¹ Brakke, David, “Canon Formation and Social Conflict in Fourth-Century Egypt: Athanasius of Alexandria's Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter” HTR 87 (1994) 395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar More general overviews gloss over the fact that this is the “earliest extant Christian document” to produce such a list (, Brakke, “Canon Formation,” 395Google Scholar , emphasis added); see, for instance, Young, Frances M., From Nicaea to Chalcedon: A Guide to the Literature and Its Background (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 80:Google Scholar “The 39th letter … contains the first list of New Testament books which exactly corresponds with the twenty-seven later canonized.”

² The coincidence of credal and scriptural “canons” seems to direct the study of Campenhausen, Hans von, The Formation ofthe Christian Bible (trans. Baker, J. A.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972);Google Scholar see especially his comments on 327-33.

³ For such a representation of heresy pushed back even into the third century, see Turner, H. E. W., The Pattern of Christian Truth: A Study in the Relations between Orthodoxy and Heresy in the Early Church (London: Mowbray, 1954) 102–48,Google Scholar representing heretical theology as “dilution,” “distortion,” “archaism,” “truncation,” and “evacuation.”

⁴ See , Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.25.1–6 (SC 31:133-34), where he attempts to distinguish between όμολογούμεα, τιλεγóμεα óθα, and αίρετικ.Google Scholar

⁵ The contrast between the two figures is made by Gregory, C. R., Canon and Text of the New Testament (New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1907) 269–70:Google Scholar “With this list in hand the simple man can at once settle the dispute with the heretic in favor of orthodoxy. We find in the list [of Athanasius] the whole of our New Testament. The notable advance upon Eusebius is that now not a single one of these books remains as a disputed book.” Partially cited by Ehrman, Bart D., “The New Testament Canon of Didymus the Blind,” VC 37 (1983) 1.Google Scholar See also , Ehrman (“New Testament Canon,” 19–20Google Scholar , n. 1) on other normative interpretations of , Athanasius'sFestal Epistle 39Google Scholar.

⁶ , Brakke, “Canon Formation,” 399.Google Scholar On canon formation as an advanced stage in cultural Listenwissenschaft, the defining feature of which is closure, see Smith, Jonathan Z., “Sacred Persistence: Toward a Redescription of Canon,” in idem, Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown (Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982) 47–48Google Scholar ; and his recent addendum, “Canons, Catalogues and Classics,” in Kooij, A. van der and Toorn, K. van der, eds., Canonization and Decanonization (Studies in the History of Religions 82; Leiden: Brill, 1998) 295–311, especially 303-9Google Scholar.

⁷ See Bauer, Walter, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (German, original ed., 1934; 1971; trans, and eds. Robert Kraft and Gerhard Krodel; reprinted Mifflintown, PA: Sigler, 1996) esp. 147–228.Google Scholar On the fluidity of the New Testament canon after Athanasius, even in the limited area of Alexandria, see , Ehrman, “New Testament Canon,” 18–19Google Scholar.

⁸ Chartier, Roger, The Order of Books: Readers, Authors, and Libraries in Europe between the Fourteenth and Eighteenth Centuries (trans. Cochrane, Lydia G.; Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994).Google Scholar Chartier's use of “bibliography” as a “sociology of texts” derives principally from McKenzie, D. F., Bibliography and the Sociology of Texts (The Panizzi Lectures, 1985) (London: The British Library, 1986).Google Scholar See, for instance, Vessey, Mark, “The Forging of Orthodoxy in Latin Christian Literature: A Case Study,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 4 (1996) 495–513 andCrossRefGoogle ScholarHaines-Eitzen, Kim, “‘Girls Trained in Beautiful Writing’: Female Scribes in Roman Antiquity and Early Christianity,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 6 (1998) 629–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹ Throughout this essay, I rely especially on conceptions of power, institutionalization, and resistance as formulated by Foucault, Michel, The History of Sexuality, vol. 1: An Introduction (trans. Hurley, Robert; New York: Pantheon, 1978),Google Scholar especially 81-97. For Chartier's own debt t o these theorists, see , Chartier, Order of Books, 1-4, 27-32, 58-59, and 98–100Google Scholar.

¹⁰ , Chartier, Order of Books, xi.Google Scholar

¹¹ The text of this epistle survives in Greek and Coptic fragments. Greek: Joannou, Périclès-Pierre, ed., Fonti: Discipline générate antique (IV_e-IX_e s.), vol. 2: Les canons des Pères grecs (Rome: Grottaferrata, 1963), 71–76; Coptic:Google ScholarL.-Th. , Lefort, ed., Athanase, S.: Lettres festales etpastorales en copte (CSCO 150; Scriptores Coptici 19; Louvain: L. Durbecq, 1955) 15-22, 58–62Google Scholar ; Coquin, R.-G., “Les lettres festales d'Athanase (CPG 2102): Un nouveau complement: Le manuscrit IFAO, Copte 25,” Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 15 (1984) 133–58.Google Scholar Composite English translation found in Brakke, David, Athanasius and the Politics of Asceticism (Oxford Early Christian Studies; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995) 326–32.Google ScholarHere: , Athanasius, Festal Epistle 39 (loannou 75.26–76.8):Google Scholar “Καί őμως, άγαπηroί, κάκείω καolζομω, καί τούτων άναγινωσκομένων ούδαμοŪ, τών ά ποκρύΦων, μνήμη άλλά αίρετικών έστιν έπίνοια” This is not to suggest that Athanasius is the first Christian authority to condemn apocrypha. The harmful nature of the production and dissemination of apocrypha was central to Irenaeus's argument against “the Gnostics”: see Boulluec, Alain Le, La notion d'hérésie dans la littérature grecque, ll_e-lll_e siècles (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1985) 226–29;Google Scholar and , idem, “L'écriture comme norme hérésiologique dans les controverses des ll_e et ll_e siècles (domaine grec),” Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 23 (1996) 66–75.Google Scholar It is Athanasius's fourth-century configuration of exegesis, canon, and heresy, and Priscillian's “orthodox” resistance, that is of note here.

¹² See the interesting remarks of Müller, Liguori G., The “De haerisibus” of St. Augustine: A Translation with an Introduction and Commentary (Patristic Studies 90; Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press, 1956):Google Scholar “But with the discoveries of Priscillian's writings, opinion has changed considerably. Some critics are even inclined to acquit him entirely. However, some traces of these heretical tenets can be found in his newly discovered works. Tractatus III (CSEL 18.44-56) seems to confirm the charge of his reliance on Apocrypha” (199, my emphasis).

¹³ , Chartier, Order of Books, 3.Google Scholar

¹⁴ The text was discovered in a very early (fifth- or sixth-century) manuscript. On authorship, see Chadwick, Henry, Priscillian of Avila: The Occult and the Charismatic in the Early Church (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976) 63–69Google Scholar (62 on the MS date, 65 on the quality of the Latin [“contorted prose”]); and Burrus, Virginia, The Making of a Heretic: Gender, Authority, and the Priscillianist Controversy (Transformation of the Classical Heritage 24; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995) 166–67Google Scholar , n. 8. For my own purposes, it is enough to determine the approximate date of this text (certainly late fourth century) and the terms under which its debate is being carried forth.

¹⁵ See the concerns expressed by Henry, Patrick, “Why Is Contemporary Scholarship So Enamored of Ancient Heretics?” Studia Patristica 17 (1982) 125Google Scholar , and the trenchant response of , Burrus, Making of a Heretic, 1–2Google Scholar.

¹⁶ See, for insance, the essays of Brown, Peter, The Making of Late Antiquity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978)Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Including the following New Testament passages: Matt 2:13,23; John 19:37; 1 Cor 2:9; John 7:38.

¹⁸ “Apocrypha nescit ecclesia”: Praefatio in libro Paralipomenon (iuxta Hebraeos). Text in Weber, R. et al., eds., Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem (2 vols.; Stuttgart: Würtembergische Bibelanstalt, 1964)Google Scholar , here 1:546.21-547.30. The argument appears also in Ep. 57.7-9 (CSEL 54:513-14), Praefatio in Pentateucho, and Praefatio in libro Ezrae (, Weber 1:3.11-16, 1:638.22–28).Google Scholar See Kamesar, Adam, Jerome, Greek Scholarship, and the Hebrew Bible: A Study of the Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993) 50–70.Google Scholar

¹⁹ See the summary of Taylor, Finian D., “Augustine of Hippo's Notion and Use of Apocrypha” (Ph.D. diss., University of Notre Dame, 1978) 1-68 and 277–83,Google Scholar including the observations that “we can speak about the apocrypha only in so far as we speak about the canon of scripture” (p. 23), and “the apocrypha arose in an environment that was a combination of religious enthusiasm and pious curiosity” (p. 277).

²⁰ See for instance De viris illustribus 6 (TV 14.1:11) on the Epistle of Barnabas, which, according to Jerome, is “reckoned among the apocryphal scriptures (apocryphas scripturas)”; nevertheless, he does not seem to indicate that the writing is a forgery, and accepts that Barnabas wrote it “for the edification of the church.”

²¹ , Rufinus, Expositio symboli 36–38Google Scholar (CChr ser. lat. 20:171-72). Rufinus did not see fit to introduce these terms as translations of Eusebius's óμολογούμενα, άντιλεγόμενα and νόθα (see above, n. 4), using instead “a nonnullis dubitatum,” “ostenditur,” and “quam maxime dubitatur” (GCS 9.1:251-53).

²² See Metzger, Bruce M., The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987) 165:Google Scholar “The term [apocrypha] originally had an honourable significance as well as a derogatory one, depending on those who made use of the word.” By citing such doctors of the church as Jerome and Augustine in a footnote (n. 2), Metzger implicitly (and unnecessarily) suggests that such evaluations might divide along lines of orthodoxy and heresy.

²³ , AthanasiusFestal Epistle 39 (Joannou 75.17–22):Google Scholar “” These texts include the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, , Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas (Joannou 75.22–25).Google Scholar

²⁴ , AthanasiusFestal Epistle 39 (Joannou 75.26–76.3).Google Scholar

²⁵ Ibid. (Joannou 76.3-4, Lefort 20.26-28 ; , Brakke, Athanasius, 330)Google Scholar.

²⁶ Ibid. (Joannou 72.26-74.26).

²⁷ Ibid. (Lefort 21.11-14; , Brakke, Athanasius, 332).Google Scholar

²⁸ , Chartier, Order of Books, 4.Google Scholar

²⁹ , AthanasiusFestal Epistle 39 (Joannou 76.7–8).Google Scholar

³⁰ Ibid. (Lefort 21.11): ΑΝ 2ωc ειτcвω. It is perhaps an unintended irony on Athanasius's part that this rhetorical strategy closely echoes one employed in the Epistle of Barnabas 1.8, where the author speaks “not as a teacher” (ού χώ ςδιδάσκαλος [SC 172:78]); the Epistle of Barnabas was very popular in Alexandria, and is not mentioned as one of the “useful,” noncanonical texts in Athanasius's letter. See Paget, James Carleton, The Epistle of Barnabas: Outlook and Background (WUNT 2.64; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1994).Google Scholar

³¹ , Brakke, “Canon Formation,” 398.Google Scholar We should note, however, that the Melitians, the only specific “heresy” named in Festal Epistle 39, itself operated through episcopal institutions and not merely in “schoolrooms” and “charismatic teachers.”

³² On the significance of the physicality of reading practices, see , Chartier, Order of Books, 3–4.Google Scholar Several scholars have noted the correlation between early Christian reading practice and the formal modes of interpretation executed in philosophical schools: see Young, Frances M., “The Rhetorical Schools and Their Influence on Patristic Exegesis,” in Williams, Rowan, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989) 182–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; and , eadem, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997) 77–95.Google Scholar

³³ , AthanasiusFestal Epistle 39 (Lefort 21.20-21;Google Scholar, Brakke, 'Athanasius, 332).Google Scholar

³⁴ Tim 2:7; Eph 4:11; Jas 3:1; all of which seem to speak of the apostles and clergy as “teachers.”

³⁵ , AthanasiusFestal Epistle 39Google Scholar (, Coquin, “Lettres festales,” 139–40Google Scholar ; , Brakke, Athanasius, 327)Google Scholar.

³⁶ Athanasius begins his demonstration of the unique teaching authority of God with Matt 11:27 and Gal 1:11-12 (Festal Epistle 39 [Lefort 59.1-9]); he establishes the closed nature of the scriptural canon with Deut 12:32 (Festal Epistle 39 [Joannou 75.5-6 and Lefort 20.10–12]); and proves the heretical origins of apocrypha through 2 Tim 4:3–4 (Festal Epistle 39 [Lefort 20.23-26]).

³⁷ , Brakke, Athanasius, 68Google Scholar , hints at this effect in other contexts: “… the episcopal party [of Athanasius] in fourth-century Alexandria used the rhetoric of anti-intellectualism to render their Arian opponents suspect and their own teaching invisible.” The correlation between Athanasius's exegetical and theological models (relying on the ontological gap between “Creator” and “created” and the instrumentality of earthly manifestations of the Godhead) has been noted by , Young, Biblical Exegesis, 29–45Google Scholar.

³⁸ , Foucault, History of Sexuality, 86.Google Scholar

³⁹ , Brakke, “Canon Formation,” 417.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Ibid., 419.

⁴¹ I choose this English version of Priscillian's (or his editor's?) somewhat longer title Liber de fide el de apocryphis, although it is worth keeping in mind how integral fides is throughout the treatise. Compare , AthanasiusFestal Epistle 39Google Scholar (, Coquin, “Lettres Festales,” 144):Google Scholar “So then if we seek after faith (лίστις), the way is for us to discover it through them (that is, the scriptures).”

⁴² On the date of Priscillian's execution, see , Burrus, Making of a Heretic, 187–88Google Scholar , n. 1.

⁴³ See the summary of , Burrus, Making of a Heretic, 19-21 and 172–74Google Scholar , nn. 67-78. This interpretation derives ultimately from the work of Max Weber; see, for instance, The Sociology of Religion (trans. Fischoff, Ephraim; 1922; Boston: Beacon, 1993) 46–79.Google Scholar See also the remarks of , Chadwick, Priscillian, 79:Google Scholar “As a lay teacher Priscillian feels himself called to exercise a prophetic and teaching ministry, the authority of which is found in the immediate grace of Christ his God, not in a mediated commission transmitted through the normal and official authorities of the Church.” As will become clear, I find this statement (based, moreover, on the Würzburg tractates) to be a gross caricature, and fairly inaccurate in light of the Liber de fide et de apocryphis.

⁴⁴ , Weber, Sociology of Religion, 68.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Ibid., 68-69. See Borg, M. B. ter, “Canon and Social Control,” in Kooij, van der and Toorn, van der, eds., Canonization, 411–23Google Scholar , for a description of canon as the stabilizing mediator between charisma and institution during times of “cultural up-scaling,” ultimately producing a desirable form of social constraint.

⁴⁶ Burrus's interpretation of the conflict between Priscillian and his Spanish colleagues as one (in part) centered on “private” and “public” claims to authority, Christian (Making of a Heretic, 6–12) has the benefit of allowing Priscillian's seemingly world-renouncing rhetoric to be read “in a rhetorical context shaped by the need to demonstrate his fitness for the office of bishop” (p. 10)Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ As demonstrated by Burrus, Virginia, “Canonical References to Extra-Canonical ‘Texts’: Priscillian's Defense of the Apocrypha,” SBL Seminar Papers 29 (1990) 60–67Google Scholar ; see also below.

⁴⁸ , Chartier, Order of Books, 8.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ On multiplicitous and interwoven nodes of “resistance,” see , Foucault, History of Sexuality, 95–96Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ , PriscillianLiber de fide 44.1–10: “… damnet, quoniam novitas ingenii contentionis est mater, eruditio scandali auctor, schismatis alimentum, heresis nutrimentum, delicti forma peccati. Omne enim quod aut a deo aut ab apostolis dictum videtur aut factum vel ut fieret adprobatum, hoc est de quo scribtum est: est est non non; quod autem ex novo ingeniis et calumniis repperitur, hinc testimonium divinae virtutis ostenditur dicentis: quod superabundat ex malo est.” References to the tractate are by page and line number of the critical edition of G. Schepss (CSEL 18.44-56); all translations of the treatise are my own.Google Scholar

⁵¹ , Burrus, Making of a Heretic, 76.Google Scholar

⁵² Compare , PriscillianLiber de fide 51.8–12: “Here, on the one hand, as unlearnedness urges insanity and rage drives ignorance to say nothing unless it be Catholic, are you not saying, ‘damned what I do not know, damned what I do not read, damned what I do not seek through the zeal of my sluggish leisure’?” (“Hinc une ex parte indocta urget insania, furor exigit inperitus nihil dicens aliut nisi sint catholica necne quae dicis: damna quae ego nescio, damna quod ego non lego, damna quod studio pigriscentis otii non requiro.”)Google Scholar

⁵³ Again, I do not intend to demonstrate such a direct connection between Athanasius's canonical writing and Priscillian's; I should note, however, that Athanasius was a popular writer in the Latin West (due primarily to his Vita Antonii), and Jerome does mention his Festal Epistles (“‘Eoρταστικαί’ epistulae”) in De viris illustribus 87 (TU 14.1:45). See also Vessey, “Forging of Orthodoxy.” The origin of these accusations, as , Burrus, “Canonical References,” 60–61,Google Scholar rightly points out, are the Spanish bishop Hydatius and his supporters.

⁵⁴ , Priscillian, Liber de fide 44.10–12:Google Scholar “Videamus ergo, si apostoli Christi Iesu magistri nostrae conversationis et vitae extra canonem nil legerunt.”

⁵⁵ Ibid., 44.12-19: “Ait luda apostolus damans ille didymus domini, ille qui deum Christum post passionis insignia cum putatur temptasse plus credidit, ille qui vinculorum pressa vestigia et divinae crucis laudes et vidit et tetigit…” followed by a citation of Jude 14-15. , Chadwick, Priscillian, 77–80Google Scholar , finds in this unique Western conflation of Judas and Thomas/Didymus a demonstration of Priscillian's love of encratitic apocrypha (such as the Acts of Thomas). This identification had, however, penetrated into the Greek (and possibly Latin) spheres by the fourth century: see , Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 1.13.11 (SC 31:43)Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ , PriscillianLiber de fide 45.9–13:Google Scholar “De quo si non ambigitur et apostolis creditur quod profeta est, qualiter consultatio potius quam tumultus, consilium quam temeritas, fides quam perfidia dicitur, ubi, dum in ultionem simultatum sententia tenditur, praedicans deum propheta damnatur?”

⁵⁷ Ibid., 45.17-18: “dicta apostolica.” It is unclear (perhaps deliberately so) whether the “praedicans deum propheta” condemned by his opponents is Enoch or Priscillian himself.

⁵⁸ , Burrus, “Canonical References,” 62:Google Scholar “A strong emphasis on canon is crucial to Priscillian's defense of the reading of these apocryphal writings.”

⁵⁹ , PriscillianLiber de fide 45.26–46.5,Google Scholar citing Tob 4:13: “Ait: ‘nos fili prophetarum sumus; Noe profeta fuit et Abraham et Isac et Iacob et omnes patres nostri qui ab initio saeculi profetaverunt.’ Quando in canone profetae Noe liber lectus est? Quis inter profetas dispositi canonis Abrahae librum legit? Quis quod aliquando Isac profetasset edocuit? Quis profetiam Iacob quod in canon poneretur audivit?” Priscillian clearly considers Tobit as part of the orthodox canon: “Quos si Tobia legit et testimonium prophetiae in canone promeruit…” (46.5-6). Throughout this period, the Latin church maintained a Septuagintal canon, including what later became Protestant “apocrypha.” See the detailed overview in Hennings, Ralph, Der Briefwechsel zwischen Augustinus und Hieronymus und ihr Streit um den Kanon des Alten Testaments und die Auslegung von Gal. 2,11-14 (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae; vol. 21; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 132–216Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ , PriscillianLiber de fide 46.10–22.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Ibid., 47.3-15: “Si enim omne quod dicitur in libris canonis quaeritur et plus legisse peccare est, nullum ab his qui in canone constituti sunt profetam legimus occisum…”

⁶² The tradition that Isaiah was dismembered is found in the apocryphal Ascension ofIsaiah (CChr ser. apoc. A 7-8), and seems to have been commonly accepted by fourth-century Christian writers: see, for example, Hilary of Poitiers Liber contra Constantium(PL 10:581 A) ; , AmbroseExpositio evangelii secundam Lucam 9.25, 10.122Google Scholar (CChr ser. lat. 14:340, 380); and , Jerome, In Esaiam 15.57.1.2Google Scholar (CChr ser. lat. 73A:17).

⁶³ , PriscillianLiber de fide 47.19–21:Google Scholar “si quis ille est inter huiusmodi qui ista damnaverint, os suum claudat aut certa historiam factae rei proferens picturis se dicat credere vel poetis.”

⁶⁴ Ibid., 51.13.

⁶⁵ Ibid., 52.13-18: “quamvis incensum testamentum legatur in canone, rescriptum ab Hesdra i n canone non legitur, tamen, quia post incensum testamentum reddi non potuit nisi fuisset scribtum, recte illi libro fidem damus, qui Hesdra auctore prolatus, esti in canone non ponitur, ad elogium redditi divini testamenti digna rerum veneratione retinetur.” To be fair to his opponents, the “canonical” accounts of the burning of Jerusalem by the Babylonians (2 Kgs 25:9; 2 Chr 36:19) do not specifically mention that the testimonium was burned. The book “claiming” Ezra is 4 Esdras (Vg), and the restoration of the covenant is found at 4 Esd 14.43.

⁶⁶ This malleable prooftext could make the exact opposite point for Athanasius, namely, that religious truth can be found only by “searching the scriptures”: , AthanasiusFestal Epistle 39 (Joannou 75.1–13): “These [the canonical scriptures] are the wells of salvation, such that the one who thirsts may drink his fill from the ideas within them; in these alone the teaching of salvation has been announced, and let no one add to them nor subtract anything from them. Concerning these things the Lord put the Sadducees to shame, saying: ‘You err because you do not know the scriptures, nor their power,’ and he exhorted the Jews, ‘Search the scriptures, for they bear witness to me.’”Google Scholar

⁶⁷ , PriscillianLiber de fide 50.12–51.8Google Scholar , referring to 2 Chr 20:34, 9:29, 12:15, 13:22, 25:26, 26:26, and 33:18-19; as Priscillian remarks, “Who therefore would patiently receive such a torrent?” (“Quis ergo huiusmodi fluctuus patienter accipiat”?) (51.7-8).

⁶⁸ Ibid., 50.8-9: “ut aut profetam finxisse quod dixerit deus aut deum mentitum fuisse confirmem.”

⁶⁹ Priscillian enlists other canonical passages that refer extra canonem: Matt 2:14-15; Acts 20:34; Sus3-5; Ezek38:14, 17; and Col 4:16 (misattributed to Peter rather than Paul; see also 46:15-16, where Priscillian refers to Jacob as the subject of Ex 7:1, instead of Moses) (Liber de fide 48.2-9, 49.21-26, 50.5-12, 55.12-22).

⁷⁰ See , Burrus, “Canonical References,” 62:Google Scholar “Priscillian appears … to imply … that the use of any extra-canonical text is potentially legitimate” (emphasis in original).

⁷¹ , PriscillianLiber de fide 48.12–14:Google Scholar “certe damnari liber non potest cuius testimonium canonicae elocutionis fidem complet.”

⁷² Ibid., 56.7-8: “ab hereticis pleraque falsata sunt.” On the commonality and awareness of “forgery” in early Christianity, see Brox, Norbert, Falsche Verfasserangaben zur Erklärung der frühchristlichen Pseudepigraphie (SBM 79; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1975) especially 120–30Google Scholar ; Ehrman, Bart D., The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993) 22-24 and 41Google Scholar , nn. 84-89; and , Vessey, “Forging of Orthodoxy,” 505 and n. 26.Google Scholar

⁷³ , PriscillianLiber de fide 46.26–47.3:Google Scholar “meliusque est zezania de frugibus tollere quam spem boni fructus propter zizania perdidisse, quod propterea cum suis inter sancta zabulus [diabolus] inseruit, ut, nisi sub cauto messore, cum zezaniis frux periret et bona faceret occidere cum pessimis, una sententia adstringens eum qui pessima cum bonis iungit quam qui bona cum malis perdit.” The devil, too, was responsibl e for the burning of the covenant rectified by Ezra (see above, n. 65): it is likely that this “diabolical” anti-textuality is meant to reflect back on Priscillian's opponents.

⁷⁴ See also ibid., 49.29-50.5: “Indeed, we cannot say that God has not said what the apostle has said he has said, nor that the prophet made no prophecy about which the scripture testifies. And since we correctly believe these things according to faith, we do not look at these texts in the canon and therefore, if everything outside the canon is to be condemned, either the testimony of the condemned is received or else there is no authority in the these things written in the scriptures.” (“Non enim possumus dicere deum non dixisse quod eum dixisse apostolus dixit aut non prophetatum fuisse quod scribtura profetas dixisse testatur. Et cum haec recte ad fidem credimus, scribta haec in canonem non videmus et ideo, si extra canonem tota damnanda sunt aut qualiter vel damnatorum testimonium recipitur, vel in his quae scribta sunt scribentis auctoritas non tenetur”)

⁷⁵ Ibid., 56.12-20: “nam in omnibus heresibus cunctarum scribturarum interpretatione perversa infelicium sectarum insituta de persuasione fecerunt… Si enim omnia quae legunt damnare volumus, certe quae etiam in canone sunt relata damnamus.”

⁷⁶ Ibid., 56.20-23: “melius estinterpretationemfunestamet institionemsacrilegamquamscribturam damnare divinam, quoniam scribtum est: vobis datum est scire mysterium regni dei.”

⁷⁷ Ibid., 48.14-49.2: “nee potest tamquam inter aepularum mortalium voluntates aliud eligi et aliud repudiari, nee de sofisticis quaestio est, ubi quod quis adsumpserit sequitur et, dum dialecticum ingeniorum opus volunt, sectas de persuasione fecerunt. Scribtura dei res solida, res vera est nee ab homina electa, sed homini de deo tradita… inde denique heresis, dum singuli quique ingenio suo potius quam deo serviunt et non sequi symbolum, sed de symbolo disputare disponunt… Symbolum enim signatura rei verae est et designare symbolum est disputare de symbolo malle quam credere.”

⁷⁸ Ibid., 49.2-10: “symbolum opus domini est in nomine patris et fili et spiritus sancti, fides unius dei, ex quo Christus deus dei filius salvator natus in came passus ressurexit propter hominis amorem; qui apostolis suis symbolum tradens, quod fuit est et futuram erat, in se et in symbolo suo monstrans nomen patris filium itemque fili patrem, ne Binionitarum error valeret, edocuit; nam qui requirentibus apostolis omne id quod nominabatur se esse monstravit, unum se credi voluit non divisum.” Priscillian seems to have invented the heresiological label “Binionite,” to contrast his opponents' hyperdivisional Trinitarian doctrine with his own “unionite” theology; see , Chadwick, Priscillian, 87–88.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ See, for example, , Rufinus's brief but poorly-timed Apologia ad Anastasium, esp. pp. 2–5, 8 (CChr ser. lat. 20:25-27, 28); Ambrose's more in-depth De fide (to Gratian) (CSEL 78:1-307); and Priscillian's own Liber apologeticus (to Damasus) (CSEL 18:3-33)Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ , Chadwick, Priscillian, 86–89Google Scholar , nevertheless manages to combine this passage with others n i the WUrzburg tractates to reconstruct a highly complex christology and theology of unity for Priscillian and his followers.

⁸¹ See , Young, Biblical Exegesis, 29–45.Google Scholar

⁸² , PriscillianLiber de fide 44.11:Google Scholar “magister nostrae conversationis et vitae.”

⁸³ Ibid., 46.22–26: “In quibus tamen omnibus libris non est metus, si qua ab infelicibus hereticis sunt inserta, delere et “quae” profetis et evangeliis non inveniuntur consentire et respuere. Nee enim iHi ipsi deo sancti mendacium in veris et sacrilega amplectuntur vel detestabilia pro sanctis” (textual emendation by Schepss).

⁸⁴ Ibid., 44.3; see above.

⁸⁵ Ibid., 47.26-48.1: “Non possum autem dicere quod loqui cogor, ut mihi apostolum sequi non eruditio fidei fuerit, sed muscipula decepti.”

⁸⁶ Ibid., 53.6: “quae otium potius quam laborem requirit.” See also Liber de fide 51.1-12: “damna quod studio pigriscentis otii non requiro” (ironically “citing” his opponents).

⁸⁷ Ibid., 56.6-11: “inperitis haec non committenda auribus, ne … haereticae falsitatis inruant foveam, dum apostolici sermonis non ad plenum retinent disciplinam.”

⁸⁸ Besides the repeated hints at a “fuller” apostolic life in the Liber de fide et de apocryphis, the strong ascetic message of Priscillian and his followers has been established through other evidence in the Würzburg tractates and the various condemnations against Priscillian and Priscillianists; see , Chadwick, Priscillian, 77–80Google Scholar ; , Burrus, Making of a Heretic, 14-15, 26-27, and 29Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ , PriscillianLiber de fide 56.25.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Priscillian also seems to be operating under a highly textualized understanding of the transmission of truth that he opposes to the diabolical “antitextuality” of his opponents (see above, n. 73); see ibid., 53.15-18: “Divine speech was indeed notable (since everything it had said belonged to it) when speaking about itself to speak a text about another, but only to report about itself; saying there that ‘it is written’ necessarily offers a responsible basis for our reading.” (“Potuit enim sermo divinus, quoniam ipsius erat omne quod dixerat, tamquam ab se loquens non scribtum ab alio dicere, sed ex se ipse proferre; dicens autem scribtum esse, necessario proponens nobis legendi sollicitudinem”)

⁹¹ Ibid., 51.15–22: “Confidentiam iam volumus esse quod dicebamus antea esse cautelam. Habeo testimonium dei, habeo apostolorum, habeo profetarum: si quaero quod Christiani hominis est, si quod ecclesiasticae dispositionis, si quod dei Christi est, in his invenio qui deum praedicant, in his invenio qui profetant. Non est timor, fides est, quod diligimus meliora et deteriora respuimus.”

⁹² Ibid., 51.23-29: “quoniam in huiusmodi libris, quos extra canonicorum librorum numerum ad legendi laborem diligentia retentebat adque ad conprobanda ea quae scripta in canone legimus adsumpti sunt, hereticorum in pleraque sensus invadens pugnam catholicis parans falsare maluit quam tenere, illam apostolicam feramus iure sententiam omnem spiritum qui negat Iesum de deo non esse et omnem spiritum qui confitetur Christum Iesum de deo esse.”

⁹³ Dawson, David, Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992) 236.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Adhémer d'Alès, Priscillien et l'Espagne chrétienne à la fin du IV^e siècle (Paris: Beauschesne, 1936)Google Scholar , speaks of “l'hérésie priscillianiste” after 563 as being “frappée à mort” (35).

⁹⁵ , AugustineDe haeresibus 46.15Google Scholar (CChr ser. lat. 46:318): “quod volunt inde accipiant, et quod nolunt reiciant.”

⁹⁶ Ibid., 70.2 (CChr ser. lat. 46:334).

⁹⁷ , AugustineEp. 237.1 (CSEL 57:526).Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Ibid., 237.2 (CSEL 57:526-27).

⁹⁹ Ibid., 237.3 (CSEL 57:527-28, emphasis added).

¹⁰⁰ The date of this epistle is uncertain, but it seems to have come after Augustine's refutation of a Priscillian doctrine of “lying” in the Contra mendacium (CSEL 41:467-528).

¹⁰¹ Apparently portions of the Acts of John; see , Chadwick, Priscillian, 156Google Scholar.

¹⁰² , AugustineEp. 237. 4 (CSEL 57:528).Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Ep. 237.9 (CSEL 57:532).

¹⁰⁴ The apt phrase of Markus, Robert, The End of Ancient Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) 53; see his discussion on 45-61.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ , JeromeEp. 107.12.3 (CSEL 55:103). Although here it seems clear that Jerome is speaking of extracanonical apocrypha such as the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, he is also the first Christian authority in the West to insist on the notion of Old Testament “apocrypha,” those LXX texts (such as Tobit and Judith) not found in the Jewish Scriptures; seeGoogle Scholar, Hennings, Briefwechsel, 189–99Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁶ Augustine Ep. 237.9 (CSEL 57:532).

¹⁰⁷ McKenzie, Bibliography, 45, emphasis added.

¹⁰⁸ See Chartier, Order of Books, 4: “There are equally great differences between the norms and conventions of readers, legitimate uses of the book, ways to read, and the instruments and methods of interpretations.” The irreconcilable conflict here, of course, is that two Christian figures are applying radically different “norms and conventions” to the same theoretical community.