The Acts of Peter Footnote 1 (hereafter Acts Pet.) contains an account of the destruction of an imperial statue by an exorcised demon, a statue that is subsequently miraculously restored by its owner Marcellus with the help of prayer and the apostle Peter. Although scholars seldom examine this episode in significant detail, when they have addressed it, they have for the most part agreed that it is an indication of the anti-imperial stance of the text generally and an attack on the legitimacy of the imperial cult more specifically.Footnote 2 This is perhaps not wholly surprising, given that the majority of the other apocryphal Acts of the apostles (hereafter AAA) do seem to exhibit this vein of hostility, and this corpus is often interpreted as something of a homogeneous whole.
As recent scholarship on the imperial cult, as well as documentary evidence, has shown, however, even for monotheistic groups there was a broad spectrum of ways of positively negotiating participation in imperial life. Although a dualistic framework either of acculturation or of opposition has traditionally been employed, recent work has shown that the historical reality was much more nuanced. Re-contextualizing the statue narrative within its compositional context—the diverse religious communities of Asia Minor in the first centuries of the principate—yields a more accurate understanding of the work: one in which the work is far from displaying an anti-imperial stance. Rather than exhibiting hostility toward imperial rule and its accompanying imperial cult, this episode in particular suggests that the Acts Pet. employs an almost apologetic stance, envisioning a harmonious coexistence between its community and imperial rule. Moreover, such a view is supported by other aspects of the text that have likewise often been misinterpreted or given insufficient treatment.
The following suggests that the community that produced the Acts Pet., like the majority of the neighboring populace in second-century Roman Asia Minor, attempted to negotiate a place for itself via integration with aspects of Roman imperial culture. Interpreting the Acts Pet. as representative of the corpus of the other AAA has obscured its own particular stance. While the other AAA do evince a sectarian and imperially hostile perspective, the Acts Pet. does not, a fact that will be discussed below. A more helpful approach is to view aspects of the AAA, and the Acts of Paul (hereafter Acts Paul) in particular, as counterpoints with which to contrast the Acts Pet. to highlight how the latter is markedly different.Footnote 3 Moreover, employing a broader framework of contemporaneous literary and documentary sources provides evidence that this episode is intended to demonstrate this community's attempt to negotiate a place for itself within imperial culture.
A Brief Summary of the Episode in Question and Its Context in the Narrative
The Acts Pet. is set in Rome and relates the story of the contest for adherents between Simon Magus the magician and the apostle Peter. Marcellus, a Roman senator, previously offered patronage to Christians in the city and adhered to the faith himself before Simon arrived. Simon, with his magical arts, however, led the community astray by prompting them to renounce Christianity. While Peter was in Judea, Jesus summoned him in a dream to go to Rome to restore the now apostate Christian community. Peter responded and ultimately succeeded by means of preaching and wonder working. The crucial statue episode occurs after Peter seeks out Marcellus's household, having been told of Marcellus's significance to the community and of his recent switch in loyalty to Simon. As Peter stands in the atrium of Marcellus's house, he offers praise to Jesus and to God, thankful that Marcellus seems to have repented, which prompts laughter from a bystander “in whom was a most wicked demon” (Acts Pet. 11).Footnote 4 In the name of Jesus, Peter commands the demon both to leave the man without harming him and to “show yourself to all who stand by” (Acts Pet. 11). The text then relates:
And hearing this he [the demon] left the young man; and heFootnote 5 caught hold of a great marble statue [statuam magnam marmoream], which stood in the courtyard of the house [in atrio domus], and kicked it to pieces. Now it was a statue of Caesar. And when Marcellus saw that he beat his forehead and said to Peter, “A great crime has been committed; if Caesar hears of this through some busybody [curiosis],Footnote 6 he will punish us severely.” But Peter answered him, “I see you are not the man you were just now; for you said you were ready to spend your whole fortune to save your soul. But if you are truly repentant and believe in Christ with all your heart, take (some) running water in your hands and pray to the Lord; then sprinkle [sparge] it in his name over the broken pieces of the statue, and it will be restored as before.” And Marcellus did not doubt, but believed with his whole heart, and before taking the water in his hands he looked upwards and said, “I believe in thee, Lord Jesus Christ, for I am being tested by thine apostle Peter whether I truly believe in thy holy name. Therefore I take water in my hands, and in thy name I sprinkle those stones [spargo lapides istos], that the statue may be restored as it was before. So, Lord, if it be thy will that I remain in the body and suffer nothing at Caesar's hand, let this stone be restored as it was before.” And he sprinkled water upon the stones [sparsit super lapides aquam], and the statue was restored. So Peter exulted because he had not doubted when he prayed to the Lord, and Marcellus was also uplifted in spirit, because this first miracle was done by his hands. (Acts Pet. 11)
While the restoration of this imperial statue is but one of the many wondrous works that occur in the Acts Pet., there are numerous reasons for supposing this episode has particular significance to the narrative. It is the first miracle that Marcellus performs and, conspicuously, it is inextricably linked to his re-admittance to the Christian community. It is also one of the first miracles that Peter performs upon arrival in Rome. Examined in greater depth, this episode does not seem to express the anti-imperial sentiment that scholars frequently attribute to it.
Perceived Anti-Imperial Sentiment among the Other AAA
The view that some, if not most, early Christians presented themselves and their communities as standing in direct opposition to the imperial cult, and thus by extension to imperial rule, has received much attention in recent scholarship. The AAA in particular have provided abundant material for scholars advocating this position of dissent among early Christian communities. While an analysis of possible anti-imperial sentiment in each of these texts is beyond the current scope, a brief summary of some of the positions as they pertain to our interpretation of the Acts Pet. is worth including.
Helen Rhee asserts, viewing the AAA (including the Acts Pet.) as a homogenous unit, that “the Apocryphal Acts present the Christian threat to and judgement over the empire. . . . Their basic attitude toward the empire is confrontational with a dualistic value system.”Footnote 7 Rhee maintains that this confrontational position is at the forefront in the AAA and that they indeed “highlight the revolutionary character of Christian loyalty to the heavenly kingdom” in sharp contrast to loyalty to the earthly empire.Footnote 8 For Rhee, the primary manner in which this stance is depicted can be seen in the portrayal of conflict between the protagonist apostle of a given Act (and other Christians who have been taught by him) and the political authorities: governors, kings, and ultimately the emperor.Footnote 9 The Acts Paul contains episodes in which this opposition to the ruling authorities does occur, and, most notably for our present purposes, it also contains an account of the desecration of an image of the emperor. Thecla, heroine of the work and follower of Paul, tears the crown from the head of an imperial priest who accosts her in the street.Footnote 10 As Bremmer and Klauck note, this crown would have had an image of the emperor on it.Footnote 11 The priest brings Thecla before the governor to be sentenced to death in the arena, and the text relates that “the charge upon her superscription was: Guilty of sacrilege” (Acts Paul 26). As Rhee asserts, although she is speaking of the AAA as a whole, “Harmony with the empire is impossible, for they [Christians] cannot serve two masters.”Footnote 12
Brock employs a more moderate stance, yet rightly notes several aspects of the Acts Paul that evince a tension between its protagonist and the imperial authorities. Contrasting the Acts Pet. with the Acts Paul, Brock remarks that the former “portrays a more congenial perspective toward political authorities, especially Roman rulers,” and that such a stance is notably different from that of the Acts Paul.Footnote 13 She notes that “the Acts of Paul is consistent with many apocryphal acts of the apostles in that it portrays numerous instances in which the primary characters and their followers come into conflict with figures holding political power, such as governors, emperors, and other officials.”Footnote 14 In the Acts Paul one governor orders Paul to be scourged and thrown out of the city and also repeatedly attempts to destroy Thecla in the arena by sending in more animals. A second governor has Paul scourged again and, inflicting a punishment similar to Thecla's plight, condemns him to fight with animals in the arena (also sending in more animals after the first fail to kill him). Citing these, Brock rightly notes that, in the Acts Paul, “governors are not depicted as benevolent powers but are instead part of the oppressive force from whom early Christians such as Thecla pray for rescue.”Footnote 15 Brock also notes that the depiction of Nero in the Martyrdom of Paul “displays the antipathy between Christians and the empire and emperor,” in that Nero is presented as cruel and unjust.Footnote 16 While this observation can only have limited implications, given that Nero was rarely portrayed positively by any ancient source (as discussed further below), it is worth noting that he is a much more prominent character in the Acts Paul than in he is in the Acts Pet. In the former, Nero is more integrated into the narrative, as his role extends over four chapters. In the latter text he appears by name only briefly in the final chapter, which has most likely been appended. Despite the differences between these two texts, Rhee and others still attribute Nero's hostile stance toward the empire and the imperial cult to the Acts Pet. as found in the other AAA. Despite the differences between these two texts, Rhee and others nevertheless attribute Nero's unflattering portrayal in the Acts Pet. to the same anti-imperial bias that is evident from the Acts Paul and the other AAA.
In Judith Perkins's view of the narrative, the Acts Pet. “strikes out at the two central supports of any political culture—deference to superior authority and the state religion.”Footnote 17 She remarks of the statue episode: “the action of this scene deflates the constitutive power surrounding the [imperial] cult; it displays that with belief in the Lord and trust in his leaders, the Imperial statue is in reality just ‘stones’ (lapides istos).”Footnote 18 Rhee, following Perkins, similarly proposes that this episode “demythologizes Imperial power and challenges the authority of the imperial cult and of the emperor himself.”Footnote 19 Citing the significance attributed to imperial statues in Philostratus,Footnote 20 Rhee evidently considers the very act of the destruction of the image to be further demonstration of the purported anti-imperial attitude of the Acts Pet. Neither of these viewpoints takes into consideration the significance of the fact that it is a demon that destroys the statue and that Peter and Marcellus restore it.
As Leonard Thompson rightly cautions regarding Revelation, despite the tendency in modern scholarship to view the imperial cult as the primary source of contention for early Christian communities, a more accurate understanding is that Christian attitudes toward the imperial cult were merely an extension of a broader rejection of traditional Greco-Roman deities. Thompson suggests that “the imperial cult was rejected as a correlate to the rejection of traditional cults. The forms of the traditional Greek religion were central, the imperial cult secondary to that.”Footnote 21 Similarly, Philip Harland notes that, while virtually all Judeans and early Christians refrained from active involvement in rituals that implied recognition of the emperors as gods, the significance of this should not be exaggerated, given that imperial cultic activities were embedded within the broader polytheistic cults.Footnote 22 For early Christians and Judeans the bone of contention was their respective monotheism, not imperialism per se.
Recently Karl Galinsky has advocated a similar position, noting that the tendency toward the intertwinement of manifestations of the imperial cult with those of other deities has failed to receive the attention it deserves from New Testament scholars. While he concedes that, of course, there are examples to the contrary, he cites in support of this cultic integration several inscriptions from across the empire, inscriptions often in the form of dedications to deified emperors in conjunction with traditional Greco-Roman deities. To cite but a few examples, Galinsky notes a dedication to the Theoi Sebastoi and Asclepius from Pergamum, a joint oath to Augustus and Zeus Eleutherios from Egypt, monthly sacrifices to Zeus and Augustus from Macedonia, sacrifices to Asclepius and the Theoi Sebastoi from Ephesus.Footnote 23 Citing Beard, North, and Price, Galinsky reiterates the importance of viewing the imperial cult in the context of its being embedded within other cults, noting that “it cannot be treated as an easily ‘isolable phenomenon, and hence potentially a more easily isolable competitor for Christianity.’”Footnote 24
These assessments accord well with the majority of the AAA: in addition to displaying anti-imperial attitudes, the AAA depict traditional deities and their cults as standing in opposition to Christianity, and frequently some form of hostility toward them is rather gleefully recounted. Klauck offers a brief catalogue of such elements in their respective narratives, notably including the Acts Pet. in this category:
John brings the temple of Artemis in Ephesus crashing to the ground. Paul does the same to the temple of Apollo in Sidon, but he also discusses “idols” and the “table of demons.” Through her miracles, Thecla drives away Athene, Aphrodite, the hero Sarpedon and even Zeus himself.Footnote 25 In the Acts Pet., a -demon who is expelled smashes a statue of the emperor (which, however, is then repaired). Even Philip in the late Acts destroys a pagan cultic center, including its personnel, and transforms the site into a center of Christian healing.Footnote 26
Evidence suggests that early Christians were accused of desecrating statues of the traditional gods. On the subject of the image of a traditional deity, Origen states that Celsus accused Christians of “blasphem[ing] it and strik[ing] it,” and relates Celsus's remarks that Christians “cannot bear to see temples and altars and images. . . . They openly dishonour the images.”Footnote 27 Presumably this purported disrespect for images and for statues also extended to images of the emperor.Footnote 28
That any sign of disrespect to or desecration of an image of the emperor was a highly punishable offense has been noted by many, including those who remark in passing on this episode in the Acts Pet.Footnote 29 Bremmer, citing Price, notes an incident in which urinating near an imperial statue resulted in execution,Footnote 30 and Thomas points to the case of Marcus Granius Marcellus (related in Tacitus), who was brought before the emperor on charges of embezzlement and of the treasonous act of the mutilation of an imperial statue.Footnote 31 Ranon Katzoff also notes that “there is considerable evidence that abuse of statues of emperors was taken seriously from the time of Augustus on.”Footnote 32 Given the potential gravity of the desecration of the emperor's image, the inclusion of the statue episode in the Acts Pet. lends further weight to the view that it must have held great significance for the text. In contrast to previous scholarship on the subject, however, I believe this significance is best understood as an articulation of Christian accommodation to and engagement with imperial rule and culture, and perhaps even as a means of demonstrating non-hostility to the imperial cult. Moreover, in this episode, the Acts Pet. demonstrates this non-hostility in ways similar to those employed by the majority of the populace of Roman Asia Minor, including Judean and early Christian groups: by representing themselves interacting with elements of imperial culture. The actions depicted in the Acts Pet. should be seen as having more in common with the practices of other monotheistic groups (as discussed below), groups that sought to negotiate a place for their respective communities within the empire, than they do with depictions in the other AAA.
Imperial Rule and the Imperial Cult in Asia Minor in the Early Empire
As Price rightly notes, rather than being a form of foreign propaganda imposed on the subjects of the empire from the top down, participation in imperial honors stemmed from the ground up. Price remarks that in Asia Minor initiatives to honor emperors were undertaken by the local populace “in order to represent themselves to the ruling power.”Footnote 33 Similarly, the adoption of Roman practices was undertaken by the elites of a given city in order to gain prestige and, as such, was an attempt “to gain standing in the city by borrowing from the culture of the ruling power.”Footnote 34 As Price suggests, “Access to this culture was the crucial path for advancement both for individuals and for communities.”Footnote 35 Yet participation in the honoring of the emperor was not limited to the upper classes; all members of a given city would have participated in imperial festivals, “the key manifestation of the cult in action.”Footnote 36 The phenomenon was so widespread and integrated into civic life that “the cultural landscape of Roman Asia was permeated by festivals, rituals, and temples that encompassed the emperors and the imperial family, the Sebastoi . . . and there are associations that reflect this context in their internal life.”Footnote 37 Far from being merely a superficial practice that only concerned the elites in their public lives, recognition of and participation in the imperial cult in Asia Minor seems to have been integral to all civic life. As a means of representing themselves or their city to the dominant political power, participants reinterpreted local Greek practices—such as ruler worship—to reflect Roman culture.
Imperial statues were likewise predominantly erected by members of the populace, rather than imposed on a city by Roman authorities.Footnote 38 A city population's motivations for doing so likely included a desire to express gratitude to the emperor—the statue representing an honor bestowed on him by loyal subjects.Footnote 39 Thus, these images too should not be understood merely as foreign propaganda enforced from the top down, but rather as an organic expression of appreciation or homage moving from the ground up. It is important to remember that the populace in Asia Minor was far removed from Rome, the center of the empire; thus, as Price suggests, a means was needed to create and to maintain a positive relationship with this center. He notes that “in this enterprise the imperial image was of particular significance. The image, which emanated from and represented the center, was omnipresent and widely venerated. By it, above all, the charisma of the central power was diffused, transformed and incorporated into the Greek world.”Footnote 40 It was the visual representation of the emperor that “provided the crucial focus for the expression of attitudes to the imperial cult and to the emperor.”Footnote 41
It must be conceded here, however, that not all imperial statues were objects of cult. Indeed, there is no indication that permanent and public statues of emperors such as those in a theater or in a public square received cult, unlike those in temples or images temporarily installed for this purpose.Footnote 42 Yet even outside of a cultic setting, statuary representations of emperors often included attributes that the Greco-Roman viewer automatically associated with a given traditional deity.Footnote 43 Moreover, those who owned imperial statues and kept them in a private context “permitted greater use of divine iconography.”Footnote 44 Even seemingly “secular” images of the emperor had implicit cultic undertones that would have been recognized by polytheists and monotheists alike. This makes the presence of such a statue in Marcellus's atrium all the more striking.
Early Christian and Judean Groups that Exhibit Positive Engagement with Aspects of the Empire
Philip Harland has rightly argued against a tendency in scholarship to posit a decided uniqueness to early Christianity, rendering it incomparable to other groups or assemblies in antiquity.Footnote 45 On this view, Christians were radically distinct from their contemporaries in not engaging in the civic life of the empire. There are several weaknesses to sectarian-based scholarly approaches to early Christianity and Judaism that cannot be addressed here. For the present, it will suffice to note that the primary weakness is that this position does not cohere with the documentary evidence, which suggests a far greater complexity in group-society interactions.Footnote 46 Harland cautions against an overly simplistic use of sectarian typologies, suggesting instead that:
a complex scenario akin to acculturation, assimilation and dissimilation . . . should be imagined for the variety of synagogues and congregations or individuals within the polis of the Greek east. While particular groups (or individual members or leaders) might firmly reject certain aspects of the values, symbols, conventions and institutions of Greco-Roman culture and society, they might also maintain, accept, or adapt others, without necessarily undermining or losing their own distinctive way of life, world view, or group identity.Footnote 47
Harland also cites the work of John M. G. Barclay, who identifies three levels of cultural assimilation (high, medium, and low) among Judeans, who seem to have simultaneously maintained their Judean identity in the Mediterranean Diaspora. While the low level of assimilation he identifies should not be discounted, for present purposes the focus will be on his arguments regarding the first two levels. In the high category, Barclay adduces evidence to support Judean participation in non-Judean cultic practices (discussed below). In his category of medium assimilation, he discusses evidence of Judean participation in civic life in various capacities, citing Paul Trebilco's assessment of such phenomena in Asia Minor: “A degree of integration did not mean the abandonment of an active attention to Jewish tradition or of Jewish distinctiveness. It was as Jews that they were involved in, and a part of, the life of the cities in which they lived.”Footnote 48 Barclay cites an inscription from Hypaepa in Asia that indicates the existence of an association of Judean youths who graduated from the local gymnasium yet still retained their Judean identity (CIJ 755).Footnote 49 He also suggests that in instances in which Judeans gained converts, supporters, or patrons, this can only be explained if “there was considerable social interaction between Jews and non-Jews, a meeting of interests, occupations and social networks in which Jews nonetheless retained their social and religious identities as Jews.”Footnote 50MAMA VI 264, from the late first or early second century in Akmoneia, offers documentary support for this. This inscription relates that the non-Judean Julia Severa contributed to the building of the meeting place for local Judeans, for which the synagogue in turn honored her and others with a golden shield in addition to the inscription itself.Footnote 51
Harland argues that, like other associations in imperial Asia Minor, some Judean synagogues and early Christian assemblies could have been involved in conventions of civic life that involved honors for emperors and imperial representatives, although he cautions that these honors stopped short of cultic honors specifically. He does note, however, that emperors were significant for the internal religious life of some synagogues and assemblies, as evidenced by prayers for the emperor and empire.Footnote 52 He further argues that such an attitude is evident in other documents from Asia Minor, such as 1 Peter, the Pastoral Epistles, and the writings of Polycarp and Melito of Sardis.Footnote 53 Citing 1 Tim 2:12 and Titus 3:1–2, he remarks that these demonstrate “this author's concern for and knowledge of actual practices within the Christian assemblies in the cities of Asia. They suggest that emperors and other authorities were singled out as deserving special respect, and that this was expressed within the ongoing religious life of the group, in this case within the context of prayers.”Footnote 54
Harland rightly argues that links to an emperor or to some other imperial official were often a means of furthering the interests of the group in question, thereby gaining favors or benefactions in return. He cites a decree issued by Augustus and preserved by Josephus. Here Augustus makes reference to “the resolution which was offered by [the Judeans of this community] in my honour concerning the piety which I show to all men, and on behalf of Gaius Marcius Censorinus,” and orders that “it and the present edict be set up in the most conspicuous (part of the temple) assigned to me by the federation of Asia in Ancyra.”Footnote 55 Harland argues that here one or more synagogues evidently adhered to the custom of other associations and had passed an honorary decree for the emperor as well as for another Roman official.Footnote 56 Another example of such honors paid to the emperor can be found in the synagogue in Rome that called themselves the “Augustinians” in honor of their patron Augustus.Footnote 57 Yet given that civic life was so inherently intertwined with cultic life in antiquity, no doubt attempts to form a boundary line between what was acceptable engagement and what was not by monotheistic groups could vary. That some Judean and early Christian groups seem to have been capable of engaging in ties with non-monotheistic cult while still self-identifying as either Judeans or Christians can be discerned from the documentary evidence. As discussed below, Harland, Barclay and Jenn Cianca all offer documentary evidence that the boundary lines drawn by monotheists should be viewed as far more malleable than scholars adopting a sectarian approach have allowed.
The previously mentioned inscription pertaining to Julia Severa not only attests to social and civic interaction between Judeans and a gentile patroness but also, when linked with MAMA VI 263, which likewise advertises Julia as a patron, offers evidence of positive Judean engagement with an individual who participated in non-monotheistic cult—the imperial cult, to be precise. As Harland notes, this inscription from the local elders’ organization reports the erection of a monument in honor of Julia and also mentions her role as high priestess and director of games for the civic cult devoted to the Sebastoi gods.Footnote 58 Here there is a clear indication that active engagement with non-monotheistic cult did not preclude an individual from having positive interactions with this Judean community.
Barclay, in his category of high assimilation, offers evidence to this effect as well, discussing instances in which there is “some direct evidence of Jewish integration in non-Jewish cult.”Footnote 59 He cites CIJ 1.82, an inscription that records that a certain Moschos, who identifies himself as a Judean (
), receives instructions in a dream from the deities Amphiaraos and Hygieia. Barclay suggests that given that this inscription was erected in the temple of Amphiaraos, it seems reasonable to conclude that Moschos honored and perhaps worshipped these gods even while self-identifying as a Judean.Footnote 60 Barclay also cites CIJ 749, which records that a Judean made a financial contribution of 100 drachmae to a Dionysiac festival, and concludes that “one may infer that after paying his contribution he enjoyed the feast which he helped finance.”Footnote 61 Barclay further discusses funerary art located in Judean catacombs, noting that some Judeans allowed epitaphs to be inscribed with the traditional abbreviation of “DM” (Dis Manibus; “to the Divine Shades”).Footnote 62 Perhaps the most striking example Barclay discusses is a sarcophagus that appears to depict the god Dionysius with the typical accoutrements of his cult.Footnote 63
Similar evidence can be adduced for this malleability of boundaries in early Christian groups. In her work on the conception of sacred space in early house churches, Jenn Cianca argues against the common assumption that early Christians would not have tolerated worship in a space decorated with polytheistic art or that members of a house church familia could not have continued to offer sacrifices to the lares or to their ancestors.Footnote 64 Her work has significant implications for the presence of the imperial statue in Marcellus's household. Cianca discusses the archaeological evidence of the house church at Lullingstone, noting that in the third century, when new owners moved into the house, they not only chose to retain several marble busts left by the previous owner(s) but also placed them on a set of steps that functioned as a kind of display shelf for these pieces. These same owners further installed two votive pots, the necks emerging from the floor “open to receive libations.”Footnote 65 As Cianca notes, it seems likely that the new owners understood these busts to be those of ancestors and therefore did not wish to dispose of them—either for fear of offending the spirits who might retaliate or, as Cianca suggests, “perhaps more importantly, through [a fear of] a loss of status” given the public and private nature of the celebration of the dead.Footnote 66 When the votive pots were covered up in the process of remodeling, two more pots were added in front of these busts, and this configuration remained until the villa was destroyed by fire in the early fifth century. The deliberate maintenance of these objects of libation is not at question: “it is clear that the pagan practice of offering libations to ancestors continued right up until the villa was destroyed . . . while the Christian chapel was fully functioning directly above, pagan practice continued below.”Footnote 67 Of course, as Cianca rightly cautions, it is impossible to prove that anyone poured libations to these busts up until the destruction of the villa, yet it is also clear that the busts were not moved from their votive position. She also notes that ignorance of their presence on the part of the occupants can hardly be argued, given that they were located in the room that held the well, the source of water for the complex. As Cianca states:
If pollution for domestic life, or from domestic cult, were considered dangerous, conscious effort would have been made to separate Christian from pagan. Yet someone continued to access the well in the Deep Room—which Meates has even suggested as a potential source of water for the rite of baptism—and in the Deep Room, the shrine to the busts was not removed . . . even after renovations, pagan practice continued, despite a conscious preoccupation with creating space for [early Christian] worship.Footnote 68
Given that the earliest house churches probably did not undergo a renovation to create distinct worship space as that at Lullingstone did, Cianca rightfully queries, “How much more, then, might we expect the coexistence of pagan and Christian practice in a house church without articulated worship space?”Footnote 69 Thus, here we have evidence that iconic images were not only tolerated but also accorded some degree of respect by at least some Christians in houses that hosted worship, similar to the household of Marcellus.
Thus many communities advocating monotheism also sought to engage in the conventions of imperial rule and some, moreover, demonstrated non-hostility toward the imperial cult and toward traditional deities. It is this context of monotheistic processes of negotiation that the Acts Pet. fits, and perhaps the clearest example of these processes can be found in the episode regarding the imperial statue.
The Statue Episode Understood as Depiction of Community's Assimilation to Some Conventions of the Empire
It is important to discuss the significance of how the statue is destroyed: by a “most wicked demon” [daemonium nequissimum] that Peter expels from a bystander (Acts Pet. 11). While the statue is on the property of Marcellus, and thus his concerns for punitive measures being taken against himself are comprehensible, what has largely gone uncommented on is that the hostility toward and the destruction of the image of the emperor is conducted by a wholly negative force. In other words, the implicit assumption by Rhee and Perkins that this depiction of destruction points to an anti-imperial sentiment in the Acts Pet. is undermined greatly by the recognition that it is an indisputably negative figure that brings about this destruction.Footnote 70 Indeed, not only is the demon hostile toward the image of the emperor, but it is also hostile to Peter, causing the bystander to laugh openly at Peter's preaching (Acts Pet. 11). Moreover, by destroying the statue, the demon causes the heroes of the text, Peter and Marcellus, a significant—if not life-threatening—problem, since desecrating imperial statues was a grave crime. Thus, this demon is demonstrably a negative figure in clear opposition to the peaceful Christian figures of the text. Only the demon acts against the imperial image.
Similarly, Perkins's suggestion that the description of the fragments of the statue as “stones” (lapides) is intended to undermine both imperial authority and the validity of the imperial cult is itself greatly undercut elsewhere in the text itself. For, in depicting Peter as iterating the traditional formula applied to Jesus as the “stone that the builder rejected,”Footnote 71 the Acts Pet. employs the same terminology: lapis (Acts Pet. 24).Footnote 72 The term “stone” is therefore clearly not wholly perjorative for the Acts Pet. Interpreting it as such in this context with no additional justification seems special pleading when elsewhere it is used in positive descriptions.
That the narrative depicts the Christian Marcellus as even having such a statue on his property to begin with is, in and of itself, noteworthy, yet this has gone predominantly uncommented on in scholarship on the work.Footnote 73 As noted above, Judeans of the early empire were understood to avoid imperial statues, and presumably many Christians avoided them too for similar reasons. Marcellus, however, has one in the atrium of his house—a house that, prior to Simon's arrival and Marcellus's rejection of Christianity, served in the text as a meeting place and as a house of worship for the Christian community.Footnote 74 Indeed, after Simon is expelled from the house, the house becomes a Christian place of worship once again, with the restored statue still standing in the atrium. Thus, the Christian assemblies in the text, where Peter preaches,Footnote 75 miracles are performed,Footnote 76 prayers are offeredFootnote 77 and visions are received,Footnote 78 are conducted in close proximity to (if not to say under that gaze of) an imperial statue.Footnote 79 In other words, Christian activities are integrated into domestic Roman order. The two evidently coexist in the Acts Pet. In the narrative realm, then, the Acts Pet. arguably goes further than much of the documentary -evidence regarding cultural assimilation and honors given to the emperor.
In depicting this episode the Acts Pet. also presents Peter and Marcellus with an opportunity to demonstrate respect for an image of the emperor in the act of restoring it. Perhaps the clearest indication that the community depicted in the Acts Pet. is accepting of imperial rule is that the restoration of the statue is not only closely linked to, but in a crucial way dependent on, Marcellus's reintegration into the Christian community and faith.Footnote 80 Moreover, the successful restoration of the statue is done “in [Jesus's] name” (Acts Pet. 11). Although clearly the figure of the emperor is subordinated to Jesus,Footnote 81 the two actions of a Christian confessional declaration and of the restoration of the imperial image occur simultaneously. This seems to demonstrate an effort to portray compatibility between Christianity and imperial power. Moreover, as Price observes, imperial images were typically erected out of gratitude in order to honor the emperor. In light of this insight, it appears Marcellus is depicted as capable of honoring the emperor while simultaneously adhering to Christian proclamations of faith. Similarly, as discussed above, erecting imperial statues often functioned as a means of cultivating a relationship with Rome. Depicting the work's secondary protagonist as having such a statue in his home suggests that the Acts Pet., likewise, was interested in cultivating a positive relationship with Rome.
Additional attention is warranted regarding the rather striking manner in which the statue is restored: Marcellus is told to pray and to sprinkle (spargens) water over the fragments.Footnote 82 While the following does not attempt to argue that this is ultimately tantamount to cult offered to the figure of the emperor, I do suggest that the text does not exert much energy in trying to distance itself from such connotations. This serves to significantly undermine previous claims that the Acts Pet. demonstrates hostility toward the imperial cult.
Of all the accounts of miracles performed in the Acts Pet., this is the only instance in which an intermediary substance, water, is employed. All of the others are brought about either by words or by a direct laying on of hands.Footnote 83 It is thus difficult to posit a reason as to why the use of water here is necessary for the efficacy of the miracle, rather than solely serving a narratological purpose. Although the following observation cannot be taken too far, it is perhaps worthwhile to note that Tacitus relates the practice of sprinkling (perspersum) the temple and the image (simplicum) of Juno herself with water.Footnote 84 Similarly—though again it ultimately should not be given too much weight—the washing of statues of deities as a means of cult or of honoring them seems to have been a common sight in antiquity.Footnote 85 Additionally, Fishwick notes the presence of depictions of aspergillia (a tool to sprinkle water for rituals) on altars connected to the imperial cult.Footnote 86 Here Price's observation (discussed above) that imperial images often took on the appearance or attributes of traditional deities may be of significance. While the appearance of the statue is not described in detail in the Acts Pet., given that images of the emperor with divine attributes were common, one might speculate that imperial overtones would have been evoked for an ancient audience encountering the image. In any case, the restoration of the statue with water is clearly of benefit to the image of the emperor,Footnote 87 and it seems similar enough to an act of cult that it can be read as an indication of non-hostility. If the community of the Acts Pet. had wanted to express hostility to the cult, presumably it would not have portrayed the heroes of its text engaging in actions that resemble cult.
Yet, given that the imperial cult was deemed problematic for some early Christians, since it was an extension of traditional cults, for the present reading of this text to be plausible, the Acts Pet. would also have to demonstrate some degree of toleration toward the traditional Greco-Roman deities. The text relates a particular incident that does indeed seem to express this toleration, yet this has not been addressed by scholars arguing the presence of an anti-imperial stance in the Acts Pet.Footnote 88
Peter relates the story of how Simon, the undisputed villain of the work, steals from the wealthy widow Eubula, who “possessed much gold and pearls of no little value” (Acts Pet. 17). Among the stolen objects was “a young satyr made of gold (satyriscum aureum), of two pounds weight, and having a precious stone set in it,” which Simon planned to sell to a local goldsmith after absconding with it (Acts Pet. 17). Presumably, this goldsmith would have then melted the statue down. That this statue was the object of cult, and indeed, stolen while Eubula was preparing to offer cult, is clear: “When [she] meant to celebrate a festival and put up [her] idol and veiled it and put out all the ornaments upon a stand, [Simon] . . . made an incantation and stole [her] ornaments and disappeared” (Acts Pet. 17).Footnote 89 The satyr statue was clearly an object of personal devotion, and as Bremmer remarks, “In this respect Eubula was a typical religious product of her time.”Footnote 90 What is remarkable is that Peter puts in motion a plot to retrieve the image, having been instructed to do so in a dream of divine origins, and to restore it to Eubula, and in turn to save it from destruction.Footnote 91 Of course, it must be conceded that the text also states that Peter himself was instructed not to touch the image, “to avoid pollution”; it does refer to the image with the potentially derisive term “idol” (idolus); and Eubula does ultimately convert to Christianity (Acts Pet. 17). The juxtaposition, however, between the villainous Simon and the heroic Peter and between their respective treatments of an image of cult is clear: Simon commits an act of what would be understood as sacrilege by a contemporaneous Greco-Roman audience by stealing the image, whereas Peter ultimately thwarts him by recovering the statue. Not only is this contrast striking within the text itself, but so, too, is Peter's action striking in comparison with other episodes in the AAA, where acts of disrespect toward traditional deities are portrayed as laudable and the destruction of their images related as a triumph.
The Acts Pet. portrays the Christian community and its chief apostle as not only tolerant, even respectful, of imperial rule, cult, and traditional deities but also, in some sense, as supporting the social order—restoring a statue destroyed by a demon and rescuing Eubula's object of cult from a villain, Simon. The author of the text seems to envision—if not advocate—a positive and harmonious relationship between imperial rule and its social and cultic concomitants, on the one hand, and Christianity, on the other—rather than exhibiting a confrontational anti-imperial stance. While imperial rule is (naturally) subsumed to Christianity, this is nevertheless a substantial deviation from the other AAA and more in keeping with the various levels of assimilation found among other monotheistic groups. Yet, in addition to her reading of the statue episode, Perkins argues that there are other manifestations of anti-imperial hostility elsewhere in the text. The following will address some of these arguments as potential objections to the position for which I have argued.
Other Aspects of the Argument That the Acts Pet. is Hostile to Imperial Rule
Shaping much of Judith Perkins's assertions regarding purported anti-imperial hostility in the Acts Pet. is her view that the final chapter—in which Nero is depicted as the emperor in question and is particularly cruel—is original to the text, rather than the product of a later redaction. That such a scenario is highly unlikely is discussed by numerous scholars, yet it is not addressed in any depth by Perkins.Footnote 92 Yet, even if this very brief chapter is original to the text, Perkins fails to acknowledge that Nero is almost always portrayed in a negative light in literary sources from antiquity, even by those who clearly demonstrate a lack of hostility toward—if not to say allegiance to—imperial rule.Footnote 93 Therefore this chapter is perhaps better understood as anti-Neronian than as anti-imperial.
Perkins also intimates that this episode, in which Nero undergoes servile punishment at the hands of Peter, would have had implications for the way in which the imperial cult is presented in the text: “[T]he person of the emperor and the imperial cult were critical in articulating power relations in the Greek East.”Footnote 94 Yet this view neglects to account for the fact that, at the time of composition, Nero had been dead for quite some time and thus was no longer encouraging the populace to recognize him as divine. Moreover, he was never deified after his death. At the time of the Acts Pet., Nero had no connection with the imperial cult, and its audience would have been aware of this.
The high status and rank of the other characters in the narrative also constitute, according to Perkins, a basis for seeing the Acts Pet. as hostile to the ruling order. As evidence for this, she cites the failure of Marcellus to kill the figure of Satan in a dream and Marcellus's giving a lavish burial to Peter, and she attributes to the prefect Agrippa a lineage that the text does not seem to warrant. Yet each of these episodes can be given an alternative reading that is more in keeping with other demonstrable interests in the text itself and with its historical context. For the first, Perkins asserts that Marcellus's remark that he cannot slay the demon as he (Marcellus) is a “senator of noble family, and I have never stained my hands” (Acts Pet. 22) suggests that “the Acts clearly locates Marcellus’ weakness and his inability to protect the community from Satan in his class consciousness.”Footnote 95 However, Marcellus's statement is better understood as another component of the depiction of Marcellus as adhering to principles typical of the elite in antiquity. In this case, having control over one's body and not degrading oneself by committing acts of violence were the ideal. As Keith Hopkins suggests, there were strict expectations regarding comportment in antiquity, particularly for upper-class males, noting that “the controlling elite was expected to be self-controlled.”Footnote 96 While Hopkins is speaking here about the punishment of slaves, undoubtedly the pressure for elite males to avoid physical force is even more applicable to the upper class's treatment of other free men. Such an interest in personal comportment is demonstrated elsewhere in the text, when Marcellus employs his slaves to administer physical violence to Simon rather than doing it himself (Acts Pet. 14).Footnote 97 As Brock argues, there is a “campaign to portray political figures positively and inclusively” in the Acts Pet., noting that the slave that Peter resurrects in the forum in his competition with Simon was not just any slave, but one of whom the emperor thought kindly and who also belonged to the prefect Agrippa; additionally, the next resurrection was of a senator.Footnote 98 As Thomas proposes, the Acts Pet. was “propaganda directed at upper-class sympathizers”; “the texts are a first step to realizing a new relationship with the powers that govern their world. The text is not descriptive, but prescriptive, and acts as an instrument to achieve its vision.”Footnote 99 Portraying an elite senator engaging in physical violence (even if in a dream) would not be palatable to such an audience.Footnote 100
Perkins is correct when she notes that Peter makes a post mortem appearance in order to chastise Marcellus for providing him with an expensive funeral.Footnote 101 Yet, she asserts that “the source of Marcellus's error is clearly articulated: he acted ‘without taking anyone's advice, since it was not allowed,’”Footnote 102 and she applies this statement to Marcellus's holding the funeral itself. She remarks that “the requisites of Marcellus's high position disabled him and prevented him from acquiring the knowledge he needed to act correctly.”Footnote 103 A more contextualized reading, however, might suggest that what is not allowed here is the removal of Peter's body from the cross, given that leaving the body to deteriorate without a proper burial was generally part of the punishment of crucifixion. While Peter does criticize his lavish funeral, this is better understood as another point of contrast drawn in the Acts Pet. between Simon and Peter. Throughout the text the two are juxtaposed: Peter does not seek either financial gain or public monuments to elevate his status, and he prefers to distribute any accrued wealth to the community,Footnote 104 in contrast to Simon, who does pursue elevation, going so far as to persuade Marcellus to erect a statue of him as a god.Footnote 105
Perkins further states that “the same message about the detriment of high birth reappears in the characterization of another high born character, Agrippa . . . [who is] constrained from seeing his error [the execution of Peter] by his lineage, his tradition.”Footnote 106 Perkins proceeds to argue that Peter's description of him as “the servant of his father's influence” is best understood as referring to an actual lineage of high birth, given that numerous inscriptions from the Greek East attest to the phrase “like his ancestors,” and that one of the qualities deemed necessary for political position was high birth.Footnote 107 Yet such a reading unnecessarily goes beyond the boundaries of the text, where “father” language frequently indicates Satan: Simon, the villain of the work, is called “son of a shameless father” (Acts Pet. 15), who will oppose Peter by “the works of his father” (Acts Pet. 16). More clearly, it is, in fact, specified that his father is “the devil” (Acts Pet. 28). Given this fact, there is little compelling reason to suppose that Peter attributes Agrippa's error in executing him to his high status, when there is clear evidence within the text for the polemical use of “father” to indicate Satan. It seems more likely, therefore, that attributing the influence of Satan to Agrippa's decision here is intended to explain the divergence from his previous positive interaction with Peter, when Peter heals his slave. Furthermore, the “servant of his father's influence” remark is directly preceded by Peter's appeal that the crowd “not [to] be angry with Agrippa” and is directly followed with the caveat “this is to happen in any event, because the Lord has shown me what is coming” (Acts Pet. 36). The author seems to imply that Agrippa is not in his right mind, but is a vessel of sorts of the divine will. Moreover, as István Czachesz has persuasively argued, the condemnation of Peter to the cross by Agrippa is “rightfully seen by the spectators [in the text] as the cruel revenge of a mentally ill person. . . . Without the support of the people of Rome, his deed was a private vendetta.”Footnote 108 Agrippa's decision is therefore something of an anomaly and does not represent imperial judgment as a whole.
Conclusions
Including the Acts Pet. in her assessment, Helen Rhee suggests that “there seems to be no common ground between Christianity and Empire. As in the cases of religious and social encounters, Christians and the pagan Empire are radically opposed to each other.”Footnote 109 I have argued that such a view, however, is not applicable to the Acts Pet. Rather, the text depicts a positive interaction with imperial culture, one similar to other groups (including monotheistic ones) in Asia Minor in the early empire. In addition to the motivations as to why this might be undertaken noted above, a more specific (albeit tentative) reason can be posited as to why this episode, in particular, was included. Perhaps it is partly because early Christians were accused of desecrating statues (or, like the Judeans, of refusing to erect images of the emperor) that this episode is included in the text as something of an apologetic rebuttal to such views.
In any case, and whatever the motivations may have been, the Acts Pet.—unlike the other AAA, but much like its neighbors in Asia Minor—is best understood as advocating a position that is far from hostile to imperial rule. Rather than seeing Christianity in direct opposition to empire, the author of the Acts Pet. depicts Christianity as existing harmoniously alongside it and even contributing positively to it—yet while retaining its Christian identity. Far from assuming an antagonistic stance toward imperial rule, the Acts Pet. is best perceived as attempting to engage with it in a positive way, even on the dominant power's own terms, by demonstrating respect for the most central and physical representation of it, the imperial statue.
