For the canonical narratives, see Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah, from Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels (2 vols.; ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1994). For an alternative approach based on the Gospel of Peter, see John Dominic Crossan, The Cross That Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988); and idem, Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1995). For the apocryphal texts, see Maurice Geerard, Clavis Apocryphorum Novi Testamenti (Turnhout: Brepols, 1992); Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed., New Testament Apocrypha (trans. R. McL. Wilson; 2 vols.; Cambridge: Clarke; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991–1992; trans. of Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung [6th ed.; Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1989–1990]); J. Keith Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993; rev. ed., with new translations, of Montague R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924]); François Bovon and Pierre Geoltrain, eds., Écrits apocryphes chrétiens, vol. 1 (Bibliothèque de la Pléiade 442; Paris: Gallimard, 1997).

As shown by the Arabic loanwords detected by Roger W. Cowley; see “The So-Called ‘Ethiopic Book of the Cock'—Part of an Apocryphal Passion Gospel, The Homily and Teaching of Our Fathers the Holy Apostles,” JRAS (1985) 16–22, at 20: salālīm, “stairs” (6:4), and masāmir, “nails” (9:14). In addition to the lexical data, there is syntactical evidence provided by the frequent use of hallawa and kona, the

verbs of existence, as auxiliary verbs in periphrastic constructions; compare the linguistic phenomena observed by Manfred Kropp (“Arabisch-äthiopische Übersetzungstechnik am Beispiel der Zena Ayhud (Yosippon) und des Tarikä Wäldä-

Amid,” ZDMG 136 [1986] 314–46).

“We got it ourselves from John the Evangelist, to whom we listened when he was proclaiming and retelling the countless wonders accomplished by Jesus the Lord in the presence of his disciples” (10:15, followed by a paraphrase of John 20:30–31).

This judgment, originally expressed by Harold W. Attridge regarding the Gospel of John (“Genre Bending in the Fourth Gospel,” JBL 121 [2002] 3–21, at 19) may be applied to the Book of the Cock.

For the respective roles of John and Peter, see Book of the Cock 5:18 (Peter and John follow Jesus up to the house of the high priest; Peter stays outside at the door, while John enters the court [compare John 18:15–16]); 5:35–36 (after his denial, Peter has a final conversation with Jesus [compare Luke 22:61], who instructs him to inform his fellow disciples); 6:2 (Peter finds the ten disciples in a cave and tells them what has happened to Jesus, while John waits outside the prison); 9:8 (John witnesses the crucifixion of Jesus); 9:10 (John takes Mary to Golgotha); 9:22 (John and Mary stand together by the cross [compare John 19:25–27]); 9:23 (John listens to the words spoken by the two robbers crucified with Jesus [compare Luke 23:39–43]); 10:13 (after the death and burial of Jesus, John returns home to give a full account of all these events to Mary); 10:15 (John reports that Mary of Magdala came to the tomb [compare John 20:1]). In the Book of the Cock, Peter is depicted as “the great disciple” (2:15; 5:26), and as “the first” (3:10) as well as “the greatest amongst the disciples” (4:23); in spite of his shortcomings, he will receive “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (5:35). John's description stresses his “beauty” (2:14) and “purity” (3:19).

“The chiefs of the priests called Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas; Sinān the scribe; Yodnā; Milkyās; and Alexander” (1:23; compare Acts 4:6 [Annas, Caiaphas, John, and Alexander]; Gos. Nic. 1:1 [Annas, Caiaphas, Judas, Levi, Nephtalim, Alexander, and Cyrus]; and Ap. John 1:8 [Arimanios]).

“Saul, a native of Tarsus and [sic] Cilicia, son of Yos

al, son of Māson, son of Kadāfinā, belonging to the tribe of the scribes of the Law who proceed from Moses” (4:15; compare Acts 9:11; 21:39; 22:3; 23:34).

“Caiaphas, his father-in-law Annas, Sinān the scribe, Yodnān, and Alexander” (5:19).

“A caretaker called Balāsidā, daughter of Balādi” (5:26; compare the anonymous servant girl[s] in Mark 14:66–69; Matt 26:69–71; Luke 22:56–57; and John 18:16–17), and “a servant called Kolseb, the brother of that Malchus whose ear Peter had cut off” (5:28; compare John 18:10 [Malchus] and 18:26 [his anonymous relative]).

His two daughters, of whom “one was called Makārā and the other Dortā” (8:2), and his two sons, “Adorokonādi” and “Awlogis” (8:9; note the probable Greek origin of their names: compare Macaria, Dorothea, Andronicos, and Eulogos). Also mentioned are “Karunussā and Amennārā,” the two sisters of Procla, as well as her sister-in-law, “Fātkurā” (8:6).

The following episodes and motifs can be traced—directly or through intervening stages—to a particular Gospel: Judas receives thirty pieces of silver (1:29; 4:11, 19; compare Matt 26:15; 27:3); Jesus resurrects Lazarus (2:2, 6; compare John 11:1–44); Jesus washes the disciples' feet (3:9–15; compare John 13:1–15); Peter asks John to speak to Jesus about the identity of the betrayer (3:19–20; 4:2–3; compare John 13:23–26); Jesus is arrested (5:7–8; compare John 18:4–8); Peter and John follow Jesus up to the house of the high priest (5:18; compare John 18:15–16); a soldier strikes Jesus (5:22; compare John 18:22–23); Peter receives the keys of the kingdom (5:35; compare Matt 16:19); Judas commits suicide (7:6–8; compare Matt 27:3–7); Jesus appears before Herod (7:11–14; compare Luke 23:4–12); Procla dreams about Jesus (8:7; compare Matt 27:19); Pilate washes his hands (8:18; compare Matt 27:24); Jesus speaks to the women of Jerusalem on his way to Golgotha (8:35–36; compare Luke 23:27–30); John and Mary stand at the foot of the cross (9:8–22; compare John 19:26–27); Jesus speaks with the two robbers (9:23–26; compare Luke 23:39–43); the earth quakes and tombs are opened at the death of Jesus (10:3; compare Matt 27:51–53); the soldiers refuse to break Jesus' legs (10:5–9; compare John 19:31–37); Jesus is buried (10:10–12; compare John 19:38–42); the Jews seal the entrance of the sepulchre (10:12; compare Matt 27:66).

The work bears the title Mashafa dorho, “Book of the Cock,” in all of the manuscripts examined to date. In the printed edition (for the bibliographic references, see n. 19, below), the title at the beginning of the text is still given as Mashafa doroho (sic, p. 223^b), but subsequent sections of the Book of the Cock are introduced (on pp. 248^a, 254^a, 283^b, 304^b, 336^a, 365^a, 379^a, and 458^a) by a repetition of the incipit, “Homily and doctrine of our fathers the Holy Apostles.” This arrangement appears to be secondary, motivated by a desire to stress the apostolic origin of the work.

Marius Chaîne, “Le Livre du Coq (‘Matzḥafa Dorho’),” RevSem 13 (1905) 276–81 (a portion of the text [corresponding to 4:1–6] was also reprinted together with a transcription based on a reading by the mamher Gabra Yohannes in Chaîne's Grammaire éthiopienne [1907; repr., Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique, 1938] 11–13; see also the useful summary provided by James, The Apocryphal New Testament, 150). Chaîne's edition is rather poor. Not only is it based on a single and not very reliable manuscript, it is also marred by errors in transcription (as, for example, the omission of wa-ḥora

Iyarusālēm

aba

Ayhud. wa-έemze

Egz

, “and he went off to the Jews in Jerusalem; then the Lord,” after έm-Έgzi

[p. 277, line 9, homoioteleuton]; the enigmatic

έs (?) [p. 277, line 8], to be read reέso, “his head”; and the reading lebbubān [p. 278, line 8], translated as “les plus perspicaces” [p. 280], in place of leύkān, “the people dispatched”) as well as interpretation (for example, za-ṣebus ba-maqṣut [p. 276, lines 2–3] does not mean “coupé avec un couteau” [p. 279], but rather “who was [lying] weakened in a pot”).

It is true that in the manuscript Abbadie 11, used by d'Abbadie and Chaîne, the title Mashafa dorho was mistakenly placed at the beginning of the rooster narrative (at the top of the third column of f. 63^r). But it is also true that both scholars had at their disposal the manuscript Abbadie 168, which contains a complete copy of the Book of the Cock in which the title is properly placed at the beginning of the work (at the top of f. 111^v); see Pierluigi Piovanelli, “Marius Chaîne, Joseph Trinquet et la version éthiopienne du Livre du coq,” Transversalités–Revue de l'Institut catholique de Paris 85 (2003) 51–62. This misunderstanding is not the only one published in Antoine d'Abbadie's catalogue and reproduced by the authors (Marius Chaîne and Carlo Conti Rossini) of subsequent catalogues; see Pierluigi Piovanelli, “Un nouveau témoin éthiopien de l'Ascension d'Isaïe et de la Vie de Jérémie (Paris, BN Abb. 195),” Henoch 12 (1990) 347–63.

See especially his groundbreaking monographs, The Traditional Interpretation of the Apocalypse of St. John in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983) and Ethiopian Biblical Interpretation: A Study in Exegetical Tradition and Hermeneutics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).

Cowley, “The So-Called ‘Ethiopic Book of the Cock.’”

These figures and the following lists update the tentative list provided by Cowley (“The So-Called ‘Ethiopic Book of the Cock,’” 16, 21–22). Note also that Cowley (ibid., 22 n. 9) detected the presence of “fragments” of the Book of the Cock in at least three other Ethiopic works on the passion.

Walda Mik

ēl Berhāna Masqal, Gebra ḥ (reprinted by Tasfa Gabra Addis Ababa: Artistic Printing Press, 1982 E.C. [i.e., 1990–1991]). The Book of the Cook was divided into nine sections reflecting liturgical usage: pp. 223^b–230^b (1:1–4:32, the reading for the eleventh hour of Maundy Thursday), 248^a–250^b (5:1–36, for the third hour of Good Friday night), 254^a–255^a (6:1–14, for the sixth hour of Good Friday night), 283^b–284^b (7:1–20, for Good Friday dawn), 304^b–306^b (8:1–40, for the third hour of Good Friday), 336^a–338^a (9:1–26, for the sixth hour of Good Friday), 365^ab (10:1–9, for the ninth hour of Good Friday), 379^ab (10:10–14, for the twelfth hour of Good Friday), 458^ab (10:15–20, for the first hour of Sunday night). The high quality of this edition is conspicuous: in general, the editors normalized the spelling of the

words and kept misprints to a minimum. While developing a French translation based on this edition, the text has been carefully collated with those transmitted in a sample of four Ethiopic manuscripts: John Rylands Eth. 18 (ms. A), Ṭānāsee 21 (ms. B), d'Abbadie 11 (ms. C), and d'Abbadie 168 (ms. D). This comparison has demonstrated that the Ethiopian editors occasionally improved their text, either by replacing some of its readings with others taken from different manuscripts (ope codicum), or by emending some of its more difficult passages (ope ingenii). In other words, although the Addis Ababa edition is not, according to contemporary academic criteria, a critical edition, it is nevertheless an excellent eclectic edition.

Published by Lacau, Fragments d'apocryphes coptes, 23–26, 33–34 (frg. 3^a and Revillout, Les apocryphes coptes. I, 41–42 (frg. 6). All of the fragments ascribed to the Book of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ known to date were reedited by Matthias Westerhoff in his 1996 thesis, Auferstehung und Jenseits im koptischen “Buch der Auferstehung Jesu Christi, unseres Herrn” (Orientalia Biblica et Christiana 11; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999) 48–197; they have been translated by Jean-Daniel Kaestli and Pierre Cherix, L'évangile de Barthélemy d'après deux écrits apocryphes. I: Questions de Barthélemy. II: Livre de la Résurrection de Jésus-Christ par l'apôtre Barthélemy (Apocryphes 1; Turnhout: Brepols, 1993) 143–241, 249–52. Four new Coptic folios were subsequently identified by Enzo Lucchesi (“Feuillets coptes non identifiés du prétendu Évangile de Barthélemy,” Vigiliae Christianae 51 [1997] 273–75).

The Greek text published by Constantin von Tischendorf (Evangelia Apocrypha [2d ed.; Leipzig: Mendelssohn, 1876] 287–322) and the classification proposed by Rémi Gounelle (“Acta Pilati grecs B (BHG 779u–w): Traditions textuelles,” Recherches Augustiniennes 26 [1992] 273–94) have been followed here. Gounelle is preparing a new edition of the Evangelium Nicodemi Byz-antinum; Tischendorf's ms. A belongs to Gounelle's B¹ family, ms. B to B³, and ms. C to B². On the Greek and Latin A and B forms of the Gospel of Nicodemus, see Rémi Gounelle and Zbigniew Izydorczyk, “Thematic Bibliography of the Acts of Pilate,” in The Medieval “Gospel of Nicodemus”: Texts, Intertexts, and Contexts in Western Europe (ed. Zbigniew Izydorczyk; Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies 158; Tempe, Ariz.: Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies, 1997) 419–519 (together with their “Addenda et corrigenda,” Apocrypha 11 [2000] 259–92). The Latin A recension was translated by Rémi Gounelle and Zbigniew Izydorczyk, L'Évangile de Nicodème ou Les Actes faits sous Ponce Pilate (recension latine A), suivi de La lettre de Pilate à l'empereur Claude (Apocryphes 9; Turnhout: Brepols, 1997); the Greek B (B¹) recension by Christiane Furrer and Rémi Gounelle, “Évangile de Nicodème,” in Geoltrain and Kaestli, eds., Écrits apocryphes chrétiens, vol. 2 (forthcoming); the Greek B² secondary form by Marcello Craveri, I Vangeli apocrifi (2d ed.; Turin: Einaudi, 1990) 333–59; and a selection from the Greek B³ by Frederic Huidekoper, Indirect Testimony of History to the Genuineness of the Gospels (New York: Miller, 1879) 105–42 (based on ms. “Paris identical to Tischendorf's “ms. B,” i.e., Parisinus gr. 808).

Rémi Gounelle (“À propos des volailles cuites qui ont chanté lors de la passion du Christ,” Recherches Augustiniennes 33 [2003] 19–63) has newly collected and reexamined a great number of these traditions. The unexpected resurrection of a cooked rooster plays a decisive part in another medieval legend of Scandinavian origin, but the protagonist of this legend is Saint Stephen, who has become the groom in King Herod's stable. See Pamela C. Berger, The Goddess Obscured: Transformation of the Grain Protectress from Goddess to Saint (Boston: Beacon Press, 1985) 108–12, 164–65.

See Book of the Cock 1:19 (Judas's envy is “greater than the jealousy of Satan his father”); 2:19 (Alexander the gatekeeper sees “an enormous black serpent rolled up around [Judas's] neck, pulling his tongue out in order to kiss [him] on the mouth and harden thus [his] heart”); 4:3, 5 (after Jesus gave the sop to Judas, “Satan entered into him [compare Luke 22:3; John 13:2, 27] and violently inflamed his heart, putting his finger on his [i.e., Judas's] nose”).

In addition to the episode translated in the following paragraph, see especially Book of the Cock 6:8–14 (the incident of the“woman belonging to the family of Judas Iscariot, who was suckling her son near to the first door” of the Temple).

Published by Revillout, Les apocryphes coptes. I, 40–41 (frg. 5).

See Book of the Cock 3:5 (Judas “was a thief [compare John 12:6] and was accustomed to giving his wife [the money] for the offering box with which the Lord had entrusted him”; compare also the secondary B² form of the Greek Gospel of Nicodemus 1:1).

In Martyrdom of Pilate 4, both she and her brother, the despicable Barabbas, are described as “gold-loving people.”

See Book of the Cock 1:19–20 (Judas accuses Jesus of being a magician; compare also 5:26 and Gos. Nic. 1:1) and 8:11 (the Jews believe that Procla is under the influence of Jesus' sorcery; compare Gos. Nic. 2:1); 1:23 and 5:19 (the names of the Jewish religious leaders are listed [see nn. 6 and 8, above]); 2:12 (beautiful garments are spread on the ground in homage to Jesus; compare the messenger's “kerchief” in Gos. Nic. 1:2–3, 6); 4:16 (Gamaliel the Pharisee is said to have had a conversation with Pilate; compare possibly Gos. Nic. 1:1; Martyrdom of Pilate 1:20–23); 8:38 and 9:23–26 (Jesus speaks with the two crucified robbers, whose names are given; compare Luke 23:39–43; Gos. Nic. 9:4; 10:2; Declaration made by Joseph of Arimathea 2). One should note that, with the exception of the analogies mentioned in 4:16 and 8:11, all of the other parallels are also shared by the Greek B recension of the Gospel of Nicodemus.

See Book of the Cock 7:6–8 (the sharp criticism expressed by the Jewish people—“It is he, his disciple, who used to eat and drink with him, and who has betrayed him and abandoned him to death”—makes Judas feel guilty; compare Gos. Nic. B¹ 11:2; B² 1:1–2; B³ after 1:4), 7:11–14 (Pilate sends Jesus to Herod Antipas; compare Luke 23:4–12; Gos. Nic. B 9:4); and 8:1–14 (the name of Pilate's wife is Procla; compare Gos. Nic. B 4:4, as well as Paradosis of Pilate 9–10; Letter of Pilate to Herod; Lament of Mary 11:41, 44; and Martyrdom of Pilate 3; 5; 10; 12; 18–20; 23; 36).

Compare Book of the Cock 9:8–22 and Gos. Nic. B 10:2, 4 (Lament of Mary 1–4 also takes up and expands the same episode).

Furrer and Gounelle, in their French translation of Gospel of Nicodemus B, ad loc., rightly point out the use of similar expressions in Matt 27:45 (the land is “darkened” during the agony of Jesus) and in the Septuagint of Jer 8:21 (the prophet is “darkened” because of the disastrous situation of the nation). But also “darkened” (

σκoτισμ

νoι) are the eyes of Mary at the sight of her son's suffering in Gos. Nic. B2 and B3 10:4 (twice).

First in 10:2 (in all three of the B forms), and second in 10:4 (only in B² and Note that, according to Gos. Nic. B² 10:2, John had already warned Mary that the Jews would deform Jesus' “exceptional beauty, superior to that of every human being” (τ

ν

ρα

oν κ

λλει παρ

τo

υ

o

ς τ

ν

νθρώπων).

Adopted here is the reading of mss. B, C, and D, whereas the printed edition (p. 337^a, ll.11–12) reads: “they [fem.] could have been considered blessed because of their [fem.] beaming beauty” (wa-yāstabaḍḍe

em-śenna lāḥeyā). Elsewhere in the Book of the Cock, Jesus' appearance, “shining with light and surrounded by power and glory” (7:2), surprises Pilate. His sons also notice “the light and the power that emanate from his [i.e., Jesus'] face” (8:9). More prosaically, Herod is amazed “at the beauty of his appearance and the attractiveness of his face” (7:13), and Akrosennā mistakes the handsome John for Jesus (2:14). See also Lament of Mary 2:36 (the Virgin grieves over Jesus' “shining face, which was outraged and mocked”).

See the apparatus of Tischendorf, Evangelia Apocrypha, 289–91. Gounelle (“Acta Pilati grecs B,” 291–92) correctly stresses this compilation's habit of interpolation.

This question, of course, is much debated; see the prudent remarks of Jean-Daniel Kaestli (“Où en est l'étude de l'‘Évangile de Barthélemy’?,” RB 95 [1988] 5–33, esp. 11–12) and of Westerhoff (Auferstehung und Jenseits, 215–16). If the Gospel of Bartholomew is the main hypotext (for the term, see the reference to Genette in n. 43, below) of the Book of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, it is clearly not the only source used by its author. See, for example, the episode of the resurrection of Siophanes, the son of Thomas the apostle (Book of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ 21:1–22:12), which includes the account of Siophanes' ascent to heaven as well as the resulting conversion of twelve thousand inhabitants of his own town (a pattern quite common in the Acts of Thomas, e.g., 53:1–59:4).

Consider the long flashback added at the end of Gos. Nic. B² and B³ 10:6 (summarized in the apparatus of Tischendorf, Evangelia Apocrypha, 308–9; “[a]nother monkish interpolation,” according to Huidekoper, Indirect Testimony, 132 n. 63), which retells the flight of the Holy Family to Egypt, the miracle of the bowing palm tree (compare the Latin Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew 20:1–2), and the meeting of the infant Jesus with the good robber Dysmas (compare the Syriac and Arabic Infancy Gospel 23:1–3). This phenomenon of hypertextual transformation—adopting the terminology and the categories defined by Gérard Genette, Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree (trans. Channa Newman and Claude Doubinsky; Lincoln, Nebr.: Nebraska University Press, 1997)—is, of course, almost universal and characterizes a large amount of biblical (i.e., canonical) as well as apocryphal literature. For other examples of creative rewriting in apocryphal texts, see the essays published in Robert F. Stoops and Dennis R. MacDonald, eds., The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles in Intertextual Perspectives (Semeia 80; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1997); Pierluigi Piovanelli, “Paralipomeni di Geremia (Quarto libro di Baruc)—Storia della cattività babilonese (Apocrifo copto di Geremia),” in Apocrifi dell'Antico Testamento, vol. 3 (ed. Paolo Sacchi; Biblica—Testi e studi 7; Brescia: Paideia, 1999) 235–381, esp. 265–73, on the Paralipomena of Jeremiah as a Christian rewriting of the Jewish History of the Babylonian Captivity; and idem, “Le sommeil séculaire d'Abimélech dans l'Histoire de la captivité babylonienne et les Paralipomènes de Jérémie: Textes—intertextes—contextes,” in Intertextualités: La Bible en échos (ed. Daniel Marguerat and Adrian H. W. Curtis; Le Monde de la Bible 40; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2000) 73–96.

For the Council of Ephesus as terminus a quo, see Kaestli and Cherix, L'évangile de Barthé-lemy, 170; and for the paleographic dating of the extant Coptic manuscripts as terminus ante quem, see Westerhoff, Auferstehung und Jenseits, 226–27.

See the recent studies of Rémi Gounelle (cited in n. 27, above), who is preparing a new edition of this Greek recension and its secondary forms.

At the beginning of the Book of the Cock, Jesus gives the power of speech to a rock on the Mount of Olives (1:9–18), a legendary development probably inspired by Jesus' answer to the Pharisees (“if these should keep silent, the stones would immediately cry out”) in Luke 19:40.

In translating this difficult verse, it seems appropriate to follow the Jerusalem Bible, which adopts the rabbinical interpretation of the word śekwî as “rooster” (see also the beginning of the Jewish morning service: “Blessed are you, O Lord, our God, King of the world, who gives the cock [ekwî] intelligence to distinguish between day and night”).

See, for example, Targum Rishon to Est 3:7, in Bernard Grossfeld, ed. and trans., The First Targum to Esther According to the MS Paris Hebrew 110 of the Bibliotheque Nationale (New York: Sepher-Hermon Press, 1983) 17, 53, 119–20; and idem, The Two Targums of Esther (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1991) 53. Note that the final redaction of the Targum Rishon occurred between the sixth and the eighth century; also that the same passage found its way into some manuscripts of chapter 8 of the Targum Sheni to Esther; see Paulus S. Cassel, An Explanatory Commentary on Esther (trans. Aaron Bernstein; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1888) 307; repr. in The Targum to the Five Megilloth [(ed. Bernard Grossfeld; New York: Hermon Press, 1973) 133. For a panoramic presentation of the Ziz traditions, see Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (trans. Henrietta Szold; 7 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909–1938) 1:28–29 and 5:46–48; or Robert Graves and Raphael Patai, Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis (New York: Greenwich House, 1983) 54–56.

Akrosennā makes clear her intention to participate, together with her husband and the disciples, in the Lord's Supper (2:9). The special blessing pronounced by Jesus at the end of the meal (4:29–32) later confirms their presence.

This “period of a thousand years” probably corresponds to the interval between the resurrection of Jesus (the “first resurrection” of Rev 20:1–6, which initiates the reign of Christ over his church) and his glorious return at the day of the Last Judgment (see Rev 20:11–15)—a trial which constitutes the main eschatological concern of the Book of the Cock (see 3:23; 5:14; 6:14; 8:5).

This transformation of the fate of the gigantic Jewish rooster probably reflects a polemical debate between Jews and Christians. This discussion may have left other traces in the Book of the Cock, namely the accusations of sorcery uttered against Jesus by his enemies (see n. 35, above). Charges such as these occur in rabbinical tradition and are quite common in the anti-Christian pamphlets known as Toledoth Yeshu, or Stories about Jesus. Such accusations possibly were current in the fourth or fifth century, but the actual texts are certainly later than the ninth or tenth century; see Stephen Gero, “The Stern Master and His Wayward Disciple: A ‘Jesus' Story in the Talmud and in Christian Hagiography,” JSJ 25 (1994) 287–311; Clemens Thoma, “Jésus dans la polémique juive de l'Antiquité tardive et du Moyen-Âge,” in Jésus de Nazareth: Nouvelles approches d'une énigme (ed. Daniel Marguerat, Enrico Norelli, and Jean-Michel Poffet; Le Monde de la Bible 38; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1998) 477–87; Hillel L. Newman, “The Death of Jesus in the Toledot Yeshu Literature,” JTS 50 (1999) 59–79 (Newman detects the same tendency to offer “readers a denatured Jewish polemical tradition” [p. 71] in the Lament of Mary and the Book of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ); Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000) 104–29. According to an Aramaic version discovered in the genizah of the Karaite synagogue in Old Cairo, originally published by Louis Ginzberg and edited anew by William Horbury (“The Trial of Jesus in Jewish Tradition,” in The Trial of Jesus: Cambridge Studies in Honour of C. F. D. Moule [ed. Ernst Bammel; London: SCM Press, 1970] 103–21, esp. 116–21), “the wicked” Jesus transforms himself at first into a bird, and then into a rooster who flies to Mount Carmel. However, Rabbi Judah, “the gardener,” seizes him by the comb and brings him back to Rabbi Joshua ben Perahiah in order to have him hung up and crucified “on a cabbage stalk.”

See Book of the Cock 4:15–16 (Judas and Saul meet); 5:11–16 (Saul arrests Jesus and deals harshly with him; Jesus admonishes him, “I warn you, O Saul, you are going to cry on the last days for the evil that you have done to me”); 6:4 (Paul [sic] brutally leads Jesus to the court); 8:32–33 (Saul puts the crown of thorns on Jesus' head).

The elements of this legend—to which Paul himself alludes in Gal 1:23–24—are the starting point of the hagiographic developments found in the book of Acts (8:1–3; 9:1–22; 22:3–21; 26:9–20), as well as in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim 1:12–16); see Martin Hengel (in collaboration with Roland Deines), The Pre-Christian Paul (trans. John Bowden; London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991) 63–86, 138–46; Jürgen Becker, Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles (trans. O. C. Dean, Jr.; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993) 57–69.

The most exhaustive study of ancient anti-Paulinism is that of Gerd Lüdemann, Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity (trans. M. Eugen Boring; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1989); see also the recent synthesis of Simon Légasse, L'antipaulinisme sectaire au temps des Pères de l'Église (Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 47; Paris: Gabalda, 2000).

Note, however, that “Abba Shaul” is characterized as a crypto-Jew acting to reduce the friction between the first Christians and contemporary Jewish communities in some versions of the Toledoth Yeshu discussed by Légasse (L'antipaulinisme sectaire, 65–68).

See especially Lüdemann, Opposition to Paul, 169–94, 296–304; Robert E. Van Voorst, “The Ascents of James”: History and Theology of a Jewish-Christian Community (SBLDS 112; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1989); F. Stanley Jones, An Ancient Jewish Christian Source on the History of Christianity: Pseudo-Clementine “Recognitions” 1.27–71 (SBLTT 37; Christian Apocrypha Series 2; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1995); Luigi Cirillo, “L'antipaolinismo nelle Pseudoclementine: Un riesame della questione,” in Verus Israel: Nuove prospettive sul giudeocristianesimo. Atti del Colloquio di Torino (4–5 novembre 1999) (ed. Giovanni Filoramo and Claudio Gianotto; Biblioteca di cultura religiosa 65; Brescia: Paideia, 2001) 280–303; and also the French translation of André Schneider and Luigi Cirillo, Les Reconnaissances du pseudo Clément: Roman chrétien des premiers siècles (Apocryphes 10; Turnhout: Brepols, 1999). The Syriac version of Recognitions 1.70.1–2 reads: “Then a certain man who was the enemy entered the temple near the altar with a few others. He cried out and said, ‘What are you doing, O men, the children of Israel? How have you been carried off so quickly by wretched men who have strayed after a magician?'” (as translated by Jones, An Ancient Jewish Christian Source, 106).

Translation of the Syriac version taken from Jones, An Ancient Jewish Christian Source, 107.

Among the recent interpreters, Van Voorst (“The Ascents of James,” 44–46) favors the identification of the Ascents of James, as summarized in Epiphanius's Panarion 30.16.6–9, with the Jewish-Christian source behind the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.33–71. Jones (An Ancient Jewish Christian Source, 146–48) argues against this thesis. In fact, according to F. Stanley Jones (“The Martyrdom of James in Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, and Christian Apocrypha, Including Nag Hammadi: A Study of the Textual Relations,” in Society of Biblical Literature 1990 Seminar Papers [ed. David J. Lull; SBLSPS 29; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1990] 322–35), all the extant versions of the martyrdom of James, including the failed attempt recorded in Recognitions 1.70.8, possibly depend on Hegesippus's account as quoted by Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 2.23.10–18).

Salālim is an Arabic loanword meaning “stairs, steps” (see n. 2, above). It is possible that this staircase has its origin in an interpretation of John 19:13 (even if the context as well as the characters in attendance are not exactly the same). John's text reads, “When Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called The Pavement, and in Hebrew, Gabbatha.” Construed as “the paved-with-stone [Λιθ

στρωτoς] high place [Gabbatha],” the last words of the verse could in turn have been reinterpreted as “the paved-with-stone stairs” (see also Gos. Nic. B 10:3, where it is Golgotha that becomes “paved with stones” [Λιθ

στρωτoν]). Note that according to the late account of the Chronicon Paschale (written in Constantinople around 630 C.E.), the emperor Hadrian had built on the south-eastern corner of the Temple esplanade a circus called “the Dodecapylon, previously known under the name of ‘Stairs' ['Aναβαθμo

]” (cited in Félix-Marie Abel, “Jérusalem,” DACL 7.2 [1926–1927] 2304–74, at 2306–7)—a circus that still stood in the Byzantine period. On the “dragging” of Jesus, consider the possibility, suggested by Enrico Norelli (personal communication), that the Book of the Cock might share with Gos. Pet. 3:6 (the Jews, “having taken the Lord, pushed him as they ran”) a pesher-like interpretation of Isa 59:7a (“Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood”).

Or at least a “historical” anti-Paulinian attitude, as defined by Cirillo (“L'antipaolinismo nelle Pseudoclementine,” 284–88): that is, a criticism based on the controversial biography of the pre-Christian Paul.

Concerning these late relics of Jewish Christianity, see the excellent synthesis of Claudine Dauphin, La Palestine byzantine: Peuplement et Populations (3 vols.; BAR International Series 726; Oxford: Archaeopress, 1998) 1:238–47. (Note that archaeological data led her to conclude that Jewish Christians were completely absent from the map of fifth-century Palestine.)

Compare the anointing at Bethany in Mark 14:3–9 and parallels (according to John 12:1, “Six days before the Passover”) with the Last Supper in Mark 14:12–25 and parallels (according to John 13:1, “Now before the feast of the Passover”).

On the location of the Last Supper, see John C. Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades (Warminster, U.K.: Aris & Phillips, 1977) 157–58, 166–67, 171–72; idem, Egeria's Travels to the Holy Land (2d ed.; Jerusalem: Ariel Publishing House; Warminster, U.K.: Aris & Phillips, 1981) 39, 191 n. 2, 327; Pierre Maraval, Égérie: Journal de voyage (Itinéraire) (SC 296; Paris: Cerf, 1982) 68–69, 278–79 n. 2; idem, Lieux saints et pèlerinages d'Orient: Histoire et géographie des origines à la conquête arabe (Histoire; Paris: Cerf, 1985) 257, 263, 265. For more general comments, see E. D. Hunt, Holy Land Pilgrimage in the Later Roman Empire, AD 312–460 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982).

Might not the Book of the Cock presuppose an identification of the room in which the Last Supper was eaten with the Eleona and its “famous church which is south of Bethany,” as reported by the Irish abbot Adomnan in his On the Holy Places (25:1)? This work was written between 679 and 688 C.E., and, according to the Venerable Bede, it is based on “the things told and dictated by Arculf, a bishop of Gaul who went to Jerusalem to visit the holy places” (translated by Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims, 9).

Already mentioned in John 10:23 (Jesus walks through the portico); Acts 3:11 (Peter preaches there); 5:12 (all the apostles meet there).

The anonymous pilgrim from Piacenza, who visited Jerusalem about 570 C.E., describes it in his Itinerary (23) as “the street which runs down to the spring of Siloam outside Solomon's porch” (translated by Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims, 84).

Pilgrims were especially fond of this kind of curiosity, as demonstrated by the extraordinary popularity of the pillar of salt near the Dead Sea, explained as the remains of Lot's wife; see Wilkinson, Egeria's Travels, 219–20; Maraval, Égérie: Journal de voyage, 176–79; idem, Lieux saints et pèlerinages, 192, 284.

Other examples of the legendary topography associated with the passion may lie concealed behind the mention of the “small pool at the east of Jerusalem, called Ēdomāq, which means ‘place of Cain and Abel’” (8:29), as well as the “place called ‘Field of Blood,’ the cemetery of the strangers where people are buried to this day” (variant reading—probably an original one—of manuscripts B, C, and D at 8:34).

See Henri Leclercq, “Instruments de la Passion,” DACL 7.1 (1925–1926) 1149–61; Maraval, Lieux saints et pèlerinages, 253–54, 258. The representation of the Arma Christi would also become very popular in later medieval iconography, as illustrated by the paintings reproduced, e.g., by Caroline Walker Bynum in Fragmentation and Redemption: Essays on Gender and the Human Body in Medieval Religion (New York: Zone Books, 1992) 115, 278–79 (note also the constant presence of Peter's rooster).

The original text was probably written in Greek (see n. 10, above), which could explain the late reappearance of similar traditions in the Greek B recension of the Gospel of Nicodemus and its secondary forms. This Greek Book of the Cock, presently lost, could later have been translated into Coptic, yielding a hypothetical version that the author of the Book of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ could have known. Finally, following the usual sequence of translation, the Coptic Book of the Cock was rendered into Arabic, and from Arabic into Ethiopic. Concerning the “trustworthiness” of the Ethiopic translations from the Arabic, there are on the one hand examples that are extremely faithful to the original texts, as in the case of the Apocalypse of Peter (see the recent editions of Dennis D. Buchholz, Your Eyes Will Be Opened: A Study of the Greek (Ethiopic) Apocalypse of Peter [SBLDS 97; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1988], and of Paolo Marrassini, “L'Apocalisse di Pietro,” in Etiopia e oltre: Studi in onore di Lanfranco Ricci [ed. Yaqob Beyene, Rodolfo Fattovich, Paolo Marrassini, and Alessandro Triulzi; Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 1994] 171–232); and, on the other hand, examples of free adaptation and creative rewriting, as in the case of the Qalēmentos (see Alessandro Bausi, Il Qalēmentos etiopico: La rivelazione di Pietro a Clemente. I libri 3–7 [Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 1992]). On the dynamics of apocryphal texts in Ethiopian culture, see Pierluigi Piovanelli, “Les aventures des apocryphes en Éthiopie,” Apocrypha 4 (1993) 197–224.

In this connection, it is worth noting with Luisier (“De Pilate chez les Coptes,” 412) that the apostolic provenance claimed in the incipit (“Homily and doctrine of our fathers the Holy Apostles”) of the Book of the Cock could imply that the actual author had access to documents from apostolic times. According to Luisier, it was a “Library of the Apostles” in Jerusalem that was supposed to preserve such historical records of early Christian times.

See Pierluigi Piovanelli, “D'un récit de la Passion (Marc 14–16) à l'autre (Livre du coq): De la quête d'un sens théologique à la recherche d'un effet dramatique,” in La Bible en récit (ed. Daniel Marguerat, Jean-Daniel Kaestli, Jean-Daniel Macchi, and Andreas Dettwiler; Le Monde de la Bible; Geneva: Labor et Fides, forthcoming); idem, “Pre- and Post-canonical Passion Stories: Insights into the Development of Christian Discourse on the Death of Jesus,” Apocrypha 14 (2003) forthcoming.

All English translations are taken from Wilkinson, Egeria's Travels, 134, 136–38. According to the Old Armenian lectionary published by Athanase Renoux, Le codex arménien Jérusalem 121, vol. 2 (PO 36.2; Turnhout: Brepols, 1971), the reading in question is Matt 26:3–16 (mss. J and E) or 26:14–16 (ms. P). Egeria's testimony is all the more remarkable for the importance she attaches to the crowing of the cock during the main liturgical events taking place in the Holy City (see Travels 24:1, 8–9; 27:4; 32:1; 34; 35:1; 41; 44:1–2). For the crowing of the cock in the Gospel narratives, see Troy W. Martin, “Watch during the Watches (Mark 13:35),” JBL 120 (2001) 685–701; for the patristic evidence, see Henri Leclercq, “Gallicinium,” DACL 6.1 (1924) 593–96.

According to the Old Armenian lectionary, this reading is Matt 26:31–56 (mss. J and E) or 26:36–56 (ms. P).

Needless to say, one of the most frequently recurring themes in the Book of the Cock is the fulfillment of scriptural prophecies during the passion of Christ (see 1:3, 17; 4:2; 5:21; 7:5; 10:2, 7; note also the variant reading of the manuscripts A, C, and D in 5:32).

See Wilkinson, Egeria's Travels, 135–36 (36:2).

One should note that another remarkable calvary—made of stone, not of words, and geographically as well as chronologically closer to us—gives a prominent place to another illustrious rooster. It is the great Calvary of Guéhenno in the Morbihan (Brittany). This monument is in many respects extraordinary. The original ensemble was erected in 1550 and destroyed during the revolutionary period of 1793–1794. The abbot Jacquot entirely restored it in 1853 with the assistance of his curate, the abbot Laumaille, and the parishioners of Guéhenno. In 1862 the same Jacquot erected in front of the Calvary “a Column bearing the insignia of the Passion, topped by a rooster signifying the denial of Saint Peter” (to cite materials kindly provided by Jean-Claude Le Brun, mayor of Guéhenno, in August 2001). He sculpted it personally, and this beautiful column is still visible in situ. Just above its pedestal, he also carved the following inscription: haec passus est pro nobis, “he has suffered it for us.” Interestingly, a column with a cock roosting on its top is also represented in some early Christian scenes of Peter's denial; see Henri Leclercq, “Coq,” DACL 3.2 (1913–1914) 2886–905 (a rooster on the top of a column, figs. 3288, 3301, 3302; on some kind of pedestal, fig. 3286); Leclerc thinks that this motif could have been inspired by a real column made of bronze and erected in Jerusalem in order to commemorate Peter's lapse (ibid., 2891).

See n. 21, above.

This is probably also the case with the so-called Gospel of the Savior, a fragmentary Coptic passion narrative in which Jesus declares: “I and my Father are one and the same” (13:16); see Stephen Emmel, “The Recently Published Gospel of the Savior (‘Unbekanntes Berliner Evangelium’): Righting the Order of Pages and Events,” HTR 95 (2002) 45–72, esp. 53. One should not be surprised by the fact that a late apocryphal text displays a generally neutral and—so to speak—rather ecumenical Christology, inserting only occasional cautious but nevertheless unequivocal and revealing affirmations. Compare the Syriac Acts of Mar Mari, recently translated by Christelle and Florence Jullien (Les Actes de Mar Mari: L'apôtre de la Mésopotamie [Apocryphes 11; Turnhout: Brepols, 2001]), a clearly Nestorian text in which, at the end of an absolutely “orthodox” profession of faith, the apostle Mari answers the embarrassing question, “Has God taken a wife and got a Son from her?” by unambiguously saying: “The primary generation of the Son of God was not from the woman. He was born from the nature of the Father, from his power and wisdom” (ch. 20). Evidently, the original purpose of all of these texts—the Book of the Cock, the Gospel of the Savior, and the Acts of Mar Mari—was neither theoretical nor polemic.

Plerophories 80, published by François Nau, in Jean Rufus, évêque de Maïouma: Plérophories, Témoignages et révélations contre le Concile de Chalcédoine (PO 8.1; Paris: Firmin-Didot; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1911) 136–37 (also mentioned by Dauphin, La Palestine byzantine, 1:264).

See the translations of Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims, 57–58, and Pierre Maraval, Récits des premiers pèlerins chrétiens au Proche-Orient (IV^e–VII^e siècle) (Paris: Cerf, 1996) 167–68.

As Dauphin (La Palestine byzantine, 1:264) characterizes them.

On this period and the early history of Monophysitism, see especially Derwas J. Chitty, The Desert a City: An Introduction to the Study of Egyptian and Palestinian Monasticism under the Christian Empire (Oxford: Blackwell, 1966) 86–122; William H. C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement: Chapters in the History of the Church in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972) 148–54, 174–75; Lorenzo Perrone, La chiesa di Palestina e le controversie cristologiche: Dal concilio di Efeso (431) al secondo concilio di Costantinopoli (553) (Testi e ricerche di Scienze religiose 18; Brescia: Paideia, 1980) 89–139. On the part played by Eudocia, see Hunt, Holy Land Pilgrimage, 221–48. On the doctrinal debates, see Alois Grillmeier, From the Council of Chalcedon (451) to Gregory the Great (590–604): Reception and Contradiction, the Development of the Discussion about Chalcedon from 451 to the Beginning of the Reign of Justinian (vol. 2.1 of Christ in Christian Tradition; trans. John Bowden; 2d ed.; London: Mowbray; Atlanta, Ga.: John Knox Press, 1975).

Published by Mariano Rampolla, Santa Melania Giuniore, senatrice romana (Rome: Tipografia Vaticana, 1905); and Denys Gorce, Vie de sainte Mélanie (SC 90; Paris: Cerf, 1962); translated by Elizabeth A. Clark, The Life of Melania the Younger (Studies in Women and Religion 14; New York: Mellen Press, 1984); and also by Joan M. Petersen, in Handmaids of the Lord: Contemporary Descriptions of Feminine Asceticism in the First Six Christian Centuries (Cistercian Studies Series 143; Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian Publications, 1996) 281–98, 308–61 (from which the passages quoted below have been taken). Joyce E. Salisbury also provides a useful summary in Church Fathers, Independent Virgins (London: Verso, 1991) 89–96, 145.

On the politics of married celibacy and the aristocratic dynameis of the monastic ladies, see the excellent synthesis of Gillian Cloke, “This Female Man of God”: Women and Spiritual Power in the Patristic Age, AD 350–450 (London: Routledge, 1995).

Compare John Rufus's bitter criticism of Pulcheria, the sister of Theodosius II, for renouncing her virginity in order to marry the new emperor Marcien, who would later convene the Council of Chalcedon (Plerophories 3). With a good dose of malignity, the same author reports the story of a deacon who was surprised while sleeping with a woman on Golgotha, an episode that provoked a great scandal during the episcopate of Juvenal (Plerophories 41).

Not surprisingly, John Rufus depicts Nestorius as possessed by the devil (Plerophories 3) and Juvenal as a companion of Judas (Plerophories 16–17).

In this connection, it is perhaps worth mentioning that some details in the Life of Melania the Younger suggest that the protagonist—as well as the author—was familiar with apocryphal literature. According to Gerontius, Melania was a “lover of learning” [φιλoλόγoς] (ch. 21). “She wrote elegantly and faultlessly in little notebooks. She mentally decided how much she should write each day, how much in the Canonical Books [of Scripture] she should read, and how much in the collection of homilies [έν τo

ς σvντάγμασιν τ

ν όμιλητ

ν]. After she had had her fill of these writings, she went through the lives of the Fathers as if she were eating a cake” (ch. 23). If one takes into account that the Book of the Cock, the Lament of Mary, and the Martyrdom of Pilate, as well as the Greek version of Pseudo-Clement, are all presented as “homilies,” then it is at least possible that the “collection of homilies” read by Melania included some “apocryphal” texts. This hypothesis is strengthened by two allusions to the Apocalypse of Paul (11–18): the first is inserted in a particularly solemn prayer pronounced by the saint at before she dies (ch. 64: “Purge me, your servant, that when I come to you, my soul may not falter in its steps, and that the evil demons in the air may not have control over me, but that I may pass on towards you, spotless, guided by your holy angels”) while the second appears in the final description of the departure of her soul (ch. 70: “The powers of the enemy [αί έναντίαι δvνάμεις, literally, “the hostile powers”] did not disturb her, for they could not find any of their personal qualities in her. The holy angels rejoiced as they received her, for she imitated in her corruptible body their own impassibility”). On the Apocalypse of Paul, which was written in Greek around 400 C.E. and promptly became the basic text supporting the notion of a Christian “intermediary” afterlife, see Pierluigi Piovanelli, “Les origines de l'Apocalypse de Paul reconsidérées,” Apocrypha 4 (1993) 25–64; idem, “The Miraculous Discovery of the Hidden Manuscript, or The Para-Textual Function of the Prologue to the Apocalypse of Paul,” in Narrativity in Biblical and Related Texts—La narrativité dans la Bible et les textes apparentés (ed. George J. Brooke and Jean-Daniel Kaestli; BETL 149; Leuven: Peeters, 2000) 265–82.