Marco Zoppo, Saint Peter (ca. 1468) [Wikimedia]. — Marco Zoppo, *Saint Peter* (ca. 1468) [Wikimedia].

The ‘statue of the Emperor’ episode within the Acts of Peter

The Acts of Peter (ActPet), traditionally counted among the five major Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (AAA), (i.e., together with the Acts of John, Acts of Paul and Thecla, Acts of Andrew and Acts of Thomas), is a narrative about the duel between Peter and Simon Magus and Peter’s martyrdom, both parts of the story situated in Rome. Usually ActPet is seen as being composed about 200 C.E. somewhere in Asia Minor,[1] but Rome should not be ruled out as easily as it often has been.[2] Among the many, very differently elaborated characters that are embedded in the narrative in many different ways,[3] is Marcellus, a Roman senator, who, on the one hand, is vividly portrayed by fratres (“brothers and sis-ters”), and, on the other, by his speeches, his own attitudes, his actions and his behavior.[4] While the main subplot involving Marcellus (that is, the ‘Marcellus narrative’) is concentrated in chs. 8–14 of ActPet, Marcellus himself is present as an active character also in chs. 19 and 22, and is the one who sees to the apostle’s burial in c. 40.[5] Furthermore, the storyline implies both that Marcellus is present from c. 14 onward as a faithful companion of Peter, and that there is fear among the Roman community of failing and straying from the path of true faith. Its members express concern that their faith is not yet strong enough (the motive is addressed in various ways in chs. 1-7), which is reflected in Marcellus’s own departure from faith (as reported in c. 8).

Within the ‘Marcellus narrative’ there is an episode that is told in a strict and dense way, and that is also historically interesting. It involves an exorcism, the destruction of a statue of the Emperor, and its miraculous restoration (c. 11). Although the episode has been treated by many scholars in a broad way, Callie Callon alone has focused on it in detail.[6] Callon indicates that so far the episode has been seen “as an indication of the anti-imperial stance of the text generally and an attack on the legitimacy of the imperial cult more specifically,” an assessment that is, according to her, lopsided. For her “the community that produced the Acts Pet. […] attempted to negotiate a place for itself via integration with aspects of Roman imperial culture.” She argues that while the other AAA are conveying “a sectarian and imperially hostile perspective, the Acts Pet. does not […].”[7] In the following I confirm Callon’s thesis by pointing at the significance Marcellus as a character holds for the story as a whole and by illustrating that the ‘statues’ of Simon Magus (c. 10) and the Emperor (c. 11) belong to the necessary inventory of the narratives in both chapters.

Consequently, after a swift tour de force through the other four AAA in order to illustrate the significant difference in dealing with ‘statues’ (and, above all, ‘temples’), I will concentrate on the short sequence involving the statue with inscription dedicated to Simon Magus in c. 10 and, above all, on the narrative web of c.11.[8] Bringing in further details from the other chapters that characterize Marcellus, and underlining his crucial importance as a character to identify with (he combines salient motives of ActPet such as doubt, conversion, repentance, penance and deep active faith) further supports Callon’s notion that Marcellus embodies a person of public interest that has to find his place between loyalty to the Emperor and to Jesus Christ and, thus, between being a representative of the Roman state and a Christian (or at least a person very sympathetic the Christian community in Rome). In other words, Marcellus might be seen as a role model of how to negotiate a relationship with Roman authorities, on the one hand, and with the Christian faith and a Christian life, on the other.

‘Statues’ as representations of (the sin of) idolatry in the AAA

It is unnecessary to explain in detail the fact that for Christians it was natural to ask how they should deal with the omnipresent Greek and Roman statues, which, for them, were an expression of idolatry.[9] This does not automatically mean that there was a stringent position against the religious rites and customs that the Greeks and Romans connected to statues: certain authors are proof enough that there also were tendencies to accommodate the Greco-Roman environment.[10] Nevertheless, the idea that an Emperor was to be under-stood as a god and, thus, was thought to be present by means of a statue was certainly a provocation for many Christians.[11] Therefore, it is not surprising to see how the other AAA deal with this issue.[12] One further remark might help to understand why there is mostly mention of ‘temples’ in the following: authors did not always use specific terms for ‘statue,’ instead referring to them obliquely as ‘it’ or ‘they’ while discussing the locations—temples—in which they were set up.[13]

Acts of Paul and Thecla[14]

Although only fragmentarily extant, the story of Paul’s stay in Sidon seems to have described the apostle praying against the temple of Apollo, which is obviously destroyed along with all the statues within it (c. 5). There is another use of temple in these acts in c. 3.5: “Blessed are they that keep the flesh chaste, for they shall become the temple of God.”

Acts of John[15]

Idols do play a more prominent role in these acts (Latin version xiv, xx and xxi) and §§37–45 present John’s fight against the Temple of Artemis in Ephesos. The text describes a risky prayer contest and the destruction of the temple of Artemis.[16] The event took place on the feast day of the goddess Artemis. John appears in black clothes in order to challenge the worshippers (who are all dressed in white). The apostle prays to God and his prayer is answered so that he wins the contest, resulting in the complete destruction of the temple and all the ‘statues’ and ‘images’ in it. A priest of the popular goddess Artemis is accidentally killed during the destruction of the temple, but he is brought back to life (§§42–43). As a consequence of this, the people of Ephesus acknowledge the vanity of their ‘statues’ (§44) and happily convert to Christianity. All in all, it is striking that John puts quite some effort in his fight against idolatry and the conversion of the Ephesians.

Acts of Thomas [17]

These acts seem only to have mention of the term ‘temple(s)’ when it comes to a conversation between Thomas and the merchant Abban (chs. 3 and 17). The ‘temple of Christ’ or ‘holy temple(s)’ as a positive metaphorical interpretations of the term (c.86-87, 94 and 156).

Acts of Andrew[18]

In contrast, the Acts of Andrew (in the version according to Gregory of Tours) explicitly takes a position against ‘idols’ and ‘temples’ (chs.16 and 18), and in the martyrdom of Andrew believers should even ‘spit upon the worship of the abominable idols, and run unto the true worshipping of our God’. ‘Temples should be destroyed and ceremonies done away, and all the ancient law abolished, and one God worshipped’ (c.18).

The attitude towards and even fight against non-Christian cults and rituals and their ven-ues in the AAA fit well in an overall context of early Christian reactions to ‘statues’, ‘idols’ and ‘temples’ of the Greek and the Romans.[19] And such reactions are numerous, such as the ones by Lucian of Samosata (cf. his Alexander the False Prophet 10.13.18-19 and his The Passing of Peregrinus 22.28.32.41), Tertullian (On Idolatry, e.g., III and VIII), Irenaeus of Lyon (Against heresies) or Origen (Contra Cels. 7.32 and 8.38), to name just a few selections that should be sufficient here.[20]

The ‘statues’ in Acts of Peter

Eubula and her ‘idol’ in Acts of Peter 17

The two ‘statues’ in chs. 10 and 11 are not the only statues in ActsPet: c.17 involves the production of “a young satyr made of gold and weighing two pounds, which has a valuable stone in it,” that is even mentioned twice.[21] Although, this is not comparable to the making and function of the ‘statues’ of Simon Magus (c.10) and the Emperor (c.11) and the worship practice implied by these, the ‘idol’ (see the term idolus in the Latin text) is embedded into a threefold narrative context that helps to understand the overall attitude towards ‘statues’ in ActPet:[22] first, the material for the production of the satyr is stolen by Simon Magus (“and two others”), who is depicted as malicious and villainous, as he “made his entrance secretly”, used “a spell” and “magic arts”, created “an illusion”, is an “unstable demon,” and so on.[23] The victim of theft, Eubula, is described as “a woman of great worldly reputation.” Second, in a vision Peter is instructed not to touch the satyr so that he will not be “polluted” by this object of idolatry. However, two of Eubula’s servants may touch the ‘idol’ and, thus, will not be polluted, obviously because they have not yet become Christians. Third, and most striking, is the fact that Peter is about to restore the precious ‘idol’ in the form of a satyr, which is an object of ritual, cult and worship,[24] to Eubula and so to heal the illegal act of Simon Magus that “would be understood as sacrilege by a contemporaneous Greco-Roman audience.”[25]

Simon’s statue and its inscription in Acts of Peter 10

Marcellus was seduced by Simon Magus to leave the right path of the faith to Jesus Christ and “the great man’s mercy [i.e., Marcellus’s; note of the author] has been transformed into blasphemy” (c.8). Many other were also lost (c.6) and followed the example of the senator (c.8: “if he had not been converted, we would not have been removed from the holy faith in God, our Lord”).[26] After Peter has preached to the crowd and sent a talking dog to Simon Magus, who resided in Marcellus’s house, the senator “went out to the door”, cast “himself at Peter’s feet” and talks about his wrongdoings, his repentance and penance, and begs for forgiveness (c.8). His failure culminated in the self-accusation that he, persuaded by the magician, went “so far that I set up a statue of him with an inscription of this sort: ‘To Simon, the young god.’”[27] Whether or not the author actually knew Justin, who reports of a statue erected in honor of Simon Magus for his powerful deeds in Rome with the Latin inscription Simoni Deo Sancto, which Justin translates as “To Simon the Holy God” (Σίμωνι Δέῳ Σάγκτῳ; 1Apol. 26.2.56). Historically speaking, the discovery of an actual inscription in 1574 with Semoni sancto deo fidio sacrum and another similar on the base of a statue for the Old Sabinic god Semo Sanctus might make Jus-tin’s account appear untrustworthy.[28] However, more important is that Irenaeus of Lyon (Adv.haer. 1.23.1), Tertullian (Apol. 13.9) and Eusebius of Caesarea (Hist.eccl. 2.13) also have remarks on a statue dedicated to Simon.[29]

Readers are not given further details on the making, the material (see c.17) and the outer appearance of the statue. For a senator it was nothing special to dedicate a statue to someone or something, but the dedicatory inscription definitely represents a detestable deed of blasphemy for which Marcellus begs forgiveness.[30] It is in this context that Marcellus directly addresses Peter to pray for him to God. In the course of his speech, the senator refers to Peter’s own doubts “on the water” and the fact that, despite that failure, Jesus selected him and worked miracles together with him. Thus, this already anticipates the following, i.e., what will happen to Marcellus and what he will be able to do in the near future (c.11).

Exorcism and the “statue of the Emperor” in Acts of Peter 11

In the next episode, with Marcellus reconciled to the true faith, Peter, the senator, and a crowd are still in Marcellus’s house; this location is a central place for the poor and infirm of Rome and obviously a meeting place for the community, but it had fallen to Simon Magus and his followers (c.8-13; their expulsion is vividly told in c.14). Peter notices a youth who is smiling and is filled with “the most wicked demon.” He expels the demon by the command “Whoever you are who smiled, show yourself publicly to everyone standing here!” The youth runs into the atrium of the house, throws “himself against the wall” and betrays what will happen to the talking dog (see c.12).[31] Only after a second command (“You too [will die; note of the author], whatever demon you are–in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, leave the youth without hurting him! Show yourself to everyone standing here!” The demon does as commanded, but catches “hold of a great marble statue [statuam magnam marmoream], which stood in the courtyard of the house [in atrio domus] and it kicked it to pieces.”[32] The problem now is that “this was a statue of Caesar,” and Marcellus reacts with great concern (“struck his brow”) telling Peter: “If Caesar gets to know of this through any of his spies, he will inflict a great punishment on us.”

The curiosi – and there is no need to speculate too much on the exact meaning of the term as ‘busybodies’ or agentes in rebus – are not really of importance, because the context itself clearly indicates that someone – whoever these people might be – may report what happened to the Emperor.[33] Evidently, that is what concerns Marcellus, because he is a senator and at the same time known by the Emperor as a person who gives “to the Christians” and cannot hold any office (c.8). Thus, it is through the Emperor that the narration itself links the distrust in the senator and his sense of duty with Marcellus’s uneasi-ness and discomfort about the destroyed statue: is the Emperor’s distrust and the Emperor’s statue in the atrium of Marcellus’s house. Moreover, the narration provokes the question about what those who are suspected to report to the Emperor (curiosi) may eventually tell him. It is not Marcellus’s fault that the statue has been dashed to pieces, but the fault of the furious demon that was expelled from the youth. Then what should the emperor find reprehensible about it, unless (a) the curiosi alter their version of the event such that Marcellus is to be blamed for the destruction of the statue, (b) Marcellus had already been a suspicious senator in the eyes of the Emperor (and, probably, the Roman estab-lishment) and (c) Marcellus himself thinks in the wrong direction and just assumes that there might be people who would report anything compromising about the senator.

So far there is nothing spectacular about the story (unless an actual exorcism is seen as such), as it is only natural for a senator to have an imperial statue, i.e., a statue of the Emperor, in his own house.[34] It was usual to have the portrait of an emperor, here in form of a statue, or of members of the imperial family in the Roman city residences and villas of the Roman upper class. These testified to the loyalty of the inhabitants to the imperial house.[35] The statue in ActPet 11 is described as statuam magnam marmoream, quae in atrio domus posita erat so that a reader knows about its size, material and its prominent place in a Roman senator’s house. Thus, the statue was visible to the visitors and guests that a person of that position and status is supposed to have had; however, in the case of Marcellus, among those guests were also “widows”, “orphans”, “the foreigners and the poor” (c.8) and, of course, the fratres (“the brothers and sisters”). They all regularly saw the clear statement of loyalty expressed by Marcellus through the imperial statue.

Interpreters of this episode often make reference to Apollonius of Tyana, who is said to have expelled a demon as well (Philostratus, Vita Apoll. 4.20) and should serve as a point of comparison. However, the two stories differ decisively form each other: the Apollonius story lacks the motive of ‘fear’, does not include a statue of an emperor, is set in the Royal Colonnade in the northwest corner of the Agora, and the statue is not restored after its destruction.[36] The last indicates that the narrative consequently lacks a detailed story of restoration such as the elaborate one in ActPet 11. Of crucial importance is that the destruction of the statue of the Emperor in ActPet 11 by the demon occurs more actively (“kicked it to pieces”) in contrast to Vita Apoll. 4.20.3, where “the statue first moved slightly, then fell,” though the demon announced he would “knock that statue over.”[37]

The story continues with Peter taking over the leading role. He challenges Marcellus by referring to his previous offer to give away all of his “property in order to gain the sal-vation” of his soul. Peter instructs Marcellus in detail: “take up running water in your hands” (excipe desalientem aquam manibus tuis), “pray to the Lord,” and “in his name sprinkle it over the fragments of the statue.” As a result, the statue “shall be made whole, as before.” Marcellus immediately does as he was told and “trusted with all his heart.” The sprinkling of water on the stones as an action is even twice repeated by Marcellus himself (spargo lapides istos) and in the narration itself (sparsit super lapides aquam). Although in ActPet “this is the only instance in which an intermediary substance, water, is employed,”[38] such a use of “water” as sprinkling (aspersio) becomes important later on, when Marcellus cleans his house after Simon Magus and his followers were expelled by force by his servants (c.19).[39] Of course, “the statue was made whole” (et statua integra facta est) and Peter praises Marcellus for acting without hesitation. The final sentence of the episode attests to Marcellus’s “faith with all his heart in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God […].”

The ‘statues’ and Marcellus in Acts of Peter – some concluding remarks

It has already been delineated above that it was only natural for a senator like Marcellus to have an imperial statue in the atrium of his house. Moreover, it is nothing extraordinary that, according to his position and status, he dedicated a statue to someone he was fond of, such as Simon Magus. The episode about the destruction and restoration of the statue of the Emperor in his house fits the overall characterization of the senator Marcellus in ActPet well. Marcellus is said to have been very wise (sapientior, c.8), generous to the weak and poor and, thus, empathetic. He lives according to his status and position as a senator in a city residence, with a doorkeeper (c.9) and servants (c.14). The imperial statue in the atrium of his house could be seen by everybody who came to his house, and, ac-cording to c.8 he hosted quite a number of people in addition to those a senator usually invites or receives in his home. Interestingly, Peter and Marcellus are both interested in restoring the broken statue, which embodies the representation of the Roman Empire and represents an object of cult and loyalty to the Emperor. In contrast to what happens to such objects in the other AAA, this object is made whole again just as the ‘idol’ (satyr) is brought back to Eubula (c.17). The statue serves the narrative purpose and aims of c.11: it is the object at which faith and true power (represented by prayer to and trust in Jesus Christ/God) are demonstrated. In addition, the statue story is a further aspect of Marcellus characterization with which the audience might identify. First, he was a pillar and guiding figure of the Roman community. Then he was (easily) seduced by Simon Magus – a plot element that is prepared for in the first chapters of ActPet with references to the weak faith the “brothers and sisters” in Rome still have, before he confesses, repents and has faith again. In his request to be restored to the faith, Marcellus parallels his case with that of Peter, who, despite his doubts on the water, was selected and could work miracles with Jesus Christ. If there is in fact an anti-imperial attitude in this episode, it is only implicitly present (c.11); indeed, the sense of its presence might even just be the result of a reader’s (or listener’s) expectations, then and now.

Furthermore, Marcellus embodies a realistic example of a person that has to act daily between two lives: the one of a senator and the other of a person who is crucial for the Roman community. But these two lives are neither incompatible nor irreconcilable with each other. On the contrary, Marcellus could obviously bring his loyalty to the Emperor and Jesus Christ and, thus, his being a representative of the Roman state and an important person for the Christian community at once.[40] That is, Marcellus is characterized as a role model for readers/listeners then and now. People could and can still identify with a character that failed, repents and returns to the true faith, is strengthened in his convictions, and finally can courageously act in accordance with and for the Christian faith. In ActPet readers/listeners find two characters with such qualities, Peter and Marcellus. Of the two, the latter is perhaps that one that is easier to identify with, and who served as a clearer guiding light. Probably, the latter is the one who might be easier to be identified with and followed as a guiding line.

Thomas J. Kraus (University of Zurich) is a Research Fellow at the Department of Greek, Latin and Classical Studies of the Univer-sity of the Free State, Bloemfontein, Südafrika, and Adjunct Fellow of the Centre for Advanced Studies Beyond Canon: Heterotopias of Religious Authority in Late Antique Christianity (FOR 2770/1) at Re-gensburg University, Federal Republic of Germany.

[1] Cf. Hans-Josef Klauck, The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction (trans. Brian McNeil; Wa-co: Baylor, 2008), 83–84.

[2] See my own reasoning in Thomas J. Kraus, ‘Vergegenwärtigende Erinnerung – was die Petrusakten (ActPetr) überhaupt über »Petrus in Rom« erkennen lassen’, in: Jörg Frey/Martin Wallraff (eds.), Petrus-literatur und Petrusarchäologie. Römische Begegnungen (Rom und Protestantismus. Schriften des Me-lanchthon-Zentrums in Rom 4; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020), 125–57, especially 139–43 and 149–57. For the various attempts to localize the place of origin of ActPet see Marietheres Döhler, Acta Petri. Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar zu den Actus Vercellenses (TU 171; Berlin-Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2018), 43–6, who pleads against who pleads against the too rapid rejection of Rome as a potential place of composition.

[3] Cf. Kraus, ‘Vergegenwärtigende Erinnerung’, 143–8.

[4] The English text is taken from Robert F. Stoops, Jr., The Acts of Peter (Early Christian Apocrypha 4; Salem: Polebridge Press, 2012), and the Latin from Döhler, Acta Petri. While Stoops translates as “brothers and sisters” and, thus, takes Latin fratres as gender-neutral (i.e., as including both sexes), the other translations have “brothers”, “Brüder” or “frères”.

[5] Cf. Stoops, Acta Petri, 15.

[6] Cf. Callie Callon, ‘Images of Empire, Imaging the Self: The Significance of the Imperial Statue Episode in the Acts of Peter,’ HTR 106 (2013) 331–55. In addition, Marietheres Döhler provides precise, philo-logically based observations in her critical edition of Actus Vercellenses (Acta Petri, 238–42).

[7] All the quotations from Callon, ‘Images,’ 332.

[8] Callon, ‘Images,’ 334–40, mainly interacts with the notions expressed in the relevant (secondary) litera-ture and does not specialize on the occurrence of these terms.

[9] See, for instance, the contributions in Stephen C. Barton, ed., Idolatry: False Worship in the Bible, Early Judaism and Christianity (London and New York: T&T Clark, 2007), and Johannes Woyke, Göt-ter, „Götzen“, Götterbilder. Aspekte einer paulinischen „Theologie der Religionen“ (BZNW 132 (Ber-lin and New York: de Gruyter, 2005). Further see Thomas J. Kraus, ‘Zur näheren Bedeutung der “Göt-zen(bilder)” in der Apokalypse des Petrus,’ ASE 24 (2007) 147–76, especially 161–73

[10] Here we may think of, for instance, Dion of Prusa (Or. 12), Tatian (Oratio ad Graecos, 33–35) or Clement of Alexandria (Protr. 4) and how they dealt with statues and, thus, with their own Hellenistic back-ground, cultural embedding, and at the same time with their own philosophical imprint.

[11] For the topic see, among many others, Franz Alto Bauer/Christian Witschel (eds.), Statuen in der Spät-antike (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2007); Tanja S. Scheer, Die Gottheit und ihr Bild. Untersuchungen zur Funktion griechischer Kultbilder in Religion und Politik (Zetemata 105; München: C. H. Beck, 2000); Jan N. Bremmer, “The Agency of Greek and Roman Statues: From Homer to Constantine,” Opuscula 6 (2013) 7–21 (= in: idem, The World of Greek Religion and Mythology [WUNT 433; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019], 101–22); Tanja S. Scheer, “Art and Imagery,” in: Esther Eidinov/Julia Kindt (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 165–78; Troels Myrup Kristensen, Making and Breaking the Gods. Christian Responses to Pagan Sculpture in Late Antiquity, ASMA 12 (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2013); idem, “Statues,” in: William Caraher/Thomas Davis/David Pettegrew (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Archaeology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 333–49; idem, “Statues in Late Antique Egypt: From Produc-tion and Display to Archaeological Record,” in: Aurélia Masson Berghoff (eds.), Statues in Context: Production, Meaning, Re(uses) (British Museum Publications on Egypt and Sudan 10; Leuven: Peeters, 2019), 269–80.

[12] For relevant literature see Callon, “Images,” 334–40 notes 7–32.

[13] Cf. Thomas J. Kraus, “Alexandria, City of Knowledge: Clement on »Statues« in his Protrepticus,” in: Benjamin Schliesser/Jan Rüggemeier/Thomas J. Kraus/Jörg Frey (eds.), Alexandria: Hub of the Hellenis-tic World (WUNT; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021; forthcoming); Bremmer, “The Agency of Statues,” 7–10 [102–3]; idem, “God against the gods. Early Christians and the worship of statues,” in: Dietrich Boschung/Alfred Schäfer (eds.), Römische Götterbilder der mittleren und späten Kaiserzeit (Morphomata 22; Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink, 2015), 139–58, especially 140–2.

[14] J. Keith Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament. A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation Based on M.R. James (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993 [repr. 2009]), 350–89; Richard I Pervo, The Acts of Paul. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2014); Willy Rordorf, “Actes de Paul,” in: François Bovon, Pierre Geoltrain, and Jean-Daniel Kaestli (eds.), Écrits apocryphes chrétiens I (Paris: Gallimard, 1997), 1115–77; Wilhelm Schneemelcher, “Paulusakten,” in: NTApo II, 193–243.

[15] For translations and editions see Elliott, Apocryphal New Testament, 303–49; Richard I. Pervo, The Acts of John (Early Christian Apocrypha 6; Salem: Polebridge Press, 2016); Eric Junod and Jean-Daniel Kaestli, Acta Iohannis. 1. Praefatio textus; 2. Textus alii commentarius, indices (CCSA 1.2; Turnhout: Brepols, 1983); Eric Junod and Jean-Daniel Kaestli, “Actes de Jean,” in: Bovon, Geoltrain, and Kaestli, Écrits apocryphes chrétiens I, 975–1037; Knut Schäferdiek, “Johannesakten,” in: NTApo II, 138–93.

[16] This ‘wonder of the world’ is dealt with in Bluma L. Trell, ‘The Temple of Artemis at Ephesos,’ in: Peter A. Clayton and Martin J. Price (eds.), The Seven Wonders of the Ancient World (Abingdon-New York: Routledge, 1988), 78–99; Guy MacLean, The Mysteries of Artemis of Ephesos: Cult, Polis, and Change in the Graeco-Roman World (Synkrisis; New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2013), 259–92; Michael Immendörfer, Ephesians and Artemis. The Cult of the Great Goddess of Ephesus as the Epistle’s Context (WUNT 2.436; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 123–78. The Temple of Artemis was de-stroyed in 356 B.C.E. and again in 262 C.E. “by a severe earthquake and in the following plundered by Goths” (Immendörfer, 133).

[17] For translations and editions see Elliott, Apocryphal New Testament, 437–511; Harold W. Attridge, The Acts of Thomas (Early Christian Apocrypha 3; Salem: Polebridge Press, 2010); Paul-Hubert Poirier and Yves Tissot, “Actes de Thomas,” in: Bovon, Geoltrain, and Kaestli, Écrits apocryphes chrétiens I, 1323–470; Han J.W. Drijvers, “Thomasakten,” in: NTApo II, 289–367.

[18] See the translations and editons by Elliott, Apocryphal New Testament, 229–302; Dennis R. MacDonald, The Acts of Andrew and the Acts of Andrew and Matthias in the City of the Cannibals (Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations 33 – Christian Apocrypha 1; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990); Dennis R. MacDonald, The Acts of Andrew (Early Christian Apocrypha 1; Salem: Polebridge Press, 2005); Jean-Marc Prieur, Actes de l’apôtre André: Présentation et traduction du latin, du copte et du grec (Apocryphes: Collection de Poche de l’AELAC 7; Turnhout: Brepols, 1995) Jean-Marc Prieur and Wilhelm Schneemelcher, “Andreasakten,” in: NTApo II, 93–137; Jean-Marc Prieur, Acta Andreae (CCSA 5-6; Turnhout: Brepols, 1989).

[19] Klauck, Apocryphal Acts, 259–60, offers a rather general but fitting summary (but seems to include ActPet) in it, too: “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 miracle, Thecla drives away Athene, Aphrodite, the hero Sarpedon and even Zeus himself. 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.” This is also quoted and very briefly commented on by Callon, ‘Images,’ 338.

[20] For further details also see Callon, “Images,” 338–40.

[21] […] uidentes aurifici cuidam nomine Agripino satyriscum aureum librarum duum, habens in se lapidem praetiosum; and later again: (habentes) satyriscum aureum librarum duum lapillis inclusum.

[22] For this episode (c.17) cf. the concise observations by Callon, "Images," 351.

[23] Cf. Döhler, Acta Petri, 254: “Instabili steht in einer Reihe mit anderen, Simon degradierenden Ausdrücken” ("Instabili is in a row with other expressions that degrade Simon.").

[24] See Callon, "Images," 351, referring to Bremmer, "Aspects," 8.

[25] Callon, "Images," 351 (also see 339).

[26] Si enim ille uersatus non fuisset, nec nos remoti fuissemus a sancta fide dei domini nostri. The implied subject of the sentence, ‘Simon Magus’, can be deduced from the context the report about Marcellus by the fratres (“brothers and sisters”) is about.

[27] […] qui me tamtum suasit ut statuam illi ponerem, suscribtione tali: ‘Simoni iuueni deo.

[28] The inscription is given according to Otto Zwierlein, Petrus in Rom. Die literarischen Zeugnisse. Mit einer kritischen Edition der Martyrien des Petrus und Paulus auf neuer handschriftlicher Grundlage (UaLG 96; Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter, 22010 [2009]), 25, who offers images of the two ar-chaeological objects (plates 1–2).

[29] On the whole, see Zwierlein, Petrus in Rom, 132–3; idem, Petrus in Rom. Die literarischen Zeugnisse. Mit einer kritischen Edition der Martyrien des Petrus und Paulus auf neuer handschriftlicher Grundlage (UaLG 96; Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter, 22010 [2009]), 25–6; Döhler, Acta Petri, 235–6.

[30] Cf. Döhler, Acta Petri, 236. Further see Robert F. Stoops, “Patronage in the Acts of Peter,” Semeia 38 (1986) 91–100.

[31] This is just one proof of the elaborate and thoughtful composition of the author who interacts with past events in the story and also foreshadows what is yet to happen. Cf. Döhler, Acta Petri, 241.

[32] Callon, “Images,” 333. Stoops, The Acts of Peter, 60, just has “[…] a statue set up in the atrium [...].” The full Latin text reads as follows: Hoc audito iuuenis expulit se, et statuam magnam marmoream, quae in atrio domus posita erat adpraehendens, eam calcibus conminuit.

[33] For the discussion of the curiosi see Callon, “Images,” 333–4 n. 6; Döhler, Acta Petri, 241. Further see Jan N. Bremmer, “Aspects of the Acts of Peter: Women, Magic, Place and Date,” in: idem (ed.), The Apocryphal Acts of Peter: Magic, Miracles and Gnosticism (Studies on the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles 3; Louvain: Peeters, 1998), 1–20, here 19.

[34] Cf. Döhler, Acta Petri, 242; Götz Lahusen, Römische Bildnisse. Auftraggeber – Funktionen – Standorte (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2010), 135–6.

[35] Lahusen, Römische Bildnisse, 136: “Bildnisse der Kaiser oder auch Galerien von diesen und den Mitglie-dern der kaiserlichen Familie waren häufig in den römischen Stadtresidenzen und Villen der römischen Stadtresidenzen und Villen der römischen Oberschicht anzutreffen, wo sie die Pietas und die Loyalität der Bewohner gegenüber dem Kaiserhaus bezeugten.”

[36] For this cf. Dölger, Acta Petri, 239–40. Further see Callon, “Images,” 333 n. 4.

[37] Text according to Philostratus, Apollonius of Tyana I (ed. Jeffrey Henderson; Loeb Classical Library 16; London-Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005), 363.

[38] Callon, "Images," 349.

[39] Cf. Callon, "Images," 349–50; Dölger, Acta Petri, 256–8.

[40] In agreement with Döhler, Acta Petri, 242. Also see Callon, “Images of Empire,” 347.