This week in my graduate seminar we discussed the Apocryphal Acts of John, one of the five surviving (lengthy) accounts of an apostle engaged in missionary activities after the resurrection of Jesus. These accounts are highly legendary, with almost no historical information in them, but they are fantastic books – entertaining early Christian fiction, even though, probably, the people who read them assumed they were descriptions of what really happened.
The five surviving accounts are the Acts of John, Thomas, Peter, Paul, and Andrew. Among the legendary information we find in these books are stories that people still today often simply assume are true, for example, that Thomas was the missionary to India, that Peter was crucified upside down in Rome, and that Paul had his head chopped off.
The Acts of John probably comes from the end of the second century, and so a hundred years or so after John the disciple of Jesus would have died. Like the others, it was written in Greek. I talk about it a bit in my book The Triumph of Christianity, mainly to show how these accounts of apostolic missionary work claim that the reason pagans converted to believe in Christ was because of the great miracles his followers could do. Here’s what I say in the book, including my introductory explanation of the various Acts.
************************************
Tales of the miracle-working powers of Jesus’ followers are found in several books collectively known as the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles. These are legendary narratives of the exploits of the apostles during their missionary endeavors in the years after the crucifixion. Any one of these accounts yields numerous instances of astounding and conversion-inducing miracles. Here I mention just a couple that are illustrative.[i]
The Acts of John narrates the miraculous ministry of John the son of Zebedee while spreading the word abroad. Some of the episodes serve no evangelistic purpose but have purely entertainment value in showing the remarkable abilities of this man of God. Of these, probably the best known is the incident of the bed bugs. We are told that after a long journey John and his companions come to a country inn for the night. Upon lying down….
To keep reading and see what happens next, you’ll need to be a blog member. It doesn’t cost much to join, and every penny goes to charity. Think of how you’ll benefit. How many people do *you* know who know about John and the bedbugs???
Upon lying down, John discovers to his dismay that the bed is infested with nasty bugs. Since he needs his rest, he orders the creatures to leave him in peace. His companions find this amusing, until the next morning when they get up to find a large throng of bedbugs awaiting John’s command at the door. He wakes up and tells the bugs that they can now return to their home, and they obediently do so.[ii]
Most of John’s miracles are not performed for the benefit of a good night’s sleep, but in order to convert the masses. None is more impressive than his effortless destruction of the temple of the great goddess of the Ephesians, Artemis.
Artemis was the patron divinity of the city of Ephesus, on the west coast of what is now Turkey. The Ephesians’ dedication to her is celebrated even in the New Testament, in a scene in which her devotees cause a riot in protest against the missionary work of the apostle Paul (Acts 19). In the Acts of John we have another apostolic encounter. This time the goddess – or at least her temple — does not escape unharmed.
John arrives at the magnificent temple of Artemis and there he confronts a large crowd of pagan worshipers celebrating the goddess’s birthday. Ascending a platform John challenges them to a kind of spiritual duel: they should pray for their goddess to strike him dead; if she proves unable to do so, he in turn will pray to his God to kill them. Since everyone in the crowd knows that John is able to do great miracles – he has already publicly raised the dead – they cry out for him not to do it.
John urges them all to convert and then prays that the deity of the place yield up to God himself. Immediately the altar of Artemis splits apart, the sacrifices all fall to the ground, the “glory of the temple” (whatever that is) is broken, as are the seven idols in the shrine. Half the temple falls, the roof caves in, and the priest of Artemis is killed in the collapse. The God of the Christians obviously means business, and he is patently more powerful than the greatest divinity in town.
Immediately the pagan crowd delivers the expected response for such tales of Christ’s mighty apostles: they all cry out, “There is only one God, that of John, only one God who has compassion for us; for you alone are God; now we have become converted, since we saw your miraculous deeds.”[iii] Readers might wonder how conversions can occur so suddenly, with almost precisely zero instruction concerning what the people are converting to. But there it is. John encourages the crowd, explains that his God is more powerful than Artemis, and his words now have an added effect: the people rush to destroy what is left of Artemis’s temple, crying out, “We know that the God of John is the only one, and henceforth we worship him, since we have obtained mercy from him…. We have seen that our gods were erected in vain.” To make the conversion story complete, the pagan priest who had been killed inside the falling temple is then raised from the dead by the power of God, and becomes a believer in Jesus.[iv]
[i] Translations of these narratives can be found in J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993).
[ii] Acts of John, 60-61.
[iii] Acts of John, 42.
[iv] Acts of John 44-47.
I was taking a break once at work and there was a lady sitting there with me that told me of a miracle in her church. They had a tray with little cups of wine on it. A big crowd that day! There wasn’t enough cups on the tray for everyone to have! By the time the tray made it to the back of the church.. somehow there was enough for everyone! I’ll call it Leanns apocryphal
Yup, I’ve heard stories like that too. If only we had a several independently produced video-recordings!
Then, as now, some people will believe anything that strengthens their beliefs. Was this a popular fiction for some and strictly seen as truth by others? As you’ve said before, it’s difficult to guess the popularity of such topics among the population. We don’t have any best-sellers lists to consult.
Unfortunately we don’t have any readers from the time who tell us what they actually thought of it.
My God can beat up your God. Conversion by playground insult.
Apparently there’s a discussion going on whether Jesus would wear a mask. I think he would, because it’s what comes out of your mouth that makes you unclean. What do you think?
I think Jesus was vehemently opposed to acting in ways that might harm another.
Yeah, that first apocryphal tale of John always bugged me. It left me itching to understand what real purpose it could serve. I even lost sleep over it.
The problem is, once you are ready to accept the miraculous, how do you discriminate? How do you exercise judgement? Are these bedbugs any more or less fantastic than multiplied loaves and fishes? Water into wine? Raising people from the dead? A blasted fig tree? And on and on. And then you have many miracle stories in other than Christian traditions: tales of the Buddha, and Wonder Rabbis, and on and on. On what logical ground can you accept one miracle and reject another, since a “miracle” is inherently illogical?
It’s easy for me! I don’t accept any!
Yes, it’s hard to know how serious the author was about pushing the Christian message or was he/she just mischievously toying with the readers’ credulity? I suppose, seen in the context of the pagan Greek novels popular at the time, these stories are not as egregious as they first appear.
Prof Ehrman,
Please what is the best explanation of the transition between the 12 disciples of Jesus and the Apostolic fathers?
There’s very little historical link, but in the old traditions it was thought that the Apostolic fathers were the generation of early Christian writers who personally knew one or more of the apostles (people like Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Hermas, etc.) But maybe I’ll post on that — it’s an interesting question.
Dr. Ehrman,
While reading Acts 2:22 recently, I was surprised to see that Peter says that Jesus’s “deeds of power, wonder, and signs” were done through Jesus by God. So apparently, Jesus didn’t perform miracles. According to Luke, he was simply the middle man. So I’m wondering, is this is an idea that is peculiar to Luke or did other NT writers share this opinion?
Jesus obviously does miracles even in the Gospel of Luke, but Luke has a distinctive emphasis, far more than the other Gospels, that Jesus was empowered by the Holy Spirit, beginning with his baptism. If you look up Spirit in Luke, you’ll find a lot of unique references. And part of the whole idea is that the followers of Jesus receive the spirit, in Acts, just as Jesus did in the Gospels. So they too have the power….
Bart.. I know that the date of writing is believed to be 2nd century. But when reading it, I would expect then to see in the dialogues of Jesus a duplication from one of the 4 gospels of the canon. There is vague reference to a passage spoken by Jesus in the sermon on the mount, but otherwise the dialogue attributed to Jesus seems to come from a different source other than the 4 gospels attributed to have been written in the 1st century.
So my question is… Exactly what about the Acts of John prompts the scholars to point to late 2nd century for time of writing? Obviously the Authors of Gospel of John and Acts of John were different as they have different dialogue of Jesus. If there were such a Johanian community that produced both writtings one might think they would be consistant in the dialogue of Jesus wouldn’t they?
Has anyone considered if the gnosticism attributed to the later texts may have actually been closer to the perception of early 1st century Gentiles out of Pauls Churches? Paul’s perceptions of the spiritual bodies seems very much gnostic. Seems to me Paul may have fathered the gnostics
As it turns out, all of the apocryphal acts have extensive dialogues (Acts of Peter, Thomas, Paul, Andrew) and none of them replicate NT passaes. The authors were not trying to retell earlier writings but to provide new material. The attestation for these writings does not start appearing until later: earlier fathers don’t seem to know them or know about them; and the theological disputes that they are often involved with are datable only to these later periods. They are no longer though of as gnostic texts. And there’s not much to suggest that the author of the Acts came from the very same community as the fourth Gospel.