Resurrection in Acts of John
(avg. read time: 6–12 mins.)
The text we are addressing today is much like the Acts of Andrew that we addressed last month in a few respects. They probably initially came together around the same time. Both exist in multiple forms with different extents. Both are works mentioned by Eusebius in the same place (Hist. eccl. 3.25.6–7) as being at variance with apostolic writings. Both are mentioned or alluded to even earlier in the third century by a Manichean text (the so-called Manichaean Psalter). The Acts of John is set apart by its role in the Second Council of Nicaea (787), where it was condemned as heretical for its docetism (see here). But it is also unclear what all the Council had in their possession among the various texts that fall under the heading “the Acts of John” in history.
The text as it is extant today is considered composite. Chapters 1–17 are not considered part of the original composition, with the first fourteen chapters coming from what scholars call “the Acts of John in Rome” and the last three chapters (in at least one recension) serving as a transition to the Acts of John proper. The order of the main contents is not widely agreed upon, but the influential claim of Pieter J. Lalleman divides the text into section A (18–86; 106–108; 110–115), section B (87–93; 103–105), and section C (94–102, 109).1 Portions of text can be broken down into further divisions, but that is not our concern here. This series focuses on what the text says about resurrection belief in its various forms. Once again, we will focus on explicit references and implicit links.
Explicit References
Although the Acts of John in Rome is a separate text, we will review it here. After recounting the outcome of the First Jewish-Roman War, the narrator references a letter from some Jews to the later Domitian denouncing the Christians. Among what they call the blasphemies of the Christians, they describe them as claiming that the one the Jews gave up to crucifixion is glorified by them as “risen from the dead” (ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστάντα; 3).2 This is then followed with reference to his having been taken up (ἀναληφθέντα) in clouds into the heavens. This—along with the order of statements that he was crucified, buried, and raised—resembles gospel summaries we have seen in the NT (as noted in this series) and elsewhere. The prepositional phrase is also something we have drawn attention to elsewhere. This specific participle form has also been seen in Ignatius, Rom. 6:1 and Polycarp, Phil. 9:2.
When John is brought before Domitian, he demonstrates God’s power by drinking poison and suffering no harm (9). This is, of course, reminiscent of a sign mentioned in the post-resurrection scene of Mark 16:18. The demonstration is made more dramatic by another man drinking of the same poison and immediately dying. John then prays for the man, that his life should be renewed and his soul restored to him, a description of resurrection that is accomplished by John taking his hand so that “he raised him alive” (ἀνέστησεν αὐτὸν ζῶντα; 11). This is done in the name of Christ to teach that the Word is more powerful than poison and is “the ruler of life” (ζωῆς δεσπόζει; 11). The same thing is done for a maidservant of Domitian later in the story using the same verb as the other act of raising (13).
This verb is also used for the expectation of John’s first raising action in the Acts proper (19; 21). God had sent John to raise Cleopatra, but in the process of his melodrama, her husband Lycomedes also drops dead. John thus prays to God that he should raise up (ἀνέγειρον) both of them (21; cf. the other imperative uses of this term in 74; 79). When a crowd has assembled, he again prays to God and commands Cleopatra to “arise” (ἀνάστηθι) in the name of Jesus Christ (22; 23; cf. 80). Cleopatra arises, attesting that she is alive by his action and that she had been dead for seven days (23). He then assures her that though her husband has been made a corpse, she will see him “raised by the power of my God” (ἀνιστάμενον δὲ τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ μου δυνάμει; 23). John then authorizes Cleopatra to raise her own husband by commanding him to “arise and give glory to the name of God” (ἀναστὰς δόξασον τοῦ θεοῦ; 24). By doing this, she raised (ἀνέστησεν) him. While Lycomedes bows before him, John raises him and tells him to give credit to the God by whose power they both arose (ἀνέστητε). Lycomedes then acknowledges this by adjuring in the name of the God “who raised us” (ἤγειρας ἡμᾶς) that John should abide with them (25). The same verb is used in reference to this action a little later in this same section (cf. also 81).
We thus see so far what will bear out in the rest of the text, which is that the Acts of John, including the Acts of John proper, shows a preference for the resurrection verb ἀνίστημι. But just as with Paul, who has a clear preference for ἐγείρω, the terminological preference was no barrier for using the other most common resurrection verb. Moreover, we see yet again how they can be used synonymously in the same context for referring to the same action.
Lycomedes will later refer to the God “who raised me from/out of death” (ὁ ἐμὲ ἐγείρας ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου; 27). John also raises (ἀνίστημι) a young priest of Artemis who died in the temple’s destruction by empowering his kinsman Andronicus to raise him (46–47). He afterwards tells the one raised (τὸν ἐγηγερμένον), “Now that you were raised, you are not actually living, nor of the true life are you a partaker and heir; are you willing to belong to the one in whose name and power you arose? And now have faith, and you will live unto all ages” (Νῦν ἀναστὰς οὐ ζῆς ὄντως οὐδὲ τῆς ἀληθινῆς ζωῆς κοινωνὸς καὶ κληρονόμος· βούλει γενέσθαι οὗ ὀνόματι καὶ δυνάμει ἀνέστης; καὶ νῦν πίστευσον, καὶ ζήσεις εἰς ἃπαντας αἰῶνας; 47).
I quoted that last part to highlight the use of life language, raising language, and the interplay of the same. The young man’s resurrection was not simply for his own benefit to continue on as he had. It gives him another chance and choice. If he were to continue on as he had been living, he would be returning to that which is not true life. The temporary resurrection would have been for no lasting purpose. Instead, the raising miracle points to the one who is the source of life, namely of the life everlasting. The eschatological resurrection itself is not referenced here, nor is the link obvious here, but we have seen throughout this long-running series how it is often linked with everlasting life that conquers death.
Later, John promises to raise (ἀνίστημι) a father killed by a lust-crazed and adulterous young man, if the man will promise to let alone the woman who has become a snare to him (50). He calls on the old man to arise (ἀνίστημι) and give glory to God (52). The man answers by saying he is risen (ἀνίστημι) and asks John why he has been brought back. John says if he has arisen (ἀνίστασαι) to the same end as he had, it would be better for him to have died, but instead he instructs him “arise [ἔγειραι] to better things” (52). Once again, we see how the synonyms work together (they are used interchangeably as well in 75; 82; 83). We also see how resurrection miracles in this story are not simply wonders done to amaze others. They are deeds that make an impression in order to call people’s attention to the true God and what he wills for them. As in the Acts of Andrew, resurrection is tied with ethical exhortation. Thus it is with Callimachus when an angel tells him “die in order that you may live” (76), and Callimachus realizes it is his opportunity to live now that he “has been raised” (ἐγήγερμαι) by John. John also calls upon God to raise Drusiana in recognition that from God alone comes “salvation and resurrection [σωτηρίαν καὶ ἀνάστασιν]” (79; cf. the use of ἀνίστημι in 80). She is, in turn, empowered to raise (ἀναστῆναι) Fortunatus (82–83). These ones are said to be “raised from the dead” (ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐγηγερμένην; 83). Unfortunately, Fortunatus says he did not want to be raised (ἐγηγέρθαι; 83) and he flees from the scene rather than taking the opportunity to repent and receive true life (83–84; 86).
It is at this point that we enter into the docetist element of the Acts, which is historically valuable both for how it exemplifies docetism from a docetist work (rather than from orthodox sources describing docetists) and for how it may show such a work using material from the Gospels, including the resurrection narratives.3 Drusiana says that the Lord appeared to her in the likeness of John and of a youth (87). This and other parts of the narrative (88–90; 93; 96–102) attest to a polymorphic Christology, whereby Jesus can take on different appearances even at the same time, that are only distantly and by exaggeration equivalent to brief statements from the Gospels, like Mark 16:12 and other elements of Jesus’s transphysical body (or his body of transformed physicality). Of course, these references are not limited to the post-resurrection scenes, as it is said to be a feature of the story from the time John first saw Jesus. Interestingly, while Luke 24:39 uses the verb ψηλαφάω in Jesus’s command to the disciples to touch/feel him to see that he has flesh and bones, it is used differently in 93 when John says that when he felt him, his substance was immaterial (ἄυλον) and bodiless (ἀσώματον). This is prefaced by referring to the event as “another glory” (ἑτέραν ... δόξαν), or something more literally heterodox. Again, this is not restricted to a post-resurrection scene, and John says there were other times he would lay hold of Jesus and find a solid body (93), but it is interesting how it is similar to Tertullian’s reference to Marcion as claiming that Jesus invited their touch to show that he had no bones (Marc. 4.43; cf. An. 17.14).
In fact, there is no post-resurrection scene in this section of the Acts. There is no reference to Jesus’s resurrection at all. There is a docetist presentation of the crucifixion (96–102), but there is no resurrection here. Seemingly, it is superfluous in this account.
This is in contrast to what we see in “The Metastasis,” which is the section concerning John’s end. There John declares that “we glorify your resurrection [ἀνάστασιν] shown to us by you” (109). He also uses resurrection imagery to describe God’s saving action for the world, including “raising it up” (ἀνεγείρας) from the things of Hades and letting it walk in bodily (σώματι) fashion (112). Some versions of the story end with reference to John’s translation after he laid down to die, but this is obviously not a fixed part of the story, and the Metastasis implies a grounding in the hope of resurrection.
Still, it should be noted that this is implicit. The most prominent references to resurrection in the Acts proper are those deeds of temporary resurrection performed by John or other agents. They are nowhere tied to Jesus’s resurrection, the eschatological resurrection is not mentioned in the Acts proper until (maybe) this point (depending on the precise referent of “your resurrection”), nor is there a link of Jesus’s resurrection with the eschatological resurrection. Obviously, the Acts of John in Rome refers to Jesus’s resurrection as part of a gospel summary, but the further significance is nowhere expounded. That text also has at least one implicit reference to resurrection, which leads to our next section.
Implicit Links
The implicit reference to resurrection in the Acts of John in Rome refers to the risen Jesus as the King coming from heaven who is “Judge of the living and the dead” (κριτὴς ζώντων καὶ νεκρῶν; 8). This phrase, or some variation thereof, is one we have seen at multiple points in the NT and Apostolic Fathers, particularly in Acts 10:42; Rom 14:9; 2 Tim 4:1; 1 Pet 4:5; Barn. 7:2; and Polycarp, Phil. 2:1. This also fits more general motifs in the Gospels showing Jesus’s expected role in the final judgment, which is necessarily predicated on his being resurrected (see here and posts on the Gospels here). On the other hand, this fits broader tendencies across Scripture (as well as Second Temple Jewish literature) in linking resurrection with final judgment, as it is said that he will judge both the living and the dead. The living will be brought before the judgment seat, and the dead will need resurrection to appear as well.
Another possible, but more oblique link to resurrection is the statement that those who overcame the persecution of Domitian, remaining faithful unto death, received as their reward the “repose of incorruption” (4). This may be an oblique link to resurrection because it may be a way of conveying that this time of rest is one in which the faithful are kept incorruptible until they rise in incorruptibility/absolute vivification (on the term ἀφθαρσία, see here and here). Alternatively, it may not have any connection to the eschatological resurrection at all and is merely referencing the rest of the afterlife.
The reference to having hope in God (55) for those who have faith in him may or may not implicitly link with resurrection. It is more difficult to tell if this is the ultimate hope for the extended narrative of the main portion of the Acts of John proper. But there is some hope beyond the scope of this life, which in this text is of unclear nature.
The Metastasis includes an implicit link to resurrection through reference to “the Lord’s day” (106). This is a designation that other second-century texts, including ones we have reviewed already, gave to Sunday because it was on that day that the Lord arose from the dead (Did. 14; Barn. 15:8–9; Gos. Pet. 9.35; 12.50; Ign. Magn. 9:1; Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 67). Of course, the precedent for this designation was established in the NT era (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2; Rev 1:10).
Finally, John declares in prayer that God is “the root of immortality [ἀθανασίας] and the fount of incorruption [ἀφθαρσίας]” (109). Both of these key terms are linked with the eschatological resurrection in 1 Cor 15 and elsewhere (as I have observed in the aforementioned link). Both images describe God as the source of everlasting/eschatological life that utterly conquers death.
Pieter J. Lalleman, The Acts of John: A Two-Stage Initiation into Johannine Gnosticism, Studies on the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles 4 (Leuven: Peeters, 1998), 25.
The Greek text I am using can be found here. Although I am aware of a later edition, I am not able to access it at this time. That will be corrected if this whole series makes its way into published form.
See, e.g., J. D. Atkins, The Doubt of the Apostles and the Resurrection Faith of the Early Church: The Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories of the Gospels in Ancient Reception and Modern Debate, WUNT 2/495 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), 286–320.