Abstract Eucharistic sacrifice is attested in Christian sources as early as the Didache and the writings of Justin Martyr. This aspect of eucharistic theology – the oblation of the bread and the cup – has been judged by most scholars to be virtually universal in the thought of early Christianity. The findings of this article suggest that Tertullian of Carthage is an important exception to the otherwise virtually unanimous witness to the theology of eucharistic sacrifice in the Ante-Nicene period. The standard passages used to defend eucharistic sacrifice are examined, and it is argued that at each point, the seat of sacrifice for the African theologian is occupied exclusively by prayer and good works, not the eucharist. Prayer is even seen to substitute for the eucharist in traditionally eucharistic contexts. Tertullian’s views in this respect are explained as an attempt to completely dissociate his Christianity from the caricatures created by his Roman opponents.

Abstract Cultures define themselves largely by how they remember the past; the commemoration of history provides a link to bygone eras that helps determine social dynamics in the present. But not everyone remembers the past in the same manner. Not only do people champion competing historical narratives, but they also memorialize the past in different ways, such as erecting monuments, glorifying a specific person, constructing and honoring an archive, revering a symbol, holding an event that repeats periodically, maintaining an institution, and more. These various hubs of memory creation and preservation are often called “sites of memory.” This article explores how various Christian groups in the second century invested their social memory in divergent sites. These sites not only propagated differing forms of Christian expression, but also diverse notions of what it means to remember. While some championed preservation of the past, others believed that memory entailed radical innovation.

Abstract Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians (Pol.Phil.) is poorly attested. All extant Greek manuscripts (G) stem from one source, Vaticanus Graecus 859 (V), which preserves only a portion of the text. Accordingly, editors reproduce G, supplemented as needed with the old Latin translation (L), preserved in its entirety, and with Greek fragments preserved in Eusebius. I argue that L ought to be treated as a discrete witness to the epistle, and not merely as supplement to G. The paper proceeds in two parts: first, I offer a careful analysis of the translation, concluding that L offers a relatively faithful, literal translation and a comparably well-preserved attestation to the epistle. Second, I demonstrate that the well-known “division hypothesis” relies upon an incomplete analysis of L. In short, I contend that the construction of composite, polylingual critical editions of Pol.Phil. has occasioned textual problemata unreflected in the text’s individual manuscript traditions.

Abstract A passage from Ps.-Basil of Caesarea’s ep. 366 contains verbatim parallels with a quotation of Valentinus given in Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 3.7.59.3. These parallels have rarely been recognized by scholars. Völker and Markschies have argued that Ps.-Basil was excerpting from Clement, but this paper argues that Ps.-Basil was independent of Clement and was likely Clement’s source. Overlooked evidence includes (i) the coherence of the parallel passages in the context of ep. 366 and their relative incoherence in the context of Strom. 3.7.59.3; (ii) Valentinian theology that is found throughout ep. 366, including the notions of spiritual bodies and Charis as God’s protological consort; (iii) grammatical errors in Clement that are not present in Ps.-Basil; and (iv) further textual evidence suggesting that ep. 366 has the original version of the passage. A plausible explanation of the evidence, this paper will argue, is that ep. 366 comes from the pen of Valentinus himself.

Abstract While previous scholarship has shown that the rhetorical figure of the “heretical woman” was important in Jerome’s slandering of male rivals, this article argues that the “orthodox woman” played a just as important role in his self-presentation as an orthodox teacher. The “orthodox woman” is characterized by true asceticism which, according to Jerome’s ascetic theology, implies that she transcends her sex. Rather than being a “woman”, in the ordinary sense of the word, she is an angelic being with a supernatural understanding, which allows her to discern the spiritual meaning of the Scriptures and to distinguish between orthodoxy and heresy. It is argued that the presentation of the “orthodox woman” as very learned, independent and strong-willed makes her the direct opposite of Jerome’s “heretical woman”, and that such a portrayal suited Jerome’s purposes, as his great reliance on women readers called for a defence of female spiritual authority.