rhetoricians around their neck, creating symbolic associations with their voice,
eloquence, and intellect; the“belt”(a more appropriate translation ofsemi-
cintiumthan“apron”), in turn, was in contact with the zone of the abdomen
and the genitals, and had symbolic associations with the domains of procre-
ation and birth (Pliny the Elder,Natural History28.9). In addition to its
widespread symbolism, the latter piece of clothing had a special function in
the local cult of Artemis: the belt of the women was associated with marriage
and giving birth (Strelan, 1996, pp. 48–9). In her cult, Artemis was known as
“untier of the belt”(Lysizōnos), protecting women at childbearing (as eternal
virgin among the gods), and women left their belts in her temple after giving
birth. Thus thefirst readers of Acts were almost certainly aware of the fact that
Paul’s belts represented magical powers, especially associated with Artemis.
Further, the attention paid to Paul’s clothing is in sharp contrast with the
humiliating nudity of the Jewish exorcists.
From a cognitive point of view, the ancient Greco-Roman symbolism of the
handkerchiefs and belts, as well as their use in the healing of various diseases
and exorcisms, reflects a widespread magical principle: the transfer of qualities
through contact. Commentaries on this passage evoked categories such as
“thaumaturgic association” (Johnson, 1992, p. 350) or “mana-concept”
(Pesch, 1995, p. 352). Exegetes rightly point out the parallels with the healing
of the woman with hemorrhage, who merely touched the hem of Jesus’cloak
(Mk 5:25–43). According to Mark 5:30 and Luke 8:46, Jesus noticed that“power
had gone forth of him.”Both episodes can be interpreted in the framework of
Frazer’sconceptof“contagious magic”(Frazer, 1911, pp. 174–214): things that
were once in contact will always remain in contact, also after they have been
physically separated. However, there is an important difference between the case
of Jesus’cloak and Paul’s aprons: in the synoptic narrative, Jesus actually wears
the cloak when it is touched by the woman, the hem of the cloak standing for
Jesus’powerpars pro toto. Paul’s aprons, in contrast, carry his magical power
also after they have been taken from his body. In light of our foregoing
discussion of cross-culturally attested intuitions of contagion, we can grasp
the cognitive processes underlying the narrative in more concrete terms. The
intuition that physical contact changes the properties of objects and they can
later“infect”others with these qualities has been demonstrated in different
domains (see section 6.3), such as pathogens (in the case of cockroaches) and
moral qualities (murderers, Hitler, positive heroes). In a similar fashion, objects
that have been in contact with Paul’s body preserve the qualities that they
received from different parts of his body. Whereas the mechanism of contagion
is cross-culturally postulated, the precise nature of the qualities that are being
transferred in this particular case, in turn, is determined by specific traditions
stemming from rhetorical culture and the cult of Artemis.
As noted above, the role of the Holy Spirit in the episode can be understood in
the framework of the ancient theory of parhedros. Moreover, the handkerchiefs
Magic and Miracle 139