Editing More Christian Apocrypha, Part 3: It Takes a Village

Years ago, way back in 2006, a group of North American Christian apocrypha scholars gathered in Ottawa to discuss, among other things, the creation of a collaborative project that would show the world that we (i.e., North Americans) had contributions to make to the field. We wanted to create something on the scale of the great European apocrypha collections, such as the two-volume Écrits apocryphes chrétiens or the highly-regarded Hennecke-Schneemelcher (now Markschies-Schröter) Neutestamentliche Apocryphen volumes. Nothing concrete came out of that discussion but it was the germ for the MNTA project that Brent Landau and I took on several years later, and the same desire to create opportunities for collaboration among North American scholars was behind the creation of the York University Christian Apocrypha Symposium Series (running from 2011 to 2015) and the creation of the North American Society for the Study of Christian Apocryphal Literature (NASSCAL). It struck me recently, as I finished up (most of the) work on MNTA 2, how far we have come in realizing that ambition of bringing scholars together, not only for formal, co-authored projects but also for informal, behind-the scenes consultation to make each other’s work better, to mentor students and young scholars, and to advance the study of these fascinating texts.

One of the difficulties of working with apocryphal texts is that the texts come in numerous forms, in multiple languages. We are all trained in at least one ancient language (typically Greek), many of us two (add Latin, Coptic, or Syriac), a few of us three or four (Arabic, Georgian, Armenian, perhaps a European vernacular), but no individual among us can work in all of them. Take the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, for example. When I worked on the text for my doctorate, I focused on the Greek tradition, but I also drew upon the Latin and Syriac. I could not, however, cover also the Ethiopic, Irish, Slavonic, and Georgian sources. I had to admit my limitations and do what I could.

Whereas dissertations are not designed to be collaborative projects, apocrypha collections, for the most part, are multi-author works, and there is an expectation that the translations and introductions will draw on all of the available evidence. Fortunately, the contributors to MNTA, both vol. 1 and 2,  had the talents and abilities to make that possible.

The first chapter of MNTA 2 submitted to us for editing was the Life of Judas, translated by the ever-punctual Brandon Hawk. The text is extant in a number of languages—Middle English, Greek, Welsh, Irish, Swedish, Old Norse, German, Dutch, French, Provençal, Catalan, Spanish, Bohemian, Russian, and Bulgarian—but the earliest known form, used as the basis for Hawk’s translation, is found in a twelfth-century Latin manuscript. Somewhere along the way, I was contacted by Mari Mamyan, a graduate student (now graduated) at Yerevan State University skilled in Armenian. She expressed interest in working on an Armenian text, so the two of us looked through manuscript descriptions and settled on a texts called “Story of the Infancy of Judas.” Since no-one working on the Life of Judas ever mentioned an Armenian version, it never occurred to us that it might be the same text. So when Mari submitted her translation, we were faced with a bit of a dilemma. The problem was not new. Something similar happened with the Acts of Cornelius in MNTA 1. Witold Witakowski submitted an introduction and translation of the Ethiopic version of the text, but once it came to my attention that a Greek version existed (published but never translated into a modern language), it seemed prudent not only to include the Greek, but to use it as the base text. So I put together a translation of the two Greek forms of the text, added some details to Witold’s introduction, and we worked together to take readings from the Ethiopic text and place them in the notes to the translation. For the Life of Judas, there was little that we needed to do to change the introduction save for adding a few details about the Armenian manuscripts. But we thought it best to print the Armenian text separately from the Latin, especially since it had not been published previously. The only lingering problem was that some portions of the translation were unclear—due to the fact that Mari is not a native English speaker. So we needed someone who could look over the translation that knows Armenian but is a native English speaker. Enter Bradley Rice, skilled in Armenian and Georgian (see his translation of the Dialogue of the Paralytic with Christ in MNTA 1 and the Story of Joseph of Arimathea and the Epistle of James to Quadratus in MNTA 2). Brad graciously  worked with Mari to fix a few readings and finish up the chapter for publication.

The same spirit of collaboration lies behind Matthias Geigenfeind’s translation of the Apocalypse of Thomas. The text is fairly well-known—it appears in all of the major Christian apocrypha collections. But several additional manuscripts have been published in recent years, so it is time for a new translation. The apocalypse comes in two basic forms: one long (with an introduction situating the text in a particular time period) and one shorter. Following precedent, Matthias turned in two separate texts, which is the norm, but I’m a fan of synopses and decided to arrange them in parallel. Matthias and I went back and forth on some of the readings and clearing up some of the history of scholarship. We had everything pretty much settled but I was concerned that we might have introduced some errors in the process. So who knows this text well enough to check it over? Enter Charlie Wright, who contributed the (Latin) Revelation of John about Antichrist to MNTA 1 and is working on an edition of Apoc. Thom. for Corpus Christianorum: Series Apocryphorum. Charlie gave us a lot of feedback that helped us to improve the entry immensely. Also helpful along the way was Brandon Hawk, who looked over the text and introduction and suggested some improvements.

My final example of collaboration is 3 Apocryphal Apocalypse of John, which I mentioned in this previous post. At first the text was assigned to someone else, but that person decided not to fulfill his commitment to the project. I had an interest in the text and already had obtained copies of the two Greek manuscripts. But I just didn’t have the time to work on it. In came Chance Bonar, a doctoral student at Harvard University who has been active in the NASSCAL e-Clavis and the SBL Christian Apocrypha Section. Chance turned in a preliminary translation and an introduction of the text in a matter of weeks—no small feat given the level of difficulty of the manuscripts. Working far more slowly, I made revisions to the translation (and the critical edition we were constructing to make it) until the text was virtually finished. A few tricky readings were  crowdsourced to Facebook and we got some helpful suggestions for improvement. Then I decided to look further into the Slavonic tradition and found some century-old work on the text by Russian scholars and some recent work that had gone unnoticed (largely because Slavonics scholars and Christian apocrypha scholars tend to work in isolation from each other). I asked Slavomír Céplö, who has an enviable command of numerous languages, to help out and thanks to his translation work, we found solutions to some lingering problems and were able to augment our 3 Apocr. Apoc. John contribution with a translation of the Slavonic text into English and a translation also of a related work never before translated into any Western language: the Questions of John to Abraham.

I should mention a few other examples of our contributors working together behind the scenes: Ivan Miroshnikov helped Janet Spittler with Coptic sources for the Acts of Thomas and His Wonderworking Skin and with some Russian scholarship on 2 Apocryphal Apocalypse of John, and both Ivan and Alin Suciu helped sort out the Coptic sources to the Homily on the Life of Jesus and His Love for the Apostles (translated for us by Timothy Pettipiece). Hugo Lundhaug and Lance Jenott consulted with each other on their two Coptic texts: the Investiture of Gabriel and the Investiture of Michael. And David Eastman and Brandon Hawk helped with some aspects of the Acts of Nereus and Achilleus, translated for us by Richard Pervo.

MNTA is made possible by the scholars who volunteer (well, they do get paid a little) their time and expertise to the project. But particularly dear to me are those who are willing to help out in large and small ways to make the project better as a whole. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have an acknowledgements page to write and I don’t want to forget any of this.