What to make of another "talking cross" in the Acts of Philip

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 3041
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

What to make of another "talking cross" in the Acts of Philip

Post by Leucius Charinus »


Translatio Philippi
Anthony Alcock
  • The text translated here is from Codex Barrocianus 180, but was not included by Tischendorf. Just over thirty years later it was published by M. R. James Apocrypha Anecdota (1893) pp. 161-163. Portions of the 'Acts of Philip' (Paris grec 1468 fols. 326v-331v) and 'Martyrdom of Philip' (Codex Barrocianus 180) are published by C. Tischendorf in Apocalypses Apocryphae (1866) pp. 141ff. More information about Philip came to light in a Greek text discovered in 1974.

    The text is essentially about the final obsequies of the apostle, during which there is a miraculous event: a cross, perhaps that on which Philip was crucified, appears surrounded by dazzling light that made it unapproachable, except by the bishop and his entourage. The cross identifies itself as Philip, who tells the bishop what he wants. Speaking animals are not unknown in hagiographic texts, but inanimate objects with the gift of speech are less common.

I. In the course of our travels to the confines of east and west and north to south, we heard that the blessed Peter had been crucified in Rome, Andrew at Achaean Patrae, and that Philip too had suffered honourable crucifixion, upside down, at Ophiorymos. Almost all believers rushed to where the bodies of the holy apostles lay to worship them. The physical remains of Philip were moved to Hierapolis by the faithful. Forty days after his crucifixion St Philip appeared to all the brothers in every church. Of certain philosophers at Athens, those from Hierapolis were guided by Philip to Ophiorymos where he had been crucified. They spent three days there, communing with the brothers, secretly taking the apostle's remains, travelling across sea and impassable desert, as if bearing the bones of the sober Joseph, so that Jesus appeared to them in the form of Philip and the sea and road were illuminated for them by his bright light. Within a few days the philosophers came to Hierapolis with the bones of St Philip.

II. It was night and the gate was locked, which was a problem for them. One of them named Basilicus called out: "Shining cross, which made the sea calm and illuminated the way through the desert, come and open this very heavy gate." The gates opened forthwith, and the whole city shone, as if illuminated by lightning. The light of the cross moved across the whole gateway, and in the middle of the night everyone rushed out to the square in astonishment, leaping up and down, saying: "What is this alien light in our city in the middle of the night ?!" Amid the general confusion among the people and almost all the Greeks, Jews and Christians, who had been believing in the passage of Saint John on his way to Laodicea, a voice was heard from heaven: "People who are still half-asleep in the middle of the night, raise your eyes to the right and listen. Why are you so frightened ?" They all turned and saw on a certain place in the city a cross reaching up to heaven, amid the sound of hymns and voices, that kept repeating: 'Alleluia. Glory to the Father, praise to the Crucified and honour to the Holy Spirit'.

III. Many wanted to approach the place where the cross stood but could not because of the blinding light. The bishop consecrated by John, together with 24 elders and virgins who had consecrated themselves, tried fearfully to approach the vision of the cross, and the heavenly voice said: 'Approach the Lord's cross and be illuminated.' As they approached, they saw a shining figure at the cross with ten philosophers: 'Blessings be upon you, bishop Eliphatha, for this is your name. Blessings be upon your flock, for you have seen me. I am Philip the apostle of Christ, and my crucified body lies in Ophiorymus but I am at peace in this city. Make a home for me and pure flowers will bloom. See to it that the earth opens and make smooth a place for my remains. Many voices in heaven echoed this with 'Amen' and 'Alleluia'. The cross ascended and said to Philip: "Behold the place of your rest until I come in the glory of my Father and awaken you. Receive now the crown of your apostolate in heaven where I am seated at the right hand of my Father."

IV. When it was daylight, there was a fragrant opening in the earth, and the philosophers laid down the remains of Philip rejoicing. The whole city rushed there and filled it with costly perfumes. The earth drew the opening closed, and the bones were covered by the more costly of the perfumes. The bishop brought an offering to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, gloriously saying 'Amen'. As each one made his way from the place, there was much noise and weeping and the sound of flagellation, as if the entire demonic world had been aroused by the cross and their father the devil uprooted. They were saying things such as: "On all sides we are exhausted fugitives, from persecution in Rome, Apamea, Galilee, Achaea and India. We migrated to Persia, and the Crucified One threatened us with unquenchable lightning. And even now, from Hierapolis, whence we have been ejected, even though the remains of Philip have migrated, he has banished us from Greece and Ophiorymos. Gaza and Azotos, Samaria and the land of the Candaceni. And now the remains of Philip are here to destroy us and preach salvation for the city."

V. All those listening were seized by fear, but thereafter there was great rejoicing in the city, The brothers travelled all over Laodicea to broadcast that Philip the apostle of Christ who had appeared at Hierapolis had found rest through the appearance of the cross of the Son of God. Shortly afterwards, there were many cures. People glorified God and set up a cult11 of the holy apostle Philip to the glory of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who alone is majestic forever. Amen.

https://www.academia.edu/104119612/Translatio_Philippi
Note: Footnotes removed above.


How do people explain talking crosses? Is the author a satirist?
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 3041
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: What to make of another "talking cross" in the Acts of Philip

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Above I have omitted the footnotes but with a link to the original article.

However of interest may be the references to other talking crosses in fn 3

Footnote 3


3 There is a speaking cross in the Gospel of Peter, cf. H.B. Swete The Akhmîm fragment of the apocryphal Gospel of Peter (1893) p. 19, especially note 4. The fragmentary text known, untitled but known as the Gospel of the Saviour ed. C. Hedrick (1999) also seems to feature the cross as conversation partner. The Cross also makes an appearance on a wall in the Acts of Xanthippe §15: it says nothing but is merely the vehicle for a 'handsome young man' to enter the room 'through it'. A much later text in Old English, Dream of the Rood, a poem of more than 150 lines, tells of a vision of the Cross that relates its own story from the time when it was cut down as a tree, its use in the crucifixion and its abandonment and finally to its rehabilitation


If the cross could talk what would it say?

Surely someone's taking a swipe at the authority of the cross in the canonical Jesus Story Book. Because it didn't say a word. At least the apostle Peter's and the apostle Philip's cross would talk.
Secret Alias
Posts: 21154
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: What to make of another "talking cross" in the Acts of Philip

Post by Secret Alias »

Nomen sacrum for crucified one?
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2564
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: What to make of another "talking cross" in the Acts of Philip

Post by GakuseiDon »

Maybe something to do with ideas in Tertullian's Ad nationes and Minucius Felix's Octavian, about the cross being the shape of a man with hands outstretched? From the latter:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... avius.html

We assuredly see the sign of a cross, naturally, in the ship when it is carried along with swelling sails, when it glides forward with expanded oars; and when the military yoke is lifted up, it is the sign of a cross; and when a man adores God with a pure mind, with handsoutstretched.

Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 1038
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: What to make of another "talking cross" in the Acts of Philip

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Mark Goodacre's solution for the Gospel of Peter may be a candidate explanation for the Acts of Philip

https://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/w ... lking.html
My suggestion is that we conjecturally emend the text from σταυρον to σταυρωθεντα, from "cross" to "crucified"
Goodacre's proposal includes a role for a misunderstood nomen sacrum:
But what if our scribe's exemplar here used the nomen sacrum στα? It is worth bearing in mind that another second century Greek Passion Gospel, the Dura-Europos Gospel Harmony fragment (0212), uses the nomen sacrum στα for σταυρωθέντα in a similar context (the burial). Perhaps our scribe's exemplar had the nomen sacrum στα and the scribe incorrectly assumed that it stood for σταυρόν. It would be an easy mistake to make, and it is quite reasonable to assume that the scribe's source text might so abbreviate. Other texts (Codex Bezae, P46) similarly abbreviate the verb.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 3089
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: What to make of another "talking cross" in the Acts of Philip

Post by andrewcriddle »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Fri Jul 07, 2023 12:56 am Mark Goodacre's solution for the Gospel of Peter may be a candidate explanation for the Acts of Philip

https://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/w ... lking.html
My suggestion is that we conjecturally emend the text from σταυρον to σταυρωθεντα, from "cross" to "crucified"
Goodacre's proposal includes a role for a misunderstood nomen sacrum:
But what if our scribe's exemplar here used the nomen sacrum στα? It is worth bearing in mind that another second century Greek Passion Gospel, the Dura-Europos Gospel Harmony fragment (0212), uses the nomen sacrum στα for σταυρωθέντα in a similar context (the burial). Perhaps our scribe's exemplar had the nomen sacrum στα and the scribe incorrectly assumed that it stood for σταυρόν. It would be an easy mistake to make, and it is quite reasonable to assume that the scribe's source text might so abbreviate. Other texts (Codex Bezae, P46) similarly abbreviate the verb.
It seems unlikely that both texts should independently come to require the same emendation.

Andrew Criddle
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 1038
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: What to make of another "talking cross" in the Acts of Philip

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

andrewcriddle wrote: Sat Jul 08, 2023 3:24 am It seems unlikely that both texts should independently come to require the same emendation.

Andrew Criddle
Then again, you don't read about walking talking crosses every day, either.

Well, I mean I don't.

In any case, the argument is Goodacre's, so I leave its defense or refutation to others better qualified than I am.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 3041
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: What to make of another "talking cross" in the Acts of Philip

Post by Leucius Charinus »

andrewcriddle wrote: Sat Jul 08, 2023 3:24 amIt seems unlikely that both texts should independently come to require the same emendation.
I cannot locate the manuscript to determine this one way or another. In any case the manuscript could be quite late and any nomina sacra may have been omitted. However in the English translation the word cross appears 10 times, crucified (as a verb) 2 times, crucifixion 2 times, crucified one (as a noun) 2 times and crucified (body) once.


The philosophers vs the appointed bishop

Another issue that may be of interest is that the text makes mention of a bunch of philosophers (plural) 4 times in contrast to mention of a bishop (singular) 3 times. When the bishop "tried fearfully to approach the vision of the cross" he finds ten philosophers already there.

I read this as a polemic by the author contrasting the appointed bishop with the philosophers in which the philosophers are portrayed as superior. Any thoughts on this?
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 3041
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: What to make of another "talking cross" in the Acts of Philip

Post by Leucius Charinus »

I sent a question to the translator (anthony alcock) :
LC wrote:In your recent translation you give "cross" ten times. What word is being translated from the manuscript in these cases? Are there any "nomina sacra"?
The response was:
AA wrote:Stauros'. There are no nomina sacra.
So it appears likely that at least two of the NT apocryphal texts feature a cross that talks. If such an event were to be part of Monty Python's "Life of Brian" I am confident that we would all instantly (and without hesitation) recognise the event as the invention of a satirist.

Biblical criticism is such a serious activity. Roman gravitas is a highly conditioned trait in the field. I am seriously starting to wonder whether the mainstream biblical scholars are so serious in their business of interpreting the NT apocryphal texts as to be humor impaired when it comes to identifying satire and parody of the canonical Jesus Story.
davidmartin
Posts: 1695
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: What to make of another "talking cross" in the Acts of Philip

Post by davidmartin »

Personification. The readers would have understood the cross as personifying someone, the spirit or the collective believers (ie church)
I think this is expressed clearest in the Gospel of Philip where "Joseph made the cross from the trees that he planted"
Tree's are the giveaway, they are people in numerous other sources - here the cross is the personification of the church. It must be or it makes no sense at all

Such mystical speculation wasn't in vogue among the orthodox... so it gives way to a more literal version but still with the same personification base

I think these talking cross accounts were based on some form of mystical interpretation originally, then became features in orthodox texts where they make less sense

PS The Gospel of the Saviour also features a talking cross
Post Reply