provenance of Ep. Apost. As Egypt is the point of origin most discussed
and favored in recent works, it is with Egypt that we begin.
12. J. de Zwaan, “Date and Origin of the Epistle of the Eleven Apostles (Gespräche
Jesu mit seinen Jüngern nach der Auferstehung),” in H. G. Wood, ed., Amicitiae
Corolla: A Volume of Essays Presented to James Rendel Harris, D. Litt., on the
Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday (London, 1933), 344–55, at 349.
13. See Hills, Tradition, 78.
14. See C. E. Hill, “What Papias Said about John (and Luke): A ‘New’ Papian
Fragment,” JTS n.s. 49 (1998), 582–629.
I. PROVENANCE
A. Egypt
1. A. A. T. Ehrhardt
As mentioned above, Ehrhardt argues forcefully that the author was a
Jewish Christian writing in Egypt.15 An important plank in his proof is
the proposition that the Ep. Apost. is dependent upon the Egyptian
Gospel of the Hebrews. Even if this were true, however, an Egyptian
origin for the Ep. Apost. would not be assured. Ehrhardt also proposes
that Ignatius of Antioch used the Gosp. Heb.,16 and this would have been
prior to the appearance of Ep. Apost. in any case. But if this does not
make Ignatius an Egyptian, it would not necessarily make the author of
Ep. Apost. an Egyptian. And, more to the point, the alleged connections
with Gosp. Heb. are open to most serious doubts. In particular, Ehrhardt
finds these two documents to be in agreement in denying a role to the
Holy Spirit in the conception of Jesus.17 Ep. Apost. 14.518 says, “For I
alone was a minister unto myself, in that which concerned Mary.” But
Ehrhardt has somehow passed by the confession in 3.2, “we believe: the
word, which became flesh through the holy virgin Mary, was carried
(conceived) in her womb by the Holy Spirit. . . .” And when Ehrhardt
concludes that Ep. Apost. 14.5 agrees with Gosp. Heb. in denying that
Jesus partook of the humanity of Mary, it seems he has missed the point
of Ep. Apost. 14.5. While the Savior is pictured by the author of Ep.
Apost. as saying, “For I alone was a minister unto myself, in that which
concerned Mary,” the intention is not to deny a real participation in
human flesh. The text goes on to say, “I became flesh,” and the true
sarkic nature of Christ’s humanity is one of the foremost concerns of the
15. He states unequivocally, “The truth is rather that E. A. was written in defence
of Judaeo-Christianity in Egypt” (371). The Jewish-Christian viewpoint of the author
is said to be “quite clearly expressed in Christ’s missionary command: ‘Go and preach
unto the twelve tribes, and preach also unto the heathen and to all the land of Israel,
from the East unto the West, and from the South unto the North’” (371). But how is
a Jewish-Christian milieu compatible with the prophetic oracle cited in ch. 33,
“Behold, out of the land of Syria I will begin to call a new Jerusalem, and I will
subdue Zion and it will be captured; and the barren one who has no children will be
fruitful and will be called the daughter of my Father, but to me, my bride; for so has
it pleased him who sent me”?
16. Ehrhardt, “Judeo-Christians,” 361–62.
17. Ehrhardt, “Judeo-Christians,” 363–64.
18. I have followed the practice, suggested by Hills, of numbering the sentences of
each chapter as verses, as they appear in the English translation of NTA (2nd edn.).
tract. Nor does the author mean to deny Mary’s part in the incarnation19
(again, 3.2, “we believe: the word, which became flesh through the holy
virgin Mary, was carried (conceived) in her womb by the Holy Spirit␣ .␣ .␣ .”).
The point is rather to deny the participation of Joseph and the normal
method of procreation. As he says in 21.2 (Eth.) “without being begotten
I was born (or, begotten) of man, and without having flesh I put on
flesh,” and again, stressing his possession of common humanity, in 19.20
(Eth.), “I have put on your flesh, in which I was born and died and was
buried and rose again through my heavenly Father.” This is borne out
again by the christological use of Jn 1.13 in 3.2 (on which we shall have
more to say below). Thus there is really nothing in the Ep. Apost. which
can be said to be in common with the “docetic” teaching of the Gosp.
Heb. fragment in question, on which Ehrhardt lays such emphasis.
It has often been remarked that there are certain similarities between
the Ep. Apost. and a work known from the Jung Codex of the Nag
Hammadi library, the so-called Apocryphon of James. Ehrhardt argues
that the Asian origin of the Ep. Apost. is untenable “at any rate if the
conclusion of W. C. van Unnik is accepted that the ‘Apocryphon of
James,’ which is of Egyptian origin, was written between a.d. 125 and
150. For it is certain that there are close similarities between this writing
and E. A. which is later than this apocryphon. Consequently the author
of E. A. must have used it, and he could hardly have done so outside
Egypt.”20 Müller accepts Ehrhardt’s reasoning.21 As it happens, however,
both the Egyptian origin of the Apocryphon of James and the dating
assumed by Ehrhardt for it are quite disputed. It is interesting to note
that in the introduction to the Apoc. Jas., which follows the Ep. Apost.
directly in NTA2, Dankwart Kirchner actually favors a Syrian-Palestinian,
not an Egyptian, provenance for the Apoc. Jas. and says, “The similari-
ties between Ap. Jas. and the Epistula Apostolorum are to be explained
by assuming that the latter is reacting to a spiritual situation represented,
among others, by Ap. Jas. No literary dependence can be demon-
strated.”22 Other scholars too are not convinced that Apoc. Jas. origi-
nated in Egypt where it was ultimately found. Pheme Perkins, for
example, argues for “Asia Minor or western Syria sometime in the early
third century a.d.”23
19. contra Ehrhardt, “Judeo-Christians,” 366.

20. Ehrhardt, “Judeo-Christians,” 367.
21. Müller, “Epistula,” 251.
22. Kirchner, “The Apocryphon of James,” NTA 1: 287.
23. P. Perkins, “Johannine Traditions in Ap. Jas. (NHC I.2),” JBL 101 (1982):
403–14, at 414. My own view, to be argued for elsewhere, is that the apocryphon is
2. M. Hornschuh
Manfred Hornschuh has presented by far the most extensive argu-
ments for Egypt. Most of his points can be fairly briefly treated.
1) Citing Lietzmann’s review of Schmidt in ZNW 20 (1921), Hornschuh
says that the surviving translations of the work place it “in den uns
wohlbekannten römisch-ägyptischen Kreis,” for it survives only in
Coptic, Ethiopic, and Latin translations. But Hornschuh realizes that this
does not mean it circulated only in Egypt, Ethiopia, and the Latin West
(it was after all first written in Greek), and so Hornschuh allows that this
argument has some weight, but is not decisive.24 One should observe here
that the ultimate preservation in African languages and reception among
the Coptic churches may be due simply to a more open attitude in Egypt
in the second century towards pseudepigraphal but useful Christian
works than tended to characterize the church elsewhere.
2) Hornschuh then observes that the work’s peculiar tendencies might
have discouraged its acceptance anywhere but where it was first written.
But on the other hand, he says, it might have been valued in Egypt for its
quasimonophysite Christology.25 Nor should we overlook another quite
different possibility, namely, that a work of known fictional qualities
might be read and perceived for what it was in its homeland but more
easily misappropriated in a foreign land.
indeed probably from the first half of the second century, and that it may have come
from Egypt or from Asia Minor. But the flow of apocryphal or heretical Christian
works North from Egypt was by no means necessarily slow. Irenaeus has a copy of the
Gospel of Truth and some version of the Apocryphon of John (AH 1.29), which
would have come from either Rome or Egypt. And he has Carpocratian writings
which probably came from Egypt (AH 1.25.4, 5). Connections between Egyptian
religion and Ephesus, for instance, at this time are well known from the archaeologi-
cal remains. J. C. Walters, “Egyptian Religions in Ephesos,” in H. Koester, ed.,
Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia. HTS 41 (Valley Forge, 1995), 281–310, “Extant
evidence makes it appear that Christianity and the Egyptian cults were the only
religions from the East . . . that made significant inroads into the religious life of
Ephesos” (282); “It seems that during the period of Christian expansion in Ephesos,
the Egyptian cults also experienced something of a resurgence. Because of the relative
absence of evidence for other foreign religions in Ephesos, particularly mystery cults,
the metropolis of Asia may be a unique site where the contextualization of these two
religions and their special appeal during this period could be jointly analyzed” (305).
It should also be observed that there was a temple and priesthood of Isis in Smyrna in
the second century, to whom the orator Aelius Aristides betook himself many times
(C. J. Cadoux, Ancient Smyrna: A History of the City from the Earliest Times to 324
A.D. [Oxford, 1938], 265, 271).
24. Hornschuh, Studien, 103.
25. Hornschuh, Studien,103–4.
3) Hornschuh also cites Lietzmann’s argument that a passage in ch. 21,

“I am the hope of the hopeless, the helper of those who have no helper,
the treasure of those in need, the physician of the sick, the resurrection of
the dead” contains a parallel with the Egyptian Liturgy of St. Mark (ı
lÊvn toÁw pepedhm°nouw . . . ≤ §lp‹w t«n épelpism°nvn, ≤ boÆyeia t«n
ébohy°ntvn).26 Hornschuh admits, however, that it is unlikely that the
Liturgy of Mark got the phrase directly from Ep. Apost., and admits that
the later liturgies borrowed from sources not exclusively Egyptian.27
Beyond this, parallels to this manner of speaking of Jesus exist in Asian
writers such as the author of Acts of Paul and Thecla and Melito of
Sardis.28
4) In the Ethiopic translation of ch. 8, Martha is included among the
women who carried ointment to Jesus’ grave (in the Coptic she is not
present, but her name is given as the mother of one of the Maries).
Hornschuh says Martha is so represented in an Egyptian amulet, and in
the Ambrosian “Liturgie Mailand” which has some roots in Egyptian
liturgical practice. But he also admits that this tradition is also assumed
by Hippolytus’ Commentary on the Song of Songs and is found in a
sixth-century Syrian Gospel manuscript.29
5) His next argument is most curious. He notes that the Ep. Apost.
evidently knows the long ending of the Gospel of Mark and cites B. H.
Streeter30 who calls it a “characteristic Gallic and Italian reading,” as it
is found in Irenaeus, Tatian, and in Codex Bezae, but is notably absent
from the Alexandrian text. Streeter also knows of its use in Ep. Apost.,

28. Acts of Paul and Thecla 3.37, “For he alone is the goal of salvation and the
foundation of immortal life. To the stormtossed he is a refuge, to the oppressed relief,
to the despairing shelter . . .”; 42, “Christ Jesus the Son of God, my helper in prison,
my helper before governors, my helper in the fire, my helper among the beasts . . .”;
Melito of Sardis, “I released the condemned; I brought the dead to life; I raised up the
buried” (Peri Pascha ll. 755–57); “The Lord, slain, saved us, and bound, released us,
and sacrificed, ransomed us” (Fr. 11); “He is the repose of the dead, the finder of the
lost, the light of those who are in darkness, the redeemer of the captives, the guide of
the wanderers, the refuge of the forlorn. . . .” (Fr. 15, ll. 58–63); “He was bound in
order to loose, he was flogged in order to pardon, he suffered passion for you by the
cross to free you from passions, he died by the cross to make you alive by the cross,
he was buried to raise you” (NFr. II, ll. 138–42); “He is the reviver of the dead, and
saviour of the lost, and guide of the deceived, comforter of the oppressed, and saviour
of the created, and shepherd of the sheep, and giver of rest to the weary, and salvation
of the people . . .” (NFr. II, ll. 189–95).
29. Hornschuh, Studien, 104–5.
30. B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels (London, 1926), 70f.
which he thinks supports this work’s Ephesian origins. For Streeter, this
is one more piece of evidence for “a special connection between most of
our earliest authorities of the Western text and the Roman province of
Asia.”31 Hornschuh disputes this, however, arguing that Roman influence
in Egypt is demonstrable in the early second century, and that knowledge
of the longer ending could have come from Rome to Egypt just as easily
as it could from Rome to Asia. As far as bare possibilities go, this is
perhaps true. But the fact remains that the reading is attested in the
second century in one (Irenaeus)32 and possibly two (Papias)33 Asians,
and is unknown in Egypt! It does not appear in the most “Egyptian” of
manuscripts of Mark, and, very tellingly, is not known by Clement or
Origen.34 It appears that this piece of evidence is decidedly in favor of
Asia.
6) The next point is just as revealing and involves the same response to
more observations made by Streeter. First, Streeter remarked that the
name “Judas Zelotes” from the apostle list in ch. 2 is found in some
European (not African) Old Latin versions of Mt 10.3, and appears in a
mosaic in a baptistery in Ravenna.35 Second, Streeter caught the
significance of the description of Christ in 3.2, “the word which became
flesh through the holy virgin Mary . . . was born not by the lust of the
flesh but by the will of God . . .” as implying “the famous Western
reading of Jn. i. 13, which substitutes ˘w . . . §gennÆyh for ofl §gennÆyhsan
and thereby makes the fourth Gospel also assert the Virgin Birth of
Christ. This reading is found in b, in three quotations of Irenaeus, two of
Tertullian, and was also known to Ambrose, Augustine and probably to
31. Streeter, Four Gospels, 71.

32. B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early
Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford, 1993), 232,
finds no earlier attestation than Irenaeus. B. M. Metzger, The Text of the New
Testament (Oxford, 1968), 227, thinks it is probable that Justin knows it, though he
does not cite evidence. Justin’s phrase “he has risen from the dead and ascended into
heaven” (Dial. 108.2), possibly reflects Mk 16.19, but this is hard to confirm, as it is
a commonplace and could be based on several NT passages. Metzger says that the
longer ending is included in Tatian’s Diatessaron. Tertullian also apparently has the
longer ending (de anima 25.8, probably apol. 21.23). None of this evidence, in any
case, points to Egypt.
33. A. F. Walls, “Papias and Oral Tradition,” VC 21 (1967): 137–40, at 138.
Papias relates from the daughters of Philip the story of Justus Barsabas drinking
poison with no deleterious effects. This was likely seen as a fulfilment of Mk 16.18
(HE 3.39.9).
34. Metzger, Text, 226, “Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Ammonius show no
knowledge of the existence of these verses.”
Justin Martyr.”36 Hornschuh can do nothing but admit that this shows
an affinity between the Ep. Apost. and “the West,” but answers that the
same argument may be used here as was used concerning the long ending
of Mark. But that argument, as we have seen, was not a very good one.
Again, this reading is known in the second century only in one who spent
his early Christian life in Asia before moving to Rome (Justin, Dial.
63.2), in an Asian native (Irenaeus, AH 3.16.2; 19.2; 21.5, 7; 5.1.3), and
is next found in one who was a student of the latter’s writings, Tertullian.
On the other hand, this reading, or use, of Jn 1.13 is unknown to
Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 2.13.58), who assumes the collective text
and interpretation without the slightest awareness of any variant, and it
is apparently unknown to Origen, not occurring in his Greek citations
but only in later Latin translations of his work. More to the point, none
of the surviving “Alexandrian” or “proto-Alexandrian” MSS (P66, 75 a B,
etc.) contains the christological reading. This evidence then also points us
definitely away from Egypt and towards Asia Minor, or parts west.
7) Hornschuh argues that the confessional statement in ch. 5, which
has five elements, said to be the meaning of the five loaves offered for the
feeding of the 5,000, is also on the side of Egypt. The original triform
confession (with articles on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) was
in time expanded in Rome to the point where each of the three articles
became itself triform. The Ep. Apost. then represents a very old
intermediate form. But he cites no Egyptian formulae which can be
shown to be early. He says, “Das Glaubensbekenntnis der Ep. Ap. is
entweder in Rom oder in Ägypten entstanden und verweist unsere Schrift
wiederum in den ‘römisch-ägyptischen Kreis.’”37 But no good reason is
offered why there should not be a “Roman-Asian circle” as well, or why
the credal forms presupposed in, for instance, Irenaeus, AH 1.10.1;
5.20.1; Dem. 3, 6, 99, should not be allowed as parallels.38
8) Hornshuh says the “religionsgeschichtliche Milieu” of the docu-
ment is “typisch ägyptisches,” claiming its thoughts and conceptions are
those of “altägyptischen Mythologie, des Hermetismus und der christlichen

38. The Ep. Apost. adds two elements onto the basic triform confession. Irenaeus,
AH 5.20.1 adds four. “All receive one and the same God the Father, and believe in the
same dispensation regarding the incarnation of the Son of God, and are cognizant of
the same gift of the Spirit, and are conversant with the same commandments, and
preserve the same form of ecclesiastical constitution, and expect the same advent of
the Lord, and await the same salvation of the complete man, that is, of the soul and
body.”
ägyptischen Gnosis.”39 While there are certainly some idiosyncratic

aspects of Ep. Apost. and even certain signs of influence from outside
“blue-blooded” second-century orthodoxy (whatever this might be), it is
hard to measure the value of such impressionistic generalizations when
their bases are not plainly stated.
9) Along these lines, Hornschuh then agrees with Lietzmann’s insis-
tence that Ep. Apost. has felt the impact of gnosticism more strongly
than Schmidt realized. This Lietzmann took as a sign of Egyptian
syncretism. Hornschuh hesitates here, however, and concedes, wisely,
that gnostic influence on orthodox communities might have been felt in
places other than Egypt alone.40
10) But there is one more point to be gained from gnosticism. The Ep.
Apost. presents itself as a conversation between the Lord and his
disciples after the resurrection, and Hornschuh rightly observes that this
is a genre popularized by Egyptian gnosticism.41 We have already
commented on the similarities in form between this work and the
Apocryphon of James. There is much to be said for the observation of
Vielhauer that this represents “evidently a conscious taking over of one
of the most typical gnostic forms for substantiating authoritative
teaching; it is thus a case of an attempt to combat the gnostic opponents
with their own weapons.”42 And this could have been done in Egypt or
in any place where such gnostic conventions were known, including Asia
Minor. We can point in fact to at least one pseudepigraphon written by
an orthodox Asian, even a presbyter, only a little later: the Acts of Paul
(Tertullian, de bapt. 17).
11) Now Hornschuh attempts to turn the tables on Schmidt and claim
the epistle’s predilection for the Fourth Gospel as a point in favor of
Egypt.43 For this he cites the discovery of P52 (a fragment of John 18)
and the Egerton papyrus (a Gospel-like work which knows John) in
Egypt, and their dating to the first half of the second century. But that
these documents were found in Egypt does not necessarily mean that
they were composed or even copied there.44 Our earliest copies of Luke,
Matthew, Mark, Paul, and most of the rest of the NT were found in

42. P. Vielhauer, Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur (Berlin, 1975), 687. The
translation is taken from Schneemelcher’s article, “VIII. Dialogues of the Redeemer,”
in NTA2, 1:229.
44. As Hornschuh admits, Studien, 115.
Egypt as well. But as is well-known, this is only because the weather

conditions in Egypt are most favorable to the survival of papyri. Unless
the Fourth Gospel itself was first composed in Egypt, it had to be
brought to Egypt from somewhere!45 And wherever that somewhere was
will also have to be considered a prime candidate for the provenance of
the Ep. Apost.
Hornschuh fortifies these eleven arguments by asserting the allegedly
close connection between Alexandrian and Roman Christianity in the
second century. This is found in the legend of Mark going from Rome to
found the church in Alexandria, and in the conclusion drawn by C. H.
Roberts from the fact that the Christian codex used papyrus (the
Egyptian material) instead of parchment.46 But again, this will have little
force as an argument against the province of Asia, which also had a
demonstrably close connection with Rome,47 particularly before the
outbreak of the Quartodeciman controversy.
Hornschuh also says that our author spoke for a circle for whom the
Synoptic Gospels were treasured.48 There is certainly some indication of
Christian use of these Gospels in Egypt in the first half of the second
century.49 But there is at least as much evidence for this in Asia Minor in
Polycarp and Papias, before the time of the Mart. Polyc. and Irenaeus.
Despite the large number of Hornschuh’s arguments for Egypt, we
have found that very few of them can carry much weight, particularly
when Asia Minor is also in the running. Some of them actually favor
Asia Minor instead, and others apply just as well to Asia Minor as to
Egypt.
45. C. H. Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt

(London, 1979), notes that POxy 405, a fragment from a roll of Irenaeus, Against
Heresies, the original of which we know came from Gaul, not Egypt, made it to
Oxyrhynchus within twenty years of the production of the original, “not long after
the ink was dry on the author’s manuscript” (53).
46. Despite what one might think about the logical preference for parchment
(which was evidently invented in Pergamum) in Asia Minor, one cannot draw any
necessary conclusions from this. In II John 12, a letter usually assigned to Asia Minor,
the author speaks of his writing on xãrthw, which refers to a papyrus sheet.
47. Witness, for example, the NT epistles of I Peter (possibly also II Peter), II
Timothy, addressed from Rome to Ephesus or Asia Minor; Polycarp’s use of the
epistle of Clement of Rome in his letter to the Philippians; his later visit to Rome
under Anicetus; the migration from Asia to Rome by Justin, Marcion, and (for a time)
Irenaeus; the latter’s visits and correspondence with Rome after he had moved to
Gaul.
49. Which Hornschuh demonstrates, Studien, 114–15.
3. C. D. G. Müller
We may treat more quickly the brief but more recent arguments
adduced in favor of an Egyptian provenance by Müller. He too brings the
long ending of Mark into play, arguing specifically for the Ep. Apost.’s
origin in Lower Egypt because Mark’s Gospel was “at that time still
unknown in parts of Upper Egypt.”50 This may be, but this Gospel was
hardly unknown in a place like Asia Minor, which even knows the long
ending of Mark (Irenaeus, AH 3.10.6). In fact, Müller cites no corrobo-
rating evidence for supposing that this ending was known in Lower
Egypt in the second century. He claims that “the bluntly antidocetic
tendency and the emphasis on the resurrection of the flesh are Egyp-
tian.”51 But this blunt tendency and emphasis could just as well, or
probably better, be Asian (cf. I, II John, Ignatius, Polycarp, ad Phil.). He
also cites the close association in the document between the Father and
the Son, “the Father works through the Son as his incarnation and
instrument,” and sees this as typical of Egypt, where “the godhead
works not directly but through the ruler, who is its embodiment and
instrument.”52 But this quality in Ep. Apost. may simply be an echo of
the theology of the Fourth Gospel, so treasured by the author.
Müller does not deny connections with Asia Minor and elsewhere, but
sees them explained if we suppose the author of Ep. Apost. to have been
a school head from the hellenistic-Jewish Christianity of Alexandria or its
neighbourhood, the point of irruption into Egypt for all oriental ideas and
teachers. This also fits with the special mention of the additional apostle
Paul, who played no role in Egyptian-Jewish Christianity and must here be
commended for the first time. But possibly the author is in this way
answering the regard in which the apostle was held among gentile
gnostics.53
Yet it is not easy to see how an element considered foreign to an

Egyptian milieu should be taken as evidence for an Egyptian milieu! On
the other hand, the special recommendation of Paul would not be out of
place in any document whose fictional setting is a revelation given only
to the eleven in Palestine before the ascension of Jesus.
To summarize, many of the arguments which have been advanced for
Egypt are plainly invalid, others are simply inconclusive and do not point

52. Here he is citing S. Morenz, Gott und Mensch im alten Ägypten (Leipzig,
1965), 74.
to Egypt any more surely than to Asia Minor, and others actually point
more surely in the direction of Asia Minor itself.
4. J. J. Gunther’s Objections
Beyond this, J. J. Gunther has noted two problems for an Egyptian
context.54 Chapter 3 describes God as the one “who . . . in the twinkling
of an eye summons the rain for the wintertime, and fog, frost, and
hail.␣ .␣ .␣ .” Gunther points out that “the weather described in ch. 3 is
inappropriate for Egypt.”55 Gunther thinks it is compatible with Syria,
but we may observe in passing that Cadoux gave the following
description of weather conditions in the environs of Smyrna: “In and
near Smyrna, the winters are cold and stormy; but snow and frost are
usually confined to the high ground. The annual rainfall, about
three-quarters of which comes during the months from November to
March inclusive, averages nearly twenty-six inches; but it is very
variable. . . . The later spring and the autumn are delightfully temper-
ate.”56
This point may be expanded by another notice in the Ep. Apost. of
apparently local weather conditions. In 34.9 the author speaks of the
possibility of “drought from the failing of the rain.” In Egypt, where the
crops were “wholly dependent on irrigation”57 provided by the flooding
of the Nile, arid conditions were the rule and “constant drought” would
have been unexceptional.58 In Asia Minor it was quite different. As we
shall see below, rain was quite necessary for each crop and droughts were
not uncommon. The weather conditions familiar to the author, then, all
but rule out an Egyptian setting for his writing.
Gunther’s second argument against Egypt is that “Clement and
Origen, in spite of their vast knowledge of apocrypha, showed no
54. More will appear from the results of our study below.
55. Gunther, “Syrian,” 82.
56. Cadoux, Ancient Smyrna, 19. There is also a description of the climate of the
Aegean coast in T. R. S. Broughton, “Roman Asia,” in T. Frank, ed., An Economic
Survey of Ancient Rome, vol. IV: Africa, Syria, Greece, Asia Minor (Patterson, N.J.,
1959), 499–916, at 603.
57. A. C. Johnson, Roman Egypt to the Reign of Diocletian, in Frank, Economic
Survey IV: 7.
58. Aelius Aristides hails the providence of Serapis, “who, in a land where rain is
least likely, has brought in the Nile as a kind of imitator of himself and to be like rain
for the people” (The Egyptian Discourse 123); again, the Nile “comes itself in place
of the rain of Zeus and floods the land” (Regarding Zeus 28). Translations of
Aristides’ works are from from C. A. Behr, P. Aelius Aristides: The Complete Works,
2 vols. (Leiden, 1981, 1986).
acquaintance with this Epistle.”59 This argument from silence may have
little independent weight but combined with the other observations that
we are making can be allowed some confirmatory value. To be added to
this is the observation that the supposition of an Egyptian origin has a
hard time accounting for the lack of reference in the document to the
great Alexandrian heretic of the first half of the second century, Basilides,
or to his peculiar doctrines.
Despite its current popularity, then, the case for Egypt is anything but
strong. Its weakness, I think, will be even more evident from what
follows.
B. Syria
The arguments for Syria, though they have been developed less
extensively, are perhaps somewhat better.60 The list of attributes this
“epistle” shares with some early Syrian works includes the notion that at
death one must escape the evil archons (apparently alluded to in ch. 28,
cf. Act. Thom. 10, 143; possibly Odes Sol. 42.11). But this would not be
conclusive, for such an idea is known outside Syria, in Egypt (Carpocrates,
Irenaeus, AH 1.25.2) and in Rome or Asia Minor (Hippolytus, Comm.
Dan. 3.31.2–3).61
In ch. 27 the Ep. Apost. assumes a baptism performed on the righteous
in the underworld by Christ. This too is possibly signified in the Syrian
Odes Sol. 42.20 (“And I placed my name upon their head”). But it is also
known outside Syria in the probably Palestinian Apoc. Pet. 14,62 the
Roman Hermas Sim. 9.16.2–3, and is probably akin to the notion
attested in Hippolytus and Origen that John the Baptist preached in
Hades as a forerunner to Christ before he descended there.63
1. J. J. Gunther
Gunther also accepts Delazer’s conclusions about Ep. Apost. presup-
posing a heavenly liturgy, which is supposed to point to Syria. But
Delazer’s idea of a heavenly liturgy in ch. 13 has been criticized,64 and
59. Gunther, “Syrian,” 82–83.

60. In an earlier publication I made this assumption myself, following Gunther.
61. Experts now disagree on the provenance of this author.
62. R. J. Bauckham, “The Two Fig Tree Parables in the Apocalypse of Peter,” JBL
104 (1985): 269–87. C. D. G. Müller, in NTA2, 2:622, though admitting the reference
to Bar Cochba in ch. 2, places the Apoc. Pet. instead in Egypt at about 135.
63. Hippolytus’ Antichr. 45; Origen, in Luc. Hom. 4; in Evang. Joh. 2.37.
64. Duensing, “Epistula,” 191, “Seidensticker in a review of the German edition
(Franzisk. Studien 1960, p. 91) contests the idea that in Ep. Apost. 13 (24) anything
some kind of “heavenly liturgy” is just as clearly presumed by Irenaeus

(Dem. 9) and, indeed, by the book of Revelation (chs. 4, 5, etc.). Gunther
is correct that there are “points of contact with the Gospel of Peter, the
Didascalia Apostolorum and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (ch. 4).”65
But Irenaeus at least seems to know the portion of the Infancy Gospel
which Ep. Apost. knows, and the other two documents may be later than
the Ep. Apost.
2. J. de Zwaan
Gunther’s case, so far as it goes, is not unreasonable, though it is very
far from compelling. The parallels with Syrian literature he has cited are
not necessarily distinctive to Syrian literature. But now we must mention
J. de Zwaan’s more specific attempt to show that the Epistula had an
origin about 195 “in the native Syriac Church of Osrhoëne, the kingdom
of Abgar.”66 He thinks it is from this nationalist Syrian church, as
opposed to that of the so-called Palutians, the orthodox intruders into
the area, that the document emanated. But H. J. W. Drijvers thinks this
nationalist church was probably Marcionite,67 and the Ep. Apost. is
anything but Marcionite! Whether it came from the unorthodox “state
church” or from the orthodox Palutians, we would surely expect from
an east Syrian document at this time more strident indications of the
presence of Marcionism. As Drijvers says, “Polemic with Marcion is . . .
a distinguishing mark of all Syrian theology in its different forms from
the very beginning of Syriac literature forward.”68 But the absence of any
indication of Marcionism in the Ep. Apost. has been noted by Gunther
himself.69 The last thing to be said about De Zwaan’s arguments is that
they center mainly on the document’s Quartodecimanism and leave most
of the rest of its contents untouched. Yet it must be said that, though
is said of a divine service in heaven. The passage cannot be understood as the

projection of Christian practice into heaven.”
66. de Zwaan, “Date and Origin,” 344.
67. H. J. W. Drijvers, “Christ as Warrior and Merchant. Aspects of Marcion’s
Christology,” Studia Patristica 21 (1989): 73–85 at 75, “[Marcionism] was probably
a form of a Christianity that was first known in large areas in Syria, so that the name
Christian was monopolized by the Marcionites. Ephrem complains bitterly that the
orthodox were called Palutians after a certain Palut, since the name Christians was in
use among another group, most likely the Marcionites”; idem, “Marcionism in Syria:
Principles, Problems, Polemics,” SCe 6 (1987–88): 153–72 at 172–73.
68. Drijvers, “Facts and Problems in Early Syriac-Speaking Christianity,” SCe 2
(1982): 157–75 at 174.
there is a definite polemical thrust to the epistle, Quartodecimanism does

not figure at all prominently in it.70 The present but unobtrusive signs of
Quartodeciman practice do not at all appear to be a “protest” against
conformity to the Roman pattern;71 in fact, they surely seem to indicate
that the Quartodeciman controversy of the 190s is not yet on the
horizon.
Finally, in assessing the claims of Syria (East or West), one needs to ask
whether the Epistula displays to any noticeable extent many of the
characteristic traits of Syrian Christianity. Drijvers describes the Chris-
tology of early Syrian literary sources: “In all that literature Christ is
considered God’s eternal thought and will, incarnate in a human body in
order that man might return to the original state in which he was created
according to God’s thought and will. Christ manifests the divine will by
his obedience unto death, which means by dominating human passions
and human strivings, revealing in this way God’s eternal thought
concerning the salvation of mankind.”72 The ascetic and perhaps even
somewhat docetic tendencies to which such a theology opens itself are
not in evidence in the Ep. Apost. Also, though the Ep. Apost. knows the
apostle Thomas (ch. 2), it does not give him his characteristic Syrian
name of Judas Thomas, or Didymus Judas Thomas, “a phenomenon
characteristic of and restricted to early Syriac literature.”73
De Zwaan’s view that our document is the product of Edessene
Christianity of about 195 is simply untenable. If it is Syrian it would have
to be much earlier, as Gunther suggests, “before the wave of Marcionism
from Rome swept across Syria and the eastern Mediterranean.”74 So far,
though there may be little to disqualify Syria of the first half of the second
century, there is also little that specifically commends it.
70. Hardly signifying that “the Paschal controversy was red-hot,” pace de Zwaan,
“Date and Origin,” 348.
71. de Zwaan, “Date and Origin,” 354. S. G. Hall, Melito of Sardis: On Pascha
and Fragments, OECT (Oxford, 1979), xxv, thinks its Quartodecimanism is “by no
means certain.”
72. “Hellenistic and Oriental Origins,” in S. Hackel, ed., The Byzantine Saint:
University of Birmingham Fourteenth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies.
Studies Supplementary to Sobornost 5 (London, 1981), 25–33 at 32.
73. H. J. W. Drijvers, “Facts and Problems,” 158–59. He notes its presence “in the
Vetus Syra, in the Acts of Thomas, in Ephrem Syrus, in the Doctrina Addai and in
Eusebius, Church History I. 13 where the bishop of Caesarea gives a Greek
translation of essential parts of the Abgar correspondence and Abgar legend” (159).
Drijvers’ description (170–71) of the theology of the Thomas literature would surely
exclude the Ep. Apost. from this category.
C. Asia
1. Schmidt’s Arguments
Schmidt’s arguments for Asia Minor have not so much been refuted as
deemed inconclusive. Hornschuh treated them in the process of rejecting
them, and we shall find it convenient to cite them here as he does.
1) The mention of Cerinthus with Simon. Cerinthus is, of course,
placed in Asia by Irenaeus, our earliest source (besides the Ep. Apost.).
Hornschuh cannot accept this as valid, however, because of the way
Cerinthus is used here. Cerinthus and Simon are thought to be intro-
duced as mere types, not as those whose teaching is really affecting the
community.75 Moreover, they are presented as heretics from the apostolic
age, whose false teaching has “gone throughout the world” (7.1). If
Cerinthus’ teaching is thus widespread, his reputation cannot be limited
to Asia. Simon’s Samaritan origin does not mean the Epistula is
Samaritan, so neither does Cerinthus’ Asian origin mean it is Asian.
Strictly speaking, this is correct. I would argue, however, that the
inclusion of Simon is understandable on the supposition that he was
considered the fount of all Christian heresies (AH 1.23.2; 2.praef.1, etc.),
and his is one of the few heretical names which could be associated with
the times of the apostles, the putative senders of the “epistle.” Cerinthus,
on the other hand, though he could also be said to be an “apostolic”
heretic, because associated with the apostle John, flourished much later,
according to Asian tradition (AH 3.3.4; 11.1), and this must put him
much closer to the author’s own time. I would even argue that it is
possible to show that Ep. Apost.’s knowledge of Cerinthus extends to the
heretic’s teaching. But the systematic demonstration of this is really the
work of another study. In the remainder of the present study, Cerinthus
and his teaching will be used only illustratively.
2) The author’s predilection for the Fourth Gospel. Hornschuh cannot
argue with Schmidt’s conclusion that “in keiner der uns überlieferten
Schriften (sc. des 2. Jahrhunderts) eine derartig starke Benutzung des
75. For this Hornschuh has the support even of Schmidt, whom he quotes (99) as
saying, “vielmehr sind diese beiden Namen nur Typen der Gesamterscheinung . . .
Sollte nämlich die Fiktion aufrechterhalten werden, daß die Apostel selbst also
Bekämpfer der gnostischen Häresie auftreten, so mußte der Verfasser Häretiker der
apostolischen Zeit namhaft machen” (from Schmidt, Gespräche, 195). He can also
claim Bardy’s support (Bardy, 118), “Dans la lettre des Apôtres, Simon et Cérinth
paraissent plutôt comme des types, déjà légendaires, que comme des personnages
vivants.”
Johannesevangeliums hervortritt wie in der vorliegenden.”76 But this

only carries weight for Asia Minor, Hornschuh rightly observes, if one
accepts the ecclesiastical tradition that the Fourth Gospel was written
there. “Für den, der der kirchlichen Tradition nicht folgen kann, bleibt
das Argument wertlos.”77 Hornschuh elsewhere (as we have seen)
mentions the evidence that the Fourth Gospel was recognized quite early
in Egypt as well. It should probably be admitted that whatever prov-
enance is thought most likely for the Fourth Gospel will have to be
seriously considered as a probable place of origin of a work such as the
Ep. Apost. as well. But this is by no means conclusive.
3) The special place of John in the apostle-list in ch. 2. Unlike any
other apostle-list up to this time, the one given in Ep. Apost. 2 has John
in first place. This goes along with the author’s penchant for the Fourth
Gospel, and is fairly taken to indicate his understanding of the author-
ship of that Gospel. But this verdict is subject to the same objection as
the previous one. Hornschuh points out that the Apocryphon of John
from Nag Hammadi also has a special role for John, and nobody
attributes this work to Asia.78
4) The Quartodeciman Easter (Passover) assumed by Ep. Apost. 15
(26). Hornschuh admits that the Ep. Apost. is an early witness to
Quartodecimanism. But he theorizes that a Palestinian group would take
this practice wherever they migrated, and in Hornschuh’s view, in the
case of our author and his community, this was Egypt.79 All we can say
then from the Quartodecimanism of the author is that it certainly fits
well with Asia, but does not point infallibly to that region.
It should be quite evident that the weight of much of this evidence
depends upon one’s prior judgment about the origin of the Fourth
Gospel, though it should be said at this point that the “Johannine”
connections do not stop with the Fourth Gospel. Wherever Ep. Apost.
was produced, II or III John was probably known,80 and the Apocalypse
76. Hornschuh, Studien, 100, citing Schmidt, 224f.

79. Hornschuh, Studien, 100–101. R. M. Grant, “Jewish Christianity at Antioch in
the Second Century,” in J. Moingt, ed., Judéo-Christianisme: Recherches historiques
et théologiques offertes en hommage au Cardinal Jean Daniélou (Paris, 1972), 97–
108, at 107, supposes, based on Eusebius’ silence with regard to any Antiochene
bishop as attending a synod to support the Roman side of the controversy, that
Quartodeciman practice endured in Antioch till this time. But this is merely an
inference.
80. Ch. 38, the phrase “walk in truth” is probably borrowed from II Jn 4; III Jn
3–4.
of John was popular too. And here I must disagree with Hornschuh, who
claims there are no points of contact with the book of Revelation.81 The
NTA2 lists nine probable references or allusions to Revelation and as this
study proceeds we shall see that there are more. The weight of the
combination, then, of the author’s familiarity with the Fourth Gospel
and with the Apocalypse (which is universally acknowledged as Asian, as
it addresses seven churches there), and his community’s Quartodeciman
practice should probably be allowed to fall on the side of Asia Minor.
Nonetheless, this evidence will be weakened for those who hold out for
a different birthplace for the Fourth Gospel. As stated above, I believe
the author can be shown to be familiar with the teachings of Cerinthus.
This also should point strongly to Asia, though there are those who
believe Hippolytus’ notice that Cerinthus was trained in Egypt signifies
an alternative and superior tradition that this man came from Egypt.82
For the purposes of our investigation I prefer not to rely on the
disputed implications of Schmidt’s evidence in arguing for the prov-
enance of the Ep. Apost. We shall instead leave all the weight which
might accumulate from an Asian origin of the Fourth Gospel and an
Asian provenance of the Cerinthus traditions to one side. There is, I
believe, much more evidence which can be appealed to which will point
in the same direction.
We have already noted a few instances above where arguments
intended to support other localities turned out to make their best
contributions to Asia, namely, the weather patterns mentioned in ch. 3;
the apparent knowledge of the longer ending of Mark’s Gospel; the
Christological reading of Jn 1.13. In what follows we shall arrange
various pieces of evidence, under aspects of literary or theological
affinities, indicators of the social situation, and external historical
factors, all of which can be integrated into the search for the origins of
the Ep. Apost. and all of which, I believe, lead us in the direction of Asia
Minor.
2. Literary and Theological Affinities
a. Asian Biblical Texts and Exegesis

The first argument comes from what we might call Asian texts and
exegesis. We have already alluded to Ep. Apost. 30.1, which probably

82. B. G. Wright III, “Cerinthus Apud Hippolytus: An Inquiry into the Traditions
about Cerinthus’s Provenance,” SCe 4 (1984): 103–15.
correctly has been said to reflect knowledge of the long ending of Mark’s
Gospel. We have noted that this ending is first clearly signified in a writer
of Asian extraction, Irenaeus (AH 3.10.6), and possibly is attested by an
earlier Asian, Papias of Hierapolis (Eusebius, HE 3.39.9). We have also
met with another textual peculiarity which is attested early in Asia,
namely, the application of Jn 1.13 to Jesus, who “was born not by the
lust of the flesh but by the will of God” (3.2). As with Justin, so here, we
cannot know for certain whether this represents a variant text at this
point,83 or whether it is simply a christological application of the verse.
But by the time Irenaeus uses it, it was apparently a textual reading in his
copy of John’s Gospel.84 The point here is that outside its use in Ep.
Apost. it is known in the second century only in one who spent his early
Christian life in Ephesus (and probably acquired his first copy of the
Fourth Gospel there), in the Asian Irenaeus (AH 3.16.2; 19.2; 21.5, 7;
5.1.3), and then in one who was a student of Irenaeus’ writings,
Tertullian (De carne Christi 19.1; 24.2; cf. 15.3). Both these latter use it
in defense of the virgin birth of Jesus not involving a human father,
against heretics such as the Ebionites (or the Cerinthians) who taught
otherwise. We also observed that this reading is unknown to Clement
and apparently Origen, and is found in no Alexandrian text of the
Fourth Gospel.
Next is the christological application of the OT appellation of God as
the one, “who is over the Cherubim” (Ps 80.1 or 99.1) which appears in
the list of attributes of Jesus in Ep. Apost. 3.1.85 This expression as
applied to Jesus is attested elsewhere in the second century only in
Irenaeus: AH 3.11.8, “the Word, the Artificer of all, He that sitteth upon
the cherubim, and contains all things. . . . As also David says, when
83. All the surviving Greek MSS of John contain the plural, ofl . . . §gennÆyhsan, and
not the singular, ıw . . . §gennÆyh. There is but one witness for the singular in the Old
Latin (MSS b). See Ehrman, Orthodox Corruption, 27, 59.
84. Apparently Irenaeus was not aware that there was a variation in the textual
tradition, though Tertullian was (De carne christi 19.1). The latter blamed the plural
reading (today accepted as the original) on the Valentinians. Thus, Tertullian
evidently had access to both readings, though no Greek MSS containing the singular
has survived. It is significant that this alteration of the text (if it was an alteration and
not simply a Christological application of it) is assumed in a document which opposes
Cerinthus, who, like the Ebionites mentioned by both Irenaeus and Tertullian, taught
an adoption of the earthly Jesus at the time of his baptism. In my opinion, this is the
likeliest context for the original variation.
85. “Dieser Jesus Christus ist an die Stelle des alttestamentlichen Gottes gesetzt und
deshalb wird auch der solenne Titel desselben ihm an erster Stelle erteilt,” Schmidt,
Gespräche, 268. See also Hills, Tradition, 54–55.
entreating His manifestation, ‘Thou that sittest between the cherubim,

shine forth’ (Ps 80.1)”;86 4.33.13, “And those who said, ‘The LORD
hath reigned; let the people be enraged: [even] He who sitteth upon the
cherubim; let the earth be moved (Ps 99.1),’ were thus predicting . . . the
fact that, when He comes from heaven with His mighty angels, the whole
earth shall be shaken. . . .”87 The same understanding of these texts as
referring to Jesus is signified in the title given to him by Irenaeus’
contemporary and fellow-Asian, Melito of Sardis, who calls him “chari-
oteer of the Cherubim” (Fragm. 15, l. 66; New Fragm. II, l. 200).88
Ep. Apost. 27 takes up a Pauline metaphor from Phil 2.16, “so that in
the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in
vain.”89 After announcing that pardon has been extended to the deceased
OT patriarchs and prophets in Hades, just as to the disciples, and “so
from now on also to those who believe in me,” Ep. Apost. 27 (Eth.)
continues, “But whoever believes in me and does not do my command-
ment receives, although he believes in my name, no benefit from it. He
has run a course in vain. His end is determined for ruin and for
punishment of great pain, for he has sinned against my commandment.”
The only other recorded allusion to Phil 2.16 in the second century is in
Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians, and both sources use it in the same
distinctive way. Polycarp, Phil. 9. 2, after holding before the Philippians
the examples of faithful apostles and martyrs who are presumed to have
died, says, “being persuaded that all of these ‘ran not in vain,’ but in
faith and righteousness, and that they are with the Lord in the ‘place
which is their due,’90 with whom they also suffered.” Polycarp speaks of
the afterlife blessings of those who have not run their life’s course in
vain;91 our anonymous author speaks instead of the afterlife woes of
those who have.
86. This is related in the context to the four “living creatures” from Ezek 1; Rev 4,
described as cherubim in Ezek 10, and is there part of Irenaeus’ defense of the
four-fold Gospel.
87. Irenaeus goes on to relate this to the eschatological earthquake predicted in Mt
24.21. These verses may have had a special significance in the Asia Minor of Irenaeus’
youth. See below.
88. Hall, Melito, 84, 93.
89. The phrase “run in vain” is used by Paul in another context in Gal 2.2, “lest
somehow I should be running or had run in vain.” The metaphor of life as a race
occurs again in II Tim 4.7, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I
have kept the faith.”
90. Cf. I Clem. 5.4.
91. See Clement of Alexandria’s beautiful extended metaphor in Quis Dives
Salvetur 3, who, however, does not mention running in vain.
b. Extracanonical Traditions
Often it is said that the Ep. Apost. shares some concepts with
gnosticism, or at least with some forms of “nonstandard” Christianity.
And one of the elements that probably gives rise to this is the notion,
seen also in the Ascension of Isaiah 10.7ff., of Jesus disguising himself in
his descent from the highest heaven to enter the womb of the virgin (ch.
13). As it is in the Ethiopic,
While I was coming from the Father of all, passing by the heavens, wherein
I put on the wisdom of the Father and by his power clothed myself in his
power, I was like the heavens. And passing by the angels and archangels in
their form and as one of them, I passed by the orders, dominions, and
princes, possessing the measure of the wisdom of the Father who sent me.
And the archangels Michael and Gabriel, Raphael and Uriel followed me
until the fifth firmament of heaven, while I appeared as one of them. This
kind of power was given me by the Father. Then I made the archangels to
become distracted with the voice and go up to the altar of the Father and
serve the Father in their work until I should return to him.
In spite of the absence of a drama of this kind from the canonical NT

writings, we find that no less a representative of second-century ortho-
doxy than Irenaeus knows and accepts some such speculation about
Christ’s descent.
But the earth is encompassed by seven heavens, in which dwell Powers and
Angels and Archangels, giving homage to the Almighty God who created all
things. . . .92 Hence the first heaven from the top, which encloses the others,
is wisdom. . . . (Dem. 9)
Again David says this very thing: “Take up your gates, O ye princes, and be
lifted up, O eternal gates; and the king of glory shall enter in” (Ps 24.7); for
the “eternal gates” are the heavens. But because the Word came down
invisible to creatures, He was not known to them in His Descent; since the
Word had become incarnate, He was also visible, in His ascension; and
when the principalities saw Him, the angels underneath called to those who
were on the firmament: “Take up your gates. . . .” (Dem. 84)
The acceptance of this story of Christ’s disguising himself so as to

avoid recognition by the strata of angels in his incarnational descent then
was not necessarily restricted to “fringe” Christian groups, and Irenaeus
shows that it may well have been known to him from his early life in
Asia.
92. Each heaven is said to correspond to one of the seven charismata of the Spirit
according to Isa 11.2f. In Jewish or Jewish-Christian sources, see Test. Levi 3; Asc.
Isa. 10; Secrets of Enoch 3f.
On the other hand, the author of Ep. Apost. and Irenaeus show a
sharp disagreement about another extracanonical tradition, the story of
the boy Jesus and his teachers, a version of which is also known from the
Infancy Gospel of Thomas. The author of Ep. Apost. tells his version of
the story with no qualms (ch. 4), while Irenaeus pronounces severely
against it and attributes it to unacceptable sources (AH 1.20.1).93 What
we must observe here, however, is simply that both know the story. It
would be reasonable to suppose that Irenaeus represents a later, more
critical view towards this tradition, a tradition which he may have
known from his Asian upbringing.
These two extracanonical traditions about Jesus then are significant
elements shared by Ep. Apost. and Irenaeus which may denote access to
a common fund of Asian tradition. Combined with the knowledge of
common forms of NT textual variations and interpretations, we are
beginning to see the accumulation of substantial links between Ep.
Apost. and Asian Christianity.
c. “Adding to and Subtracting from”

In ch. 29 the author invokes a concept of “adding to or subtracting
from” which also has strong links with second-century Asia Minor.
Ethiopic Coptic
But those who have sinned against But those who have transgressed
my commandment, who teach (my) commandments and have
something else, subtract from and taught another teaching, (in that
add to and work for their own they dissolve) the written (teaching)
glory, alienating those who rightly and add . . . their own, teaching
believe in me (MS S adds: I will with other words (those who
deliver them into ruin). believe) in me rightly, if they are
brought to ruin by such things (they
will receive) eternal punishment.
93. The Ep. Apost.’s use of this story does not at all, however, necessarily signal an
unorthodox or docetic Christology. Epiphanius tell us in fact why the orthodox might
be interested in such traditions about the childhood of Jesus: “For he ought to have
childhood miracles too, to deprive the other sects of an excuse for saying that ‘<the>
Christ,’ meaning the dove, came to him after [his baptism in] the Jordan. They say this
because of the sum of the letters alpha and omega, which is [the same as the sum of
the letters of] ‘dove,’ since the Savior said, ‘I am Alpha and I am Omega’” (Panar.
51.20.3). That is, such stories offered a way of confirming the orthodox Christology
of the union of the divine and human natures of Jesus Christ before the baptism in the
Jordan. This would make sense in a work such as Ep. Apost., written explicitly to
counteract the influences of Cerinthus. Irenaeus will restrict himself to canonical,
Scriptural traditions, but, interestingly, he uses Luke’s account of the blessing of
Simeon (Lk 2.29) to show the same thing, that Jesus was Christ from his birth, against
adoptionist Christologies which divide him up (AH 3.16.4).
Beginning with its use by the author of Rev 22.18–19, this rule of not
adding to or subtracting from comes to be used in battling corruption of
the tradition and false teaching, with special application to the falsification
of Scripture (or in the case of Polycrates, falsifying the Quartodeciman
paschal practice inherited from the Apostles).94
Revelation, ca. 95
§ãn tiw §piyª §pÉ aÈtå . . . ka‹ §ãn tiw éf°l˙ épÚ t«n lÒgvn toË bibl¤ou t∞w
profhte¤aw taÊthw. (Rev 22.18–19)
Irenaeus, 175–90
neque additamentum neque ablationem recipiens (pertaining to the heretical
forging or falsifying of Scripture). (AH 4.33.8)
¶peita d¢ toË prosy°ntow µ éfelÒntow ti t∞w graf∞w (of those who have
seized upon the number 616 instead of 666 for the Antichrist). (AH 5.30.1)
The anonymous antimontanist cited by Eusebius, 192–93

⁄ mÆte prosye›nai mÆte éfele›n (of the Montanists who added to and took
away from “the word of the new covenant of the gospel”). (HE 5.16.3)
Polycrates, 190–95
tØn ≤m°ran mÆte prostiy°ntew mÆte éfairoËmenoi (speaking of the 14th of
Nisan). (Euseb. HE 5.24.2)
Tertullian, 198–201
detractione, vel adiectione vel transmutatione (of those like Valentinus and
Marcion, who corrupt Scripture). (De praescr. heret. 38)
Si non est scriptum, timeat Vae illud adicientibus aut detrahentibus

destinatum (concerning Hermogenes, who falls under this curse for adding a
doctrine of the eternity of matter). (Adv. Hermog. 22)
94. The phrase occurs in the “Two-Ways” tradition in the Didache 4.1, repeated in
Barn. 19.2, 11, but its use in these works is to emphasize the completeness of
obedience to the Lord’s commandments, and “remonte directement au Deutéronome”
(W. C. Van Unnik, “De la règle MÆte prosye›nai mÆte éfele›n dans l’histoire du
canon,” VC 3 [1949]: 1–36, at 35), that is to Dt 12.32 (13.1 Heb; LXX): Pçn =∞ma,
˘ §g∆ §nt°llomai soi sÆmeron, toËto fulãj˙ poie›n: oÈ prosyÆseiw §pÉ aÈtÚ oÈd¢
éfele›w épÉ éutoË. cf. 4.2 oÈ prosyÆsete prÚw tÚ =∞ma ˘ §g∆ §nt°llomai Ím›n, ka‹ oÈk
éfele›te épÉ aÈtoË: fulãssesye tåw §ntolåw kur¤ou toË yeoË Ím«n. The Didache is
probably the source of the saying in the fourth-century Ecclesiastical Canons of the
Holy Apostles 14, 30 (see Quasten, Patrology 2: 119–20).
Van Unnik points out that all the authors who use the warning in this
way in this period have some close connection with Asia Minor: “Tous
ces textes datent de la même époque (6170–200),95 en partie du même
milieu (l’Asie Mineure avec laquelle Tertullien paraît avoir été en
relation).”96 As to the Ep. Apost. itself, the Coptic translation of Ep.
Apost. 29.1 clarifies that the commandments of Jesus in view are
associated with a written text or texts. The malediction in Ep. Apost.
thus aligns itself with these other authors and reveals both a concern and
a customary response which must have been fairly widespread in Asia
Minor in the second century. The phrase seems to be operating as a
well-known, general rule.
d. Perversion of the Lord’s Sayings

The sentiment voiced in the passage just cited from Ep. Apost. 29.1 is
echoed elsewhere in the document (chs. 7.2; 50.8), where it is again
lamented that some are not keeping Jesus’ commandments and are
somehow perverting his words. This in turn shows up a parallel with
Polycarp of Smyrna, who in his section on false teachers indicts those
who “pervert the Lord’s lÒgia (7.1).”
Polycarp, Ad Phil. 7.1 Ep. Apost. 7
. . . and whoso perverts (meyodeÊ˙) Cerinthus and Simon have come to
the oracles of the Lord (tå lÒgia toË go through the world. But they are
kur¤ou) for his own lusts the enemies of our Lord Jesus
(§piyum¤aw), and says that there is Christ, (E) who in reality alienate
neither resurrection nor judgment— those who believe in the true word
this man is the firstborn of Satan. and deed, namely Jesus Christ
[Copt.: for they pervert the words
Papias, in HE 3.39.16 and the object, which is Jesus
Christ]. Therefore take care and
. . . and about Matthew this was beware of them, for in them is
said, “Matthew composed the
95. Van Unnik does not have Rev 22.18–19 in view at this point, which, of course,
shows the familiarity of this rule in Asia Minor from a much earlier time.
96. Van Unnik, “De la règle,” 9. Cf. a striking example from a pagan writer,
Artemidorus, in his Oneirocriticon 2.70 (which Van Unnik dates to ca. 130, though
other sources place it later in the second century) who uses it in regards to his own
writings, and invokes the wrath of Apollo for violation. It is of interest to note that
Artemidorus was an Ephesian! See Van Unnik, “De la règle,” 25, for text. R. H.
Charles, The Revelation of St. John, 2 vols., ICC (Edinburgh, 1920), 2: 223, cites
something similar from I Enoch 104.10, “And now I know this mystery, that sinners
will alter and pervert the words of righteousness in many ways, and will speak wicked
words,” and so they should “not change or minish aught from my words,” 104.11.
See Van Unnik for other examples.
oracles (tå lÒgia) in the Hebrew affliction and contamination and

language, and each interpreted them death, the end of which will be
as best he could.” destruction and judgment [Copt.: for
death is in them and a great stain of
Irenaeus, AH 1.praef. corruption—these to whom shall be
judgment and the end and eternal
These men falsify the oracles of the perdition].
Lord (=&diourgoËntew tå lÒgia toË
Kur¤ou), and prove themselves evil
interpreters of things well expressed. Ibid. 50 (Eth. only)
But woe to those who use my word
and my commandment for a pretext,
and also to those who listen to them
and to those who turn away from
the life of the teaching, to those who
turn away from the commandment
of life (this last clause not in Paris
Nos. 51, 90, and 199), they will be
eternally punished with them.
Polycarp and Papias (whose book was called Log¤vn kuriak«n
§jhgÆsevw [or §zÆghsiw or §zhgÆseiw], Eusebius, HE 3.39.1)97 together
witness to the interest in the lÒgia toË kur¤ou in Asia Minor of the first
half of the second century98 and the Asian emigré Irenaeus perpetuates
this concern in the second half.99 And we can see that the parallel
between Ep. Apost. and Polycarp, in particular, extends further. For the
perversion of the Lord’s words which Polycarp has in view in Phil. 7.1
concerns a denial of resurrection and judgment (presumably in Polycarp’s
view to indulge the flesh without fear of retribution).100 And a denial of
the doctrine of a resurrection of the body, with the soul, is clearly one of
the key problems which Ep. Apost. is trying hard to correct (e.g., chs. 21,
97. See H. J. Lawlor, “Eusebius on Papias,” Hermathena 19 (1922): 167–222 at

167.
98. Lawlor, “Papias,” 192, “in the second century tå lÒgia would usually mean
the written Scriptures, including narrative as well as divine or divinely inspired
sayings.” Though Lawlor’s conclusion here is seldom represented today, it still seems
to me to be the most well-founded. For the view that the lÒgia which Papias says
were written down by Matthew (HE 3.39.16) may represent the alleged “Synoptic
Sayings Source” Q, see Koester, Introduction, 172.
99. See also the words of “Paul” in his letter to the Corinthians in Acta Pauli 8.3,
3, the “Lord Jesus Christ . . . is rejected by those who falsify his words.” This is said
with reference to docetists of some kind.
100. See J. B. Lightfoot, Essays on the Work Entitled Supernatural Religion
(London/New York, 1893), 119–20; P. N. Harrison, Polycarp’s Two Epistles to the
Philippians (Cambridge, 1936), 27–75.
22, 24, 25, 26).101 The author of Ep. Apost. in ch. 50 threatens eternal
retribution against those who use Christ’s word and commandment for a
pretext, and against those who follow their teaching. And in ch. 7 similar
words are used of the false apostles Simon and Cerinthus, the similarity
being especially marked in the Coptic version cited above (“for they
pervert the words and the object, which is Jesus Christ”). The Ep.
Apost.’s concern about “taking from or adding to” (29.1) is of a piece
with its concern about using Christ’s word as a pretext, known to be a
concern in early second-century Asia through the writings of Polycarp,
Papias, and Irenaeus.
Though we have put off to another place the detailed consideration of
the traditions concerning Cerinthus, his name comes up unavoidably
here. The doctrinal problem in view in Polycarp, Phil. 7.1 and Ep.
Apost., the denial of bodily resurrection, particularly if this was con-
nected with a denial of retribution for deeds done in the body (the
“lusts” in Polycarp, Phil. 7.1 taken in a carnal sense), would be
appropriate to what we know about Cerinthus, at least as he was
understood by the critics of his legacy. In fact, as I hope to show in
another place, the errors combatted in our apocryphon coalesce more
completely with those of Cerinthus than with any other known teacher
or group. At any rate, Cerinthus is specifically named by our author. It is
significant that besides the author of the Ep. Apost., Irenaeus is the only
writer whose extant works seem to show a considerable knowledge
about Cerinthus.102 And we know that at least some of his information
on this heretic came from his prominent Asian mentor, Polycarp of
Smyrna (AH 3.3.4).
3. Social Setting
Another line of new evidence to which I would like to call attention
has to do with social factors pertaining to the Christian community
discernible in the Ep. Apost. Most of the points of comparison come
from the situation of the church in Polycarp’s Smyrna in the first decades
of the second century.
101. Schmidt, Gespräche, 126; Hornschuh, Studien, 64.

102. The mention of Cerinthus by Gaius of Rome and later by Dionysius of
Alexandria (Euseb. HE 3.28.2; 7.25.1–3) focus on a single aspect of his teaching, his
alleged chiliasm.
a. Confrontation with the Vain Teaching of False Christians

Pol. Ad Phil. 2.1 Ep. Apost. 37.4
. . . putting aside empty vanity (tØn Among them there are some who
kenØn) and vulgar error. . . . believe in my name and (yet) follow
evil and teach vain teaching.
Ibid. 6.3
Let us be zealous for good, Ibid. 1.1
refraining from offense, and from . . . which was written because of
false brethren, and from those who the false apostles Simon and
bear the name of the Lord in Cerinthus, that no one should follow
hypocrisy, who deceive them—for in them is deceit with
empty-minded men (époplan«si which they kill men. . . .
kenoÁw ényr≈pouw).
It is true that almost any false teaching could be denounced as vain,

almost any false teachers could be impugned as deceiving and branded
false brethren or false apostles. But the similar ways in which these
authors chose to characterize a particular false teaching and the false
teachers which were troubling their communities begin to reveal com-
mon patterns. The connection of these patterns to Asian Christianity,
even specifically to Smyrna, is strengthened by observing further parallels
between these two authors and the book of Revelation, as follows.
b. Love of Money and Respect of Persons

Rev 2.9 (to the church at Smyrna) Ep. Apost. 37.5
I know your tribulation and your And men will follow them and will
poverty (but you are rich). . . . Do submit themselves to their riches,
not fear what you are about to their depravity, their mania for
suffer. drinking, and their gifts of bribery;
and respect of persons will rule
Polycarp, Ad Phil. 2.2 among them.
. . . if we do his will, and walk in
his commandments . . . refraining Ibid. 38. 1–3
from all unrighteousness, But those who desire to see the face
covetousness, love of money of God and who do not regard the
(filargur¤aw), evil speaking, false person of the sinful rich and who do
witness. . . . 2.3 but remembering not fear the men who lead them
what the Lord taught when he astray, but reprove them, they will
said␣ .␣ . . “Blessed are the poor, and be crowned in the presence of the
they who are persecuted for Father.␣ .␣ .␣ . But those who walk in
righteousness’ sake” (Mt 5.3, 10) truth . . . (E) and have . . .
Ibid. 4.1 perseverance for righteousness’ sake

“But the beginning of all evils is the (Mt 5.10), in that men despise those
love of money” (filargur¤a). who strive for poverty and they
Knowing therefore that “we brought (nevertheless) endure—great is their
nothing into the world and we can reward (cf. Mt 5.12). Those who are
take nothing out of it. . . .” 4.3 reviled, tormented, persecuted, since
teach the widows . . . being far from they are destitute and men are
all slander, evil speaking, false arrogant against them and they
witness, love of money hunger and thirst (Mt 5.6) and
(filargur¤aw), and all evil. . . . because they have persevered—
blessed will they be in heaven.
Ibid. 6.1
Ibid. 46.1
refraining from all wrath, respect of
persons, unjust judgment, being far . . . respecting and fearing the
from all love of money person of no one, but especially
(filargur¤aw). . . . (not) that of the rich . . . that they
do not do my commandments, who
revel in their riches.
Ibid. 11.1
I advise, therefore, that you keep
from avarice (avaritia), and be pure
and truthful. . . . 11.2 If any man
does not abstain from avarice
(avaritia) he will be defiled by
idolatry. . . .
The depressed financial condition of the church at Smyrna, despite the

prosperity of the city as a whole, must have been well-known, being
attested already in Rev 2.9.103 It seems to be confirmed by the abundance
of references in Polycarp’s letter to the dangers of filargur¤a. These
references may be due part to the situation in Philippi which Polycarp is
addressing, in which the presbyter Valens has been recently deposed for
some indulgence of avarice. But the references to avarice occur through-
out the epistle, not just where that disciplinary problem is addressed, and
their prominence in his epistle, combined with the reference in Rev 2.9,
strongly suggest that issues of poverty and riches were live ones in
Smyrna. This is further confirmed by a look at Ignatius’ correspondence
with Smyrna. Ignatius counsels Polycarp not to encourage manumissions
of slaves from the church’s common chest (Polyc. 4.3). Harrill suggests
this is because of “competition for members among house churches.
Without unity and episcopal control over the common chest, only rich
103. See C. Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in their Local
Setting, JSNT Suppl. Ser. 11 (Sheffield, 1986), 68, for probable causes for this poverty.
(or worse, ‘heretical’) house churches could have afforded to buy

members through corporate manumission.”104 “Slaves, likewise, must
display fidelity to the bishop’s house church and not be lured away by
cash offers of liberation by other unauthorized (and to Ignatius’s mind,
heretical) house churches.”105
Surely many other Christian churches in the empire struggled with
poverty. But not only were the Smyrnaean church and the community
behind the Ep. Apost. beset with similar pecuniary circumstances, in
their distresses both derived great comfort from the promises of Mt 5.3,
6, 10–12, as their citations of or allusions to these dominical words
show. And besides warnings against the love of money, Polycarp’s list of
admonitions includes the forbidding of respect of persons (6.1), which
happens to be another prominent social concern of the author of the Ep.
Apost. (37.5; 46.1).106
The problems of economic and social stratification appear similar,
then, in the Smyrnaean documents and in the Ep. Apost. Ep. Apost. goes
beyond Polycarp, however, in openly censuring his community’s major
rivals as those who are “sinful rich,” depraved, given to drink, and
respecters of person.107 These all combine to form a vivid picture of a
community’s struggles,108 made more realistic by a comparison of the
104. J. Albert Harrill, “Ignatius, Ad Polycarp. 4.3 and the Corporate Manumission
of Christian Slaves,” JECS 1 (1993): 107–42 at 136.
105. Harrill, “Ignatius,” 137.
106. Cf. Ignatius’ counsel to the Smyrnaeans (Smyrn. 6.2) about some who have no
care for love, “none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the distressed, none
for the afflicted, none for the prisoner, or for him released from prison, none for the
hungry or thirsty.”
107. Hills, Tradition, 140, citing the occurrence of the motifs of (a) the disciples’
warning or reproof; (b) the absence of fear; (c) the absence of partiality; (d) the
ignoring of others’ riches; and (e) the keeping of the commandments in chs. 24; 37;
38; 46; 47, says, “The fivefold occurrence of this group of ideas puts it beyond doubt
that there is a communal reality in the author’s mind. The question arises whether this
is merely an ideal or perceived reality or an actual one . . .” (141). After
acknowledging the “typical nature of the characterizations of the opponents” (141),
he later conjectures, “that the strong we/they dichotomy reflects a real situation of
competing Christian groups. The community of the Epistula has made its appeal to
the rival group, who are possibly in the majority. Of those ‘warned’ at least some have
‘turned back’” (145). Hornschuh, Studien, 96, points out that in a work addressed to
the orthodox against Gnosis we might expect a reference to episcopal authority, but
we have no recourse to this in the Ep. Apost. He says in fact that “daß das Amt in die
Hände der Gnostiker gefallen war.” He speaks of a “Brüderethik” of brotherly love in
the epistle, like that of a minority sect or conventicle, an ecclesiola in ecclesia (97).
108. On the persecution and martyrdom endured by the Ep. Apost.’s community,
see Hills, Tradition, 111–15, who refers to chs. 15, 36, 38, 50.
Smyrnaean materials of Ignatius and Polycarp. It is not difficult to

visualize a situation in which reciprocation in ecclesiastical matters was
purchased through monetary means (or where such attempts were
made), and in which the temptation existed to cater to the desires of
those who had financial and social position, but not the right moral or
ecclesiastical credentials. Again, Harrill speaks of the sticky problems
which may have been caused by the coexistence of those of widely
disparate means in the same churches:
Paramone obligations directly to house congregations would have
established a hierarchy of patronage independent of any “monarchical”
bishop who claimed authority over the whole metropolitan area. This
independence would have fueled the potential for a power struggle between
Ignatian clergy and wealthy house church patrons over which group
controlled congregational church funds. Indeed, the clergy and the rich were
two distinct and sometimes rival sources of authority in early Christianity.109
Factors resulting from the financial depression of a church in apparent

competition with rival group or groups which, along with their alterna-
tive theological agendas, may also have held a financial advantage, and
the parallel problems stemming from social stratification, unite the
author of Ep. Apost. with at least one Asian church of the early second
century, the church of Polycarp’s Smyrna.
4. Historical Circumstances: Earthquakes and Plagues

There are other historical elements embedded in chs. 34–37 of Ep.
Apost. which point to an Asian provenance and which can also aid us
somewhat in the search for the time of its composition.
Ep. Apost. 34 begins a new section of the work in which the disciples
ask Jesus how they will recognize the onset of the wonders “in heaven
and upon earth before the end of the world comes” (34.3). Jesus
responds, “I will teach you, and not only what will happen to you, but
(also) to those whom you shall teach and who shall believe”—most
naturally a reference to readers in the author’s own day. What follows is
a description of portents and disasters borrowed largely from the
Synoptic Gospels and the Apocalypse.110 But interest focuses finally on
earthquakes, drought, and a plague:
109. Harrill, “Ignatius,” 141.

110. “And he said to us, ‘Then will the believers and also they who do not believe
see a trumpet in heaven [cf. Mt 24.31; Did. 16; Sib. Or. 4.174), and the sight of great
stars that are visible while it is day, and a dragon (only Paris No. 51 and Stuttgart
Cod. Orient. fol. No. 49; British Museum Or. 793 and Paris No. 90: stars and
34.9. . . . and constantly the frightening of thunder and lightning,

thunderclaps and earthquakes, how cities fall down and in their ruin men
die, constant drought from the failing of the rain, a great plague and an
extensive and often quick death, so that those who die will lack a grave;
and the going out (or, carrying out) of children and relatives will be on one
bed (or, bier). 10. And the relative will not turn toward his child, nor the
child to his relative; and a man will not turn toward his neighbour. 11. But
those forsaken who were left behind will rise up and see those who forsook
them, in that they did (not) bring them out because (there was) plague.
12.␣ Everything is hatred and affliction and jealousy, and they will take from
the one and give to another; and what comes after this will be worse than
this.
The departure from biblical descriptions beginning in 34.9 and the

increasing detail, including the family chaos and general social disrup-
tion brought about by such human tragedy, suggest that this is based on
personal experience of events in the life of the author’s community. This
impression is strengthened both by the description of God in ch. 3 as the
one “who shakes and makes firm,” a probable reference to earthquakes
and God’s sovereignty over them, and by ch. 36 where attention returns
to the situation described in ch. 34, again centering around a particular
plague and its aftermath.111 Chapter 36 records a conflict between some
of the elect who survive the plague and those who had fled to escape the
plague, but who, “believing in my name they have done the work of
sinners; they have acted like unbelievers” (36.11).
One could reconstruct a situation from this evidence which would
look something like this. The author’s community will undergo (i.e., it
wonders; Paris No. 199 has a scribal error) reaching from heaven to earth, and stars
that are like fire falling down [cf. Mt 24.29; Rev 6.13; 12.4, 9) and great hailstones
of severe fire, and how sun and moon fight against each other, and constantly the
frightening of thunder and lightning, thunderclaps and earthquakes. . . .’”
111. In 36.3 the disciples ask Jesus if the faithful will exit from the world “through
a plague that has tormented them.” He replies, “No, but if they suffer torment, such
suffering will be a test for them, whether they have faith. . . .” This seems to imply
that relatively few of these Christians will actually die as a result of the plague. We
have other reports from antiquity of Christians staying behind to help the sick when
others fled a plague-infested city (see note 114). For Christians, “care of the sick, even
in time of pestilence, was . . . a recognized religious duty” (W. H. McNeill, Plagues
and Peoples [Garden City, N.Y., 1976], 121). Interestingly, it has been estimated that
Christian nursing of the plague-stricken, even by providing the most elementary forms
of care, would have greatly reduced the mortality rate (McNeill, Plagues, 121; R.
Stark, The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History [Princeton, 1996],
88–89). Stark credits much of the church’s remarkable numerical growth in the first
three centuries to its ability to weather plagues, and win allegiance and favor as a
result of such ministries of mercy.
has undergone) among other things, a plague, probably coming in the

wake of an earthquake and attended by a drought. We may conjecture
that a quake of any magnitude would have dismantled part of the sewer
system and possibly interrupted the fresh water supply, making the
spread of disease, in particular a waterborne disease such as cholera, an
inevitable danger.112 Moreover, the quake mentioned in ch. 34 comes in
the midst of an extended drought, or of intermittent drought over a
period of time, making precious whatever water was available and
perhaps itself playing a role in initiating or worsening the spread of
sickness.113 At the same time, the dead are said to be so plentiful as to
make proper burial impossible. At the time of the plague many fled the
area, including some who bore the name of Christian but who by their
leaving “forsook” the other Christians. Remaining in the plague-infested
area was evidently for the purpose of ministering to the sick and dying—
something we know from other sources was considered the proper
Christian response to such epidemics.114 Some sort of betrayal seems to
112. The plague’s “extensive and often quick death” mentioned in 34.9 would also
be very compatible with cholera’s symptoms. McNeill, Plagues, 261, “Once swal-
lowed, if the cholera bacillus survives the stomach juices, it is capable of swift
multiplication in the human alimentary tract, and produces violent and dramatic
symptoms—diarrhea, vomiting, fever, and death, often within a few hours of the first
signs of illness. The speed with which cholera killed was profoundly alarming, since
perfectly healthy people could never feel safe from sudden death when the infection
was anywhere near. . . . The effect was to make mortality uniquely visible: patterns of
bodily decay were exacerbated and accelerated, as in a time-lapse motion picture, to
remind all who saw it of death’s ugly horror and utter inevitability.” We have
descriptions of cholera in antiquity from Hippocrates (460–370 b.c.e.), Aulus
Cornelius Celsus (25 b.c.e.–c.e. 50), Galen (131–200), and Aretaeus, a Cappadocian
also of the second century; see G. Sticker, Abhandlungen aus der Seuchengeschichte
und Seuchenlehre, 3 vols. (Gießen, 1912), II. Band, 1–3.
113. Lucian, Peregrinus 19, notes the outbreak of some kind of disease(s) as the
effect of a drought of water at the Olympic games in 165 and its amelioration through
the provision of water (see J. P. Gilliam, “The Plague under Marcus Aurelius,” AJP 82
[1961]: 225–51, at 230 n. 18).
114. Note the report of Dionysius of Alexandria in 252 or 253 about Christian
behavior during the plague which had struck that city: “The most, at all events, of our
brethren in their exceeding love and affection for the brotherhood were unsparing of
themselves and clave to one another, visiting the sick without a thought as to the
danger, assiduously ministering to them, tending them in Christ, and so most gladly
departing this life along with them; being infected with the disease from others,
drawing upon themselves the sickness from their neighbours, and willingly taking
over their pains. And many, when they had cared for and restored to health others,
died themselves . . . so that this form of death seems in no respect to come behind
martyrdom, being the outcome of much piety and strong faith” (Eusebius, HE
7.22.7–8). Cf. also, Cyprian, De mortalitate 16. Dionysius contrasted this with the
be contemplated in this section as well, as if the fleeing Christians

perhaps informed on those who remained, or as if their abandonment
itself was seen as participation in the condemnation of the Christians
who stayed.115 The elect will “go out after they have been afflicted by
such a distress” (36.2). That is, the remaining Christians will in fact
survive the plague, though some will be tormented by it as a test of their
faith and obedience. Their trial “will last (only a) few days” (36.5). Jews
and Gentiles will be saved and will believe in Christ and “escape the
distress of the plague” and “the distress of death,” but “such a one will
be taken and kept in prison, under torture like that of a thief.” About the
fate of those “believers” who ran from the plague, Christ answers,
“Believing in my name they have done the work of sinners; they have
acted like unbelievers” (36.11).
The plague will pass, and the attention of the book goes on briefly to
disturbances that will affect the entire world. But quickly it returns once
more to what must be a description the author thought was fitting for the
local situation. What it relates next in 37.3–5 may probably be seen as
the aftermath of the events surrounding the plague. It predicts again
“darkness and drought and persecution of those who believe in me, and
of the elect. Then dissention, conflict, and evil of action against each
other.” Some who confess the name of Jesus will depart after evil and
vain teaching, others will “submit themselves to their riches, their
depravity, their mania for drinking, their gifts of bribery, and respect of
persons will rule among them” (37.4–5).
This, it seems to me, recounts a real set of circumstances that had left
a deep impression on the author’s mind, circumstances which have not
been adequately investigated for their importance in determining the
setting of the Ep. Apost.116
It is well-documented that Asia Minor in particular was racked by
natural disasters, including plagues and numerous earthquakes, in the
behavior of the heathen: “Even those who were in the first stages of the disease they
thrust away, and fled from their dearest. They would even cast them in the roads
half-dead, and treat the unburied corpses as vile refuse, in their attempts to avoid the
spreading and contagion of the death-plague . . .” (7.22.10). Stark, Rise, 83–88,
shows that the attitudes which Dionysius attributes to the pagans in Alexandria were
characteristic of the time. Galen, the famous physician, himself fled Rome during the
epidemic of 165.
115. See the citations from Ps 49.20 LXX in 35.7, “While you sit there”
furthermore “you slander your brother, and set a trap for the son of your mother.”
116. Stark, Rise, 74, chides scholars of early Christianity for failing to reckon with
the effects of plagues, epidemics, and disease on the early history of Christianity.
first two centuries c.e.117 This province was afflicted like no other,
certainly more adversely than Syria or Egypt.118 In addition, as we shall
see below, the civil unpopularity and open persecution suffered by
Christians in the second century was nowhere at a higher pitch than in
Asia Minor. An attempt will be made below to correlate our data from
Ep. Apost. with the available historical records of these disasters and
persecutions. For now we note simply that the earthquake, drought,
plague, and persecution which must have played an important role in the
recent experience of the Christians for whom Ep. Apost. was written,
have an available and credible historical correspondence in the range of
natural disasters which ravaged Asia Minor and in the popular hostilities
which vexed its Christians, throughout most of the second century.
5. Smyrna of Revelation 2
Finally, I set out what strikes me as a fairly remarkable set of
coincidences, which touch upon literary, social, and historical aspects of
the author’s community:
Rev 2.9–10 Ep. Apost. 36
I know your tribulation and your He answered and said to us, “Thus
poverty (but you are rich) and the will the elect be revealed, in that
slander of those who say that they they go out after they have been
are Jews and are not, but are a afflicted by such a distress.” And we
synagogue of Satan. Do not fear said to him, “Will their exit from
what you are about to suffer. the world (take place) through a
Behold, the devil is about to throw plague that has tormented them?”
some of you into prison, that you And he said to us, “No, but if they
may be tested, and for ten days you suffer torment, such suffering will be
will have tribulation. Be faithful a test for them, whether they have
117. A. Hermann, “Erdbeden,” RAC 5 (Stuttgart, 1962), 1070–113, at 1104–5

lists known earthquakes of the first two centuries after Christ. The list contains
seventeen years in which earthquakes are recorded for cities of Asia Minor (nine for
the second century alone), most often more than one city is listed for each quake. In
the first two centuries two earthquakes are listed for Syria, in 37 and 115 c.e. (for the
latter see Dio Chrysostom, Rom. Hist. 68.24.1–25.6), and none for Egypt! Strabo, at
the beginning of the Christian era, remarked about Asian Philadelphia, “The
inhabitants are continually attentive to the disturbances of the earth and plan all
structures with a view to their occurrence” (cited from Broughton, “Roman Asia,”
601). See J. B. Lightfoot, Colossians and Philemon (Lyn, Mass., 1981 repr.), 2–3, 38;
Lightfoot, AF, II.1.461; Hemer, Letters, 156–58, and our discussion below.
118. Aelius Aristides in about 147–49 remarked about Egypt, “Not even the
Greeks before our time were unaware that the land is untouched by earthquake,
plague, and deluges from heaven because of the Nile” (The Egyptian Discourse 125).
unto death, and I will give you the faith and whether they keep in mind
crown of life. these words of mine and obey my
commandment. They will rise up,
and their waiting will last (only a)
few days, that he who sent me may
be glorified, and I with him. For he
has sent me to you. I tell you this.
But you tell (it) to Israel and to the
Gentiles, that they may hear; they
also are to be saved and believe in
me and escape the distress of the
plague. And whoever has escaped
the distress of death, such a one will
be taken and kept in prison, under
torture like that of a thief.”
Our author’s knowledge of John’s Revelation is apparent in several

places and it is not at all unreasonable to assume that he is also familiar
with Rev 2.9–10. The correspondence is such that it might lead us to
suppose that the author of Ep. Apost. viewed his community’s experi-
ences in terms of Christ’s words to the Church at Smyrna in Rev 2.9–10.
We have already commented on the similar financial conditions which
characterized the Smyrnaean church as assumed in Rev 2.9 and reported
in the Smyrna of the Ignatius-Polycarp correspondence and evident in the
Ep. Apost. Both texts cited above speak of a coming tribulation as a
“test.” The torment to be suffered by Ep. Apost.’s people, after being
deserted by others (chs. 35, 36), “will last (only a) few days,” and this
corresponds plausibly to Revelation’s “ten days you will have tribula-
tion.” Both texts also speak of imprisonment, to be suffered in Ep.
Apost.’s community by Christians who refuse to flee from a plague and
who will be tortured in prison. In both texts there is also some allusion
to non-Christian Jews. In Revelation the reference is only negative,
“those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of
Satan,” whereas in Ep. Apost. they are included in the scope of the
gospel preaching. The tense and sometimes hostile relations between
Jews and Christians in Asia Minor, and in Smyrna in particular, also
attested in Mart. Polyc. (12.2; 13.1; 17.2; 18.1), is, however, perhaps
reflected two chapters earlier in Ep. Apost. 33.4, where a note of divine
judgment is echoed against a rebellious Zion and her replacement by a
new people is predicted.119 Christ’s promise to Smyrna’s Christians, the
119. “Behold, out of the land of Syria I will begin to call a new Jerusalem, and I
will subdue Zion and it will be captured; and the barren one who has no children will
crown of life (Rev 2.10), does not occur in the section cited above, but is
perhaps reflected in Ep. Apost. 38.1, “they will be crowned in the
presence of the Father.”
It is, I think, a singular coincidence that so many correspondences
should exist between the Ep. Apost. and Asia Minor in general and
Smyrna in particular. While there is nothing we have uncovered which
makes a case for Smyrna conclusive, it has to be seen that, so far as our
present knowledge goes, circumstances favor Smyrna or its environs as
they favor no other place.
II. DATE
There are many factors which bear upon a determination of the date of
the Ep. Apost., several of which we have already commented upon.
None of these, unfortunately, offers more than a rough approximation.
Here we shall attempt to assess the information available from the
second century about natural disasters, in particular earthquakes, plagues,
and drought, along with some reference to the experience of persecution,
and relate it to the Ep. Apost. With these the possibility, at least, exists
for the proposals of some more specific dates.
A. The Historical Factors: Earthquakes, Plagues,

Famine, and Persecution
We know of at least one major plague which swept across Asia Minor
in the second century, probably a smallpox epidemic,120 which was
brought by the army of Verus returning from their campaigns in the East
in about 165.121 Inscriptions from the general vicinity122 also record the
presence of famine and disease, but cannot be firmly dated within the
be fruitful and will be called the daughter of my Father, but to me, my bride; for so
has it pleased him who sent me.”
120. Sticker, Abhandlungen, I.1.23. Gilliam, “Plague,” 227, cautions, however,
that this is uncertain.
121. Stark, Rise, 73, says it lasted for fifteen years and wiped out “from a quarter
to a third of the empire’s population,” including, in 180, Marcus Aurelius. The plague
hit Rome in 165 or 166, and Lightfoot, AF, II.1.665–66, deduces it must have struck
Smyrna in 162–65. Sticker, Abhandlungen, I.1.22, mentions an outbreak of bubonic
plague recorded by Rufus of Ephesus for the reign of Trajan (98–117) which spread
at least through Libya, Egypt and Syria.
122. From Caesarea Trocetta (south of the Hermus river, near Kassaba, within
about thirty miles of Smyrna to the east) and from Pergamum. See Gilliam, “Plague,”
235 n. 38, who says the Caesarean oracle “speaks of failure of crops and famine as
second century. The possibility then of an earlier epidemic in Smyrna or

its vicinity earlier in the century is not at all remote. Already in the time
of Strabo, Smyrna was known for its inadequate drainage system: “But
there is one error, not a small one, in the work of the engineers, that
when they paved the streets they did not give them underground
drainage; instead, filth covers the surface, and particularly during rains,
when the cast-off filth is discharged upon the streets.”123 It appears that
conditions conducive to the spread of a waterborne disease, such as
cholera, could have been exacerbated fairly easily. And though the
rhetorician Aelius Aristides tells us that the city in his day (with a
population estimated at around 200,000)124 contained “springs and
fountains for every house, and more than for every house” (The
Smyrnaean Oration 11),125 Cadoux observes that “the water-supply
must have been a subject of some anxiety, in view of the uncertainty of
the rainfall, the lie of the land, and the consequent insufficiency of
spring-water within the city.”126 We know that the acropolis of Smyrna
was served by a high-pressure aqueduct running from a spring at
Kara-Bunar in the mountains to the east,127 and that another aqueduct
terminated at the temple of Zeus on the southern edge of the city.
Possibly there was one more in the second century.128 A disruption of
these sources of fresh water, or a depletion of water stores due to
earthquake could have proved disastrous, especially during the very dry
summer months.129 In this light, an undated inscription found at Smyrna,
having occurred and pestilence as anticipated.” The first is found in Inscriptiones

Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes IV (Paris, 1927), 1498; the second in IGRR, IV,
360 (= Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum [Berlin, 1828–77], 3538); G. Kaibel,
Epigrammata Graeca (Berlin, 1878), 1034. See further below.
123. Strabo, 14.1.37, cited by Broughton, “Roman Asia,” 718; cf. Cadoux,
Ancient Smyrna, 176. This situation may be compared to the one in Amastris, much
worse but not entirely different in kind, reported by Pliny early in the second decade
of the second century, Ad. Traj., 98, “Amongst the chief features of Amastris, Sir, (a
city which is well built and laid out) is a long street of great beauty. Throughout the
length of this however, there runs what is called a stream, but is in fact a filthy sewer,
a disgusting eyesore which gives off a noxious stench. The health and appearance
alike of the city will benefit if it is covered in. . . .” Trajan wrote back encouraging the
covering-over of the waterway for the sake of public health.
124. Broughton, “Roman Asia,” 813, 816.
125. Behr, Complete Works II: 3. Cf. Broughton, 750.
126. Cadoux, Ancient Smyrna, 176–77.
127. See G. Weber, “Die Wasserleitungen von Smyrna,” Jahrbuch des kaiserlich
deutschen archäologischen Instituts 14 (1899): 4–25; 167–85.
128. Cadoux, Ancient Smyrna, 177, 248.
129. Weber, “Wasserleitungen,” 5–6.
set up to honor the river god Meles whom it praises as savior from
plague and pestilence, could be meaningful.130 In a time of drought or
plague, citizens may have had to go to the nearby Meles river to find a
new supply of uncontaminated water.131
On earthquakes, we know that a particularly devastating one hit
Smyrna in 177–78, almost destroying the city.132 The writings of Aelius
Aristides, who lived just outside Smyrna at the time, allude several times
to earlier earthquakes in the region, but it is not always possible to
determine their dates. A terrifying series of earthquakes which battered
Smyrna and Ephesus striking as far away as Mytilene on the island of
Lesbos and felling entire villages,133 is placed by Aristides in the
proconsulship of L. Antonius Albus (Sacred Tales 3.38). Albus’
proconsulship has been dated to 149–50, to 147–49, or to 146–47.134
C.␣ A. Behr assigns more quakes mentioned by Aristides (Letter to the
Emperor 12) to 161,135 but the dating is uncertain. These could be the
quakes under Albus (sometime between 146 and 149) or the great quake
which struck the island of Rhodes and cities in Lycia, Caria, Cos, and no
doubt elsewhere on the mainland in the year 142.136 In addition, Cassius
130. Ímn« yeÚn M°lhta potamÚn tÚn svt∞rå mou, pantÚw d¢ loimoË ka‹ kakoË
pepaum°nou. The inscription has most often been assigned to the plague under Marcus
Aurelius, but this is not indicated in the inscription itself. Gilliam, “Plague,” 234–35,
reminds us that Ramsay, JHS 3 (1882), 57, thought its form of letters dated it to the
end of the second century b.c.e., “But apparently no one since Ramsay who has seen
the stone has expressed an opinion.”
131. Aelius Aristides, The Smyrnaean Oration (II) 14–15 mentions the remarkable
constancy of the Meles river during rains and drought, “but as if it were some kind of
changeless object, it always preserves one shape, one appearance.”
132. A. Schoene, ed., Eusebi Chronicorum, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1967), 2: 165.
133. Cadoux, Ancient Smyrna, 266–67.
134. An inscription of an edict from Albus has been found in Ephesus, dated 146–
47 by Wankel, in H. Wankel, C. Börker, R. Merkelbach, et al., eds., Inschriften
griechisher Städte aus Kleinasien XI–XVII. Die Inschriften von Ephesos I–VIII (Bonn,
1979–84), I: 23. G. H. R. Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, 4
(Macquarie University, 1984), 170, accepts this date. W. Eck, Epigr. Studien 9 (1972),
17–23, places Albus’ proconsulship in 147/149. C. A. Behr, Aelius Aristides and the
Sacred Tales (Amsterdam, 1968), 74 n. 49, dates Albus’ proconsulship to 149–50 and
the quake to 149. Cf. Lightfoot, AF 2.1.461; Cadoux, Ancient Smyrna, 266.
135. Behr, Sacred Tales, 92 n. 1b. Behr cites Cassius Dio 69 [sic, should be
70].15.4, for this, but Dio says specifically that it happened in the days of Antoninus,
and therefore prior to 161.
136. The dating is based on an inscription from Opramoas (IGGR III, 739). It is
recounted in Ps.-Aristides, The Rhodian Oration. See Behr, Complete Works, 2: 371
n. 1. D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after
Christ, 2 vols. (Princeton, 1950) 2: 1492, dated this quake to 139; in Hermann’s list,
“Erdbeden,” 1105, it appears for 144 c.e.
Dio mentions “a most frightful earthquake” in Bithynia and the

Hellespont during the reign of Antoninus, probably between 150 and
155,137 which devastated Cyzicus138 and many other cities (70.15.4).139
Eusebius records another quake which struck Nicopolis and Caesarea in
Bithynia in 129140 and one which hit Nicomedia and Nicaea, and no
doubt more of the Propontis region as well,141 in 120.142 He also reports
that three cities in Galatia were struck in 110143 and four cities in Asia
very close to Smyrna (Elea, Myrina, Pytane, and Cyme) in 106.144 In
addition, Broughton refers to undated quakes in Nicomedia and Ephesus,
in two villages of Thyatira, and in Hierapolis.145 Philostratus refers in
passing to second century earthquakes which “overtook Smyrna and
Miletus and Chios and Samos and several of the Iades” (Vit. Apoll. 4.6),
noting the particular vulnerability of parts adjacent to the Aegean Sea,
which is denominated “the author of earthquakes.”146 From what we
know of the region we can also agree with Broughton that it is doubtful
that all the quakes which were felt in second-century Asia Minor have
left surviving literary or epigraphal records.147
Hadrian visited Asia Minor in 123–24 and in 129–31. On the first visit
he is known to have bestowed benefits on certain cities for rebuilding
after earthquakes, in Nicomedia, Nicaea and in the northern city of
Cyzicus.148 During this visit of 123–24 he also stopped in Pergamum,
Smyrna, Ephesus, and Miletus. In Smyrna the sophist Antonio Polemo
persuaded Hadrian to give “the surprisingly large sum of 10,000,000
drachmae to be expended on a grain-market, a gymnasium . . . and the
great temple of Zeus,” as well as “appropriations for sacred bards and
137. E. Cary, in Dio’s Roman History, vol. 8 (Cambridge, Mass./London, 1982),

472 says, “It is not certain whether this earthquake belongs to the reign of Pius or to
that of Marcus. If to the former, it must have occurred between 150 and 155.”
138. Cyzicus was hit again in 170 (Hermann, “Erdbeden,” 1105).
139. Recorded by Dio Cassius, Rom. Hist. 70.15.4.
140. Jerome’s Latin version has the quake which hit Nicopolis and Caesarea
apparently in 129, though the Armenian version has it in 127 (Schoene, Eusebi
Chronicorum, 166–67).
141. See Broughton, “Roman Asia,” 601.
142. Schoene, Eusebi Chronicorum, 2: 164–65. See Magie, Roman Rule, 2: 1471.
Nicomedia was hit again sometime after 180 (Hermann, “Erdbeden,” 1105).
143. Schoene, Eusebi Chronicorum, 2: 164–65.
144. Schone, Eusebi Chronicorum, 2: 162–63. These four cities all lay on or near
the coast 30–50 kilometers north of Smyrna (Cadoux, Ancient Smyrna, 30, 57).
145. Broughton, “Roman Asia,” 601.
146. This phrase is from an oracle of Apollonius of Tyana.
147. Broughton, “Roman Asia,” 601.
148. Magie, Roman Rule, 1: 614.
choristers.”149 Not all of these benefactions have the look of reparations,

but some of them are certainly not inconsistent with the explanation that
Smyrna too had in recent years suffered damage in a natural disaster. We
know that the aqueduct which brought water to the temple of Zeus
Acraeus in Smyrna,150 built in c.E. 79–80, had to be restored already
under Trajan,151 and an earthquake is a very plausible explanation for
the cause.152
Aelius Aristides, in his letter to the emperors after the devastating
quake of about 178, mentions an earlier time when “there were frequent
earthquakes and famines about the coast of Asia in this region and some
places had even been destroyed by the fissures and various misfortunes
afflicted the cities” (A Letter to the Emperors concerning Smyrna 12).153
At that time, he says, Smyrna sent relief to the other cities. A serious
earthquake followed by a drought of rain, attended or soon followed by
the outbreak of disease, is nowhere more likely in the second century
than in Asia Minor, and among Asian cities, is as likely for Smyrna or
one of its near neighbors as anywhere else.
Besides suffering more than its share of natural disasters in this period,
Asia Minor was also the scene of intermittent, lethal hostilities against
Christians. As Paul Keresztes says, “During most of the second century,
the treatment of Christians in Asia Minor, and in particular in the
province of Asia, was by reputation the worst in the whole of the Roman
Empire.”154 We know this from a number of sources, including the
149. Magie, Roman Rule, 1: 615; also, A. D. Macro, “The Cities of Asia Minor
under the Roman Imperium,” ANRW II.7.2.659–97 at 694.
150. This aqueduct is not the one formerly mentioned, which carried water up to
the acropolis. See Weber, “Wasserleitungen,” 6, 174, Tafel 2; Cadoux, Ancient
Smyrna, 254. This would have been the year in which, according to Eusebius, three
Galatian cities were struck by earthquake and four years after Smyrna’s Aiolian
neighbors to the north, Elea, Myrina, Pytane, and Cyme, were devastated.
151. Cadoux, Ancient Smyrna, 177, 254; Broughton, “Roman Asia,” 751. The
aqueduct was constructed when Trajan’s father was proconsul of Asia in 79–80. The
Trajanic repairs were made under the proconsulship of L. Baebius Tullus, whose years
in office are given as 110/111. See Inscriften Griechischer Städt aus Kleinasien 42.1,
Die Inscriften von Smyrna, G. Petzl, ed., II.1 (Bonn, 1987), 163–64; Weber,
“Wasserleitungen,” 174.
152. Sib. Or. 12.157–58 mentions “earthquakes and great famines throughout the
whole earth, and snowstorms out of season and fierce thunderbolts” apparently late
in the reign of Trajan, though with no geographical specification. This comes just
after a mention of the “very great evil” which comes upon the Jews, no doubt the
disaster of the uprisings that began in 114 or 115, and just before a description of
Trajan’s death.
153. See G. Dindorf, Aristides, 3 vols. (Hildesheim, 1964), 1: 766.
154. P. Keresztes, “The Emperor Hadrian’s Rescript to Minucius Fundanus,”
Phoenix 21 (1967): 120–29, at 122.
correspondence of Pliny with Trajan (ca. 112), the rescript of Hadrian to

Minucius Fundanus (ca. 121–24), the rescript of Antoninus Pius to the
assembly of Asia (sometime prior to about 156 or 157, but not entirely
genuine, see below), the Martyrdom of Polycarp (ca. 156), at least three
Christian apologies (of Quadratus, ca. 124; Justin, ca. 156;155 and
Melito, ca. 177). As the region of Asia Minor suffered like no other from
natural calamities in this century, so did its Christians from popular
pogroms, and there is even good evidence that the two sets of phenom-
ena in many instances were connected. For we know that one cause for
new waves of intolerance and persecution was in fact the occurrence of
natural disasters, seen by some as retribution of the gods for the atheistic
behavior of Christians. This practice is explicitly documented by Cyprian
in the third century, speaking of events which occurred in about c.e. 234:
There happened in these parts many struggles and difficulties, either in
general to all men, or privately to Christians. Moreover, there were many
and frequent earthquakes, so that many places were overthrown throughout
Cappadocia and Pontus; even certain cities, dragged into the abyss, were
swallowed up by the opening of the gaping earth. So that from this also a
severe persecution arose against us of the Christian name; and this after the
long peace of the previous age arose suddenly, and with its unusual evils
was made more terrible for the disturbance of our people. (Ep. 75.10
[Hartel, 816])
It is notable that the earthquakes Cyprian speaks of struck in Pontus

and Cappadocia, but their deadly social repercussions were felt by the
Christians even in North Africa! Before the end of the second century
(ca. 197), Tertullian had already chronicled the existence of this
problem:
They think the Christians the cause of every public disaster, of every
affliction with which the people are visited. If the Tiber rises as high as the
city walls, if the Nile does not send its waters up over the fields, if the
heavens give no rain, if there is an earthquake, if there is famine or
pestilence, straightway the cry is, “Away with the Christians to the lion!”
(Apol. 40)156
155. Keresztes, “Rescript,” 124, “In his First Apology, undoubtedly on the basis of
much personal experience, Justin wrote of contemporary Christian persecutions in no
area of the Roman Empire other than Asia Minor, or, more strictly, the province of
Asia.”
156. The mentions of the Tiber in the first clause and the Nile in the second clearly
locate the scene of these imagined or real complaints. It is not much of an
exaggeration to say that the mention of drought, earthquake, plague, and pestilence
point as accurately to Asia Minor.
No doubt there is some exaggeration here, but such an incriminatory

cast of mind on the part of the populace is exemplified in second-century
Asia Minor in the so-called letter of Antoninus Pius to the common
assembly of Asia, appended to Justin’s first Apology.157 This letter is
probably spurious, or perhaps more likely, simply made over with
certain Christian interpolations.158 But in either case it at least reflects a
Christian evaluation of the cause of the persecution, and therefore is still
a valuable indication of the attitudes Christians believed they were
encountering in Asia Minor around the middle of the second century.159
Sordi suggests it came on the heels of Polycarp’s martyrdom,160 but the
letter’s mention of popular dismay over “the earthquakes which have
already happened and are now occurring” fits well with the notice of
Aelius Aristides that the quakes under Albus (between 146 and 149)
continued for a long time. The Emperor’s chiding response to the
assembly, “I should have thought that the gods themselves would see to
it that such offenders should not escape,” surely indicates that the cause
for divine retributions was being sought by the accusers in the atheistic
behavior of the Christians.161 This document demonstrates that, in any
such circumstances, blame for such a disaster would likely have accrued
to the Christians.
It is possible that it was some disaster(s) which set in motion events
which, some years earlier, had led the Asian proconsul Q. Licinius
Silvanus Granianus in about 121/122162 to petition Hadrian on a matter
157. ANF 1: 186–87, text in Lightfoot, AF 2.1:481–82.

158. Melito speaks of letters from Pius to the cities, to ensure “that no new
measures should be taken concerning us,” Euseb. HE 4.26.10. Cadoux, Ancient
Smyrna, 367 n. 1, thinks the forged document “may have been suggested by the real
Rescript to which Meliton refers”; similarly, Lightfoot, 2.1:459, 485; Lawlor and
Oulton, Eusebius, 2: 128f. M. Sordi, The Christians and the Roman Empire, tr. A.
Bedini (Norman, Okla./London, 1986), 70, goes further, to propose that it is genuine
but interpolated: “Brought back to its original form. . . the rescript could well be
authentic and, given the content and the date, might well be the Roman government’s
answer to the abuse of power perpetrated by the local authorities of the province of
Asia on the occasion of Polycarp’s trial.” See also Keresztes, “Rescript,” 123.
159. Keresztes, “Rescript,” 123.
160. Sordi, Christians, 70.
161. See Sordi, Christians, 70, 77, n. 23. W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and
Persecution in the Early Church (1965; Grand Rapids, 1981), 240, links the rescript
specifically with earthquakes of the year 152 (which should apparently now be
redated to 146–49), and says, “outbursts against Christians were to follow natural
disasters in Asia Minor for the next century.” For the charge of atheism in Asia Minor
at about this time see Mart. Polyc. 3.2; 9.2.
162. For this dating see R. M. Grant, Augustus to Constantine: The Thrust of the
Christian Movement into the Roman World (New York, 1970), 82; idem, Greek
Apologists of the Second Century (Philadelphia, 1988), 34.
related to the sudden rash of accusations and prosecution of Christians.

Hadrian wrote back to Granianus’ successor, G. Minucius Fundanus,
probably in 122/123.163 This rescript of Hadrian, mentioned by Melito
(Euseb. HE 4.26.10) and quoted by Justin (1 Apol. 68),164 discouraged
the harassment and accusations of Christians without evidence admis-
sible in court, and alluded to the public outcries which had preceded.165
The cause of the flare-up against the Christians is no longer clear from
the document. Christians at this time could be subjected to legal
sanctions merely because of the name they bore, and occasions for
accusations could have been as frequent as their absences from public
religious observances. But the level of civil disturbance presupposed by
the request of Granianus for Hadrian’s advice166 seems to require more
than the general ill-will, but some occasion for the outbreak of some-
thing close to mob violence.167 This would at least be consistent with the
supposition of some natural disaster(s) in the recent past for which the
strange and “atheistic” religion of the Christians could be blamed.
Another indication of persecution in Asia at about this time comes from
the first known Christian “apology,” that of Quadratus, probably
presented to Hadrian during his imperial visit to Asia in 123–24, during
which the emperor made such a large benefaction to Smyrna. Eusebius
tells us that Quadratus’ defense was written “because some wicked men
were trying to trouble the Christians” (Eusebius, HE 4.3.1).168
These circumstances in Asia Minor at least show an unusually close
resemblance to those which appear to have been in play when an Asian
author wrote the Ep. Apost., in which Christians, after an earthquake
163. Grant, Apologists, 34; Cadoux, Ancient Smyrna, 349, gives 124/125;
Lightfoot, AF 2.1: 658, gives 124.
164. For the text, see Lightfoot, AF 2.1: 476–77.
165. Hadrian’s relative leniency towards the Christians (Sordi, Christians, 66–67)
can be contrasted with the obvious sentiments of much of the pagan populace of Asia
Minor. It is of interest to recall that Hadrian’s much less tolerant successor, Antoninus
Pius (under the name T. Aurelius Fulvus), had been proconsul of Asia during
Polycarp’s episcopacy, about 135 c.e. according to Cadoux, Ancient Smyrna, 261.
166. “If, therefore, the people of the province are able to support this demand of
theirs against the Christians with evidence so as to plead it even before court, let them
resort to this course alone and not to merely shouting their demands” (Justin, I Apol.
68.10, in Keresztes’ translation).
167. Keresztes, “Rescript,” 122.
168. After his visit to Asia in 124, Hadrian went on the Athens, where he was
probably presented with another early apology, that of Aristides, who notes the
oppression of his fellow believers and calls for “the tongues of those who utter vanity
and harass the Christians” to “be silent” (Apol. 17). Aristides’s Apology is sometimes
dated later, to about 145, but see D. M. Kay, in ANF 10: 261.
and a drought, remain to endure a plague in the city, are deserted by

some of the more well-to-do who share the name of Christian, and are
accused in some manner by them so that some suffer imprisonment as a
result.
B. Evaluation of the Historical Factors

Precisely because the history of second-century Asia provides such an
exceptionally fitting backdrop for the social and historical setting
presupposed in the Ep. Apost., correlating events and choosing from the
“wealth” of possible dates is not a straightforward procedure. A final
decision is probably not to be obtained from these factors alone, but
must be coordinated with all the other evidence, internal and external.
Here we begin an evaluation of the records to see how far we can clarify
the picture.
The earthquake which hit Smyrna169 in around 177–78 would appear
to be too late for any reasonable reckoning of the 120 years of Ep.
Apost. 17. Also, the drought and disease mentioned by the Ep. Apost. do
not fit this episode in Smyrna’s history, for the unfortunate city was given
swift aid through the intervention of Aristides and the generosity of the
emperors. Its recovery was quick, and Aristides, though he writes much
about the city at this time, says nothing about famine or disease. This
date also would appear to be too late for the type of false teaching
combatted in the pseudepigraphon, which seems ignorant of Marcion
and Valentinus.
There is a slightly better argument for the years 165–68. The great
smallpox epidemic which afflicted the province in the middle 160s hit at
about the same time (165) that, according to Hermann’s reading of
George Syncellus,170 an earthquake hit Smyrna. What is more, Magie
thinks that the area around Smyrna suffered famine at that same time.171
169. We shall here focus our attention for the most part on Smyrna, as it has
repeatedly come up from our discussions of various kinds of parallels. This is not, of
course, to rule out other locations.
170. Hermann, “Erdbeden,” 1105.
171. “In addition, many places also suffered about this time on account of the
failure of the harvests, which wrought famine and suffering and caused men to leave
their homes in search of better circumstances. Although the combined pestilence and
famine do not appear to have damaged permanently the general prosperity of the
Asianic cities . . . these evils could not fail to have an adverse effect on economic
conditions,” including a rise in the cost of living documented for Asia in the second
century (Magie, Roman Rule, 1:663; cf. 2:1534).
This confluence would indeed be remarkable, but it cannot stand. First,

Hermann’s reading of the Chronicle of George Syncellus is mistaken;
George simply refers to the great quake of 178 or 179.172 Doubt also
surrounds the dating of the evidence relied on by Magie for the famine.
This evidence is in the form of three undated oracular inscriptions, two
of which have been mentioned before, found at Caesarea Trocetta (south
of the Hermus river, near Kassaba),173 Pergamum, and Callipolis, the first
two of which mention both famine and disease as real or potential
calamities in the region.174 Gilliam says there are “positive reasons to
doubt the connection” of these misfortunes with the plague of 165, and
believes they point to conditions of only local significance.175 They thus
provide documentation for Asian famines and diseases in the second
century, and so can be used as general supports for the Asian setting of
the Ep. Apost. argued for here, but they cannot provide any precise
confirmation of dates. And, beyond the matter of disasters reflected in
the text of the Ep. Apost., there are some good reasons why most
scholars have judged the internal witness of the work to point to an
earlier decade. Again, though the author is quite obviously exercised
over a kind of docetic teaching in his locale, it bears no close resemblance
to any of the well-known heresies which were dominant in the middle or
late 160s, namely, Marcionism and Valentinianism. The parallels we
have observed with Irenaeus would be compatible with a date in the
160s, but the correspondences with the situation of the Smyrnaean
church in the time of Ignatius and the Seer of Revelation would argue for
172. George dates his chronology from the beginning of the world and from the
incarnation, which he puts at year 5,500 of the world. His commencement of the time
of the incarnation is, however, seven to eight years low (according to our present
calendar). Therefore, as the Smyrnaean earthquake is the last event recorded between
the years 165 and 172 anni divinae incarnationis (misread by Hermann to indicate the
year 165 in our reckoning) this could easily place it in the year 178 or 179. Jerome’s
translation of Eusebius has for the year 179, Zmyrna urbs Asiae terrae motu ruit. ad
cuius instaurationem decennalis tributorum immunitas data est (the Armenian
version agrees with this date; Shoene, Eusebi Chronicorum, 172–73), while George
has, SmÊrna pÒliw t∞w ÉAs¤aw seism“ katept≈yh ka‹ prÚw énoikodomØn éne¤yh t«n
fÒrvn ¶th ¤ (G. Dindorf, Georgius Syncellus et Nicephorus cp., CSHB [Bonn, 1829],
1: 667). The coincidence in wording, including the decade of remission of tribute,
shows this to be the same event.
173. Gilliam, “Plague,” 235 n. 38. Caesarea Trocetta and Kassaba are within
about thirty miles of Smyrna, to the East.
174. Gilliam, “Plague,” 235. They are found in IGRR, IV, 1498; IGRR, IV, 360 (=
CIG, 3538); Kaibel, “Epigrammata,” 1034.
175. Gilliam, “Plague,” 235–36, following the study of Keil and Premerstein in
Denkschr. Akad. Wien 53.2 (1908): 8–12.
an earlier time. Dating the Ep. Apost. to around 166 or 167 would also
probably necessitate accepting the Ethiopic version’s less likely figure of
150 years, starting from the ascension; or, if the 120 years of the Coptic,
also accepting a lengthened lifespan for Jesus as Irenaeus argues for in
AH 2.22.5.
More likely on these grounds would be that Ep. Apost. was written in
the wake of one or more of the earthquakes of the 140s, any of which
could have been attended by drought and followed by an outbreak of
disease. A date in the 140s would also fit well with the rescript of
Antoninus Pius mentioned above, which seems to evince a scapegoating
of Christians for the occurrences of earthquakes in Asia Minor at
roughly this time. Aristides, when praising Smyrna’s past generosities,
remembers a time some years (how many, we do not know) prior to the
quake of 177–78 when earthquakes and famines (seism«n ka‹ lim«n)
afflicted many of Smyrna’s neighbors on or near the Asian coast and
Smyrna was in a position to rescue these cities (he mentions Chios,
Erythraea, Teia, and Halicarnassus) with gifts of wheat and money
(Letter to the Emperors 12). This shows the possibility that Smyrna itself
would have suffered famine in close proximity to any earthquake it
experienced at about this time, and the certainty that some of its
neighbors did. Aristides does not date these disasters for us, but there is
a good possibility that they fell at the time in the late 140s spoken of in
Sacred Tales 3.38 when the “many frequent earthquakes” tormented the
region, when “Mytilene . . . was nearly all leveled and . . . in many other
cities there were many shocks, and some villages were wholly de-
stroyed,” when “the Ephesians and the Smyrnaeans ran to one another
in great agitation. The series of earthquakes and terrors was extraordi-
nary.” We recall here the undated inscriptions mentioned above which
speak of famine and pestilence. This date also has the advantage of
accommodating a reasonable interpretation of the 120 years of Ep.
Apost. 17. Commencing the 120 years from the time of Jesus’ ascension
would yield a date of around 150 for the expected parousia. For an
author writing not long after a quake in 142–43, this date would be quite
plausible, only slightly less so just after the quake(s) of the later 140s.
The nonappearance of the heresies of Valentinus or Marcion in the Ep.
Apost., still mildly surprising, could then be explicable on the grounds
that they were brand new and only beginning to emanate from Rome.
This date also corresponds reasonably well to the independent judgment
of several recent scholars who have considered the subject.
But we cannot rule out an even earlier time, perhaps just before 120.
Leon Gry proposed this early date for the Ep. Apost. based partly on a
correspondence between his interpretation of the 120 years of ch. 17 and

predictions he believes can be seen in the Jewish works Ps.-Philo and
2␣ Baruch which placed the end of the world in the year 119.176
Hornschuh in 1965 still regarded Gry’s proposal as the most plausible.
Gry does not mention, but it is worthy of remark, that such a date for the
expectation of the end also ties in well with the Jewish revolts which
broke out in Lybia, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and elsewhere in the middle of
the second decade of the second century (Eusebius, HE 4.2.1–5; Dio
Cassius, 68.32.1–3). Both the scope of the revolutions, breaking out in
various parts of the empire, and the leadership of Jewish “kings” in some
of them support the notion that these uprisings were motivated by hopes
of eschatological fulfillment.177 That some Christians in Asia Minor may
also have been influenced by popular Jewish expectations about the time
of an eschatological upheaval is not at all unlikely, given what we know
of the eschatology of Papias in particular.178
Our study can add the following evidence for a confluence of natural
calamities at about this time, resulting in, among other things, antago-
nism against Christians among the general populace of certain Asian
cities. The emperor’s visit to Asia in 124 garnered for Smyrna an imperial
temple in preference to Ephesus179 and a series of large benefactions. It
could be that these benefactions, which included a suspension of taxes,
augmented a rebuilding effort after an earthquake perhaps some years
earlier, perhaps the cause of the broken aqueduct repaired under Trajan.
We also know that by this time popular animosity against Christians
resulting sometimes in judicial arraignments and executions already had
a long and ugly history in the region. It is evidenced from Pliny’s
correspondence with Trajan in about 112 (which shows its existence
long before Pliny came into office)180 and portrayed already for western
and central Asia Minor in the book of Revelation, and for northern Asia
Minor in I Peter. It is undeniably a factor, as we have seen, in the
anti-Christian reaction of the populace which forced Granianus to
appeal to Hadrian for advice in about 120–22, and is presupposed by
176. L. Gry, “Date.” His conclusions for the Jewish works are found in “La date
de la fin des temps . . . ,” RB 39 (1939): 337–56.
177. L. L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, vol. 2: The Roman Period
(Minneapolis, 1992), 598–99.
178. See C. E. Hill, Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Future Hope in Early
Christianity (Oxford, 1992), 18–20, 57–63.
179. See S. van Tilborg, Reading John in Ephesus, Suppl. NovT 83 (Leiden, 1996),
146, 211–12.
180. Ep. 10.96. See Sordi, Christians, 60.
Quadratus’ apology on behalf of the Christians. It is not at all unlikely

that some phase of this was sparked by disaster, such as earthquake,
epidemic, or drought (or a confluence of them), blamed on the presence
of the “atheistic” Christians. A date before 120 would offer a good
explanation for the resemblance of social circumstances in the Ep. Apost.
and the Smyrna of Polycarp, Ignatius, and the book of Revelation. Also
the prominence of Cerinthus, the traditional nemesis of St. John known
from stories told by Polycarp (Irenaeus, AH 3.3.4), would appear to be
appropriate at this time (though neither of these last two factors would
disqualify a date in the 140s). This date of composition would work,
though barely, on the assumption that the 120 years of ch. 17 was
calculated from the birth of Christ. Or, if from the time of the ascension,
the world would be perceived as having some 30 years left at the time of
writing; a little long, perhaps, but not impossible considering the overall
tone of the document, which is not otherwise ablaze with imminent
anticipation.
We may be reasonably certain, I believe, in concluding that the Asian

Ep. Apost. was written somewhere in the period 117–48. Though we
cannot rule out any time within or just outside these general boundaries,
the remaining geological and social historical evidence leads us to
consider more specifically the years between 142–49, or the years just
prior to 120, when it appears that historical conditions in or around
Smyrna may have coincided with those presupposed by the Ep. Apost.
At this point, however, we are unable to offer a definitive way of deciding
between the two dates proposed. Was the Ep. Apost. written perhaps ten
or twelve years after Ignatius’ stay in Smyrna, or another 25–30 years
later, perhaps within a decade before Polycarp made his trip to Rome to
meet Anicetus, and perhaps while Irenaeus was still in Smyrna? This
decision will depend upon how scholars weigh the particular points of
data, some of which are not dealt with at length in this contribution.
It is less disruptive to current notions of the development of
second-century Christianity to adopt the later date. For one thing, the
comparatively high extent of Ep. Apost.’s use not just of Johannine
material but of many other parts of the present NT canon (at least
Matthew and Luke, Acts; and a Pauline corpus) may seem more fitting at
a somewhat later date, at least beyond 110–20. Secondly, Vielhauer’s
explanation of the form of the Ep. Apost. as the takeover of a genre
utilized by some heterodox work or works it was trying to answer is very
plausible, and there is even some reason to believe there was some
connection to the Apocryphon of James. And there seems to be no good
reason to date the latter as early as the second decade of the second
century.181 But neither of these factors is conclusive. As to its use of the
NT materials, apart from Ep. Apost.’s greater use of Johannine materials
and perhaps a more developed sense of “canon consciousness,” the
extent of its knowledge of the NT writings is not far advanced from what
can be found in I Clement, the Ignatian letters, Polycarp, and Papias.
And though the Apoc. Jas. seems to presuppose the traditions about the
Gospels preserved by Papias (Euseb. HE 3.39.16; Ap. Jas. 1), it is also
true that this information preserved by Papias came to him from earlier
tradition, and presumably this could have been known to other Chris-
tians for some time.
Thus, the later date of sometime in the 140s would require less
adjustment of current constructs, but the earlier date is not at all
impossible.
III. CONCLUSION
The Ep. Apost.’s prominent use of the Fourth Gospel certainly says
something about its provenance, but scholars have been unable to agree
on the evidentiary value of this literary factor. We are now able to
propose that the provenance of the Ep. Apost. can be established
independently of any argument from its use of the Fourth Gospel. In fact,
rather than depending heavily upon the Fourth Gospel to situate the Ep.
Apost., the Ep. Apost., because its Asian provenance is now established
from a large amount of other data of various kinds, can be used as
evidence for the way the Johannine literature (and other literature, of
course) was received at this time by at least one group in Asia Minor.
Therefore, what the Ep. Apost. yields for the study of the history of the
Christian canon, of Christian theology, of the struggle between compet-
ing theological and social factions within Christianity, and of the
conditions of Christians within Roman society in this period, should thus
be set first within the landscape of Asian Christianity. If, on other
grounds, the Fourth Gospel and the activity of Cerinthus are thought to
have emanated from Asia Minor also, the knowledge of both of these on
the part of the Epistula’s author may certainly be regarded as further
confirmation of our results here.
181. For elaborate theories as to the compositional history of this work which
might allow for certain stages to have been reached by this time, see R. Cameron,
Sayings Traditions in the Apocryphon of James, HTS 34 (Philadelphia, 1984); H.
Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (Philadelphia/
London, 1990), 187–200.
The Ep. Apost. may be viewed as one Asian author’s attempt, through
the medium of an openly fictional but seriously purposed pseudepigraphon,
to provide edificatory182 resources to his Christian community in its
struggle against false teaching, outside persecution, and tribulation
common to the Asian situation. It reveals many links to the environment
of Smyrnaean Christianity and should be regarded as written sometime
during the episcopacy of Polycarp. That it ever enjoyed any official
ecclesiastical sanction, however, from Polycarp or anyone else is of
course unlikely. As far as we know, it is never cited or alluded to by any
later Asian writer. As the example of the author of the Acta Pauli shows
(Tertullian, de bapt. 17), attitudes soon hardened in many quarters
against known pseudepigraphal works, even those whose content was
perceived as essentially orthodox.183 But its pseudepigraphy notwith-
standing, the Epistula’s earnest communal and doctrinal concern can be
seen as bridging the gap between earlier Asian Christian writings of
serious theological intentions, such as (in my opinion) the Johannine
corpus, the letter of Polycarp, and Papias’ Exegesis of the Lord’s Oracles
on the one hand, and the later works of Irenaeus, Melito, and the
Quartodeciman and anti-Montanist writers later in the second century
on the other. Its portrayal of an orthodox community at odds both with
its larger culture and with another type of Christianity in its local
situation offers a valuable prospect on developing Asian Christianity.
Charles E. Hill is Associate Professor of New Testament at Reformed

Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida
182. Hills speaks of the Ep. Apost. as having “a catechetical purpose” (172), as
constituting “a fresh appeal for a missionary endeavor” (171), and as having as its
chief concern “the definition of the community . . . not so much on doctrinal as on
ethical grounds.”
183. The Shepherd of Hermas furnishes another example. The Muratorian
Fragment rejects it as Scripture for being later than the apostles, but encourages its
reading for edification. But Tertullian in De pudicitia 10 reports that more than one
synod had rejected this work as both “apocryphal” and “false.” If we may judge from
the usage of Clement and Origen, attitudes may have been somewhat more flexible in
Egypt. It is there that the Ep. Apost. was preserved.

Epistula Apostolorum by Hills

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Epistula Apostolorum by Hills

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Epistula Apostolorum: An Asian Tract from the Time of

Journal of Early Christian Studies, Volume 7, Number 1, Spring 1999, pp.

Published by Johns Hopkins University Press

For additional information about this article

Access provided by Durham University (22 Jan 2018 19:17 GMT)

The Epistula Apostolorum:

The trials and community concerns of one segment of second-century

C.␣ D. G. Müller in the second edition of New Testament Apocrypha6 and

PRELIMINARY INDICATIONS OF DATE

As preliminary to our investigation, two pieces of data internal to the

6. C. D. G. Müller, “Epistula Apostolorum,” in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, New

prediction has proved disappointingly slippery. Julian Hills has discov-

8. Hills, Tradition, 116.

19. contra Ehrhardt, “Judeo-Christians,” 366.

3) Hornschuh also cites Lietzmann’s argument that a passage in ch. 21,

26. Hornschuh, Studien, 104.

31. Streeter, Four Gospels, 71.

36. Streeter, Four Gospels, 70.

ägyptischen Gnosis.”39 While there are certainly some idiosyncratic

39. Hornschuh, Studien, 107.

Egypt as well. But as is well-known, this is only because the weather

45. C. H. Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt

Yet it is not easy to see how an element considered foreign to an

50. Müller, “Epistula,” 251.

59. Gunther, “Syrian,” 82–83.

some kind of “heavenly liturgy” is just as clearly presumed by Irenaeus

is said of a divine service in heaven. The passage cannot be understood as the

there is a definite polemical thrust to the epistle, Quartodecimanism does

Johannesevangeliums hervortritt wie in der vorliegenden.”76 But this

76. Hornschuh, Studien, 100, citing Schmidt, 224f.

2. Literary and Theological Affinities

a. Asian Biblical Texts and Exegesis

81. Hornschuh, Studien, 102.

entreating His manifestation, ‘Thou that sittest between the cherubim,

In spite of the absence of a drama of this kind from the canonical NT

The acceptance of this story of Christ’s disguising himself so as to

c. “Adding to and Subtracting from”

The anonymous antimontanist cited by Eusebius, 192–93

Si non est scriptum, timeat Vae illud adicientibus aut detrahentibus

d. Perversion of the Lord’s Sayings

oracles (tå lÒgia) in the Hebrew affliction and contamination and

97. See H. J. Lawlor, “Eusebius on Papias,” Hermathena 19 (1922): 167–222 at

101. Schmidt, Gespräche, 126; Hornschuh, Studien, 64.

a. Confrontation with the Vain Teaching of False Christians

It is true that almost any false teaching could be denounced as vain,

b. Love of Money and Respect of Persons

Ibid. 4.1 perseverance for righteousness’ sake

The depressed financial condition of the church at Smyrna, despite the

(or worse, ‘heretical’) house churches could have afforded to buy

Smyrnaean materials of Ignatius and Polycarp. It is not difficult to

Factors resulting from the financial depression of a church in apparent

4. Historical Circumstances: Earthquakes and Plagues

109. Harrill, “Ignatius,” 141.

34.9. . . . and constantly the frightening of thunder and lightning,

The departure from biblical descriptions beginning in 34.9 and the

has undergone) among other things, a plague, probably coming in the

be contemplated in this section as well, as if the fleeing Christians

117. A. Hermann, “Erdbeden,” RAC 5 (Stuttgart, 1962), 1070–113, at 1104–5

Our author’s knowledge of John’s Revelation is apparent in several

A. The Historical Factors: Earthquakes, Plagues,

second century. The possibility then of an earlier epidemic in Smyrna or

having occurred and pestilence as anticipated.” The first is found in Inscriptiones

Dio mentions “a most frightful earthquake” in Bithynia and the

137. E. Cary, in Dio’s Roman History, vol. 8 (Cambridge, Mass./London, 1982),