Abstract
The paper discusses the most recent datings of the “Passion of Perpetua and Felicity” made by Eric Rebillard and by Ellen Muehlberger. The author states that Rebillard’s hypothesis of dating the composition of the “Passion” to the period following the persecution of Valerian and Gallienus is not plausible because it renounces any support from internal arguments (e. g. the closeness of Perpetua’s language and that of the editor of the “Passion” to Tertullian’s style). The attempt of Muehlberger to locate the “Passion” in the fifth century and prove its inauthentic nature is based on extreme scepticism regarding the available material and is no proof at all. According to Muehlberger the male writer of the late fourth century or early fifth century created the first-person account of Perpetua, he or another writer composed the account of Saturus and another person, the redactor, pulled these together with some framing material to produce the “Passion”. The author shows that Muehlberger has rejected all previous research on chronology, authorship and influence of the “Passion” without a thorough analysis to prove her claim. The author’s conclusion is that the discussion about the date of the “Passion” should be based on the internal evidence of the text and a thorough weighing of arguments produced by previous scholarship.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Studia Religiosa Rossica: Russian Journal of Religion
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
