Towards the end of the preface he mentions Herodotus and Thucydides, which appears to be a conscious attempt to place the Life in the tradition of classical Greek historiography:

Following the programmatic preface to the Life, Thekla is introduced in the narrative of the Life as “present” (πάρεισι) at the same time as Jesus’ “rising” (ἄνοδον) into heaven. Reminiscent of the opening chapter of the canonical Acts, the author here places the reader in the archaic Christian past, a time of nostalgic value as much (or more) for a fifth-century historian as for a first or second. Moreover, he is here reestablishing the basic fact about Thekla, that she was the first female martyr:

The initial, brief summary of Paul’s ministry serves as an introduction in the Life for one of the most famous scenes from the ATh, that of Thekla’s conversion to chastity by hearing the preaching of Paul from a neighboring window. This is, of course, not the first scene in the ATh: Paul’s journey to Iconium, his arrival, and the famous “encratic beatitudes” all come before Thekla is even mentioned. In the original text Paul is described as having fled Antioch along with two sycophants Demas and Hermogenes, to whom Paul witnessed along the way (cf. Acts 13:48–14:1). A resident of Iconium, Onesiphorus, and his family prepared a place for Paul to stay in the town, “Titus” having informed them what Paul looked like. Then follows a description of Paul’s appearance—“small in size, bald-headed, bandy legged, of noble mien, with eyebrows meeting, rather hook-nosed, full of grace” (ATh 3). Paul’s proto-ascetic speech, the “encratic beatitudes,” is then reported, echoing Matthew 5:

Demas and Hermogenes report what Paul has been so disturbingly teaching: “There is for you no resurrection unless you remain chaste and do not pollute the flesh” (ATh 12). According to the original text this is truly an accurate summary of the “encratic beatitudes” speech from ATh 5–6 (quoted above). However, in the Life this accusation is not at all in concert with Paul’s rewritten speech at the house of Onesiphorus. The duplicity of Demas and Hermogenes is thus brought to the fore in the Life, since what they report about Paul is much more rigorous and perverts the balanced picture of chastity and marriage offered in his earlier speech. The reader recognizes this duplicity from the description of the two as well as from their reporting on Paul to Thamyris. The careful reader, however, would also note that there is here in the Life an implicit rejection of the picture of Paul as presented in its source text. The condemnation of Paul by Demas and Hermogenes becomes a condemnation of the ATh since the accusation they make against the apostle is what he actually did teach in the “encratic beatitudes.” {29|30}

However, the picture of Demas and Hermogenes, and consequently of Paul, in the Life is even more sophisticated than this. The two sycophants have turned Paul’s preaching on resurrection into a reductionistic philosophy, which serves as a caricature of pagan critics unwilling to come to grips with the import of Paul’s sexual ethics in a broader frame of Christian thought. Their take on Paul’s teaching on resurrection is explored in the following passage:

Even if it is taken into account that these two wrongful accusers are supposed to be offering a perversion of Paul’s teaching, their summary here of Paul’s teaching on resurrection is exceptionally superficial. They are portrayed as legitimately reductionistic with regard to Paul’s teaching on the resurrection. Therefore, the force of Thamyris’ questioning them is to bring these characters into relief. Already sufficiently evil in the ATh, they are highlighted (and somewhat caricatured) in the Life and shown to be much less knowledgeable about Paul’s teaching, which the author of the Life has taken pains elsewhere to represent more accurately.

Paul’s defense before the governor becomes a completely different speech in the Life. Unlike in the ATh, Paul here does attempt to counter the specific accusations against him. Of course, in the ATh those accusations, particularly that he drives women to virginity, were true according to his reported preaching. Moreover, consistent with the Life’s attempt to approximate Paul’s broader sexual ethics in the sermon at Onesiphorus’ house, Paul’s speech in the Iconian court shows the Life’s ability to draw on multiple sources of Pauline teaching.

More significant perhaps than the potential allusions in Paul’s speech is the fact that the author of the Life did not find it aesthetically displeasing to put {34|35} into the mouth of the apostle technical language from fourth and fifth century theology. His nostalgia for apostolic times and literature thus only extended so far, and he consciously removed the strictly Pauline language from the original speech to introduce specialized language of his own time, which would have been familiar from theological texts as well as from sermons.

Thekla returns to the story when Paul is thrown in prison awaiting the judge’s decision on his punishment. In the ATh, Thekla goes to the jail, bribing her way through two gates with her bracelets and a silver mirror. Then, while sitting by Paul’s feet she listens to “the deeds of God” and kisses his chains (ATh 18). The Life at this point emphasizes the rashness of her endeavor, attempting to {35|36} heighten the dramatic tension of the moment: “she conceived and carried out a deed very rash for a young girl, very courageous for an older woman, and even very zealous for a Christian initiate” (Life 8.15–17). Thekla’s clinging to Paul is certainly conceived of in romantic terms—she has left her fiancé for another man—but, as this quotation shows, there is already an element of the supernatural in Thekla’s behavior. She does not behave as any normal woman, even as a Christian woman, would.

The first meeting of Paul and Thekla, therefore, takes place in the prison. In the ATh, this encounter is brief, since Thamyris, while looking for Thekla, discovers that she has gone to the other man—“chained to him in affection”—and then drags both of them before the tribunal. These scenes are imprecise in their detail: the author of the ATh was hurrying on to Thekla’s first martyrdom. The Life takes the opportunity to elaborate the hastily written scenes by inserting a long speech of Paul to Thekla in the prison. Paul confesses to her his frustration that his words were not well received by the Iconians. Now that he has seen her devotion, however, his mind is put to rest and he rejoices:

Thekla is already playing the patroness/protectrix role that she takes up at the end of the Life and retains throughout the Miracles. In this speech Paul {36|37} rehearses all that Thekla has given up “for piety and faith” (τῆς εὐσεβείας καὶ πίστεως; Life 9.12–13). Her renunciation, Paul says, was despised by the Devil (διάβολος), whom Thekla “will make a fool and will utterly destroy in an instant” (Life 9.22–23). Paul warns her of coming trials and how “the tyrant” will try to take his revenge on her. However, Paul predicts Thekla’s future triumph, which he compares to that of Job (Life 9.37–38).

Paul concludes his exhortations with the assurance that she will be reckoned an apostle for her struggles and victory:

Taken as a whole, this additional speech serves to fill out a rough patch in the original text, but it also serves to promote a certain received version of what Thekla achieved, emphasizing her historic place among the martyrs of the early Church. Several elements are put in place to presage the spiritually-present Thekla who haunts Seleukeia in the Miracles: the comfort Thekla brings to Paul, the allusion to pilgrimage, and Paul’s prediction of her reception into the company of the apostles—such as Peter, John, and himself who have already achieved success in their ministry. That the latter is an anachronistic assumption from the point of view of Paul in prison at Iconium (c. 50s AD?) is clearly not a paramount consideration for the author of the Life, since he (like the author of the ATh) is reconstructing the character of Paul from received tradition.

Following Paul’s address to Thekla in the prison, the Life enters into a long description of the hunt for Thekla. This description includes a dramatic account of her mother’s maidservants discovering that Thekla was missing while performing their morning chores. This section is an expansion of one sentence in the ATh: “And when Thekla was sought for by her family, and Thamyris was hunting through the streets as if she had been lost” (ATh 19). In the Life the scene of the maidservants’ discovery, and the mourning and wailing which ensued, is interrupted by a view of Thekla sitting serenely at Paul’s feet (Life 10.26–27). Thamyris, having discovered the truth, bursts onto the scene thinking that Paul has seduced Thekla in the prison. The love- {37|38} triangle suggested by the vague narrative in the ATh has become in the Life an explicit case of misidentification.

Following their discovery, Thamyris grabs Paul and takes him before Kestillios the proconsul (named here for the first time in the Life): “with the townsfolk and citizens he had with him, he dragged Paul before the court” (10.48–51). This mob scene resembles the last, except that the more serious charges of “enslavement” and “seduction” are now at the fore of Thamyris’ case against Paul (10.57). Kestillios, however, being sympathetic to Christianity for unexplained reasons, only “whipped Paul a little and expelled him from the city” (10.59).

The ATh account is more compressed but essentially the same except for three small differences. First, Paul is called “sorcerer” (μάγος) by the crowd, which is apparently the main charge against him. Second, mention is made of Thekla sitting “at the place where Paul sat while in prison” (ATh 20); Paul’s cell is thus likened to the window where she heard Paul’s words wafting from Onesiphorus’ house. Third, “the governor,” before ejecting Paul from the city, “gladly heard Paul speak about the holy works of Christ” (τοῖς ὁσίοις ἔργοις τοῦ Χριστοῦ; ibid.).

Thekla’s association with Paul has by this point been more directly affirmed than in the ambivalent ATh. This has been accomplished through an exaggerated personal devotion to the apostle, Paul’s invented prophecy about her triumph as a martyr, and their romantic misidentification in the prison. However, Paul’s authoritative role now recedes into the background as Thekla is brought forward for her own trial before Kestillios in Iconium.

The most striking element of Thekla’s first trial scene in the ATh is her own mother Theocleia’s demand that she be burnt for deserting Thamyris. She {38|39} cries, “Burn the wicked one; burn her who will not marry in the midst of the theater, that all women who have been taught by this man may be afraid” (ATh 21). This outburst is removed in the Life, even though an invented speech by the proconsul clearly focuses on her refusal to marry.

His speech is an interesting amalgam of Thamyris’ accusation against Paul and Paul’s own defense, signaling Kestillios’ vacillation between these two positions. Kestillios, on one hand, argues with Thamyris that marriage “fills the whole earth with men and other living things” (Life 11.20), and he also argues, playing on her aristocratic lineage, that marriage “guards the preserves the surnames (ἐπωνυμίας) of the families unmixed and distributes their inheritances to whom it is befitting when it is befitting” (11.30–32). However, he argues from an ethical point of view with Paul that marriage “through a lawful union, always prevents illicit relations and pleasures” (11.27–28). His arguments on procreation also have the ring of Paul’s teaching on resurrection: “Each of us leaves this life without exception, but through marriage each replaces himself with another being similar to himself” (Life 11.37–38).

Compare Paul’s earlier statement before Kestillios that “[marriage] was instituted by the creator (δημιουργοῦ) of everything for the salvation, preservation, and lasting life of men, succeeding one another and renewing in their turn ever-decaying nature” (Life 7.68–71). It seems the author of the Life is trying to show in these speeches that Paul’s teaching is actually affecting the proconsul’s thoughts on marriage, rather than simply stating that the “governor gladly heard from Paul about the works of Christ,” as ATh 20 does.

Before he finally decides to burn her at the stake, the judge is once more described as divided in mind over his decision. Ultimately, he decides that Thekla should die because of Thamyris’ “power” and “just anger” and because Kestillios “was influenced by opinions about Christians which at that time were around and being discussed” (12.27–29). This suggests the author of the Life was aware of secular criticisms of Christian sexual ethics in previous generations, perhaps even with specific relation to the legend of Thekla. Thus, the knowing statement that Kestillios consented to punishing Thekla because he was “just like other pagans of his day,” so to speak, adds more weight to the hypothesis that the author is intentionally trying to write asceticism out of the original legend. This is because the argument that Christians renounce marriage as a matter of course is being implicitly condemned (in line with its explicit condemnation earlier). The character of Kestillios is therefore affected to some degree by the full Christian teaching on marriage and is sympathetic to it, but the combined weight of his prior assumptions and Thamyris’ anger is simply too great to prevent the execution.

Following the judge’s final condemnation of Thekla in the ATh, she casts about the tribunal, looking for Paul, “as a lamb in the wilderness looks for a shepherd.” Instead of Paul, however, Christ appears to her, “in the likeness of Paul.” In response she says her first words of the original story, “As if I were unable to endure, Paul has come to look after me.” Next the Christ-Paul disappears into heaven while she is “gazing earnestly at him.”

This scene is included in the Life but it happens once she is already on the pyre, a change which serves to increase her sense of abandonment. In the Life, Christ still appears to her in the form of Paul, but there is no intimation, as there is in the ATh, that Paul should have been present. Christ is thus not filling-in where Paul failed, “for she truly thought him to be Paul, and not Christ” (12.41–42), an aside which alleviates some of her disorientation in the original. Her first words, explicitly “to herself” in the Life, are typically expanded: {40|41}

The phrase “weakness of human nature” (ἡ ἀνθρωπίνης τῆς φύσεως ἀσθένεια) is originally Platonic (Laws 854a), but it finds its peculiar Christian expression in 2 Corinthians 13:4, where Paul says that “Christ was crucified out of weakness” (ἐσταυρώθη ἐξ ἀσθενείας). As Origen later pointed out, this concept is a conscious reversal of Plato’s understanding of the broader import of human spiritual weakness (Against Celsus 3.42.11).

That the author of the Life had this Christian play on classical ἀσθένεια in mind is confirmed by the description of Thekla’s actions immediately following: “and after these words, first tracing (ἐκτυπώσασα) the form (τὸν τύπον) of the cross on herself, and then even more, rendering (ἀπεικάσασα) her whole self in the form (τὸν τύπον) of the cross through the extending of both her hands . . .” (12.51–54). Her purpose, therefore, in word and gesture, is an imitation of Christ’s crucifixion. This characterization was signaled earlier by the author’s somewhat hesitant quotation of Isaiah 53:7.

It is important at this point to compare the visualization of her martyrdom in the ATh. The well known scene is succinctly described:

It is immediately clear that the author of the Life chose to interpret “the sign of the cross” from the ATh in a much more theologically rich manner, which calls upon Paul’s (and perhaps Origen’s) own anti-Platonic formulation of ἀσθένεια. Thus, in the Life the author has first exonerated Paul by removing the denigrating insinuation that the apostle had left Thekla to die. Second, the author has actually made Paul present in the language of Thekla’s self-typology of “weakness” in martyrdom. The formulation is even more complex, however, since Christ, whose crucifixion is being imitated, is emphatically present in the theater with Thekla, watching her gesture the motions of a Pauline theology of his own execution!

In the Life, the fire is shamed by the cross and backs away from Thekla. The pyre thus becomes “a bridal-chamber (θάλαμος) rather than a furnace for the virgin” and it shields Thekla’s nakedness from the crowd (12.58–59). The author says that the Babylonian furnace from Daniel 3 was “a similar philanthropy of fire” to Thekla’s “bed-chamber” (κοιτωνίσκος): in both cases God “tamed” (ἡμερώσαντος) the blaze (12.62–65). The rest of the natural wonders—rain and hail—are described similarly to the ATh, except that the Life states openly that the downpour “drowned many of the Iconians,” a claim the ATh does not make. In the latter “many were in danger of death,” but God’s wrath for Thekla’s mistreatment has no place in the events.

In neither the ATh nor the Life is there a description of Thekla’s escape from Iconium. The scene simply shifts to Paul and Onesiphorus outside the city, waiting by a prepared tomb to find out what ultimately happened to her. When she arrives at the tomb, Thekla comes upon Paul praying for her safety.

In the ATh, a child tells Thekla that Paul has been praying for her and fasting “for six days already.” This strange statement does not fit the fast pace of the narrative thus far—there has been no indication that more than a day has passed—and it is understandably expunged from the Life. In the latter the reader does not immediately come upon the words of Paul, as in the ATh; rather, it is reported that Thekla only sees him praying for her, then she proceeds to utter her own prayer of thanksgiving.

This is a typical device in the Life: to substitute a summary for the actual text (here, the prayer of Paul), then to modify an existing speech, or to add an invented one, to try to offer a different perspective on the scene. Thekla’s revised prayer is interesting for its theological language, similar in this way to Paul’s final speech before the judge: {42|43}

Thekla’s student/teacher relationship with Paul is again pushed to the fore, much more so than in the ATh. And her reiteration of the late antique technical terminology—mimicking Paul’s revised defense at Iconium—emphasizes their unity in thought and action. Post-Nicene Trinitarian language once again describes (anachronistically) the substance of their faith.

Paul’s excitement at hearing Thekla’s thanksgiving is heightened in the Life: he “springs up” from kneeling on the ground “as if from some machine” (καθάπερ ἔκ τινος μηχανῆς). He then gives thanks for Thekla’s rescue from the fire, saying, “A martyr has been born, also a disciple (μαθήτρια), and a little later, an evangelist (εὐαγγελίστρια)” (13.53–55). Paul’s anticipation of Thekla’s fame as a preacher/teacher does not occur in the ATh and thus serves as another example of the predictive imprimatur given to Thekla by this author through Paul. He also seems to be attempting to iron out any ambivalence on the point of Thekla’s teaching authority which (it might be argued) is present in the ATh itself, though it obviously appears more prominently in later tradition, such as in the aspersions cast on the ATh by Tertullian and Jerome (see the Introduction above).

In the Life, Paul’s hesitancy is softened, and the drama of this crucial scene is intensified and made further to solidify Paul’s historical (and theological) unity with Thekla—precisely the opposite implication from the skeptical tone of the original. Instead of a straightforward rebuke, Paul explains at length his reasons for delaying her baptism, and then, pressured by a second wave of Thekla’s pleading, finally agrees to baptize her, though he asks her to wait a while, as in the original. Additionally, in the Life he invites her to come to Antioch with him, a partiality on Paul’s part that is obscured in the ATh by the jarring rebuke. The Life reads, by contrast:

Paul’s response here assumes the rest of the story in the ATh, and it is through the character of Paul in particular that the author seems to be playing off of a prior knowledge of the legend. Paul’s hastily sketched and often ambivalent role in the original ATh becomes in the Life a crucial authorial device for drawing out and manipulating his reader’s narrative assumptions. It is, therefore, through the empty vessel of Paul’s character that the author fills in contemporary theological formulations and predicts, or presupposes, Thekla’s upcoming triumphs. In the Life Paul is a literary vehicle for connecting Thekla’s apostolic origins to her status in contemporary faith and practice.

Immediately following Paul’s assurance to Thekla that she will be baptized, the Life provides a summary statement of the story so far, signaling the conclusion of her time in Iconium. “But these things happened thus in Iconium, and such was their completion. Which things are stronger than human nature, but are not unreasonable miracles of divine power” (Life 14.41–44). The author has thus read the ATh as a two-setting work, Iconium and Antioch.

Alexander, a libidinous aristocrat of Antioch, succumbs to Thekla’s tremendous beauty as soon as the travelers approach the town. Her beauty is not mentioned at this point in the ATh but is played up in the Life to such a degree that it must be asked whether Alexander could have resisted at all. We have already noticed that a kind of fatalism permeates the Life due to its literary character: the paraphrase form naturally anticipates future events of the story because of its audience’s familiarity with them.

Despite the honor the author of the Life has given to Syrian Antioch by insisting that it was the scene of Thekla’s second, and most stunning martyrdom, he has at the same time made it out to be, like every deme (ἅπας δῆμος), a center of licentiousness. This reputation is in line with the type of place that would produce, as one of its leaders, the wanton Alexander:

Alexander is essentially evil because he represents the best that the evil-minded citizens can produce. He has the “order” (τάξις) of a town-councilor, but behaves towards Thekla in “disorder” (ἀταξία) and tries to procure Thekla from Paul, as if the latter were her pimp and panderer (μαστρωπὸς καὶ προαγωγός; 15.31–32).

In the original ATh, Paul comes off very badly at this point, not defending Thekla in the least, but rather disappearing at her point of greatest need. However, in the Life he appears more cunning when he tries to put Alexander off by suggesting Thekla is a boy: “Paul declared that the woman in no way belonged to him—and that he was not even sure that she was in fact a woman” (15.34–36). The first statement echoes the ATh (26), but the second is new. {46|47}

In resisting Alexander’s advances, Thekla pleads in the Life that her good birth should exempt her from such an outrage. The problem appears to be her aloneness, since Thekla also brings up her abandonment of Thamyris—she could have a husband if she wanted but instead has chosen to travel alone:

Her concern is with her own appearance as a solitary woman, not because she may be vulnerable to attack but because she seems to be a prostitute. She thus attempts to appeal to Alexander’s aristocratic standing, which has already been duly emphasized in the condemnation of Antioch’s moral standards. Aristocracy is also reemphasized in Thekla’s response, which is to tear Alexander’s chlamys, “that imposing and admired garment” and to knock off his “golden crown, brilliant and dazzling” (15.60–62).

Alexander decides, after swaying back and forth between “affection” and “hatred,” to rush Thekla to the tribunal, accepting that he had been beaten by the girl. Thekla is thus described throughout this scene in severe masculine terms, which anticipate the male, proto-ascetic disguise that gets her safely to Myra:

As in the previous court appearances, the “illegitimate” (οὐκ ἐνδίκως) nature of the violence done to Thekla is contrasted with the Roman justice system supporting it. This contrast is not made explicit in political terms, but there is a consistent subversive diatribe in the Life against the authorities that side with Thekla’s prosecutors like Alexander.

The Life, following the ATh, neglects to report on the trial at Antioch, a more conservative approach than we saw with the invented speeches at Iconium. It does insert a comment, however, on Thekla’s positive attitude: “Having been handed over, the virgin was nevertheless rejoicing in the trial, and she was already calling the judgment a victory and an addition to her {48|49} martyrial battles” (16.1–3). This statement fits with the predictive theme apparent earlier in the speeches of Paul.

Tryphaina, Thekla’s designated protector, is next introduced as “distinguished by her nearness [in lineage] to the emperor (βασιλέως τε ἀγχιστείᾳ λαμπρυνομένη), proud of her wealth, cultivating virtue in her life and habits” (16.16–17). No explicit contrast is drawn between Tryphaina and Alexander, but the implication is that Tryphaina’s aristocratic romanitas is both superior to Alexander’s local authority and also uniquely ordained by God. Perhaps reminiscent of Paul’s appeal to the emperor at Caesarea in Acts 25–26, Tryphaina’s involvement with the imperial family in both the ATh and the Life is understood to be God’s ordained means of Thekla’s martyrial triumph, as will be seen in more detail later.

In the ATh Tryphaina asks Thekla to pray for Falconilla “that she may live in eternity, for this I saw in my sleep” (ATh 29). Thekla “without hesitation” prays for her daughter, saying, “My God, son of the Most High, who is in heaven, grant her wish that Falconilla may live in eternity.” In the Life Tryphaina’s request is somewhat grander. She asks Thekla to “make Falconilla’s soul intimate (οἰκειώσῃς) to Christ” and “to provide for her what was lacking in [her?] faith (τὸ παρὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐλλειφθέν)” so that Christ might “from his grace give my daughter repose (ἀνάπαυλαν) and eternal life” (Life 17.27–31).

The next scene, in which Alexander comes to fetch Thekla for her fight with the wild beasts (θηριομάχος), demonstrates how closely the author of the Life could, when he wanted, follow the exact wording of the original text. Alexander’s address to Tryphaina is almost exactly the same in both texts. {51|52}

Such correspondences demonstrate both that he was paraphrasing a text of the ATh very similar to the one that has come down to us and that his theory of paraphrase was such that word for word copying was not inconceivable.

There are further correspondences in this passage, however, which show his small-scale elaborations and changes in diction. For example, the effect that Alexander’s demand has on Tryphaina is described in these ways:

These examples serve to show how the seriously author is taking his claim to be making changes to the style and diction of the original text. First there is the insertion of a brief description of Tryphaina’s own psychological response: ὑπὸ τῶν ῥημάτων τούτων δηχθεῖσάν τε καὶ ἀναφλεχθεῖσαν. Next, he elaborates the original, simple ἀνέκραζεν with ἐκβοῆσαί τε πικρὸν καὶ γοερόν. And, finally, the simple clause ὥστε φυγεῖν αὐτὸν in the ATh becomes the more elegant ὡς καὶ εἰς φυγὴν τραπῆναι τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον. The whole sentence is made up of two result clauses introduced by ὡς, where one would {52|53} expect the normal ὥστε, as in the ATh text. The movement of the passage is thus more vivid and interactive in the Life, even if it loses the simple force of the original.

In the Life Tryphaina follows Thekla to the arena and complains, in a second speech, about the gross impiety of the Antiochenes in condemning Thekla to the beasts. Thekla’s reaction to Tryphaina’s wailing is written in the similar terms to Tryphaina’s response to Alexander above: “at these words Thekla was stung and pained in her soul” (δηχθῆσά τε καὶ ὑπεραλγήσασα τὴν ψυχήν; 18.41–42). Thekla then prays to God, reminding him of what she has given up to follow Christ and asking that Tryphaina would be comforted. Thekla recapitulates the story thus far, emphasizing Tryphaina’s key role in protecting her from sexual violence while awaiting her martyrdom.

The decorative additions here, such as the final nautical metaphor, are designed to expose the triangle of devotion between Thekla, Tryphaina, and God. Nowhere is the depth of Tryphaina’s faith clearly expressed, but her protection is pious enough for Thekla to want to intercede on her behalf—as she has already done for her daughter Falconilla. Just above this passage, Tryphaina briefly mentions in her prayer to God that she, “evangelized” (εὐαγγελισαμένης) by Thekla, was shown “the true and straight path towards your piety (εὐσεβείας)” (18.17–18).

What is lacking in her expression of faith, however, is a sense of where Paul fits in, since the early Christian person “Tryphaina” is just as familiar from Paul’s letters. On one hand, then, there appears to be no attempt in the Life to reconcile Tryphaina’s appearance in Romans 16 with her character in the ATh (assuming that the use of τρυφή above was not signaling this). On the other hand, Tryphaina’s inclusion of εὐσέβεια here is significant, and further solidifies her identification with Thekla, as Paul’s invented speeches did for {53|54} his own character at earlier points in the Life. Εὐσέβεια has been used by Thekla herself on several occasions as a euphemism for Paul’s teachings as a whole. Tryphaina’s use of the same word here shows that the image of the passing down of Christian teaching in the Life is a linear one—that is, not that of already converted Christians mutually reinforcing one another, as in Paul’s closing greetings in Romans. This sense of didactic inheritance is much more well-defined in the Life than in the ATh and it is reinforced later when Thekla meets Paul at Myra.

The ATh begins the climactic beast-fighting scene at Antioch with a description of how the women spectators were divided in their support for Thekla. Some are anxious for her to see her punished for committing sacrilegium (ἱερόσυλον), and others wish to be martyred along with Thekla. The latter cry out, “O that the city would be destroyed on account of this iniquity! Kill us all, proconsul; miserable spectacle, evil judgment!” (ATh 32). Thekla is thrown into the arena already stripped, but is given a girdle (διαζώστραν). When the lions and bears are let loose on her, “a fierce lioness” (πικρὰ λέαινα) runs up to meet Thekla and lays at her feet. The text does not explicitly say that this was the same lioness on whose back Thekla rode earlier in the parade of beasts, but that is implied. The lioness defends Thekla against a bear, which it “tears to pieces,” but then dies while killing a lion “that had been trained to fight against men” and which “belonged to Alexander” (ATh 33). The women, now apparently undivided in their affection for Thekla, mourn the loss of the lioness because she was Thekla’s “helper” (βοηθός).

The Life follows this order closely, though, as usual, it changes the wording. Thus, the women’s plea for the ruin of the city quoted above becomes, “but many others had the thought and desire to be martyred along with Thekla and were also suffering the cruelty and nonsense of the misfortune” (Life 19.11–13). Characteristically, what was originally a direct quote from the women in support of Thekla has become in the Life a summary statement of their sentiments. Gone is the simple immediacy of the original, though the style of reporting has been heightened. In addition, minor changes are made to the way Thekla’s nudity is described: the author has excised the awkward mention of a girdle and has instead chosen to concentrate on her nudity’s general effect on animals in the arena. “For beautiful bodies always attract the eyes of beasts” (19.17–18). In order to make firm the connection between Thekla’s feline escort in the earlier parade of beasts and the lioness {54|55} that comes to her defense in the arena, the Life uses the same metaphor of a servant-girl (θεραπαινίς) before her young mistress (19.23).

Having thus survived the initial advance of the beasts, Thekla is besieged by many more wild animals. In the ATh, after “stretching forth her hands and praying,” she notices a large pit of water near her, which is filled with ravenous seals. Before throwing herself into the water, she says, “Now it is time to wash myself (λούσασθαί με) . . . In the name of Jesus Christ I baptize myself on my last day (ὑστέρᾳ ἡμέρᾳ βαπτίζομαι)!” (ATh 34). The “women and the multitude” weep over this action, as does the governor, because they know it means certain death. The seals, however, “having seen a flash of lightning” are instantly killed and “float dead on the surface.” Following this brave act, Thekla is surrounded by a cloud of fire, “so that the beasts could neither touch her nor could she be seen naked.”

The Life elaborates this climactic scene with a long prayer by Thekla, not present in the original, during which she prays silently to herself in the midst of the arena. The prayer serves as another litany of her exploits up to this point: “while I was just a girl, still shut up in the house, being kept for Thamyris . . .” (Life 20.7–8). She also considers how God has placed her in the arena, “exercising her faith (καταγυμνάζων τὴν πίστιν),” and she gives thanks to Christ for this opportunity “to be deemed worthy (καταξιωθεῖσα) of your sufferings (παθήματων) and stigmata (στιγμάτων)” (20.16–17). The force of her prayer is thus a plea for martyrdom and death, and she explicitly requests the latter at the end, alluding to Paul’s imagery : “if you approve, clothe me now in death, and through the baptism of death, free me from fear and free these from their toil against me” (20.23–25; cf. Romans 6:3–4). Of course, the (apparently unintentional) irony in all this is that Thekla survives, just as she survived in Iconium: thus, she is never actually martyred, even though that weighty term has been applied to her from the beginning.

In the ATh the advance of the beasts continues (35). The women, still mourning for Thekla, throw perfumes down into the arena. The wild beasts are “hypnotized” and leave Thekla alone. Alexander, frustrated in all his attempts on her life, asks the governor for permission to bring out his “terrible bulls” in order to pull Thekla apart. The governor agrees “grudgingly,” in imitation of Pontius Pilate (cf. Matthew 27). Even this attack is foiled, however, because the fire that has been applied to the bulls’ genitals devours the ropes with which Thekla is bound. Meanwhile, Tryphaina, watching these successive trials from the audience, has a fainting spell. This throws the townspeople into an uproar because they think a kinswoman of the emperor has died. Alexander, fearing that he will be held responsible, asks the governor for mercy and that Thekla {55|56} may be freed. Following this request the governor examines Thekla on why she survived so many wild beasts.

The changes to this scene in the Life primarily deal with issues of consistency. For example, the “plethora of beasts (πλῆθος τῶν θηρίων)” to which Alexander subjected Thekla is paralleled with the “plethora of spices and perfumes (πλῆθος ἀρωμάτων καὶ μύρων)” thrown down by the women (21.2–8). Likewise, the ferocity of Alexander’s beasts is contrasted with the modesty of those that God uses (frogs, flies, locusts) to combat human hubris (21.11–17; cf. Exodus 8–10). Intriguingly, Alexander calls Thekla a “demon” (δαίμων) and “possessed by a demon” (κακοδαίμων) during his repentance before the governor, and she is further likened to a “uncouth beast” that is “more shameless than all the other beasts (πάντων τών θηρίων τούτων ἀναιδέστερον)” (21.42–44). “Shameless” (ἀναιδῆ) has already been used as an epithet for Alexander himself (21.2), which conveniently undermines his use of it here against Thekla. Their mutual condemnation demonstrates the author’s occasional interest in dramatic irony.

The author of the Life uses θεοσημεία for other miracles as well: for instance, it is used of Thekla’s self-baptism scene generally (21.1, in the plural). The governor himself employs the term in amazement of Thekla post-baptism (23.25). In the latter passage, he seems to mean something specific that has to do with God’s self-witnessing through nature: “We have all alike {56|57} watched these events, which are many and marvelous, deeds truly worthy of a divine sign (θεοσημείας)” (23.24–26). This passage, read alongside his use of θεοσημεία in the lioness scenes above, suggests that, for this author, the word means the evidence of nature being inexplicably affected, such as beasts miraculously falling asleep in the arena. The term is often paired with words of similar meaning, such as the noun θαῦμα (“wonder” in both senses; e.g. 16.35 and 17.4) and the adjectives θαυμάσιος (“marvelous”; 23.25) and παράδοξος (“extraordinary/miraculous”; 16.26), but θεοσημεία is a programmatic term that proves the divine origin of his topic. He does not use the term in the Miracles, thus confining “divine signs” to martyrdoms that can “witness” to God’s power. Thekla’s miracles are consistently called θαύματα or παράδοξα, and never θεοσημείαι. It is Thekla’s renown that is built on θεοσημεία, not her subsequent healings and miracles. Those, like her contests against the beasts at Antioch, attest to θεοσημεία but are secondary to it. Θεοσημεία in this case has to do with anterior reputation. In the story, Thekla’s triumphs certainly attest to it, but θεοσημεία is primarily the result of the long-term success of Thekla’s legend.

The author of the Life goes on to make an explicit comparison between “the miracles of the saints (τὰ θαύματα τῶν ἁγίων),” which he calls “marks of a pious soul (ψυχῆς εὐσεβούσης ἰνδάλματα),” and “the results of some magic or spell,” which are what “he who has no knowledge of the divinity” considers Thekla’s deeds to be (Life 22.6–11). The author firmly separates these two categories of the supernatural and condemns magic because it relies on non-ethical means to achieve its ends:

In the ATh, Thekla’s success at Tryphaina’s home in Antioch does not satisfy her, and, though we are not given the reasons for this decision, she boldly sets off to find Paul, whom she has heard is at Myra. This sudden exit in the ATh works because the narrative thus far has been so fast-paced; however, the pace of the Life is much slower in general due to its long speeches and expansive description. In line with this practice, its author adds a lengthy descriptive passage on Thekla’s mood in Antioch. Thus, despite all the adulation she had received, her memory of Paul was too strong to keep her there:

Thekla’s address to Paul in Myra begins the final section of the Life. The address is organized around sixteen uses of the phrase “I learnt through you (ἔγνων διὰ σοῦ),” each followed by abstractions relating to Trinitarian theology. For instance:

In responding to Thekla’s long confession of faith, Paul uses some of the same phrases as his pupil, signaling their unity of thought yet again. Most important is his reiteration of “through me (δι’ ἐμου)” in the middle of the passage, in which he is imitating her sixteen uses of “through you (διὰ σοῦ)” above:

Paul frames her commission with the term “apostleship” (ἀποστολήν) and additionally employs “succession” (διαδοχήν) as its synonym or complement, highlighting the linear reception of apostolic preaching (glimpsed above in Tryphaina’s response to Thekla at Antioch; Life 18).

From this point the Life leaves the ATh behind and sets out into new territory by offering a description of that city at which Thekla finally settles. “The city [Seleukeia] is situated at the beginning of the boundaries of the East, a first rank place and above every city of Isauria, situated near to the sea and not far from a river; the river’s name is the Kalykadnos . . .” (27.27–30). This ekphrasis extends to a comparison with Seleukeia’s rival, Tarsus, a city which is invoked multiple times in the Miracles:

This rivalry is expressed in terms that reinforce the revised story he has just told. Paul and Thekla are even more strongly linked, and, moreover, they participate like classical heroes in the founding of cities.

Thekla settles on a hill near Seleukeia “like Elijah on Carmel” or “like John in the desert” and proceeds to wage war against “the daimon Sarpedon” and “the warlike daimon dwelling on the heights, Athena.” These references are to two of the four gods that Thekla conquers in the first four miracles (Mir. 1–4). However, Thekla’s activities in Seleukeia are not at all limited to the conquering of pagan deities. She has already taken on the character of super-natural miracle worker, and there is no further mention of her martyrial triumphs. She is compared in her apostolic mission—“evangelizing the saving word, and catechizing, sealing, and enlisting many for Christ”—to the apostles Peter (“in Antioch”), Paul (“in Athens and all the nations”), and John (“the great theologian in Ephesus”; Life 28.1–5).