Paul Foster, "Polymorphic Christology: Its Origins and Development in Early Christianity" (2007)

Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Vol.
58, Pt 1, April 2007
P O LY M O R P H I C C H R I S T O L O G Y:
ITS ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT
I N E A R LY C H R I S T I A N I T Y
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/58/1/66/2931883 by guest on 19 November 2018

Abstract
Polymorphism, the ability of a figure to undergo metamorphosis into a new
form or to appear simultaneously in multiple forms, remains a neglected
factor in tracing the development of early christological reflections. While
polymorphism is found in incipient form in the New Testament, it is not until
the second century that a range of texts develop this motif. It is argued here
that depictions of the ability of Jesus to appear in multiple forms are used in
both docetic and ‘proto-orthodox’ Christologies. In the former, portrayal
of a polymorphic Christ is used to denote transcendence over the material
realm, whereas for the latter they illustrate that Jesus is not constrained
by the forces of mortality, but rather that he has entered a higher state of
physical existence.
I. Introduction
An overlooked feature in the study of early christological
understanding is what may be denoted as ‘polymorphic
Christology’.1 This term is used to designate the manner in
which Jesus is able to appear in diVering, or multiple, forms.
Junod has defined this phenomenon thus: ‘Or la polymorphie est
une apparition déliberéé de quelqu’un sous plusieurs formes;
le changement de formes n’est pas dissimulé, il est au contraire
rendu évident pour le témoin.’2 While it is argued below that
it is a case of overdiVerentiating to split polymorphy, appearing
simultaneously in multiple forms, and metamorphosis, appearing
in a changed form, such a separation of these two aspects has
1
In the classic treatment analysing views of Jesus in the New Testament,
O. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, trans. S. C. Guthrie and
C. A. M. Hall (London: SCM, 1959), no attention is given to Jesus’ ability to
appear in multiple forms as being part of the christological reflection contained in
these texts.
2
E. Junod, ‘Polymorphie du Dieu Sauveur’, in J. Ries (ed.), Gnosticisme et
monde hellénistique (Publications de l’Institut orientaliste de Louvain, 27;
Louvain-la-Neuve: Université catholique de Louvain, Institut orientaliste, 1982),
pp. 38–46.
ß The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
doi:10.1093/jts/fll131 Advance Access publication 29 November 2006
POLYMORPHIC CHRISTOLOGY 67
been suggested. Lalleman has argued that polymorphy is in fact
a subset of the category of metamorphic appearances:
To put it more exactly, polymorphy is part of the wider concept of
metamorphosis or shape shifting, which is the idea that a person or

thing (usually a deity) can at any moment assume another form, stature
or age . . . Polymorphy is a metamorphosis of such a kind that the person
or deity can be seen diVerently by diVerent people at the same time.3
While such precision is not unhelpful, splitting the categories
to this extent has the potential to exclude important data
from the discussion. For this reason polymorphy will be treated
more loosely in this article, and changes of form will
be considered alongside simultaneous appearances in multiple
form. Methodologically, this is valid since it can be argued
that the ability to transform into another state in fact attests
that the being has multiple states, or is polymorphous. Yet, even
more significantly, when the evidence from the Acts of Thomas
is considered, it will be seen that this text uses the term
polymorphous, pol0morfo”, to refer not to an appearance in
multiple forms, but to describe a change in form, that is what on
the above definition would be classified as metamorphosis.4 This
direct textual evidence totally undercuts the distinction between
metamorphosis and polymorphy suggested by Lalleman.
Such polymorphic appearances are reported chiefly, but not
exclusively, in post-resurrection contexts. One of the main
aspects of such christological formulations is to emphasize that
Jesus is not constrained by the material world. This perspective
meant that views of Christ that encompassed polymorphism
were particularly attractive to docetic or gnostic groups, since
it aided their assertions that the substance of Christ was not of
the same order as the rest of the material world. Yet polymorphic
understandings of Jesus were also attractive in orthodox writings,
often in a more restrained form, especially for describing
resurrection encounters, since they were a way of communicating
Jesus’ transcendence over the realm of death.
II. The New Testament Origins of Polymorphism

Within the documents that comprise the New Testament there
exist a number of stories, or visions, where Jesus is encountered
in an altered state. These are not all of the same character,
3
P. J. Lalleman, ‘Polymorphy of Christ’, in J. N. Bremmer (ed.), The
Apocryphal Acts of John (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1995), p. 99.
4
See Acts of Thomas 48, 153.
68 PAU L F O S T E R
and the degree of transformation diVers between these various
accounts. However, what this variation illustrates is that
conceiving of Jesus as a polymorphic being, especially in his
resurrected state, was an important means of denoting his
ontological status. This section examines, mostly in canonical

order, the more significant passages in the New Testament which
can be seen as embryonic in the development of polymorphic
conceptions.
i. The Transfiguration Accounts (Matt. 17:1–8//Mark 9:2–9//

Luke 9:28–36)
Treatment of the christological significance of the transfigura-
tion has usually centred upon the announcement made by
the divine voice: oCt0” 2stin 3 u30” mou 3 2gapht0”, 2ko0ete a2toA
(Mark 9:7).5 The other aspect of the transfiguration accounts
that has been seen as having christological significance is the
appearance of the two prophetic figures, Elijah and Moses.
In relation to the Lukan version of this story, Fitzmyer
emphasizes the importance of the withdrawal of Moses and
Elijah from Jesus, thereby signifying that his status surpasses
their own. Commenting specifically on the application of the
title ‘son’ in this context, Fitzmyer notes, ‘Jesus is not just
Moses redivivus or Elijah redivivus; he is God’s Son and Chosen
One. Here the Synoptic tradition has made use of a title that is
pre-Pauline and has connotations other than messiah.’6
While these features are obviously of great importance, the
actual transformation of physical appearance is not treated as
having significant christological implications. In the Marcan
account the transformation only alters Jesus’ apparel, not his
body, ka1 t1 3m0tia a2toA 2g0neto st0lbonta leuk1 l0an (Mark 9:3).
By contrast, Matthew explicitly calls the event a metamorphosis,
and reports the change in the facial appearance of Jesus, ka1
metemorf0qh 7mprosqen a2t8n, ka1 7lamyen t1 pr0swpon a2toA 3”
3 6lio” (Matt. 17:2). Although not as detailed as Matthew, Luke
notes that the face of Jesus became altered, t1 e9 do” toA pros0pou
5
Thus for Hooker the purpose of the story is that for ‘Mark’s readers, the
story spells out the truth about Jesus and confirms their belief in him as God’s
beloved son’. M. D. Hooker, The Gospel According to Saint Mark (London:
A & C Black, 1991), p. 214. Primarily, according to Hooker, this is achieved
through the command ‘listen to him’, since ‘the authority exercised by Jesus is in
fact far greater than that given to any prophet . . . for it is the authority of one who
is uniquely Son of God’ (p. 218).
6
J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke I–IX (New York: Doubleday,
1981), p. 793.
a2toA 5 teron (Luke 9:29). Thus, the two later synoptic accounts,
either independently7 or under the influence of oral embellish-
ments to the story, place emphasis on the physical transformation
of the face. Scholars have long noted the Mosaic connections
in the Matthean account,8 but the description also resonates

with wider Jewish messianic expectations. The anticipated
priestly Messiah ‘will shine forth like the sun in the earth; he
will take away all darkness from heaven’, according to T. Levi
18.4. Similarly, 1 Enoch 38.4 envisages the appearance of the
Righteous One whose reflected glory will transform the faces of
the holy ones so that nobody is able to look upon them. Hence,
in certain strands of Jewish apocalyptic literature there is the
expectation that one feature of the coming messianic figure
will be his radiant face. By attributing this quality to Jesus, the
Matthean version of the transfiguration aligns the description of
his appearance with Jewish depictions of the priestly messiah.9
ii. The Emmaus Road (Luke 24:13–35//Mark 16:12–13)

At first glance the account of two travellers on the Emmaus
Road does not appear to contain any polymorphic elements. The
two travellers, Cleopas and one other, fail to identify Jesus not
because he has undergone a metamorphosis, but according to
Luke this lack of identification was due to fact that ‘their eyes
were prevented from recognizing him’ (Luke 24:16). Fitzmyer
observes ‘[t]hough they saw Christ physically, they failed to
recognize who he was. Cf. John 20:14–15, where Mary
Magdalene mistakes the risen Christ for a gardener.’10
Plummer, to some extent, seeks to rationalize the lack of
perception as due to the travellers’ preoccupation and their lack
of expectation of meeting Jesus. He does, however, entertain that
this came about because ‘the risen Saviour had a glorified body
which was not at once recognized’.11 Such a possible cause is not
7
The standard two-source hypothesis is followed here. Although Matthew
and Luke share the hardly remarkable phrase t1 pr0swpon a2toA (with necessary
case changes), the other choices of vocabulary employed in these two narratives
make claims of direct literary relationship highly unlikely at this point.
8
D. C. Allison, The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1993), pp. 243–8.
9
See further the comments of W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew, vol. 2: VIII–XVIII
(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991), pp. 695–7.
10
J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke X–XIV (New York:
Doubleday, 1985), p. 1563.
11
A. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according
to S. Luke (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1901), p. 552.
part of the Lukan narrative. The lack of perception is solely
attributed to the obscuring of the travellers’ faculty of sight.
Luke does describe the departure of Jesus as ‘vanishing’, a2t1”
4fanto” 2g0neto (‘he became invisible’). This suggests some
special bodily properties.

While Luke oVers little to support a polymorphic reading
of the encounter, the tradition of such an encounter with
two figures on a road is also taken up in another canonical
text that is often overlooked. Scholarly consensus appears
to have settled on seeing the abrupt ending of Mark 16:8 as the
original conclusion to the gospel. This appears to be the correct
assessment of both external textual witnesses and internal
narrative considerations, even though some have wished to
maintain the originality of the longer reading for other purposes,
such as the support it provides for theories of gospel
interrelationships.12 Notwithstanding this modern assessment,
it is also demonstrable from the fluidity of the textual tradition at
this point that ancient readers found Mark 16:8 an unsatisfactory
ending (at least in some sense) and created a number of
alternative conclusions. The so-called ‘longer ending’ cobbles
together a number of post-resurrection scenes from both
canonical and non-canonical sources, including a much abbre-
viated parallel to Luke 24:13–35 contained in Mark 16:12–13.
The Marcan parallel does not report either obscured sight or
lack of perception, it simply reports the altered state in which
Jesus appeared to the pair of travellers, met1 d1 taAta dus1n 2x
a2t8n peripatoAsin 2faner0qh 2n 3t0rG morfI poreuom0noi” e2” 2gr0n
(Mark 16:12). The longer ending makes no reflection about the
significance of this description of the risen Jesus. It should,
however, first be noted that the adjective 5 tero” is used both here
and in the Lukan transfiguration account (Luke 9:29) to describe
the phenomenon of bodily transformation. Secondly, the author
of the longer ending replaces the Lukan concept of obscured
vision with the notion of polymorphism, which became more
widespread in later Christianity. Thirdly, the author does not
explain the significance of this transformation or the purpose of
12
See W. R. Farmer, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (SNTSMS 25;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971). Only at the very conclusion of
his study does it become apparent that he is linking his case for the authenticity
of Mark 16:9–20 to his support for the Griesbach Hypothesis. ‘On the hypothesis
that Mark is a later Gospel written after one or more of the other Gospels, his
‘‘older material’’ in 16:9–20 could include any of the resurrection stories in those
Gospels known to him, as well as any other resurrection traditions at his disposal’
(p. 108).
the appearance apart from showing that the report of the event
did not evoke belief in the resurrection. Elliott has noted that
the language here is distinctively un-Marcan,13 and KelhoVer
puzzles over the phenomenon of reporting the appearance in
a diVerent form. He quizzically states:

It remains to be answered why the author of LE [the longer ending]
wrote such a puzzling statement. One cannot find an adequate answer
within 16:9–20, for without these three words [2n 3t0rG morfI], one
would expect that Jesus appeared to these two individuals in the same
form as he did to Mary Magdalene. The first two appearances (vv. 9–11,
12–13) are quite parallel in form and content, adhering to the pattern
of an appearance of Jesus, the obedient reaction of messenger(s) and
a response of disbelief by others. Together they form a prelude for
the climatic appearance of Jesus in 16:14. There is thus no reason why
the author of LE would have sought to emphasize such a distinction
between the two appearances.14
KelhoVer’s puzzlement over the distinction between the
forms of appearance in the two encounters can be explained
by the recognition of the growing importance of description
of a polymorphic Christ during the second century and later.
Changed physical state demonstrates both lack of constraint by
the mortal body and transcendence over the earthly realm. Thus
the longer ending of Mark, with its unexplained description of
Jesus’ altered appearance, illustrates that a certain domestication
of the idea of the risen Christ appearing in metamorphic form
had occurred by the time Mark 16:9–20 was written.
iii. Appearing in Closed Rooms (John 20:19, 26; cf. Luke 24:36–37;
Mark 16:14)
The ability of Jesus to materialize in the midst of the disciples
is self-evidently not a property of normal human bodies. The
Johannine narrative emphasizes two aspects of these appearances:
(a) they were miraculous, since the doors were shut; and
(b) they were not ephemeral visions, since the physicality of
Jesus is highlighted. While nothing is explicitly stated about
Jesus’ form, Keener notes that ‘the closed door may allow John
to communicate something about the resurrected body’.15
13
J. K. Elliott, ‘The Use of 5 tero” in the NT’, ZNW 60 (1969), pp. 140–1.
14
J. A. KelhoVer, Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and
their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark (WUNT 2.112; Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2000), p. 89.
15
C. S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, vol. 2 (Peabody:
Hendrickson, 2003), p. 1196.
However, Keener separates the implied bodily transformation
from his reflection on the christological message of John 20:19.
He argues that the community, because of the persecution it
experienced, needed to be pneumatologically empowered to
confess Christ.16 Yet it is not only the presence of Christ in their

midst that empowers the community, it is his miraculous ability
to transcend physical constraints that shows he has conquered
death and now belongs to a heavenly realm.
Avoidance of misinterpretation of the appearance in the
context of the fourth gospel is attempted by stressing the
physicality of Jesus as he stands in the presence of the disciples
bearing the scars of his crucifixion. The emphasis on bodily
presence is very likely intended as a corrective to docetic notions
that Christ did not suVer in the flesh. Thus, as Beasley-Murray
suggests, the identification of the risen Christ and the crucified
Jesus was vital:
That clear identification was to become critically important for the
Church to maintain; the Crucified is the risen Lord, in the fullest sense
of the term, and the risen Lord is the Crucified, the flesh and blood
Redeemer, whose real death and real resurrection accomplished
salvation for the whole person and the whole world.17
The Lukan parallel to this story heightens the emphasis on
the embodied risen Christ through his invitation to touch him
(Luke 24:29) and his eating of a piece of fish (Luke 24:42).
Therefore, while significantly new properties are attributed to
this body, its fundamental material aspect is retained. Such
a formulation might have been consciously developed in response
to Christologies that emphasized a purely spiritual resurrected
being. The Marcan parallel, preserved in the longer ending,
is an extremely truncated version of these scenes. There is no
reflection on the material nature, or otherwise, of the body
(Mark 16:14). This is unsurprising since in the previous scene
the longer ending has stated that such an appearance entailed
a changed form (Mark 16:12). Rather, here, Jesus’ appearance
simply allows a rebuke to be spoken to the disciples who had not
believed the reports of his resurrection.18 Gilfillan Upton notes
the climactic nature of the appearance of the risen Jesus in the
16
Ibid.
17
G. R. Beasley-Murray, John (WBC 36; Waco, TX: Word, 1987), p. 379.
18
As Taylor comments, ‘So strong a rebuke can be understood only by the
supreme importance attached to the Resurrection by the writer, who has in mind
the conditions of his day’. V. Taylor, The Gospel according to Mark (2nd edn.;
London: Macmillan, 1966), pp. 611–12.
longer ending. She notes, ‘The hierarchy of authority is
complete . . . the disciples require Jesus himself to assure them
of his own resurrection. Neither Mary Magdalene nor yet two
of their own number carry suYcient power; only the crucified
and risen one can proclaim his own authenticity.’19 Although

the longer ending does not explicitly exploit the miraculous
appearance, the event serves as further validation of Jesus as the
risen and consequently vindicated Messiah. This is an important
aspect of the resurrection Christology of the longer ending. The
risen Christ has undergone a physical transformation which
imbues his body with new properties, but he himself is the one
who validates his own resurrection.
iv. The Damascus Road Appearance (Acts 9:1–9; 22:3–16; 26:9–18)

From the outset it needs to be acknowledged that the
encounter between Jesus and the then Saul may oVer limited
insight into any notions of a polymorphic Christology. This is
for two reasons: first it is diYcult to determine if this is a
visionary experience rather than a physical encounter; and,
secondly, the three accounts of this event diVer in their depiction
of the experience. In relation to the first point, Paul, in his
first epistle to the Corinthians, has no doubt that the risen
Lord appeared to him, o2c1 ’IhsoAn t1n k0rion 3m8n 30raka;
(1 Cor. 9:1). In fact, Paul understands this appearance-encounter
to be paradigmatic for his status as an apostle. Hence, Thiselton
notes that the claim to have seen the risen Jesus ‘instantiates
the aspect of being a unique foundational witness to a truth claim
about Christ and his resurrection’.20 The link between Paul’s
apostleship and the appearance of the risen Christ is more
explicitly articulated in 1 Cor. 15:8–9, where Paul predicates
his apostolic status on a vision of Jesus, which for Paul
carries as much weight as the appearances to the other apostles.21
Thus from Paul’s perspective, he had experienced a valid post-
resurrection appearance of Jesus.
The actual form in which Christ appeared to Paul is
impossible to determine. Paul provides no details in his own
19
B. Gilfillan Upton, Hearing Mark’s Endings: Listening to Ancient Popular
Texts through Speech Act Theory (BINS 79; Leiden: Brill, 2006), p. 163.
20
A. C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 669, italics original.
21
‘Paul believed that he was commissioned to this apostolate, which he
understood in a missionary sense, in an appearance of the risen Christ
belonging to the same series as those granted to Peter and James (1 Cor. 15:5–8).’
C. K. Barrett, The Signs of an Apostle (London: Epworth, 1970), p. 70.
correspondence concerning the nature of this encounter. Rather,
his sole determination is to assert the reality of this resurrection
appearance and its significance as a commissioning event that
invested him as an apostle. According to the first report, Paul
saw a light (Acts 9:3) and heard the voice speaking to him

(Acts 9:4), while his travelling companions heard the voice, but
saw no one (Acts 9:7). It is uncertain whether the fact that the
companions saw nobody is meant to contrast with an implicit
claim that Paul did see somebody, or if it is meant to designate
their confusion at hearing a voice, but not being able to locate
a source. For Barrett it is the first interpretation that commends
itself: ‘The travellers saw no one; it is implied that Paul saw
Jesus (as he claims to have done 1 Cor 9:1; 15:8).’22 Yet, even if
this is the case, there is no clear description of the form in which
Jesus was seen. According to the second report, Paul sees the
light and hears the voice (Acts 22:6–7), but the fellow travellers
see the light but cannot comprehend the voice (Acts 22:8).
As Fitzmyer observes, ‘This diVerence from 9:7 is almost
a contradiction, a strange thing in the composition by one and
the same writer, but Luke makes no profession of accuracy of
detail in such matters’.23 Again, no description of Jesus’ form is
provided. Finally, in the third account of the experience Paul
recalls, for Agrippa, a longer version of his conversation with
the risen Christ, describing the manner in which he and his
companions were encompassed by light. However, once again no
description of the physical presence of Jesus is noted. Perhaps
the only item of interest for the discussion of polymorphic
Christology is that like the Matthean transfiguration account,
brilliant light attends the appearance (cf. Matt. 17:2).
v. The Patmos Vision of Christ (Rev. 1:9–20)

The visionary description of Jesus that is depicted as coming
to the author of Revelation occurs while he was 2n pne0mati
(Rev. 1:10). This contrasts with the description in Acts of Paul’s
encounter, which is specified as being around midday (Acts 22:6;
26:13), occurring during a normal state of consciousness. The
vision of Christ in Revelation employs a number of well-known
apocalyptic symbols, and thus it is best viewed as a stylized
description. It is not presented as an encounter with Jesus in
22
C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the
Apostles (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994), p. 452.
23
J. A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles (New York: Doubleday, 1998),
p. 706.
a physical form. Aune helpfully classifies the genre of the
passage as ‘closest to that of the symbolic vision’.24 Moreover,
there are striking similarities with other apocalyptic visions
(Dan. 10:5–9; Apoc. Zeph. 6.11–15). Therefore, the description
of the exalted Christ in Revelation can be excluded from the

discussion of polymorphism, since it is formed from a composite
of apocalyptically symbolic motifs rather than reflecting a
perceived physical encounter. Obviously the constructed vision is
christologically significant, but it does not fall into the category
under discussion.
vi. Evading Hostility (Luke 4:30 and John 8:59)

These two incidents are best considered briefly together, not
only because of the similarity of their subject matter, but also
because a large group of manuscripts append Luke 4:30 to
the end of John 8:59 as an explanation of how Jesus evaded
stoning by ‘the Jews’.25 Older commentators saw a reference to
a miraculous phenomenon both in the Lukan and Johannine
incidents. Thus, in relation to Luke 4:30, Plummer could write:
The addition of di1 m0sou is for emphasis and seems to imply that there
was something miraculous in His passing through the very midst of
those who were intending to slay Him, and seemed to have Him entirely
in their power. They had asked for a miracle, and this was the miracle
granted to them. Those who think it was His determined look or
personal majesty which saved Him, have to explain why this did not
prevent them from casting Him out of the synagogue.26
In relation to John 8:59 (without the textual addition) Barrett
likewise finds Jesus’ escape from hostile hands best explained as
a miraculous phenomenon. He states, ‘John probably intended to
suggest a supernatural disappearance’.27 By contrast, more recent
commentators are either sceptical about a miraculous phenom-
enon being intended or reject such an explanation out of hand.
24
D. Aune, Revelation 1–5 (WBC 52A; Dallas: Word, 1997), p. 71.
25
The insertion of Luke 4:30 at the end of John 8:59, with a bridging
conjunction and an additional reference to ‘passing them by’ at the end of the
material drawn from Luke 4:30, i.e. ka1 a2t1” d1 dielq1n di1 m0sou a2t8n 2pore0eto
ka0 par8gen o4tw”, is found in the following manuscripts: @1 C L N Y 070 33
(579) 892 1241 al (syp.h) bo; it occurs without the initial ka0 in A Qc f1.13 M
(f) q; and the shorter reading is preserved by P66.75 @* B D W Q* pc lat sys sa ac2
pbo boms.
26
A. Plummer, The Gospel according to St Luke (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T
Clark, 1901), p. 130.
27
C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St John (2nd edn.; London: SPCK,
1978), pp. 352–3.
Thus, in relation to Luke 4:30 Fitzmyer comments, ‘[t]his detail
is often considered miraculous, but there is no need to interpret
it so’.28 Discussing John 8:59, Brown is even more direct in his
rejection of a supernatural incident: ‘there is no clear suggestion
here that Jesus’ escape was miraculous’.29 By contrast, present

explanations tend to emphasize the fact that the time of Jesus’
death has not arrived by these respective stages in the Lukan
and Johannine narratives. Thus he is preserved in order that he
may face his fate in Jerusalem.
Yet even if one prefers a miraculous explanation of Jesus’
escape, the texts as they stand oVer little to further an
understanding of polymorphism since they do not explain how
such an act of evasion transpired. What may be suggested is
that the appending of Luke 4:30 (and other additional phrases)
to the end of John 8:59, perhaps at some stage during the
second century, reflected a desire to see the escape as being
miraculous. That this occurs in roughly the same period as the
rise in interest in polymorphic Christology is unlikely to be
coincidental, but rather evidences the trajectories and interests
of popular Christian piety.
The passages surveyed from the New Testament reveal
diVerent christological perspectives. Perhaps potentially the most
significant for tracing the development of polymorphic under-
standings of the person of Christ emerge from redactional
developments of pre-existing traditions in later writings. Thus,
the Matthean and Lukan versions of the transfiguration take
up in diVerent ways the Marcan comment about Jesus’ clothes
being transformed, and they individually produce narratives
which attest physical transformation. In this way the Christology
of the Marcan account is shifted towards a theology of change
of physical state functioning as an indicator that the transformed
figure, although existing in the earthly realm, nonetheless has
origin in, or connection with, the heavenly realm.
The Emmaus Road incident in Luke is likewise reused in
a later account (Mark 16:12–13), and is, moreover, redacted in
such a manner as to depict a metamorphosis of physical
appearance. While part of the concern may have been to
disambiguate the Lukan text by providing a partial explanation
of the reason the two travellers failed to recognize Jesus, this
new explanation also needs to be seen as part of wider theological
28
Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke I–IX, pp. 538–9.
29
R. E. Brown, The Gospel according to John I–XII (New York: Doubleday,
1966), p. 360.
trajectories that developed in the second century. Therefore, an
account based upon physical transformation, rather than
obscuring of sight, becomes the more plausible explanation and
aligns with later reflection on the way Jesus appeared in his post-
resurrection state.

The Johannine description of the Christ who appears in the
midst of the disciples while they are gathered in a locked room is
perhaps more about a change in physical bodily properties than
it is a depiction of polymorphic manifestation. Consequently it
is important to note that John’s interest is not focused on the
miraculous, but upon the kerygmatic, if this is not creating too
much of a false distinction.30 Nonetheless, the assumption is that
the body has undergone some material change that means it is
no longer of the same order. While John does not represent this
change as being observable through outward appearance,
presumably to maintain an explicit connection with the pre-
resurrection Jesus (thereby countering Christologies that reject
the embodiment of Jesus), he nevertheless does not reject the
whole notion of stative change. Thus, the antidocetic stance of
the fourth gospel, and Johannine epistles, does not entail
a rejection of the entire concept of physical transformation.
Furthermore, the tradition of appearance in enclosed rooms
appears also in the longer ending of Mark, where it follows
on from the description of altered physical appearance. Thus
the author of the longer ending appears to have understood these
two phenomena as examples of the same transformed bodily
state of Jesus.
III. Extra-Canonical Descriptions of Polymorphism

The term ‘extra-canonical’ (or equally validly, ‘non-canonical’)
is employed here in a neutral manner, to refer to those texts
that fall outside the bounds of the later theologically
constructed collection of writings known as the New
Testament. Moreover, writings which were later deemed to be
outside the canon were variously read or rejected by members
30
As Maloney comments, ‘This is Johannine proclamation, not the telling of
Jesus’ miraculous powers’. F. J. Maloney, The Gospel of John (Sacra Pagina 4;
Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1998), p. 535. As throughout the fourth gospel, the
central kerygmatic concern remains a communication of the christological
identity of Jesus. See further W. R. G. Loader, The Christology of the Fourth
Gospel (BET 23; 2nd rev. edn.; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1992).
of the proto-orthodox party.31 Some of the texts appear simply
to exhibit popularizing trends in the reformulation of existing
traditions. Others are more representative of forms of
Christianity that are usually categorized as docetic or gnostic,
although these two labels must not be seen as describing

monolithic theological positions.
i. The Resurrection Scene in the Gospel of Peter (G.Pet. 10.39–40)

The Akhmı̂m fragment of the ‘so-called Gospel of Peter’32 was
discovered in a codex contained in a monk’s grave by a team of
archaeologists from the Mission archéologique française au Caire
during the winter season dig of 1886–7. The editio princeps of
this codex, which contained four texts, was published in 1892.33
The first text, identified as the hitherto lost Gospel of Peter,
due mainly to Peter speaking on two occasions in the narrative,
was a nine-page fragment of a larger work.34 This fragment
recounted a version of the passion and resurrection of Jesus.
Within the depiction of the actual moment of resurrection, the
body of Jesus has undergone a miraculous transformation:
39. ka1 2xhgoum0nwn a2t8n 7 e9 don p0lin 7rasin 2xelq0nto” 2p1 toA t0fou
tre8” 4ndre” ka1 to1” d0o t1n 5 na 3porqoAnta” ka1 staur1n 2koloqoAnta
a2to8”. 40. ka1 t8n m1n d0o t1n kefal1n cwroAsan m0cri toA o2ranoA# toA d1
ceiragwgoum0nou 3p’ a2t8n 3perba0nousan to1” o2rano0”.
31
On the designation ‘proto-orthodox’ see B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox
Corruption of Scripture: The EVect of the Early Christological Controversies on the
Text of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993) esp. pp. 3–32.
Ehrman builds upon Bauer’s insight that Christianity was not a pristine stream of
orthodoxy from which heretics deviated, but an untidy amalgam of diverse
theological positions, especially in regard to christological questions. Thus
Ehrman correctly speaks of certain tendencies that were often part of incipient
orthodox formulations. These were later articulated by orthodox Christianity of
the fourth century and viewed as the fountainhead of the orthodox tradition.
Irenaeus is the obvious example of a figure whose teaching falls into this
category.
32
The designation of this text as the ‘so-called Gospel of Peter’ takes up the
title of Serapion’s tractate on this text, as it is recorded by Eusebius, per1 toA
legom0nou kat1 P0tron e2aggel0ou (HE 6.12.2).
33
U. Bouriant, ‘Fragments du texte grec du livre d’Énoch et de quelques
écrits attribués à saint Pierre’, Mémoires publiés par les membres de la Mission
archéologique française au Caire, 9, fasc. 1 (Paris 1892), pp. 93–147.
34
Another significant factor in the identification of the text was the perceived
docetic features that appeared to align with the Eusebian citation of Serapion’s
description of the gospel being used by the Docetic party.
39. While they were reporting what they had seen, again they saw
coming out from the tomb three men, and the two were supporting the
one, and a cross following them. 40. And the head of the two reached as
far as heaven, but that of the one being led by them surpassed the
heavens.35

It needs to be acknowledged that the Gospel of Peter is
theologically an unsophisticated text, and it provides minimal
reflection on the heightened miraculous depictions it narrates.
Nonetheless, there is an implicit Christology that is commu-
nicated through the vision of Jesus and his two attendants having
enlarged heads.36 Again, occurring in a resurrection or post-
resurrection context, bodily metamorphosis is used to stress that
the raised figure no longer belongs exclusively to the earthly
realm. In this scene where resurrection and ascension are
compressed, the two attendants, who earlier were described as
descending from heaven, form part of a victorious procession
returning to their place of origin. As Vaganay observes,
‘On s’attend à une resurrection triomphale et voici que le
Christ apparait soutenu par ses compagnons’.37 The comparison
of the relative dimensions of the heads of the three figures is
also a primitive way to denote the status of the two men in
contrast to that of the one whom they support. While they have
cephalic contact with the heavens, the head of the now risen
Christ surpasses the heavens. This is not primarily a designation
of the subservience of the two accompanying figures, rather it
emphasizes the supremacy of Jesus in the heavens.
Although in some regards Jesus’ form resembles that of the
two accompanying figures, this should not be understood
35
The translation is taken from the forthcoming commentary and edition of
the text, P. Foster, The So-called Gospel of Peter—An Introduction and
Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
36
Bodily metamorphosis is also recorded as happening to figures other than
Jesus. In a text rarely cited, The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, apparently dating
from the eighth century, in the section relating the ‘Revelation of Simeon
Kepha’, Peter has his body enlarged: ‘And Simeon was moved by the Spirit of
God: and his appearance and body were enlarged’. See The Gospel of the Twelve
Apostles together with the Apocalypses of Each One of Them, ed. J. R. Harris
(London: Cambridge University Press, 1900, repr. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press,
2002), p. 31.
37
L. Vaganay, L’Évangile de Pierre (2nd edn.; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1930), p. 297.
as an angelomorphic Christology.38 This categorization is not
dismissed for the facile reason that the text of the Gospel of Peter
refrains from labelling the accompanying figures as ‘angels’,
since they are certainly understood as heavenly envoys.39 Rather,
angelomorphic Christology is not an appropriate designation

in this context because the author seeks to distance the
central figure from the attendants by the quantitative diVerence
in the body enlargement he experiences in comparison to that
of the two heavenly figures. Hence, for the author of this text,
what is significant is not Jesus being metamorphosed into
a form similar to that of his attendants, but rather that the
change in physical form denotes the now unbounded nature
of his being. Jesus is no longer trapped in the tomb: he has
been released from death and raised beyond the constraints
of purely physical existence. Therefore, in this context,
polymorphism is a vivid way of depicting the interface between
the previously earthbound Jesus and his new status in the
heavens. So in essence, here the transformation of physical form
communicates that Jesus is no longer limited by the force of
death. Moreover, by his resurrection and corresponding bodily
metamorphosis it is demonstrated that he has been instantiated
in the heavenly sphere.
ii. The Gospel of Judas

In a comment made by the intrusive narrator, the Gospel of
Judas declares that on occasions Jesus appeared in the form of a
child to his disciples:
He began to speak with them about the mysteries beyond the world and
what would take place at the end. Often he did not appear to the
38
The whole question of ‘angelomorphic Christology’ is contested. Rowland
has convincing argued that imagery associated with angelophanies was
appropriated into early christological formulations. See C. C. Rowland, ‘A Man
Clothed in Linen: Daniel 10.6V. and Jewish Angelology’, JSNT 24 (1985),
pp. 99–110. The assessment and critique oVered by K. Sullivan is invaluable:
K. Sullivan, Wrestling with Angels: A Study of the Relationship between Humans
and Angels in Ancient Jewish Literature and the New Testament (AGJU 55;
Leiden: Brill, 2005), pp. 231–5.
39
H. B. Swete, The Akhmı̂m Fragment of the Apocryphal Gospel of St Peter
(London: Macmillan and Co., 1893), p. 17.
disciples as himself, but he was found among them as a child. (Gospel of
Judas, codex page 33, lines 15–20)40
The Gospel of Judas is the third of four texts contained
in Codex Tchacos. This gospel occupies twenty-six pages, and
the citation is found on the first page of the text.41 While the

current portion of text appears to be free from the horrendous
deterioration that has occurred since its discovery,42 the final
word, nevertheless, does raise a significant exegetical problem.
Although composed in a dialect of Sahidic Coptic, the term
appears to be drawn from Bohairic Coptic.43 Such interpenetration
of the various forms of Coptic is not uncommon. Based on the
transcription provided, it is most likely that the term denotes
‘a child’, since the Bohairic term is the closest lexical
possibility and in texts discovered at Nag Hammadi there is
a tradition of Jesus appearing in the form of a child.44
Unlike the majority of texts considered thus far which are
set in a post-resurrection context (the exception being the
transfiguration account, which while probably not a displaced
resurrection story, at least proleptically anticipates the resurrec-
tion45), the Gospel of Judas, and specifically the appearances in
the form of a child, are set prior to the crucifixion. Moreover,
as the wider context shows, this polymorphic manifestation was
40
Neither a printed version of the Coptic text nor photographs of the
manuscript are yet available. The cited portion of text is dependent upon
a pdf accessible at the following National Geographic website: 5http://www.
nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/document_nf.html4 (accessed 17 May 2006).
41
See R. Kasser, M. Meyer, and G. Wurst, The Gospel of Judas, with
additional commentary by B. D. Ehrman (Washington, DC: National
Geographic, 2006), pp. 13–14.
42
The apparent rapid deterioration in the state of the codex is discussed in
Kasser, Meyer, and Wurst, The Gospel of Judas, pp. 47–76, and throughout
H. Krosney, The Lost Gospel: The Quest for the Gospel of Judas Iscariot
(Washington, DC: National Geographic, 2006).
43
Kasser et al. note the less likely possibility that ‘hrot may be a form of the
Bohairic word, hortef ‘‘apparition’’ ’. Kasser, Meyer, and Wurst, The Gospel of
Judas, p. 20.
44
For example see Secret Book of John 2.
45
The notion that the transfiguration account was originally a resurrection
story is most famously supported by Bultmann, although the idea pre-dates him.
Bultmann provides a list of earlier scholars who support this hypothesis including
W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos: Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den Anfängen
des Christentums bis Irenaeus (2nd edn.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1921). R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford: Blackwell,
1963), p. 259.
part of a revelatory process where other-worldly mysteries were
disclosed to the disciples. While the term ‘gnostic’ is much
contested and it has been correctly noted that it is an umbrella
term for a variety of religious groups, the Gospel of Judas can
perhaps be more precisely positioned as representing the outlook

of Sethian gnosticism.46 As Meyer notes, this identification can
be made by analysing the confession of Judas about Jesus where
he states ‘You are from the immortal aeon of Barbelo’ (Gospel of
Judas, codex page 35, lines 17–19). In the Coptic text the name
Barbelo is written as a nomen sacrum indicated by the supralinear
stroke, although there is no abbreviation.47 This indicates that
the figure is viewed as being divine, and as other texts that
exhibit the outlook of Sethian gnosticism demonstrate, Barbelo
exists outside the physical realm and often assumes the role of
the heavenly matriarch.48 Thus a major concern in the Gospel of
Judas is to highlight the separation of the divine from the
material world. It is from this perspective that Judas’ act of
handing Jesus over is seen as a moment of liberation from
bodily constraints. In a broken portion of text, it appears that
Jesus mocks the eleven disciples who are trapped in their acts of
sacrifice to the lower deity, the demiurge, creator of the material
world, named Saklas. By contrast, Judas sacrifices Jesus and the
consequence is that Jesus will be freed from the material realm
and return to the uncreated aeons inhabited by Barbelo and the
other immaterial beings. Because of this act of redemptive
sacrifice, Jesus commends Judas above his fellow disciples:
‘But you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man
that clothes me’ (Gospel of Judas, codex page 56, lines 17–20).
46
For an overview of the phenomenon of Sethian Gnosticism and its points of
contact with Hellenistic philosophical traditions see J. D. Taylor, Sethian
Gnosticism and the Platonic Tradition (Bibliothèque copte de Nag Hammadi,
Section ‘Études’, 6; Sainte Foy/Louvain: L’Université Laval/Peeters, 2001).
Williams notes that in some Christian circles the figure of Seth was equated with
Christ: ‘Yet we know beginning at least as early as the second century CE and for
the next few centuries there were religious circles for whom Seth rivaled Christ
in importance. Indeed, some of these people essentially identified Christ with
Seth, as manifestations of the same divine entity.’ M. A. Williams, ‘Sethianism’,
in A. Marjanen and P. Luomanen (eds.), A Companion to Second-Century
Christian ‘Heretics’ (Leiden: Brill, 2005), p. 32. Meyer has illustrated at some
length the connections between the Gospel of Judas and features in other texts
identified as Sethian. See M. Meyer, ‘Judas and the Gnostic Connection’, in
Kasser, Meyer, and Wurst, The Gospel of Judas, pp. 137–69.
47
L. W. Hurtado, ‘The Origin of the Nomina Sacra: A Proposal’, JBL 117
(1998), pp. 655–73, see especially 655–7.
48
See the comments of Meyer in Kasser, Meyer, and Wurst, The Gospel of
Judas, p. 140.
It is against this broader theological outlook of the text that
the ability of Jesus to change into the form of a child needs to be
understood. Here polymorphic power is not used to illustrate
transcendence over death, as in the post-resurrection examples
of this phenomenon; rather it declares the possessor’s

transcendence over the material world. Physical form is not
a constraint on such a being, for in essence he does not belong
to the material world. Therefore, a fundamental diVerence
needs to be emphasized. The property of polymorphy was
particularly attractive in gnostic theology since it allowed for
reflection on a divine being able to defy the limitations of the
transitory and material world. Here, unlike previous examples,
the author of the Gospel of Judas wishes to show that Jesus
not only defeats the power of death through his ability to
metamorphose, but in fact he is beyond the control of what is
viewed as being the inherently corrupted mortal realm.49
iii. The Gospel of Philip

Discovered among the Nag Hammadi texts, the Gospel of
Philip50 is often viewed as stemming from the circle of
Valentinian gnosticism, though arising from an early or relatively
unsophisticated period.51 In line with other gnostic writings,
the Gospel of Philip advocates the upward journey of the soul,52
but the journey is seen in terms of entering into Christ’s bridal
chamber (Gos. Philip, 69.1–4). The displacement of humans from
the divine realm is seen as stemming from separation of the sexes
and engagement in intercourse (Gos. Philip, 55.27–8). The
docetic nature of the Christology underlying this text is
apparent in the reflection it oVers on the ‘cry of dereliction’.
Although the text becomes somewhat fragmentary it reads
‘‘‘My God, my God, why O lord, have you forsaken me?’’ It
was on the cross he said these words, for he had departed from
that place’ (Gos. Philip, 68.26–9). Thus there is a presentation
49
Kasser, Meyer, and Wurst, The Gospel of Judas, pp. 151–66.
50
For a convenient translation of the text of the Gospel of Philip see
W. W. Isenberg, ‘The Gospel of Philip (II,3)’ in J. M. Robinson (ed.), The Nag
Hammadi Library in English (rev. edn.; Leiden: Brill, 1996), pp. 139–60. The
most recent critical edition of this text can be found in H.-M. Schenke, Das
Philippus-Evangelium (Nag-Hammadi-Codex II,3) neu herausgegeben, übersetzt
und erklärt (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1997).
51
F. Lapham, An Introduction to the New Testament Apocrypha (London:
T & T Clark International – Continuum, 2003), p. 97.
52
H.-J. Klauck, Apocryphal Gospels: An Introduction (London: T & T Clark
International – Continuum, 2003), p. 123.
of the departure of the divine Christ from the human shell left
on the cross.
Coupled with this docetism, there is also a reflection on the
polymorphic appearance of Christ. This is presented in
theoretical rather than specific terms, apart from an allusion to

the transfiguration account:
Jesus took them by stealth, for he did not appear as he was, but in the
manner in which [they would] be able to see him. He appeared to [them
all. He appeared] to the great as great. He [appeared] to the small as
small. He [appeared to the] angels as an angel, and to men as a man.
Because of this his word hid itself from everyone. Some indeed saw him,
thinking that they were seeing themselves, but when he appeared to his
disciples in glory on the mount he was not small. He became great,
but he made his disciples great, that they might be able to see him in his
greatness. (Gos. Philip, 57.28–58.10)
While the intent of the passage is not entirely clear, it does
attest that Jesus was perceived in multiple forms by various
observers and that ‘some indeed saw him thinking that they were
seeing themselves’, that is a human form. Yet such observers
were in fact mistaken. Thus, for Philip, the human form is not
the ultimate reality of Jesus’ being. Contrary to Wilson, the
theme here is not ‘the mystery of Incarnation, the humble state
assumed by the Son in his earthly life’.53 Rather the text seeks
to distance this taking of the human form from the primary
ontological reality of the existence of Jesus. In fact ‘his word’
according to the Gospel of Philip, was
intentionally hidden, and the multiple forms were part of this
process of non-disclosure.54 When, however, he was revealed in
glory during the transfiguration, Philip presents this as involving
a stative change of the body through its enlargement, or
greatness. Yet to be able to comprehend this, the disciples
themselves had to undergo the same physical change.
The theological implications of such polymorphism are not
expanded upon in this non-canonical gospel text. The point
appears to be simply that bodily transformation is another means
of demonstrating that the physical appearance of Jesus was
not the ultimate reality of the being that was veiled in this
enfleshed form.
53
R. McL. Wilson, The Gospel of Philip (Oxford: Mowbray, 1962), p. 92.
54
On this passage see further Schenke, Das Philippus-Evangelium, p. 247.
iv. The Acts of John
Perhaps the text which exploits polymorphic Christology to
the greatest extent in order to communicate its theological
perspectives is the Acts of John. This text is available only
as a modern reconstruction. No manuscript contains the title

‘Acts of John’, although Eusebius refers to a work by the name
of Pr0xei” ’Iw0nnou (HE 3.25.6). Yet whilst the text in its original
form is no longer extant, large blocks of it were incorporated into
the later fifth-century work known as Acts of John by Prochorus.
Lalleman notes the current consensus surrounding the recon-
structed early form of the text:
Nowadays the division of the episodes belonging to AJ and those
belonging to the Acts of John by Prochorus is beyond dispute. The
diVerences in doctrinal stance between the post-Nicene Prochorus-text
and the heterodox AJ are clear to everyone who reads the texts; besides,
most of the action in Prochorus is concentrated on the Isle of Patmos,
which is never mentioned in the early AJ.55
However, the block of material which contains all examples
of polymorphism in the Acts of John was not preserved in
any manuscript of the Acts of John by Prochorus. In 1897
M. R. James published a manuscript dating from ad 1319,56
which is the sole witness to chapters 87–105 in their entirety.57
Placement of this block of material in relation to the rest of the
material derived for Prohorus is problematic.58 The reason this
material is known to have formed part of the Acts of John stems
55
P. J. Lalleman, The Acts of John (Studies on the Apocryphal Acts of the
Apostles, 4; Leuven: Peeters, 1998), pp. 5–6.
56
This dating is supported by both E. Junod and J.-D. Kaestli, Acta Iohannis,
Tomus 1: Praefatio – Textus; Tomus 2: Textus alii – Commentaries – Indices
(CCSA 1–2; Turnhout: Brepols, 1982), p. 26 and Lalleman, The Acts of John,
p. 8. However, James took the colophon’s reference to the 6824 year of creation as
being based on the chronological scheme of Anianus, Syncellus, and Theophanes.
This results in the manuscript being assigned to the year ad 1324. His
assessment of the value of this colophon was not great: ‘The date of the volume is
given, though, as it seems, corruptly, in the Colophon.’ M. R. James, Apocrypha
Anecdota: Second Series (Texts and Studies, 5.1; Cambridge: University Press,
1897), p. xiv.
57
James, Apocrypha Anecdota: Second Series, pp. ix–xxviii, 1–25, 144–54.
58
The original integration of this block into the material excerpted from the
Acts of John by Prochorus was undertaken by Bonnet. He placed this material
after the section numbered chapter 86, and broke this section into chapters
numbered 87–105. M. Bonnet, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha (Leipzig, 1898; repr.
Hildesheim and New York: Georg Olms, 1972). While retaining the chapter
numbering (87–105), Junod and Kaestli place this material after chapter 36;
Junod and Kaestli, Acta Iohannis, Tomus 1, pp. 72–5.
from the quotation of two sizable fragments from this section,
under the title Acts of John, in the Acts of the Second Council
of Nicea, held in 787. This writing was refuted by the council
as part of its anti-iconoclastic agenda, which responded to the
so-called Robber Council, held at Constantinople in 754. There

‘the story of St John and Lycomedes had been adduced as
an instance of the condemnation of pictures by the Apostles’.59
It is interesting to speculate that the lurid examples of
polymorphism that appear in this block of text might account
for the reason why this material was not taken up by Prochorus
in his heavily reworked version of the work.
Junod and Kaestli have conveniently identified and numbered
twelve incidents in the Acts of John which they classify as being
examples of polymorphy. These are, translated into English and
presented in tabulated form:
The call of James and John (88.9–20).
1.
When James and John begin to follow the Saviour (89.1–6).
2.
The eyes of the Saviour are never closed (89.6–8).
3.
The two sizes of the Saviour (89.9–10).
4.
The Saviour’s chest, sometimes hard, sometimes soft
5.
(89.10–15).
6. First transfiguration (90.1–4).
7. Second transfiguration according to John (90.4–22).
8. Second transfiguration according to James and Peter (91).
9. Twofold division during the night at Gennesaret (92.1–8).
10. The body of the Saviour, sometimes solid, sometimes
immaterial (93.1–4).
11. Meals in the homes of the Pharisees (93.5–10).
12. The footstep of the Saviour leaves no imprint (93.11–13).60
The first thing that needs to be observed is that item 11 can
straightaway be excluded. It describes the miraculous multi-
plication of bread, but makes no comment on changes in the
appearance of Jesus.61 The remaining eleven examples in this list
reflect varying conceptions of polymorphic occurrences.
Lallemann suggests that examples 3, 6, and 12 contain no
suggestion of polymorphic manifestation, but rather they are
59
James, Apocrypha Anecdota: Second Series, p. xii.
60
61
The same conclusion is stated by Lalleman, The Acts of John, p. 170.
However, Lalleman’s inference that this pericope suggests that Jesus himself did
not eat is not part of the description (p. 172).
christologically significant within the Acts of John, since they
communicate that Jesus was non-human.62 Hence they are seen
as part of the wider docetic outlook of the text. While this may
be the case for the never-closing eyes of Jesus, the other two
examples are not so quickly dismissed. The first transfiguration

account should not be read in isolation either from the second,
immediately following transformation in the Acts of John, nor
without consideration of the canonical accounts. The point of the
first account is that the inner circle of three disciples remains
at a reverent distance on the first occasion and observes only
the intense light, whereas on the second occasion John follows
Jesus more closely and observes him from behind as one
‘not dressed in garments, but he was seen by us as naked and not
at all like a man; his feet were whiter than snow, so that the
ground there was lit up by his feet, and his head reached to
heaven; so that I was afraid and cried out, and he turned and
appeared as a man of small stature and took hold of my beard
and pulled it’ (90.7–11). Adopting Lalleman’s definition of
polymorphy strictly, even this incident could not be classified as
belonging to that phenomenon since there is not a simultaneity
of appearance in multiple forms.63 Instead this would have to
be described a serial metamorphosis. Similarly item 12 could
not be classed as true polymorphism on Lalleman’s definition.
This is because the immateriality of Christ in leaving no
footprints serves as a specific illustration of example 10, which
states the general description of his ability to switch between
solid and ethereal forms, but not of simultaneously appearing
in a number of guises. Obviously, there is here a docetic
tendency which presents the embodied Jesus as a mere chimera
that veils the true spiritual essence of divine being.
For Junod and Kaestli only six of these events represent true
polymorphisms, examples 1, 2, 4, and 7–9. This is because
they are visual events entailing multiple forms.64 Thus they
exclude haptic sensation as a means of discerning polymorphy.
However, they do not require the condition of simultaneity to be
met, as is required by Lalleman.65 If the ability to appear in
multiple forms is not a necessary condition for polymorphism,
it appears strange to insist that only visual perception can
62
Ibid. pp. 170–2.
63
Lalleman, ‘Polymorphy of Christ’, p. 99, cited on the second page of this
article.
64
Junod and Kaestli, Acta Iohannis, Tomus 2, p. 475.
65
Lalleman, ‘Polymorphy of Christ’, p. 99.
discern this phenomenon, especially since the Acts of John
stresses that it was discerned on a number of occasions through
tactile experiences.
One of the most striking examples of polymorphism is to be
found in the ninth example, the appearance of Jesus along with

his doppelgänger. While feigning sleep John observes the
following phenomenon:
e9 don 4llon 7moion a2tJ [kaqe0donta] tina oØ ka1 2kroas0mhn l0gonto” tJ
kur0N mou. ’IhsoA, o5” 2xel0xw 7ti soi 2pistoAsin. Ka1 3 k0ri0” mou e9 pen
a2tJ Kal8” l0gei”. 4nqrwpoi g0r e2sin.
[While sleeping] I saw another like him whom I also heard saying
to my Lord, ‘Jesus, those whom you have chosen still do not believe
in you’. And my Lord said to him, ‘You are right, for they are man’.
(AJ 92.5–8)
Such a vision is not some kind of trinitarian or even binitarian
conception of the Father and Son in dialogue, even despite
the presence of the christological term 7moio”. Rather, what
is denoted is self-replication. Thus, Junod and Kaestli state that
‘Le Seigneur se parler à lui-même en se donnant son vrai
nom et en prononçant une parole qui démasque l’incrédulité et
l’indescrétion des apôtres représentés ici par Jean’.66 Thus the
emphasis falls on the self-counsel that Jesus is able to gain
through conversation with his double.
Some of the forms of polymorphic appearance are reminiscent
of other texts that have been examined. In the third example, the
description of bodily features resonates with the vision of Jesus
in Rev. 1:9–20. However, perhaps even more striking in the
seventh passage is the note that Jesus’ ‘head reached to heaven’
t1n d1 keqal1n e2” t1n o2ran1n 2ridom0nhn (AJ 90.13), which recalls
the description of the heads of the three men who emerge
from the tomb in the Gospel of Peter (G. Pet. 10.39–40).67
At other points, the metamorphosis appears more to emphasize
the change in age than to focus upon the physical alterations that
attend such a transformation (AJ 89.3–4). Thus the appearance
to James in the form of a youth is similar to the note in the
Gospel of Judas, which mentions that sometimes Jesus appeared
to his disciples in the form of a child. Transformation into the
vesture of an infant or adolescent occurs in a number of texts,
e.g. Secret Book of John 2; Revelation of Paul 18; Hippolytus,
Refutation of All Heresies 6.42.2.
66
Junod and Kaestli, Acta Iohannis, Tomus 2, p. 486.
67
See the first text treated under this section on extra-canonical texts.
A distinction is made in the magisterial work of Junod and
Kaestli concerning the genre of chapters 88–93, which they
entitle ‘the polymorphic discourse’, and the material in 94–102,
109, that is described as ‘the cross of light’ section.68 This
distinction means that they do not include incidents from 94–102

in their table of polymorphic occurrences, which are all drawn
from 88–93. While there are obviously significant diVerences
between the two sections, it appears that points of contact have
been minimized, especially where polymorphism is involved.
To escape the events of Calvary on the first Good Friday,
John flees to a secluded cave on the Mount of Olives. While
Jesus is apparently being crucified, he simultaneously appears
to John in the cave and speaks of the dual realities of the cross
and his apparition.
ka1 st1” 3 k0ri0” mou 2n m0sN toA sphla0ou ka1 fwt0sa” me e9 pen. ’Iw0nn0 tJ
k0tN 5clN 2n ’Ierosol0moi” stauroAmai ka1 l0gcai” n0ssomai ka1 kal0moi”,
5xo” te ka1 col1n pot0zoma1 so1 d1 lal8 ka1 6 lal8 4kouson.
And my Lord stood in the middle of the cave, and illuminating me
he said, ‘John, to the multitude down below in Jerusalem I am being
crucified, and being pierced with lances and reeds, and gall and vinegar
is being given to me to drink. But to you I am speaking, and pay
attention to what I say’. (AJ 97.7–10)
Junod and Kaestli see chapter 97 as little more than a bridging
element between the two revelation scenes of the hymn of the
dance and its interpretation (AJ 94.8–96.28) and the apocalypse
of the cross of light (AJ 98–101).69 What is not discussed is
the fact that this is another example of a polymorphous Jesus,
who simultaneously appears in two locations. This particular
example is christologically significant in that it exemplifies
docetic perspectives that the crucifixion is not the ultimate
reality experienced by the divine Logos.
The christological orientation of the Acts of John is complex.
At a number of places there appear to be points of contact with
reflections on the person of Christ found in texts representative
of Valentinian gnosticism. The fragment of the Acts of John
couples such an outlook with a thoroughgoing presentation of
a polymorphic Christ. The author successfully employs the
metamorphic abilities attributed to Jesus for the purpose of
demonstrating a number of theological points: his transcendence
of the physical world, his ability to switch between material and
68
69
Ibid. p. 593.
immaterial forms, and that the suVering Jesus on the cross was
not the ultimate reality. Such theological perspectives marry
elements of both gnostic and docetic christological under-
standings, which anyway cannot be viewed as discrete or
well-defined entities. Thus polymorphism, as a description of

the pre-resurrected Christ, was a particularly helpful means
of promoting the docetic Christology of the Acts of John.
v. The Acts of Peter

Recently it has been suggested that the communities that stood
behind the Acts of John and the Acts of Peter were in
competition with each other. In his as yet unpublished SBL
presentation, Paul Schneider argued that the community of the
Acts of John viewed the Acts of Peter group as inferior or even
immature, especially in relation to the manner in which the
latter community presented its polymorphic Christology.70 While
Schneider may have convincingly demonstrated that the form of
polymorphic reflection on the person of Christ is less developed
in the Acts of Peter than in the Acts of John, the case that the
purpose of the Acts of John, at least in part, was to form
a response to the community of the Acts of Peter requires
further support. This is especially the case in demonstrating
that there was direct contact between the two communities, as
opposed to simply showing that they may have inhabited the
same thought world.71
The Acts of Peter contains four stories that could potentially
be classified as exhibiting features common to the portrayal
of a polymorphous Christ. There is, however, a fundamental
diVerence in context from the Acts of John, in that the Acts of
Peter has a post-Easter setting, and the storyline centres on
further confrontation between Peter and Simon Magus, who is
perceived as an arch-deceiver and heretic as in much other early
70
P. G. Schneider, ‘‘‘Christs in Paradox’’: The Polymorphic Christologies of
the Acts of Peter and the Acts of John’, presented at the SBL Christian
Apocrypha Section (S19-58), Saturday 19 November 2005.
71
Elliott provides a more balanced assessment of the relationship: ‘The
relationship of the Acts of Peter and the Acts of John is another issue on which it
is diYcult to make a firm decision. Older editions of these apocrypha tended to
argue that the Acts of Peter used the Acts of John, but the recent dating of the
two works does not now allow this conclusion. There is indeed a certain aYnity
between the two works, but it is likely to be due to their shared similar common
origins’. J. K. Elliott, The New Testament Apocrypha (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1993), p. 390.
Christian literature. The four possible occurrences of meta-
morphic appearances are:
1. A radiant young man appears, who is identified as Christ
(ch. 5).

2. A variant account of the transfiguration, with polymorphic
elements (ch. 20).
3. Duality in the attributes of Christ (ch. 20).
4. Christ seen in diVerent forms by a group of previously
blind widows. (ch. 21).
The first of these passages is strongly reminiscent of the
appearance of the risen Christ in John 20.72 While the radiant
appearance as a young man may be suggestive of an angelophany,
the words ‘peace be with you’, recall Jesus’ exact form of address
to the disciples in the closed upper room. Moreover, in
doxological language, Peter identifies the radiant being as
Christ: ‘Peter said, ‘‘Most excellent and the only Holy One,
for you appeared to us, O God Jesus Christ’’ ’ (AP 5).73 Here
then Jesus is presented in a transformed resurrected state, but
little is made of this by way of christological reflection.
The account of the transfiguration is prefaced by a statement
relating to a change in shape; however, here the author appears
to be using pictorial language to describe the incarnation in
a relatively unsophisticated manner. As part of its presentation of
the soteriological economy the text states, ‘the Lord was moved
by compassion to show himself in another form and to appear in
the image of man’ (AP 20). It is interesting to note that here the
language of metamorphism is naturally applied to a description
of the incarnation. While the statement that the Lord appeared
‘in the image of man’ may be seen as docetic, since it does not
explicitly aYrm Christ as true man, this is perhaps rather
due only to the lack of intellectual sophistication of the text.
There are no other obvious docetic tendencies in the Acts of
Peter, so it is best to see this description not as representative
of a theological tendency, but as stemming from a lack of
precision. Interestingly, the description of the transfiguration
which immediately follows on from this statement has
a very restrained description of the change in the appearance
72
See the third group of texts treated under the section dealing with the
New Testament origins of polymorphic Christology.
73
The translations of the Acts of Peter and Acts of Thomas (see next section)
employed are those of M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1924), available online at 5www.earlychristianwritings.com4.
of Jesus on the mountain. ‘When I and the sons of Zebedee saw
his brightness I fell at his feet as dead, closed my eyes, and heard
his voice in a manner I cannot describe. I imaged I had been
deprived of my eyesight by his splendour’ (AP 20). Unlike the
Matthean and Lukan versions of this event, there is no portrayal

of bodily change, although the voice (presumably of Jesus) had
been altered into a form that defied description. A key feature of
the descriptions of Jesus is the brilliant light which accompanies
him. This is also present in the final example listed from the
Acts of Peter.
This variant transfiguration account is followed by an
interesting list of paired descriptions of Christ, which although
apparently diametrically opposed are seen by the author as
representing the inherent tension in understanding the true
nature of Christ. Unabashedly describing Jesus as God, the
author states:
The merciful God, most beloved brethren, has borne our infirmities and
carried our transgression . . . this one who is great and small, fair and
foul, young and old, seen in time and unto eternity invisible; whom the
hand of man hath not held, yet is he held by his servants; whom no flesh
hath seen, yet now sees; who is the word proclaimed by the prophets
and now appearing; not subject to suVering, but having now made trial
of suVering for our sake; never chastised, yet now chastised; who was
before the world and hath been comprehended in time; the great
beginning of all principality, yet delivered over unto princes; beautiful,
but among us lowly; seen of all yet foreseeing all. (AP 20)
Because of later use of the terminology it is perhaps unhelpful
to label this as a ‘two-nature’ Christology, but what is apparent
is the manner in which the author wishes to hold two seemingly
opposed aspects of the description Christ’s person together in
tension.74 The mechanism adopted for doing this is not
sophisticated: he simply asserts both aspects as true, but oVers
no reflection on how these opposing qualities can co-exist.
Accounting for such duality was a challenge for all attempted
christological formulations and the Acts of Peter can only see
the need to aYrm both polarities, but does not account for this
co-existence.
74
Westra notes that this catalogue seeks to aYrm Jesus’ ‘earthly existence and
activities’. L. H. Westra, ‘Regulae fidei and Other Credal Formulations in the
Acts of Peter’ in J. N. Bremmer (ed.), The Apocryphal Acts of Peter: Magic,
Miracles and Gnosticism (Studies on the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, 3;
Leuven: Peeters, 1998), p. 142.
During a period of prayer with Roman believers, Peter is
approached by a group of blind widows seeking the restoration
of their sight. The enigmatic reply of Peter calls on the widows
to see with the mind and not with the eyes. After this, intense
light fills the room in which they are all gathered and the

sighted members fall prostrate. The blind widows, however, arise
and the light restores their sight. At this point Peter asks them
to describe their visionary experience.
They said, ‘We saw an old man whose appearance we certainly cannot
describe to you’. Some, however, said, ‘We saw a young man’. Others
said, ‘We saw a boy tenderly touching our eyes; thus our eyes were
opened’. So Peter praised the Lord and said, ‘You alone are the Lord
God, to praise whom we need many lips able to thank you for your
mercy. Therefore, brethren, as I told you briefly before, God is greater
than our thoughts, as we have learned from the old widows, how they
saw the Lord in diVerent forms.’ (AP 21)
This is the sole text in the Acts of Peter that can be classified as
presenting a polymorphous Jesus. Here Jesus simultaneously
appears in three male forms, that of old man, young man, and
boy.75 There is little reflection on the christological significance
of these manifestations apart from the pietistic declaration ‘God
is greater than our thoughts’ (AP 21).
The Acts of Peter does not exploit polymorphic Christology
for theological reasons to the same degree that occurs in the Acts
of John. In fact the discussion has suggested that there is perhaps
only one episode which can be classed as truly polymorphic in
nature (AP 21), and even here there is a lack of reflection on the
significance of this phenomenon. Schneider’s suggestion that the
Acts of John is written in response to the perceived immaturity
latent in the theology of the Petrine community can certainly
be understood through a comparison of polymorphism.76 Yet,
notwithstanding this, it is perhaps better to see these documents
as representing separate trajectories in the development of
a Christology related to multiple forms, rather than arising
from a situation of direct conflict.
vi. The Acts of Thomas

While the use of the motif of polymorphy in the Acts
of Thomas is not as prominent as in some of the other
75
See the comments of P. Lalleman, ‘The Relation between the Acts of John
and the Acts of Peter’, in Bremmer (ed.), The Apocryphal Acts of Peter, pp. 168,
174–5.
76
Schneider, ‘‘‘Christs in Paradox’’’.
Apocryphal Acts, Thomas is particularly noteworthy since it uses
the actual term ‘polymorphous’, pol0morfo”, on three occasions.
Two of these are references to Jesus, while the other denotes the
metamorphic ability of Satan.77 In the first of the christological
polymorphic passages, in an extended list of titular attributes,

Jesus is confessed to be the polymorphic one:
Jesus most high, voice arising from perfect mercy, Saviour of all,
the right hand of the light, overthrowing the evil one in his own nature,
and gathering all his nature into one place; the polymorphic one
[3 pol0morfo”], the only begotten existing one, first-born of many
brethren, God of the Most High God, man despised until now. (AT 48)
The Christology articulated in this passage aYrms the
pre-existence of Jesus, his soteriological significance in
destroying evil, and his divine nature. Alongside these ‘orthodox’
declarations, the author sees no tension in aYrming the poly-
morphous nature of Christ as one of the fundamental ontological
descriptors of his nature.
In the second example, in the doxological ascription of glory
to Jesus, Thomas confesses the Lord as having polymorphic
abilities, d0xa soi pol0morfe ’IhsoA (AT 153). Two points need to
be noted here. First, although the term pol0morfo” is employed
here, it does not occur within a narrative in which Jesus is
simultaneously apprehended in multiple forms. Rather it is used
to describe Jesus appearing in a changed or metamorphic form.
Therefore, it does not fit Lalleman’s definition of polymorphy.78
This seems fatal for the distinction that Lalleman sets up
between metamorphosis and polymorphy and such a rigid
dichotomy, as was suggested in the introduction, is best
abandoned. This is not solely for the purpose of creating a
better taxonomy for classifying related appearance phenomena,
but more fundamentally is required by the use of the term
pol0morfo” as it occurs in the Acts of Thomas. Secondly, at
various points in the text, including the narrative leading up to
this polymorphic christological confession, the author introduces
a polymorphic confusion due to the physical resemblance
between Jesus and Judas Thomas arising from the fact that
77
See I. Czachesz, ‘The Bride of the Demon’, in J. N. Bremmer (ed.), The
Apocryphal Acts of Thomas (Studies on the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, 6;
Leuven: Peeters, 2001), p. 41.
78
Lalleman, ‘Polymorphy of Christ’, p. 99.
they are described as being twins. Riley succinctly describes the
use of the twin-motif in the Acts of Thomas:
Perhaps the most striking element of Thomas tradition and its signature
feature is the designation of Thomas as the twin brother of Jesus. He is

so named by a demonic serpent (31), and a donkey’s colt (39) . . .. Jesus
appears more than once in the exact form of Thomas: he appears
as Thomas to two diVerent dead individuals in the realm of the dead
(34 and 54–55); he leads two female disciples out of a locked room to
the real Thomas (151–152), for which he earns the title ‘Jesus of many
forms’ (153; cf. also 48); . . . Likewise before his death, Thomas finds it
necessary to declare, ‘I am not Jesus’ (160).79
This propinquity in relationship and the apparent physical
resemblance between the resurrected Jesus and Judas Thomas
is fully exploited in this romance as a narrative device that
facilitates some of the miraculous events. In this way the
proximity between Thomas and Jesus is increased further than
could be achieved by simply designating them as twins. Thus,
by the use of Jesus’ polymorphic appearances the author creates
confusion of identity for observers.80
Furthermore, Riley suggests that in the Acts of Thomas
original ‘heterodox’ Thomasine tradition ‘has been both
preserved and ‘‘corrected’’ in an eVort to make it more palatable
to the mainstream’.81 However, the problem with Riley’s thesis is
that, at least in relation to Christology, there are no obviously
docetic or adoptionist formulations. While the formulations
do not reflect the complexities of later debates, the general
orientation is not incompatible with subsequent understandings.
Therefore, polymorphism is used alongside christological
formulations which were not deemed problematic by the
emergent orthodox group. On the whole, such reflection on the
nature of the person of Jesus in the Acts of Thomas is made only
in passing, as one might expect in a text that is generally
novelistic in genre, and is designed to entertain rather than
seeking to be discursive. So in this description of the
79
G. J. Riley, ‘Thomas Tradition and the Acts of Thomas’ SBLSP (1991),
pp. 533–42, at 534.
80
Cartlidge sees the twin motif as having pastoral ramifications for the
community behind the Thomasine acts: ‘The ATh links Jesus’ polymorphism to
his ‘‘twinship’’ with Judas Thomas. By so doing it establishes the continuation of
Jesus’ power in the community reinforced sacramentally.’ D. R. Cartlidge,
‘Transfigurations of Metamorphosis Traditions in the Acts of John, Thomas, and
Peter’, in D. MacDonald (ed.), ‘The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles’, Semeia 38
(1986), pp. 53–66, at 66.
81
Riley, ‘Thomas Tradition and the Acts of Thomas’, p. 534.
post-resurrection activities of Thomas, Jesus’ polymorphic
abilities are exploited in a somewhat playful manner, but
they also function to move him rapidly into a scene when his
presence is required, thereby implicitly demonstrating his
transcendence of physical limitations. This christological

perspective is a demonstration of the superiority of Jesus over
the natural realm, and as such was pastorally significant for
marginalized communities of the first three Christian centuries.
vii. Other Apocryphal Acts

Apart from the three Apocryphal Acts just considered in the
survey of non-canonical texts, there are two further major texts
in this group, the Acts of Andrew and the Acts of Paul and
Thecla. Both of these texts are fragmentary, and although large
blocks are still extant, none of the remaining material contains
stories of polymorphic appearances of Christ. In the epilogue
to the Acts of Paul and Thecla, which contains the account of
Paul’s martyrdom and his post-resurrection activities, there is
no tendency to describe the body of the apostle in polymorphic
terms. This, as Bolyki observes, is a deviation from later
accounts: ‘The epilogue of MP [The Martyrdom of Paul] lacks
many of the motifs of the later martyr stories: the divine
transparency of the dead body . . .’.82 Similarly, the Acts of
Andrew, either in its fragmentary remains or in the epitome of
the text transmitted by Gregory of Tours, shows no reliance
on polymorphic traditions.83 It should also be noted that
polymorphic portrayals of Christ and other figures of religious
devotion are found in other texts and at later periods than the
second century.84 Significantly, while mounting his defence
82
J. Bolyki, ‘Events after the Martyrdom: Missionary Transformation of an
Apocalyptic Metaphor in Martyrium Pauli’, in J. N. Bremmer (ed.), The
Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla (Studies on the Apocryphal Acts of the
Apostles, 1; Leuven: Peeters, 1996), p. 99.
83
The epitome of the text composed by Gregory of Tours perhaps gives the
best indication of the original contents of the text, although the proximity to the
original wording might be debated. For this text and an extended discussion of
the complex textual history of the Acts of Andrew see Elliott, The New Testament
Apocrypha, pp. 231–302.
84
As has already been mentioned, Peter undergoes bodily enlargement
according to the ‘Revelation of Simeon Kepha’, in Harris (ed.), The Gospel of the
Twelve Apostles, p. 31. See the discussion on the Gospel of Peter. Similarly,
Marian traditions of dormition and assumption are often accompanied by varying
degrees of bodily transformation. See the texts presented in the appendix of
S. J. Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and
Assumption, (OECS; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).
against Celsus’ charge that Jesus never explicitly revealed his
divine power before his enemies, Origen shows an awareness
of the polymorphic phenomenon. He states, ‘Although Jesus
was one, he had several aspects; and to those who saw him he
did not appear alike to all’ (Contra Celsum 2.64).85 Although

not providing any specific examples of the phenomenon, Origen
presupposes a manifestation of Jesus where he appears
simultaneously in multiple forms, such as a number of the
stories in the Acts of John and the Acts of Peter. Not only does
Origen not find this phenomenon problematic, but he uses it as
part of his defence against Celsus.
viii. The Apocalypse of Peter

There is a partial parallel (in content if not entirely in
theology) between the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter (Nag Hammadi
VII, 3), 8186 and the crucifixion scene already discussed in the
section dealing with the Acts of John, 97.7–10. In the Apocalypse,
Peter, observing the crucifixion, encounters three Jesus-like
figures.87 Peter says:
I saw him [i.e. Jesus] seemingly being seized by them. And I said,
‘What do I see, O Lord, that it is you yourself whom they take, and that
you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree?
And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?’ The
Saviour said to me, ‘He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing is
the living Jesus. But the one into whose hands and feet they drive nails
is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one
who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and look at me.’88
Here it is possible to see the author joining one of the core
beliefs of docetism, namely that the divine Christ did not suVer,
with a polymorphic Christology which enables Jesus to be both
the laughing figure on the cross and simultaneously engaging
in discussion with Peter about what is being observed. The
emphasis on a suVering substitute, who is not the pre-existent
85
See H. Chadwick, Origin: Contra Celsum (corrected edn.; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1965), p. 115.
86
This text is not to be confused with the Greek Apocalypse of Peter
discovered in the same codex as the Gospel of Peter in 1886/7. The Coptic
Apocalypse of Peter was discovered as part of the Nag Hammadi corpus of texts
sometime in late 1945.
87
This point is also made by B. Ehrman, Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene:
The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2006), pp. 46–7.
88
Trans. James Brashler and Roger A. Bullard, in The Nag Hammadi Library
in English, ed. J. M. Robinson (rev. edn.; Leiden: Brill, 1996), p. 377.
divine being, is used to insulate beings from the heavenly sphere
from the suVerings of the material realm. This text perhaps
most clearly illustrates the manner in which polymorphic
understandings of the nature of Jesus could be utilized by
those Christians who maintained docetic conception of Christ.

Conclusions
Christological reflection that encompasses polymorphic
features cannot automatically be deemed incompatible with
theologies that later became regarded as orthodox. During the
second and third centuries polymorphism was used by a variety
of Christian believers to promote vastly divergent Christologies.
For those with docetic proclivities, the ability of Jesus to
metamorphose oVered an important theological resource, for it
demonstrated that the material appearance was not the ultimate
reality, but rather that it veiled the true spiritual essence. In this
sense it was used to highlight a transcendence of the physical
by the purer spiritual manifestation of Christ. Such a tendency
is most fully exemplified in the Acts of John where polymorphic
events prior to the resurrection illustrate a separation between
Christ and the earthly domain.89
By contrast, other texts, which employ polymorphism but
do not formulate docetic christologies, appear to limit such
appearances in multiple forms chiefly to the post-resurrection
period. Like their docetic counterparts, these texts are also
concerned with transcendence over the physical realm; however,
the primary interest is a demonstration of the triumph of Jesus
over the constraint of death, not a rejection of the material realm
itself. Both of these christological developments drew upon
material in the New Testament. While polymorphic encounters
which are non-docetic in nature tend to be more restrained,
and occur chiefly in post-resurrection contexts, it needs to be
recognized that the transfiguration, especially in its Matthean
and Lukan versions, provides an example of metamorphosis
prior to the crucifixion. Reflection on the transfiguration
becomes a particularly rich resource for the development of the
tradition of polymorphic understandings in both the Acts of John
and the Acts of Peter.
It would, however, be overly simplistic to categorize those
texts which contain pre-resurrection occurrences of polymor-
phism as being docetic in nature, although, admittedly, this may
89
serve as a potential indicator of christological perspective.90
Rather, it is necessary to read each example in its wider context
to determine the type of Christology that is being advocated
through the portrayal of a polymorphic Christ. A close study of
a range of polymorphic depictions of Christ shows how by

drawing upon the embryonic understandings of polymorphism
in the New Testament, both docetic and proto-orthodox
Christologies were able to use the ability to appear in multiple
forms to advance their own perspectives on the nature of the
person of Christ.
Paul Foster
University of Edinburgh
paul.foster@ed.ac.uk
90
In particular this is the case with the manner in which the Gospel of Judas,
the Gospel of Philip, and the Acts of John exploit the idea of polymorphism to
promote a docetic Christology which is mixed with gnostic elements.

Paul Foster, "Polymorphic Christology: Its Origins and Development in Early Christianity" (2007)

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

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

Paul Foster, "Polymorphic Christology: Its Origins and Development in Early Christianity" (2007)

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Vol.

58, Pt 1, April 2007

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/58/1/66/2931883 by guest on 19 November 2018

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/58/1/66/2931883 by guest on 19 November 2018

II. The New Testament Origins of Polymorphism

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/58/1/66/2931883 by guest on 19 November 2018

i. The Transfiguration Accounts (Matt. 17:1–8//Mark 9:2–9//

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/58/1/66/2931883 by guest on 19 November 2018

ii. The Emmaus Road (Luke 24:13–35//Mark 16:12–13)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/58/1/66/2931883 by guest on 19 November 2018

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/58/1/66/2931883 by guest on 19 November 2018

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/58/1/66/2931883 by guest on 19 November 2018

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/58/1/66/2931883 by guest on 19 November 2018

iv. The Damascus Road Appearance (Acts 9:1–9; 22:3–16; 26:9–18)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/58/1/66/2931883 by guest on 19 November 2018

v. The Patmos Vision of Christ (Rev. 1:9–20)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/58/1/66/2931883 by guest on 19 November 2018

vi. Evading Hostility (Luke 4:30 and John 8:59)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/58/1/66/2931883 by guest on 19 November 2018

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/58/1/66/2931883 by guest on 19 November 2018

III. Extra-Canonical Descriptions of Polymorphism

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/58/1/66/2931883 by guest on 19 November 2018

i. The Resurrection Scene in the Gospel of Peter (G.Pet. 10.39–40)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/58/1/66/2931883 by guest on 19 November 2018

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/58/1/66/2931883 by guest on 19 November 2018

ii. The Gospel of Judas

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/58/1/66/2931883 by guest on 19 November 2018

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/58/1/66/2931883 by guest on 19 November 2018

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/58/1/66/2931883 by guest on 19 November 2018

iii. The Gospel of Philip

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/58/1/66/2931883 by guest on 19 November 2018

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/58/1/66/2931883 by guest on 19 November 2018

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/58/1/66/2931883 by guest on 19 November 2018

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/58/1/66/2931883 by guest on 19 November 2018

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/58/1/66/2931883 by guest on 19 November 2018

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/58/1/66/2931883 by guest on 19 November 2018

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/58/1/66/2931883 by guest on 19 November 2018

v. The Acts of Peter

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/58/1/66/2931883 by guest on 19 November 2018

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/58/1/66/2931883 by guest on 19 November 2018

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/58/1/66/2931883 by guest on 19 November 2018

vi. The Acts of Thomas

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/58/1/66/2931883 by guest on 19 November 2018

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/58/1/66/2931883 by guest on 19 November 2018

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/58/1/66/2931883 by guest on 19 November 2018

vii. Other Apocryphal Acts

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/58/1/66/2931883 by guest on 19 November 2018

viii. The Apocalypse of Peter

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/58/1/66/2931883 by guest on 19 November 2018

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/58/1/66/2931883 by guest on 19 November 2018

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi