Acts Of The Apostles (Apocryphal)
Acts Of The Apostles (Apocryphal)
I. Introductory.-The most important of the Apocryphal Acts are the five (Peter, Paul, John, Andrew, Thomas) which sometimes are referred to as the Leucian Acts, because they are supposed to have been composed by a certain Leucius. Before they can be discussed separately, it is therefore necessary to deal with the problem of the Leucian corpus, and inquire whether such a collection existed in early times, what was its nature, and how far the name of Leucian may be applied to it. The direct source of the later tradition that there was a Leucian corpus is no doubt a statement of Photius (Bibliotheca, cod. 114):
, , , , , , , , .
From this it is plain that Photius had seen a corpus of Acts, and interpreted some passage in the text to mean that the five Acts were all written by Leucius Charinus. It is therefore desirable to examine earlier literature for (1) mention of Leucius, (2) mention of the five Acts of Peter, John, Andrew, Thomas, and Paul, either as a corpus or as separate writings.
1. References to Leucius
I. In the East.-Epiphanius (Panar. li. 6), when speaking of the Alogi, mentions as famous heretics Cerinthus and Ebion, Merinthus and Cleobius or Cleobulus, Claudius, Demas, and Hermogenes, and says they were controverted by St. John , . Presumably, therefore, Epiphanius was acquainted with some book in which Leucius appeared as a companion of St. John, but it will he noted that he does not suggest that Leucius was in any way heretical, but rather that he controverted heretics. Apart from this solitary mention there is no trace of Leucius in Greek Christian writings until Photius.
II. In the West.-It is quite different in the West; here there is a series of witnesses to Leucius.
(1) Pacian ( c. [Note: . circa, about.] 390), bishop of Barcelona.-In Eph 3:3 Pacian writes to Semp. Novatianus concerning the Proclan party of the Montanists,* [Note: From pseudo-Tertullian, Refut. omn. Hr. viii. 19, x. 26, it appears that some Montanists were , others (see Th. Zahn, Acta Joannis, p. lxvi, n. 4).] who claimed some connexion with Leucius, which Pacian denied; and the natural interpretation of his words seems to be that he regarded Leucius as an orthodox Christian to whom the Montanists tried to attach their origin; but the passage is obscure:
Et primum hi plurimis utuntur auctoribus; nam puto et Graecus Blastus ipsorum est. Theodotus quoque et Praxeas vestros aliquando docuere: ipsi illi Phryges [i.e. Montanists] nobiliores, qui se animatos mentiuntur a Leucio, se institutos a Proculo gloriantur.
(2) Augustine.-In the contra Felicem, ii. 6, written earlier in the 5th cent., Augustine says:
Habetis etiam hoc in scripturis apocryphis, quas canon quidem catholicus non admittit, vobis autem [i.e. the Manichaeans] tanto graviores sunt, quanto a catholico canone secluduntur in actibus scriptis a Leucio (codd. Leutio) quos tamquam actus apostolorum scribit, habes ita positum: etenim speciosa figmenta et ostentatio simulata et coactio visibilium nec quidem ex propria natura procedunt, sed ex eo homine qui per se ipsum deterior factus est per seductionem.
As is shown later, Augustine was acquainted with the Apocryphal Acts of Peter, Andrew, Thomas, John, and Paul, of which the first four were accepted only by Manichaeans, the last (Paul) probably by Catholics also. There is nothing, however, to show from which he is quoting here, and the passage is not in any of the extant fragments. Thomas is excluded, as we probably have the complete text, and the passage is unlike what we possess of the Acts of Peter or Paul. It is therefore probable, as Schmidt argues (Alte Petrusakten, p. 50), that he is referring to Andrew or John-the two Acts for which the Leucian authorship is otherwise most probable. But the point is not certain, and the possibility remains that he is referring to a Manichaean corpus of Acts, collected by Leucius.
(3) Euodius of Uzala.-In the de Fide contra Manichos, ch. 38 (printed in Augustines works [ed. Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. xlii.]), written by Euodius, the contemporary of Augustine, the Acts of Andrew is attributed to Leucius. The full quotation is given by Schmidt (p. 53), who thinks that it probably, though not certainly, implies that Euodius also regarded Leucius as the author of a corpus of Acts, but argues that this opinion was probably based only on an interpretation of the passage of Augustine quoted above. However this may be, it remains clear that Euodius regarded the Acts of Andrew as Manichaean and the work of Leucius.
(4) Innocent I.-In a rescript of 405 to Exsuperius, bishop of Toulouse, Innocent says:
Cetera autem quae vel sub nomine Matthiae vel sub nomine Iacobi minoris, vel sub nomine Petri et Johannis quae a quodam Leucio scripta sunt [vel sub nomine Andreae quae a Nexocharide et Leonida philosophis], vel sub nomine Thomae et si qua sunt alia (v.l. [Note: .l. varia lectio, variant reading.] talia), non solum repudianda verum etiam noveris damnanda.
The words enclosed in brackets are probably an interpolation (see Zahn, Acta Joannis, 209), and Nexocharides and Leonidas the philosophers are otherwise unknown persons. The text is certainly not quite in order, but Leucius is clearly indicated as the author of the Acts of Peter and of John.
(5) The Decretum Gelasianum (6th cent.).-After rejecting as apocryphal the Acts of Andrew, Thomas, Peter, and Philip, the writer goes on to give a list of Apocryphal Gospels, and then continues: Libri omnes quos fecit Leucius discipulus diaboli, apocryphi. As there follow several Manichaean writings, it is tolerably certain that here, as elsewhere, disciple of the devil means Manichaean, but it is not clear to which books reference is made. There is a slight presumption that the books made by Leucius are not identical with any already mentioned, and this would suggest either the Acts of John, which are not otherwise mentioned, or possibly the Acts of Pilate, which in the Latin version are connected with the name of Leucius Charinus. Schmidt, however, while thinking that the Acts of John are certainly intended, is inclined to believe that the writer may have meant the whole Manichaean collection.
(6) Turribius of Astorga (circa, about 450).-In a correspondence with his fellow-bishops, Idacius and Creponius, Turribius discusses the literature of the Manichaeans and Priscillianists. Among these he mentions Actus illos qui vocantur S. Andreae, vel illos qui appellantur S. Ioannis, quos sacrilego Leucius ore conscripsit, vel illos qui dicuntur S. Thomae et his similia, etc. Here clearly Leucius is regarded as the author of the Acts of John, and presumably not of the others-though, if a certain laxity of syntax be conceded, the Acts of Andrew might be added-certainly not of the Acts of Thomas.
(7) Mellitus.-The writer of a late Catholic version of the Acts, who took to himself the name of Mellitus, probably intending to identify himself with Melito of Sardis (circa, about 160-190), says: Volo sollicitam esse fraternitatem vestram de Leucio quodam qui scripsit apostolorum actus, Ioannis evangelistae et sancti Andreae vel Thomae apostoli, etc.; so that he must have regarded Leucius as the author of these three Acts, but there is no suggestion of the full corpus of five. Schmidt thinks that be probably derived his knowledge from the letter of Turribius and a list of heretical writings, which was once annexed to it, though it has now disappeared; the letter was probably taken up into the works of Leo, with whom Turribius corresponded (see Schmidt, p. 61). It does not appear probable from internal evidence that Mellitus had any first-hand knowledge of the Apocryphal Acts.
(8) Further traces of Leucius, under the corrupt form of Seleucus, can perhaps be traced in pseudo-Hieronymus, Ep. ad Chromatium et Heliodorum, and in literature dependent upon it (see Schmidt, p. 62); but no importance can be attached to this late and inferior composition.
It would appear from these data that (a) the earliest traditions connected Leucius with St. John, and did not regard him as heretical. (b) A quite late tradition regarded him as the author of the corpus of five Acts-Paul, Peter, John, Andrew, and Thomas-which the Manichaeans used as a substitute for the canonical Acts, and the Priscillianists in addition to the canonical Acts. (c) External evidence suggests that Leucius was probably the author of the Acts of John, and, with less clearness, of Andrew, but not of Peter, Paul, or Thomas; and this conclusion is supported by internal evidence.
2. The evidence for the Acts as a collection
I. In the West
(1) Philastrius of Brescia (383-391).-In his Liber de Hresibus, 88, we have the earliest evidence for a corpus of Apocyrphal Acts. He begins by referring to those who use apocryfa, id est secreta, instead of the canonical OT and NT, and mentions as the chief of those who do this the Manichaei, Gnostici, Nicolaitae, Valentiniani et alii quam plurimi qui apocryfa prophetarum et apostolorum, id est Actus separatos habentes, canonicas legere scripturas contemnunt. Later on he gives more details in a passage where the text is unfortunately clearly corrupt:
Nam Manichaei apocryfa beati Andreae apostoli, id est Actus quos fecit veniens de Ponto in Greciam [quos] conscripserunt tunc discipuli sequentes beatum apostolum, unde et habent Manichaei et alii tales Andreae beati et Joannis actus evangelistae beati et Petri similiter beatissimi apostoli et Pauli pariter beati apostoli: in quibus quia signa fecerunt magna et prodigia, etc.
Whatever may be the true text of this passage, it clearly implies (a) that the Manichaeans used a corpus of Apocryphal Acts in place of the canonical Acts of the Apostles; (b) that this corpus contained the Acts of Andrew, John, Peter, and Paul; (c) the Acts of Thomas is not mentioned (Schmidt [p. 44] thinks that this is merely accidental); (d) Leucius is not mentioned.
(2) Augustine.-In the controversial writings of Augustine against the Manichaeans there are many allusions to the Apocryphal Acts. Reference may especially be made to (a) the de Sermone Domini in Monte (i. 20, 65), in which allusions can be traced to the Acts of Thomas; (b) the contra Adimantum, 17, where allusions to the Acts of Thomas and Acts of Peter can be identified; (c) the contra Faustum Manicheum (lib. 14 and 30); (d) the contra Felicem; and (e) the de Civitate Dei. Schmidt (44ff.) has shown, from the consideration of these passages, that the Manichaeans used the five Acts of John, Andrew, Peter, Thomas, and Paul, while the Catholics rejected the first four, but accepted the Acts of Paul. The crucial passage for this conclusion is c. Faustum, xxx. 4, in which Faustus the Manichee says:
Mitto enim ceteros eiusdem domini nostri apostolos, Petrum et Andream, Thomam et illum inexpertum veneris inter ceteros beatum Johannem sed hos quidem, ut dixi, praetereo, quia eos vos [i.e. the Catholics] exclusistis ex canone, facileque mente sacrilega vestra daemoniorum his potestis importare doctrinas. Num igitur et de Christo eadem dicere poteritis aut de apostolo Paulo, quem similiter ubique constat et verbo semper praetulisse nuptis innuptas et id opere quoque ostendisse erga sanctissimam Theclam? quodsi haec daemoniorum doctrina non fuit, quam et Theclae Paulus et ceteri ceteris adnuntiaverunt apostoli, cui credi iam poterit hoc ab ipso memoratum, tamquam sit daemoniorum voluntas et doctrina etiam persuasio sanctimonii?
As Schmidt says, it is clear that Faustus gave up the use of the Acts of Andrew, John, Peter, and Thomas, because his opponents refused to recognize their authority, but relied on a Pauline document relating to Thekla. Before the discovery of the Acts of Paul it was possible to think that this might be the so-called Acts of Paul and Thekla. It is now, however, fairly certain that this latter document in its present form is merely an extract from the older Acts of Paul; there is no reason, therefore, to doubt that Augustine and Faustus both recognized the Acts of Paul, which had not yet been entirely deposed from the Canon.
(3) Innocent I. and Exsuperius.-A correspondence (in a.d. 405) between Innocent I. and Exsuperius, bishop of Toulouse (see the quotation above), shows that the Apocryphal Acts were used in Spain not only by Manichaeans but also by Priscillianists. It is not quite clear to which Acts Innocent refers. Besides mentioning the Acts of Peter and John (of which certainly the latter and probably the former also are ascribed to Leucius), he refers to Acts of Matthias and of James the less, which do not elsewhere appear in the Manichaean corpus, as well as to those of Andrew, which in some texts (see Zahn, Gesch. des NT Kanons, Leipzig, 1888-92, ii. 244ff.) are ascribed to Nexocharide (v.l. [Note: .l. varia lectio, variant reading.] Xenocharide) and Leonidas; Fabricius (Codex Apocryphus, ii. 767) thinks that these names are a corruption of Charinus and Leucius.
(4) Leo the Great and Turribius (440-461).-Forty years after the time of Innocent, the correspondence between Leo and Turribius, bishop of Astorga in Spain, throws more light on the use of the Apocryphal Acts by the Priscillianists. Leo complains that the Priscillianists scripturas veras adulterant and falsas inducunt. Turribius found that the Priscillianists and Manichaeans were making great progress in Spain, and for this reason had elicited a letter of condemnation from Leo. He also expressed himself further in his letters to Idacius and Creponius, and apparently annexed a selection of heretical passages from the Apocryphal Acts to justify his disapproval. This selection is, however, unfortunately no longer extant, but it is plain that he was acquainted with the Acts of Thomas, Andrew, and John (for text see above, 1. (6)). He also refers to a Memoria Apostolorum,
in quo ad magnam perversitatissuae auctoritatem doctrinam domini mentiuntur, qui totam destruit legem veteris Testamenti et omnia quae S. Moysi de diversis creaturae factorisque divinitus revelata sunt, praeter reliquas eiusdem libri blasphemias quas referre pertaesum est.
This Memoria Apostolorum is also mentioned by Orosius (Consultatio ad Augustinum, in Patr. Lat. xlii. 667), and Schmidt (p. 50) thinks that it is the source of a quotation from a Manichaean writing which Augustine could not trace:
Sed Apostolis dominus noster interrogantibus de Judaeorum prophetis quid sentiri deberet, qui de adventu eius aliquid cecinisse in praeteritum putabantur, commotus talia eos etiam nunc sentire respondit Demisistis vivum qui ante vos est et de mortuis fabulamini.
II. In the East
(1) Eusebius.-In HE [Note: E Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.).] iii. 25. 6 the Acts of John and Andrew are mentioned together with those of the other apostles, and are regarded as books used by heretics. In iii. 3. 2 the Acts of Peter are mentioned, and in iii. 3. 5 and iii. 25. 4 the Acts of Paul. The Acts of Thomas are not quoted, nor is any reference made to Leucius.
(2) Ephraim Syrus (circa, about 360).-In his commentary Ephraim says that the apocryphal correspondence between Paul and the Corinthians was written by the followers of Bardesanes, in order that under cover of the signs and wonders of the Apostle, which they described, they might ascribe to the name of the Apostle their own godlessness, against which the Apostle had striven. This apocryphal correspondence was contained in the Acts of Paul, but it also circulated in some Syriac and Armenian NT Manuscripts ; no doubt it was an excerpt from the Acts, but it is not clear whether Ephraim knew the Acts or the excerpt. It is, however, much more probable that Ephraim is here referring to the Acts, as the correspondence alone does not seem ever to have been regarded by the Syriac Church as heretical.
(3) Epiphanius.-In the Panarion Epiphanius mentions the Acts of Thomas, Andrew, and John in connexion with the Encratites (Pan. xlvii. 1), the Apostolici (ib. lxi. 1), and other heretics (cf. xxx. 16, lxiii. 2). But there is no sign of any consciousness that there was a Manichaean corpus, or that there was any connexion with Leucius. At the same time a note in Photius (Bibl. cod. 179) states that Agapius used the Acts of Andrew, so that the Eastern Manichaeans must have used at least some of the Acts.
(4) Amphilochius of Iconium (circa, about 374).-At the Second Council of Nicaea (787) a quotation was read from Amphilochius lost book , in which he proposed , , . It also appears from the Acts of the Council that the Acts of John was quoted and condemned. It was resolved that no more copies were to be made and those already existing were to be burnt.
(5) John of Thessalonica (circa, about 680).-In the preface to his recension of the (M. Bonnet, Zeitschrift fr wissenschaftliche Theologie , 1880, p. 239ff.), John explains that the Acts of Peter, Paul, Andrew, and John were heretical productions, but seems to argue that they made use of genuine material, just as had been the case with the .
From this evidence, which is given with a full and clear discussion in his Alte Petrusakten (cf. also his Acta Pauli, 112f.), C. Schmidt draws the following conclusion: (a) The Manichaeans had formed a corpus of the five Acts, but were not themselves the authors of any of them. They used this corpus instead of the canonical Acts, and the Priscillianists used it in addition to the Canon. (b) In the course of the struggle between the Manichaeans and the Church the view was adopted that the corpus was the work of a certain heretical Leucius. (c) The name of Leucius originally belonged to the Acts of John alone, and was erroneously attributed to the other books. (d) In this way the Acts of Paul, which was originally recognized as orthodox if not canonical, came to be regarded as heretical.
On the evidence as we have it no serious objection can be made to these propositions; it might, however, be a matter for investigation whether the corpus of the Manichaeans was also used by the Eastern Manichaeans, or was the peculiar possession of the Western branch.
II. The individual acts
1. The Acts of Paul.-By far the most important discovery concerning the Apocryphal Gospels in recent years was the Coptic text of the Acts of Paul found by C. Schmidt in the Heidelberg Papyrus 1, and published by him in his Acta Pauli, Leipzig, 1903 (and in a cheaper form without the facsimile of the text, in 1905). This is not indeed complete, and there are still minor problems connected with the order of the incidents, but the main facts are now plain; and the general contents of the Acts may be regarded as roughly established, with the exception of certain rather serious lacunae, especially at the beginning and in the middle. The contents, as we have them, can be divided most conveniently as follows:
(1) In Antioch.-Paul is in the house of a Jew named Anchares and his wife Phila, whose son is dead. Paul restores the boy to life, and makes many converts; but he is suspected of magic, and a riot ensues in which he is ill-treated and stoned. He then goes to Iconium.
(2) In Iconium (the Thekla-story).-Here the well-known story of Thekla is placed, and on the way to Iconium we are introduced to Demas and Hermogenes, who are represented as Gnostics with a peculiar doctrine of an not of the flesh. In Iconium Paul was entertained by Onesiphorus, and preached in his house on and , with the result that Thekla, the daughter of Theokleia, abandoned her betrothal to Thamyris and vowed herself to a life of virginity. Theokleia and Thamyris therefore raised persecution against Paul and Thekla. Paul was scourged and banished from the town; Thekla was condemned to be burnt. From the flames she was miraculously preserved, and went to Antioch, whore she found Paul. In Antioch her beauty attracted the attention of Alexander, a prominent Antiochian, and her refusal to consent to his wishes led to her condemnation to the wild beasts. A lioness protected her, but ultimately, after a series of miraculous rescues, she was forced to jump into a pond full of seals and committed herself to the water with the baptismal formula. Ultimately the protection of Queen Tryphaena and the sympathy of the women of Antioch secured her pardon. She returned to the house of Tryphaena and converted her and her servants, and then followed Paul in mans clothing to Myrrha. Then she returned to Iconium, and finally died in Seleucia. The text of this whole story is very defective in Coptic, but it is preserved separately in Greek, and enough remains in the Coptic to show that the Greek has kept fairly well to the original story.
(3) In Myrrha.-Thekla left Paul in Myrrha. Here he healed of the dropsy a man named Hermokrates, who was baptized. But Hermippus the elder son of Hermokrates was opposed to Paul, and the younger son, Dion, died. The text is here full of lacunae, but apparently Paul raised up Dion, and punished Hermippus with blindness, but afterwards healed and converted him. He then went on to Sidon.
(4) In Sidon.-On the road to Sidon there is an incident connected with a heathen altar, and the power of Christians over the demons or heathen gods, but there is unfortunately a large lacuna in the text. In Sidon there is an incident which apparently is concerned with unnatural vice, and Paul and other Christians were shut up in the temple of Apollo. At the prayer of Paul the temple was destroyed, but Paul was taken into the amphitheatre. The text is defective, and the manner of his rescue is not clear, but apparently he made a speech and gained many converts, and then went to Tyre.
(5) In Tyre.-Only the beginning of the story is extant, but apparently the central feature is the exorcism of demons and the curing of a dumb child. After this there is a great lacuna, in which Schmidt places various fragments dealing with the question of the Jewish law; and it appears possible that the scene is moved to Jerusalem and that Peter is also present.
(6) Paul in prison in the mines.-In this incident Paul appears as one of those condemned to work in the mines (? in Macedonia), and he restores to life a certain Phrontina. Presumably he ultimately escaped from his imprisonment, but the text is incomplete.
(7) In Philippi.-The most important incident connected with Philippi is a correspondence with the Corinthians, dealing with certain heretical views, of which the main tenets are (a) a denial of the resurrection of the flesh; (b) the human body is not the creation of God; (c) the world is not the creation of God; (d) the government of the universe is not in the hands of God; (e) the crucifixion was not that of Christ, but of a docetic phantasm; (f) Christ was not born of Mary, nor was he of the seed of David.
(8) A farewell scene.-The place in which this scene is laid cannot be discerned from the fragments which remain, but it contains a prophecy of Pauls work in Rome, placed in the mouth of a certain Cleobius.
(9) The martyrdom of Paul.-The last episode gives an account of the martyrdom of Paul, and the text of this is also preserved as a separate document in Greek. According to it, Paul preached without any hindrance, and there is no suggestion that he was a prisoner. On one occasion, while he was preaching, Patroclus, a servant of Nero, fell from a window and was killed. Paul restored him, and he was converted. When Nero heard of this miracle, Patroclus acknowledged that he was the soldier of the . Nero caused him and other Christians to be arrested, condemned Paul to be beheaded, and the other Christians to be burnt. In prison Paul converted the prefect Longinus and the centurion Cestus, and prophesied to them life after death, Longinus and Cestus were told to go to his grave on the next day, when they would be baptized by Titus and Luke. At his execution milk spurted from his neck instead of blood, and afterwards he appeared to Nero, who was so impressed that he ended the persecution. The narrative ends with the baptism of Longinus and Cestus at the grave of Paul.
The testimony of early writers to the Acts of Paul.-Since the discovery of the Coptic Acts, which show that the Acts of Paul and Thekla is an extract from the Acts of Paul, there is no justification for doubting that Tertullian refers to the Acts of Paul in de Baptismo, 17:
Quodsi qui Pauli perperam inscripta legunt, exemplum Theclae ad licentiam mulierum docendi tinguendique defendunt, sciant in Asia presbyterum, qui eam scripturam construxit quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans, convictum atque confessum se id amore Pauli fecisse loco decessisse.
This statement is extremely valuable, because it gives us clear evidence as to the provenance of the Acts, proves that, it is not later than the 2nd cent., and shows that it was composed in the great Church, not in any heretical or Gnostic sect.
Origen quotes the Acts in de Principiis, i. 2, 3, and in in Johannem, 20:12. In both cases he gives the Acts of Paul definitely as the source of his quotation, but neither passage is found in the extant tests. He apparently regards the Acts as only slightly inferior to the Canonical Scriptures.
Eusebius in HE [Note: E Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.).] iii. 25 ranks the Acts of Paul, with the Shepherd of Hermas, Ep. of Barnabas, the Apoc. of Peter, the Didache, and possibly the Johannine Apocalypse, as among the . But he does not appear to place it with the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles (perhaps the Acts of Peter and Thomas) which are . Hence he probably did not regard the Acts of Paul as heretical.
In the Claromontane list of books of the OT and NT the Acts of Paul comes at the end in the company of Barnabae epistula, Johannis revelatio, Actus Apostolorum, Pastor, Actus Pauli, Revelatio Petri, which suggests somewhat the same judgment as that of Eusebius.
From the Commentary of Hippolytus on Dan 3:29 it seems clear that he regarded the Acts of Paul as definitely historical and trustworthy. Combating those who doubted the truth of the story of Daniel in the lions den, he says:
, ;
This incident is not extant in the Coptic texts, but a full account, stated to be taken from the , is given by Nicephorus Callistus (cf. Zahn, Gesch. d. NT Kanons, ii. 2. p. 880ff.), and there is therefore no doubt but that Hippolytus regarded the Acts of Paul as little less than canonical.
Finally, the passage quoted above from Angustine, c. Faust. xxx., makes it clear that in the Church of Africa, as late as the time of Augustine, the Acts of Paul was accepted as authoritative and orthodox, even if not canonical.
The date of the Acts of Paul.-The testimony of early writers furnishes a safe terminus ad quem. The Acts must be earlier than Tertullians de Baptismo. The precise date of this tractate is uncertain, but at the latest it is only a few years later than a.d. 200, so that the Acts must at all events belong to the 2nd century. The question is whether it is a great deal or a very little earlier. Schmidt is influenced by the frequent use of the canonical Acts and the Pastoral Epistles to choose a date not much earlier than 180; on the other hand, Harnack thinks that the complete silence as to the Montanist movement, or anything which could be construed as anti-Montanist polemics, points to a date earlier than 170. Between these two positions a choice is difficult: probably we cannot really say more than that between 160 and 200 is the most likely period for the composition of the Acts of Paul. (See especially C. Schmidt, Acta Pauli, 176ff., where the whole question is thoroughly discussed, and reference made to the literature bearing on the subject.)
The theology of the Acts of Paul.-From the theological point of view the Acts of Paul has exceptional value as giving a presentment of the ordinary Christianity of Asia at the end of the 2nd cent., undisturbed by polemical or other special aims.
So far as the doctrine of God is concerned, the teaching of the Acts is quite simple-it is that there is one God, and his Son, Jesus Christ, which is sometimes condensed into the statement that there is no other God save Jesus Christ alone. It is thus in no sense Arian or Ebionite, but at the same time distinctly not Nicene. It is also definitely not Gnostic, for the Supreme God is also the Creator, and the instigator if not the agent of redemption. The general view which is implied is that the world was created good, and man was given the especial favour of being the son of God. This sonship was broken by the Fall, instigated by the serpent. From that moment history became a struggle between God, who was repairing the evil of the Fall, through His chosen people Israel and through the prophets, and the prince of this world, who resisted His efforts, had proclaimed himself to be God (in this way heathen religion was explained), and had bound all humanity to him by the lusts of the flesh. The result of this process was the existence of and followed by , , , and , and the need of an ultimate judgment of God, which would destroy all that was contaminated. But in His mercy God had sent His Holy Spirit into Mary, in order in this way, by becoming flesh, to destroy the dominion of evil over flesh. This Holy Spirit was (as in Justin Martyr) identical with the spirit which had spoken through the Jewish prophets, so that the Christian faith rested throughout on the Spirit, which had given the prophets to the Jews and later on had been incarnate in the Christ who had given the gospel. It should be noted that there is no attempt to distinguish between the Logos and the Spirit. Father, Son, and Spirit is a formula which seems to mean Father, Spirit or Logos, and the Son or Incarnate Spirit. It is clear that this is the popular theology out of which the Sabellian and Arian controversies can best be explained. For the reconstruction of late 2nd cent. Christology in popular circles the Acts of Paul is of unique value. There is also a marked survival of primitive eschatological interest: the expectation of the coming of Christ, and the establishment of a glorious kingdom in which Christians, will share is almost central. The means whereby Christians ensure this result are asceticism and baptism. The latter is probably the necessary moment, and is habitually called the ; but asceticism is equally necessary, and involves an absolute abstinence from all sexual relations, even in marriage. There is no trace of any institution of repentance for sin after baptism; for this reason, baptism appears usually to be postponed, and in these respects the Acts of Paul agrees more closely with Tertullian than with Hermas. The Eucharist is primarily a meal of the community, and the theology underlying it is not clearly expressed; the most remarkable feature is that here, as in all the other Apocryphal Acts, water takes the place of wine. This feature used to be regarded as Gnostic, but in view of more extended knowledge of the Acts as a whole this opinion is untenable.
Far the best statement of the theology of the Acts is in C. Schmidts Acta Pauli, 183ff. This also gives full references to earlier literature.
2. The Acts of Peter.-The Acts of Peter is no longer extant in a complete form. But, apart from late paraphrastic recensions, which re-edit older material in a form more agreeable to Catholic taste, three documents exist, two of them in a fragmentary form, which probably represent portions of the original Acts. These are (1) a Coptic text of a , (2) the Codex Vercellensis, or Actus Petri cum Simone, and (3) a Greet text of the Martyrium Petri.
(1) The Coptic .-This fragment was found by C. Schmidt at the end of the Gnostic Papyrus P. 8502 in the Egyptian Museum at Berlin (Sitzungsber. d. K. Preuss. Akad. xxxvi. [1896] 839ff.), and published by him in Die alten Petrusakten, Leipzig, 1903. This relates the story of Peters paralyzed daughter. At the beginning of the incident, Peter, who had been twitted with the paralysis or his daughter in spite of his powers of miraculous healing, cured her for a short time, and then restored her paralytic condition. Having thus shown his power, he explained that she had originally been paralyzed in answer to his own prayer, in order to preserve her virginity, which was threatened by a certain Ptolemaeus. By this miracle Ptolemaeus had been converted to Christianity, and dying soon afterwards left land to Peters daughter, which Peter sold, giving the proceeds of it to the poor.
(2) The Codex Vercellensis (Bibliothec. capitul. Vercellensis, cviii. 1).-This manuscript contains either an extract from or a recension of the last part of the Acts. It begins by describing Pauls departure from Rome to Spain, and the arrival of Simon Magus, who makes Aricia his headquarters. Meanwhile, however, Peter, who had finished the twelve years which the Lord had enjoined on him (on this legend see esp. Harnacks Expansion of Christianity, i. [1904] 48 n. [Note: . note.] ), was directed to go to Rome to oppose Simon. Simon, who was first in Rome, perverted Marcellus, a convert of Paul; and, as soon as Peter arrived, a contest was waged for his faith on the question of the respective powers of Simon and Peter to raise the dead. In this contest, which is long drawn out, Peter was successful, and Simon retreated. Later on, the latter made an effort to restore his reputation by flying in the air, but the prayer of Peter caused him to fall and break his thigh. He was carried in Aricia and thence to Terracina, where he died.
The story then relates the events which led up to the martyrdom of Peter. The main reason was the decision of the converted concubines of Agrippa the prefect to refuse any further intercourse with him, and the similar conduct of Xanthippe the wife of Albinus, a friend of Nero, and of many other wives who all left their husbands. Peter was warned of the anger of Agrippa, and at first was persuaded by the Christians to leave Rome. At this point the Codex Vercellensis is defective, but the missing incidents can be restored from the Martyrium Petri, which overlaps the Codex Vercellensis. From this it appears that Peter on his departure from Rome was arrested by a vision of Christ going to Rome and saying, I am going to Rome to be crucified. Peter therefore applied this vision to himself, and went back to Rome, where he was crucified by the orders of the prefect Agrippa. Here the Codex Vercellensis is again extant, and runs parallel with the Martyrium to the end. Peter at his own request was crucified head downwards, in order to fulfil the saying of the Lord, Si non feceritis dextram tamquam sinistram, et sinistram ut dextram, et quae sunt sursum tamquam deorsum, et quae retro sunt tamquam ab ante, non intrabitis in regna coelorum-a saying which is also found in the Gospel of the Egyptians. After Peters death Marcellus took down his body and buried it in his own tomb, after costly embalming. But Peter appeared to him in a vision and rebuked him for not having obeyed the precept Let the dead bury their dead. Finally, the narrative explains that Nero was angry with Agrippa because he wished to have inflicted worse tortures on Peter, but, while he was planning further persecution of the Christians, he was deterred by a vision of an angel, so that Peter was the last martyr of that persecution. The Codex ends with the obviously corrupt line actus Petri apostoli explicuerunt cum pace et Simonis amen. Lipsius (Acta Apocrypha, p. 103) suggests with great probability that et Simonis is a misplaced gloss. In this case the actus P. apostoli explicuerunt. Amen, would be the conclusion of the original Acts of Peter, of which the Codex Vercellensis is an extract, giving the Roman episode and martyrdom.
(3) The Martyrium Petri.-The text of this early extract from the Acts of Peter is preserved in two Manuscripts . (a) Cod. Patmiensis 48 (9th cent.). This was copied by C. Krumbacher in 1885 and published by Lipsius in 1886 in the Jahrbcher fr Protest. Theologie, pp. 86-106.-(b) Cod. Athous Vatoped. 79 (10th-11th cent.). This was copied by Ph. Meyer and published by Lipsius in his Acta Apocrypha. There are also Slavonic and Coptic (Sahidic) versions, the latter preserved directly in three fragments and indirectly in Arabic and Ethiopic translations (see further Lipsius, Act. Apocr. liv f.). Lipsius thinks that the Patmos manuscript is the best. The contents of the Martyrium are the same as the second part of the Codex Vercellensis, beginning with Simons flight in the air, and from the comparison of the Codex with the Greek Martyrium it is possible that the original form of this part of the ancient Acts can be reconstructed with some probability.
The place of origin of the Acts of Peter.-There is no unanimity among critics as to the community in which the Acts of Peter was first produced. There is of course a natural tendency to consider in the first place the possibility that the document is Roman. In favour of this view the most complete statement is that of Erbes (Petrus nicht in Rom, sondern in Jerusalem gestorben, Zeitschrift fr Kirchengeschichte xxii. 1, pp. 1-47 and 2, pp. 161-231). He lays special emphasis on the fact that the writer is acquainted with the entrance to Rome both from the sea and by road, and knows that the paved way from Puteoli to Rome is bad to walk upon and jars the pilgrims who use it. He also emphasizes the correctness of the narrative in placing the contest between Peter and Simon Magus in the Forum Julium, on the ground that, according to Appian (de Bello Civili, ii. 102), this forum was especially reserved for disputes and closed to commerce. He makes other points of a similar nature, but not of so striking a character.
Against this it is urged by Harnack (Altchristl. Litteraturgesch. ii. 559) and Zahn (Gesch. des NT Kanons, ii. 841) that the local references to Rome are really very small, and do not give more knowledge than was easily accessible to any one in the 2nd or 3rd century. For instance, that Aricia and Terracina are towns not far from Rome is a fact which must have been quite generally known.
Other arguments seem to point to Asia rather than Rome for the composition of the Acts. Apart from the OT and NT, the books which clearly were made use of by the redactor of the Acts of Peter are the Acts of Paul and the Acts of John. Now we know with tolerable certainty that the Acts of Paul was written in Asia, and it is usually thought that the Acts of John came from Ephesus or the neighbourhood. It is, therefore, not improbable that the Acts of Peter came from the same district. Other possibilities are Antioch or Jerusalem, but there is loss to be said in favour of these than either Rome or Asia.
The date of the Acts of Peter.-The terminus ad quem is some time earlier than Commodian the African Christian poet, who was clearly acquainted with both the Acts of Paul and the Acts of Peter, probably in a Latin version, and appears to have regarded them as undoubted history (cf. esp. Commodian, Carmen Apologeticum, 623ff.). Commodian is generally supposed to have written circa a.d. 250, so that some years earlier than this (to allow for the spread of the Acts, their translation, and the growth of their prestige) is the earliest possible date. The terminus a quo is more difficult to find. It is generally conceded that the date 165 adopted by Lipsius (Apokr. Apostelgesch., ii. 1, p. 275) is too early, and opinion usually fixes on the decennium either side of the year 200 as the most probable for the writing of the Acts. Harnack thinks that early in the 3rd cent. is the most probable time (Altchr. Lit., ii. 553ff.), but Erbes and C. Schmidt incline rather to the end of the 2nd century. The most important argument is concerned with the compassionate attitude towards the lapsi, which is very marked in the Acts. Harnack thinks that this is not intelligible until 230, while Erbes and Schmidt maintain that in the light of the Shepherd of Hermas a much earlier date is possible. Obviously this Sort of reasoning is somewhat tentative, and it is apparently not possible at present to say more than that 180-230 seems to be the half-century within which the composition ought probably to be placed.
The sources used by the Acts of Peter.-Apart from the OT and NT, both of which the writer uses freely and accepts as equally inspired, the use can clearly be traced of the following books. (a) The Acts of Paul. Apart from various smaller points of contact, the whole account of the martyrdom of Peter is clearly based on the martyrdom of Paul. The whole subject is worked out in full detail by C. Schmidt in his Petrusakten (p. 82ff.); but it should be added that there is perhaps still room for doubt whether that portion of the Codex Vercellensis which deals with Paul really belongs to the Acts of Peter, and is not an addition made by the redactor who formed the excerpt, rather than by the author of the Acts itself. The fullest statement of this possibility is given by Harnack (Texte and Untersuchungen xx. 2 [1900], p. 103ff.), and a discussion tending to negative his conclusions is to be found in Schmidts Petrusakten, 82f.-(b) The Acts of John. The frequent verbal dependence of the Acts of Peter on the Acts of John is demonstrated by the long list of parallel passages given by M. R. James in Apocrypha Anecdota, ii. p. xxiv ff. James, however, thought at that time that this list proved the identity of authorship of the two books; but Schmidt has shown conclusively that the facts must be explained as due to dependence rather than to identity of authorship. His most telling argument is the large use of the OT and NT made by the Acts of Peter as contrasted with their very limited use in the Acts of John.-(c) Schmidt also argues that the Acts used the . Probably he is right, but our knowledge of the is too small to enable the question to be satisfactorily settled.
The theology of the Acts of Peter.-In general the account given above of the theology of the Acts of Paul will servo also for the Acts of Peter. But in some passages which depend on the Acts of John there is an Appearance of a pronounced Modalism or almost of Docetism. Lipsius and others, who believed, with Zahn and James, that the Acts of Peter was written by the author of the Acts of John, used to think that these passages pointed to a heretical and Gnostic origin. But Harnack (Altchr. Lit. ii. 560ff.) and Schmidt (Petrusakten, p. 111ff.) have argued very forcibly that this is not the case, and that the Acts of Peter represents the popular Christianity of the cod of the 2nd cent. rather than any Gnostic sect.
No complete edition of the text exists: the Codex Vercellansis and the Greek text of the Martyrium are critically edited by R. A. Lipsius in Acta Apocrypha, i. [Leipzig, 1891]; the Coptic by C. Schmidt, Die alten Petrusakten (Texte and Untersuchungen xxiv. 1), Leipzig, 1903. Very important is the treatment of Harnack in his Chronologie, 1897, i. 559ff., and the article of Erbes in Zeitschrift fr Kirchengeschichte xxii. 1, p. 1ff. and 2, p. 161ff. under the title Petrus nicht in Rom, sondern in Jerusalem gestorben.
3. The Acts of John.-Recent research has added much to our knowledge of the Acts of John; and, though the text is fragmentary and uncertain, it is now possible to reconstruct the greater part of the original. No single manuscript is complete, but, from the comparison of many, the following incidents can be arranged:
(1) In Ephesus.-John comes from Miletus to Ephesus and meets Lykomedes, with whom he lodges. Here Cleopatra, the wife of Lykomedes, dies, and her husband also falls dead from grief, but John raises both to life. Lykomedes obtains a picture of the Apostle, and worships it in his room until John discovers it and shows him his mistake. The next episode at Ephesus is in the theatre, where John makes a long speech and heals many sick. John is then summoned to Smyrna, but determines first to strengthen the Ephesian community. On the feast day of Artemis he goes to the Temple, and after a speech inflicts death on the priest. He then encounters a young man who has killed his father because he had accused him of adultery. John raises the father, and converts both father and son; he then goes to Smyrna.
(2) Second visit to Ephesus.-John returns to Ephesus to the house of Andronicus, who had been converted during his first visit. Drusiana, the wife of Andronicus, dies From the annoyance caused her by a young man Kallimachus, but after her burial John goes to the tomb and sees Christ appear as a young man; he is instructed to raise up Drusiana and also a young man, Fortunatus, who has been buried in the same place. Fortunatus is, however, not converted, and soon, dies again.
(3) The most important fragment of the Acts is that which seems to follow upon the episode of Drusiana, as she remains one of the chief persons. This was discovered in 1886 by M. R. James in Cod. Vind. 63 (written in 1324) and published in 1897 in Texts and Studies v. 1. It gives a long and extremely Docetic account of the Passion of Christ, and of a revelation which the true Christ made to the disciples while the phantasmal Christ was being crucified, and includes a hymn which was used, among others, by the Priscillianists (Augustine, Ep. 237 [253]).
(4) The death of John.-During the Sunday worship John makes a speech, and partakes with the brethren of the Eucharist. He then orders his grave to be dug, and after prayer, and emphasis on his virgin life, lies down in the grave and either dies or passes into a permanent trance.
The testimony of early writers, and the date of the Acts of John.-The earliest writer to use the Acts of John is Clement of Alexandria. In the Adumbrationes to 1Jn 1:1 (ed. Potter, p. 1009) he says:
Fatur ergo in traditionibus quoniam Johannes ipsum corpus quod erat extrinsecus tangens manum suam in profunda misisse et ei duritiam carnis nullo modo reluctatam esse sed locum manui tribuisse discipuli.
This is a certain reference to the Acts of John (ed. Bonnet, 195f.), and these Latin adumbrationes are generally recognized as derived from the Hypotyposes. A similar reference, but less certain, is in Strom. vi. 9. 71:
, , , , , , .
Perhaps later than Clement, but probably early in the 3rd cent., is the writer of the Monarchian Prologues, in which the statement as to John, qui virgo electus a Deo est quem de nuptiis volentem nubere vocavit Deus, clearly refers to the Acts of John (ed. Bonnet), p. 212: , , . It is noteworthy that neither Clement nor the author of the Prologues seems to have any consciousness that he has used a source of doubtful orthodoxy.
Later on, Augustine and other writers against the Manichaeans make tolerably frequent mention of the Acts; a full collection of all the quotations is given by Lipsius, Apokr. Apostelgesch. i. 83ff. Here, of course, there is no longer any doubt as to the heterodoxy of the book, which is condemned together with the other Acts, with the sole exception of the Acts of Paul.
The evidence of Cement is the chief, if not the only, testimony as to the date of the Acts of John. It proves that it belongs to the 2nd cent., but there is really no evidence to say how much earlier than Clement it may be. Twenty years either side of 160 seem to represent the limits.
The provenance of the Acts of John.-This remains quite uncertain. The only evidence is that the centre of the Acts is Ephesus, and this points to Asia as the place of origin. Nor is there any serious argument against this view, for there is certainly no connexion between the destruction of the temple of Artemis by the Goths in 282 and the attack on this temple attributed to John and his friends in the Acts. Probably, therefore, Ephesus, or more generally Asia, may be taken as the place of composition, but not much should be built on this view.
The theology and character of the Acts.-The theology of the Acts appears to be markedly Docetic and Gnostic. It represents Jesus as possessing a body which varied from day to day in appearance, and was capable even of appearing to two observers at the same time in quite different forms. His feet left no mark on the ground. This certainly seems Docetic, but it is curious that Clement of Alexandria quotes part of this passage as historical without any hesitation in accepting it, and Clement was not a Docete. The fact that at the moment of the Crucifixion Jesus appears to John on the Mount of Olives is also prima facie Docetic, but it is hard to say where mysticism ends and Docetism begins.
The Gnosticism of the document is chiefly supported by the reference in the great hymn to an Ogdoad and a Dodecad, but it is not certain that this is really a reference to a Gnostic system. The Ogdoad is sun, moon, and planets, and the Dodecad is the signal of the zodiac. The distinction between Gnosticism and Catholicism was not that one believed in an Ogdoad and the other did not, but in the view which they took of it. In just the same way the Valentinians and others explained that the Demiurge had made seven heavens above the earth, and while Irenaeus resisted this teaching, he never denied the existence of the seven heavens, as is shown by his Apostolic Preaching.
The best statement of the case against the Gnostic theory is in C. Schmidt, Petrusakten, 119ff. The case for a Gnostic origin is best given, though very shortly, by M. R. James in Apocrypha Anecdota, ii. (Texts and Studies v. 1), Cambridge, 1897, p. xviii ff., and for a definitely Valentinian origin, by Zahn (NKZ [Note: KZ Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift.] x. 211ff.).
Apart from the suspicion of Docetism and Gnosticism, the theology of the Acts is not unlike that of the Acts of Paul. Especially noticeable is the ascetic objection to marriage; in this respect the Acts of John is quite as stern as the Acts of Paul or of Thomas. But in other respects the Acts of John seems to come from a far higher mystical religion, and is altogether finer literature than the Acts of Paul. Some of the mystical passages reach a magnificent level, and may be ranked with the best products of 2nd cent. religion.
The Acts of John may be studied best in Lipsius and Bonnet, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, ii. 1, Leipzig, 1898. This is the only complete test of all the known fragments. See also M. R. James, Apocrypha Anecdota, ii. (Texts and Studies v. 1); Th. Zahn, Acta Joannis, Erlangen, 1880, and E. Hennecke, Neutest. Apokryphen, Tbingen, 1904, and Handbuch zu den Neutest. Apokr., do. 1904. Especially important is the section on the Acts of John in C. Schmidt, Die alten Petrusakten (Texte and Untersuchungen xxiv. 1), Leipzig, 1903, p. 120ff.
4. The Acts of Andrew.-No manuscript is extant which gives even as good a representation of the original Acts as is found in the other early Acts. We possess in quotations of Euodius of Uzala (end of the 4th cent.) some valuable fragments, of which traces are also found in Augustine; from these, and on the grounds of general resemblance to the Acts of John, it appears probable that a fragment in Cod. Vatican. Gr. 808 (10th-11th cent.), dealing with Andrew in prison, belongs to the early Acts; and from a variety of sources it is also possible to reconstruct with some accuracy the story of the martyrdom of Andrew.
The text of the fragment in Cod. Vat. 808 begins in the middle of a speech of Andrew, who is in prison in Patras. The general situation is that the Apostle is being prosecuted by a certain aegeates-which is perhaps an inhabitant of aegea rather than a personal name-because he perverted his wife Maximilla by Encratitic doctrine against married life. A prominent part is also played by Patrocles the brother of aegeates but a friend of the Apostle. The fragment ends, as it begins, abruptly in the middle of a speech by Andrew.
The death of Andrew was by crucifixion, but the legend ascribing an unusual shape to the cross used seems to be of later origin. For three days and three nights he remained on the cross exhorting the multitude; at the end of this time a crowd of 20,000 men went to the proconsul to demand that Andrew should be released. aegeates was obliged to comply, but Andrew refused, and prayed that having once been joined to the cross he might not be separated from it. He then died, and was buried by Stratolles and Maximila.
The date and provenance of the Acts of Andrew.-These points depend largely on the view taken of the authorship of the Acts. If, as is usually thought, the Acts of Andrew is really Leucian, i.e. written by the same author as the Acts of John, Asia is the most probable place for its origin, and the end of the 2nd cent. the most probable date. If this view be given up, Greece, in which the scene of the Acts is laid, becomes the most probable place, and the date must be decided by internal evidence, for the Acts appears not to be quoted before the time of Origen (Eus. HE [Note: E Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.).] iii. 1). At present the Leucian hypothesis perhaps holds the field (see esp. James, Apocrypha Anecdota, ii. pp. xxix ff.), but it is not at all certain.
The theology of the Acts.-So far as the fragments preserved enable us to discover, the theology of the Acts of Andrew resembles most closely that of the Acts of John, and thus supports the Leucian theory. There is the same emphasis on asceticism even in marriage, and the cross also plays a large part.
The text is given in Lipsius and Bonnet, Acta Apocrypha, ii. 1, and valuable discussions are given in Harnack, Chronol. ii. 175, and by M. R. James in Apocrypha Anecdota, ii. p. xxix ff. Somewhat out of date, but still valuable in some respects, is R. A. Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten, Brunswick, 1883-87, i. 543ff.
5. The Acts of Thomas
(1) Contents.-Judas Thomas is sold by Jesus to the messenger of an Indian prince. At the wedding-feast of the daughter of the king of Andrapolis he is discovered to be an inspired person and forced by the king to pray over the bride and bridegroom. On entering the inner room Jesus is found sitting with the bride. He explains to the bridegroom that He is not Thomas, and converts the couple to a complete abstinence from sexual relations (Act i). Thomas is ordered by his master, King Gundaphorus, to build a palace. Spending the money on alms, he erects a palace in heaven which is shown to the disembodied soul of the kings deceased brother, who is afterwards restored to life and receives the Eucharist with his brother, both being sealed with oil by the Apostle. On this occasion the Lord appears as a youth bearing a lamp. Having preached to the people, Thomas is ordered by the Lord to depart (ii.). Thomas finds a youth killed by a dragon, which forthwith appears, acknowledging Thomas as twin of the Christ, and professes to be the serpent from paradise. The dragon is summoned to suck the venom again out of the body, after doing which it perishes. The youth is restored to life, and says that he saw Thomas as a double person: one exactly like him standing by and telling him to resuscitate the body (iii.). While this happens, the colt of an ass addresses the Apostle as the twin of the Christ, and invites him to ride on its back to the town (iv.). A woman is delivered from a demon that had been doing violence to her for five years. To protect her for the future, she is sealed and partakes of the Eucharist (v.). At this moment a young mans hands are withered in the act of taking the Eucharistic bread. He confesses that he has murdered a woman for repudiating him after her conversion by Thomas. Restored to life, she recounts horrible visions from the lower world. After a general conversion, Thomass final words culminate in an exhortation to abstinence from marriage and in emphasis on the permanence of spiritual possession (vi.). All India being evangelized, a general of king Misdaeus visits Thomas and prays him to deliver his wife and daughter from a cruel pair of demons (vii.). On the road the Apostle asks the general to command some wild asses to draw his carriage. One of these is afterwards ordered by the Apostle to summon the demons from the house. In the courtyard this same ass preaches a sermon to the multitude, and exhort the Apostle to give the bodies of the women back to life, since they had died as the demons were leaving them (viii.). Mygdonia, a relative of the royal family, comes to hear Thomas preaching. The same night her husband Charisius has a dream which contains a foreboding of the consequences of this preaching for the married life. On the next day and night this comes true. His wife flees from his embraces. In the morning Thomas is arrested, and while in prison sings the Hymn of the Soul. At home, however, Charisius finds his fervent supplications again scorned. His wife escapes to receive the seal, and encounters Thomas on her way proceeding as a prince with many lights (ix.). Thomas follows her and returns to prison, having administered the sacraments to her and her foster-mother. That morning Mygdonia preaches a sermon to her husband on Jesus as the heavenly bridegroom, Thomas is now ordered by the king and besought by Charisius to make Mygdonia alter her conduct; but his feeble commands are refuted by her from his own teaching (x.). Tertia the queen pays a visit to Mygdonia and returns convinced (xi.). Thomas is again imprisoned, and converts Vazanes the kings son. An attempted torture being miraculously frustrated, he is conducted back and speaks a long prayer (xii.). Jesus, mostly in the form of Thomas, leads the converts and with them Mnesara, the wife of Vazanes, to the prison. They enter Vazanes house, where they are sealed and baptized by Thomas. After the Eucharistic meal, Thomas returns to the prison (Martyrium). The Apostle, followed by a multitude, is taken to a mountain and there pierced with swords. On the mountain Sifor the general and Vazanes receive orders as presbyter and deacon (xiii.).
(2) Original language.-After Schrter (Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlndischen Gesellschaft , 1871, p. 327ff.), Nldeke (ib. 670-679 and in Lipsius, Apokr. Apostelgesch. ii. 2 [1884] 423-425), and Macke (Th. Quartalschr., 1874, pp. 3-70), Burkitt has settled the question (Journal of Theological Studies i. [1900] 280-290). The existence of a Syriac original is proved by a series of errors in the Greek arising from Syriac idioms or writing.
(3) Text
(a) The Syriac (ed. Wright, Apocr. Acts, Lond. 1871, i. 172-333, text; ii. 146ff., translation) is preserved in Br. Mus. Syr. Add 14645 (a.d. 936). Another manuscript is at Berlin: Sachau 222, a double of this at Cambridge (P. Bedjan, Act. Mart. and Sanct. iii. Paris, 1892, gives variants from the Berlin manuscript .). Fragments from the 6th cent. in a Sinai palimpsest, Syr. Sin. 30, have been published by Burkitt (Stud. Sin., Cambridge, 1900, vol. ix. Appendix 7). Search should be made in the East for Manuscripts of this text and its Oriental and Greek versions. Our present text is not always superior to the Greek version. On the text of the hymns (in Acts 1, 9.), cf. A. A. Bevan, The Hymn of the Soul, Texts and Studies v. 3 [1897]; Hoffmann, Zeitschrift fr die neutest. Wissenschaft , 1903, pp. 273-309; E. Preuchen, Zwei gnost. Hymnen, Giessen, 1904; but see Burkitt, Theol. Tijdschrift , Leyden, 1905, pp. 270-282; Duncan Jones, Journal of Theological Studies vi. [1905] 448-451.
(b) The Greek version (ed. Bonnet, Acta Apost. Apocr., ii. 2, Leipzig, 1903). The 13 Acts + the Martyrium exist as a whole in two Manuscripts . The best text is Cod. U (Rome, Vallicell. B 35, 11th cent.). This is the only Greek manuscript of the Hymn of the Soul (Acts 9. chs. 108-113). On the text of this Hymn in Niectas of Salonica, cf. Bonnet, Preface, p. xxiii. The other complete manuscript is P (Paris. graec. 1510, 12th or 13th cent.). The (19) other Manuscripts give but selections. We must, therefore, review separately the Manuscripts for part (A) =Acts 1, 2, part (B) =Acts 3-12, part (C) =Acts 13 + Martyrium. Besides UP, 15 copies preserve (A), of which CXBHTG have no trace of (B) or (C), while V gives here only the exordium of (A); 9 copies preserve (B), of which VYRD have no selections beyond Acts 8, while SFQZL give hero no more than the prayers of Acts 12, which, against the order of these Manuscripts and P, Bonnet has inserted here, following U + Syr.; 11 copies preserve (C), of which KOM omit (A) and (B) altogether, while Q gives here only the exordium of Acts 13. Identical selections: FRCX (pp. 99-146:20 Bonnet), BH (99-145:24), SFZL (251:10-258:20, see Pref. p. xxii), SFZ (275:10-288). The genealogy is still obscure. In part (A) Bonnet distinguishes two types of text: and . The text = GHZ and B (1st half). The test = A (Paris. graec. 881, 10th cent.) + fam. (= the rest of the Manuscripts , U and P included). Both types have several unimportant variations in common, which must derive from a not very distant ancestor. But, as they more often differ on serious points, the tradition of the Greek text appears to be not very reliable. In part (C) again two types occur, viz. A + fam. (= KORUV) and P + fam. (= FLSZ). All these Manuscripts belonged to the text in part (A), Z only excepted (Petersb. imp. 94, 12th cent.); cf. identical selections above. In part (B) the Manuscripts are grouped on their textual merits and in a descending order: UVYR, P, D. On the Manuscripts neglected by Bonnet cf. Pref. p. xxiv ff. A Brussels manuscript (ii. 2047) might be of some interest. Several Manuscripts are still hidden in Smyrna, Jerusalem, Athos (the catalogues of the most important libraries. Lavra and Vatopedi, are still unpublished). Bonnets text might be improved. Only from pp. 197-250 could due influence be allowed to the Syriac and its ally, Cod. U, Burkitt having than convinced the editor that the Greek was but the version of a Syriac original (Pref. p. xxi).
(c) The Armenian version should be better known. A manuscript exists at Paris (Bibl. nat. fonds arm. 46 III), which Vetter is expected to publish in the Or. Christ. The Hymn of the Soul is not in it. Preuschen (Hennecke, Neutest. Apokr. ii. 563) was impressed by its variations, not by the quality of its text. In Conybeares Opinion the Arm. version derive from the Syriac (op. cit. i. 475).
(d) Of Other versions, the Ethiopic is wholly, the Latin not entirely, useless (cf. Fabricius, Cod. apocr. NT2, Hamburg, 1903, ii. 687f.; Bonnet, Acta Thom, 1883, p. 96ff.).
(4) Provenance and date.-For the history of opinion, cf. Harnack, Altchr. Lit., ii. 1 (1897), 545-549 with ii. 2 (1904), 175-176. Early Gnostics and Eastern Christianity have appeared to differ less in vocabulary than in other regards. Moreover, several coincidences with Gnostic phraseology have been intensified in the Greek, or are even due to wrong translation. The intellectual pursuits of the Gnostic mind are absent, while the rigoristic ethics have close parallels in early Syriac Christianity. All this exactly suits Bardesanes (a.d. 154-222) and his school (see Burkitt, Early Eastern Christianity, London, 1904, pp. 170 n. [Note: . note.] , 199, 205ff., and Nau, Dict. Thol. Cath., Paris, 1907, ii. 391-401, articles Bardsane and Bardsanites; also Krger, Gttingische Gelehrtc Anzeigen , 1905, p. 718, and Nldeke, ib. p. 82). The language (with the proper names) points to Syria, the figure of Thomas to Edessa, the character and style (Acts ix f., the Hymn of the Soul in this Act) to the literary capacities of Bardesanes environment. R. Reitzenstein (Hellenist. Wundererzhlungen, Leipzig, 1906, p. 104ff.) raises the question whether the material of the story was created in Edessa or imported. He points out that miracle-stories (aretalogies) were a literary genre, spread by several petites religions from Egypt on the waves of universal syncretism. The pagan theology of Hermetic monotheism has left its traces among the mediaeval Sabians of Carrhae (near Edessa). It seems, however, that he is over-stating the importance of the existing analogies.
The date of the Acts is fixed by Lipsius (Literarisches Centralblatt. , 1888, no. 44, p. 1508, Apokr. Apostelgesch., ii. 2, p. 418 note [on i. p. 225f.]) as the time of the translation of the relics of Thomas to Edessa (a.d. 232). It is impossible to clench this argument, but it is certain that one of the component parts of Acts 9, the Hymn of the Soul, was composed before the rise of the Sasanid power in a.d. 226, since Parthian kings are mentioned in l. 38 (ed. Bevan, Texts and Studies v. 3). Therefore we must not go much beyond that time, and may reserve the middle quarters of the 3rd cent. as the latest probable date for the whole.
(5) Integrity.-Suspicions are raised by the fact that most Manuscripts of the Greek version give but selections. If this should occur also in the Oriental tradition, our collection of 13 Acts might seem the result of a process of agglomeration. Nldeke (Gttingische Gelehrtc Anzeigen , 1905, p. 82) suspects interpolations and detects a nucleus in Acts 1, 2. (except the Andrapolis episode). He supposes a rather intricate genesis for our collection. Following this line of literary criticism, the vigorous style of Acts 9-12 causes them to stand out as another unit. Acts 3-8 and the remaining parts might come in as later accretions. It seems, however, unsafe to indulge much in literary criticism before a more adequate knowledge of the original test is available. Reitzenstein has emphasized (op. cit.) the probability of literary sources. One author may have composed the whole by adapting pagan stories to Thomass name. In this case the different shades of style may be due to close adherence to or free expansion of such sources. Future criticism may even see its way to combine this point of view with the first. Possible sources certainly deserve serious consideration (cf. Gutschmid, Kleine Schriften, ii. [Leipzig, 1890] 332ff., advocating Buddhism; Preuschen in Hennecke, i. 477, Parsiism; Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrift fr wissenschaftliche Theologie , 1904, p. 240, Persian influences).
(6) Hymns.-The Bridal Ode (ch. 7, 1st Act) is in our Syriac a mystic song of the Church. It is not safe to abandon this ancient exegesis, since its Gnostic astrology and scenery do not differ in degree from the rest of the Acts. It does not even go much beyond the Apocalypse or the Patristic comments on the Song of Songs. Excision from its context is impossible without leaving scars. The Hymn of the Soul (Greek, Psalm) in chs. 108-113 (and also a long doxology after ch. 113; only Syriac and for the largest part omitted by Sachau 222; cf. Hennecke, i. 592-594) is omitted in most Manuscripts . It is a document of the religious life, not of the metaphysics of Gnosticism (Bevan, p. 7). An orthodox bishop of Salonica, Nicetas, explained it in the 11th cent. without any suspicion (cf. above (3) and Burkitt, Early East. Christianity, p. 227). This proves that its character is not obtrusively Gnostic. Preuschen (op. cit., but cf. recensions in Theol. Tijdschrift and Journal of Theological Studies , quoted under (3)) defines the character of both hymns as Ophite or Sethian. Apart from this should be considered his exegesis of the psalm of chs. 108-113 as a Hymn of the Christ. Reitzenstein supports his views (for the Bridal Ode with less decision; op. cit. 142). He explains its curious implications-Christ cheated by demons, defiled by communion with them, serving the Lord of this world, plunged in a sleepy forgetfulness of His heavenly origin and supreme task-by assuming a fast rtselhaft strong influence of pagan literature (op. cit. 122). On the sleepy forgetfulness cf. Conybeare, Journal of Theological Studies vi. 609-610. Identification of the soul and Christ is present in the Odes of Solomon. Hilgenfeld (Zeitschrift fr wissenschaftliche Theologie , 1904, pp. 229-241) advocates a Greek original (the Son of the King and the Pearl) sprung from a pagan Gnostic movement in the new Sasanid empire.
All critics with this last exception, but Preuschen included (cf., however, his article in Hennecke, i. 479), agree in ascribing the Hymn of the Soul to Bardesanes or to his school. Bevan (op. cit. p. 5f.) has shown that it contains just those heresies for which Bardesanes, according to Ephraim, was excluded by the Edessene Church. With regard to its inclusion in the Acts, Burkitt remarks (Early Eastern Christianity, p. 212 note):
I cannot help expressing a private opinion that the Hymn was inserted by the author himself, just as he used the Lords Prayer in a later prayer of Judas Thomas. That the Hymn itself is independent of the Acts is certain, but it is not so clear that the Acts is independent of the Hymn. It may, in fact, have become a part of the recognised teaching of the sect to which the author of the Acts belonged (cf. Ephraims Commentary on 3 Corinthians, p. 119).
(7) Theology of the Acts.-The Acts presupposes the universal acceptance of a theology counting only the supernatural world as real, and individual salvation as the chief end of man. Asceticism, especially abstinence from sexual relations even in marriage, is urged as self-evident. Even before meeting the Apostle, Vazanes had seen this (Acts 13). Mygdonia shows a firmer grasp of the implications of his doctrine than Thomas himself (Acts 10) The supernatural world is not described: the Gnostic cosmogonies and esoteric doctrines are absent. Against this fact coincidences in phraseology seem to carry little weight. Perhaps it is only its reckless Puritanism which separates the Acts of Thomas from the Bnai Qym, Aphraates, and other leaders of early Syriac Christianity (cf. Burkitt, Early East. Christianity, pp. 118-154; Schwen, Afrahat, Berlin, 1907, pp. 96-99, 130-132).
The Church and its dignitaries are practically absent (cf. Acts 5, 6 and the Martyrium). The sacraments are much in evidence as the only means of attaining to the life among the inhabitants of the world of light (chs. 121, 132, 158). Baptism immediately followed by the Eucharist is the rule. It occurs in the story of the woman in Acts 5. (ch. 49), Mygdonia, Acts 10 (ch. 121), Siphor, Acts 10. (ch. 132), Vazanes, Acts 13 (chs. 153-158). In the story of Gundaphorus and Gad, Acts 2 (chs. 25-27), the Greek and Syriac differ; both omit the Eucharist.
(8) Ritual.-(a) Instruction (132); (b) prayer (25, 156); (c) consecration of the oil (157); (d) imposition of hands (49); (e) outpouring of oil on the head (27 Gr. et rell.); (f) unction (27 Gr. 157); (g) prayer over the unction (27 Gr. 121, 157); (h) immersion (27 Syr. 121, 132, 157); (i) chrism (27 Syr.); (j) prayer over the chrism (27 Syr.); (k) prayer for the Eucharist (49, 121, 132, 158); (l) allocution before partaking (49, [121], 132, 158); (margin ) partaking of the bread (49, 121, 132, 158); (n) of the cup (121, 158). A response from heaven occurs in ch. 121, and a Christophany in chs. 27, 153. The fullest* [Note: The sacramental usage in the Acts is not fixed: the 14 points occur in various combinations.] account is that of chs. 153-158. The whole act of unction and immersion is called sealing (121), therefore in chs. 49 and 27 (Gr.) the immersion may have been omitted. Outpouring and unction constitute a double act (157). Unction may have extended to more parts of the body for exorcistic purposes (cf. ch. 5 and Journal of Theological Studies , i. 71; F. E. Brightman, The Sacramentary of Serapion of Thmuis, p. 251; Hennecke, Neutest. Apokr. ii. 565). While the Greek in 27 has a double unction (Journal of Theological Studies i. 251) or, perhaps, unction and chrism, the Syriac has baptism followed by chrism. Elsewhere the Eucharist seems always to occupy the place of the last part of later baptismal ritual, viz. the confirmation and sealing by the chrism. Renunciation in a formal way is absent, renunciation from sexual intercourse is understood (promised, 152). Consecration of the water is not found, though running water is but once used (121). Trinitarian formulae and Logos-terminology are used rather indiscriminately. Gnostic phraseology occurs side by side with it. The baptismal formula is always Trinitarian. Ordinary bread and water appear as Eucharistic elements. The bread seems to be more essential (body and blood in ch. 158).
(9) The most impressive element in the Acts is Thomass character as a twin of the Christ (see above (1)). W. Bauer (Das Leben Jesu im Zeitalter der neutest. Apokr., Tbingen, 1909, p. 445, note 3) takes this as proof that the Acts wishes to reduce the Virgin birth ad absurdum, and quotes ch. 2: I, Jesus, son of Joseph the carpenter. This would be quite a solitary cloud of scepticism in an atmosphere saturated with syncretistic thought. Reitzenstein seems to open a field where Rendel Harris (The Dioscuri in the Christian Legends, London, 1903, and Cult of the Heavenly Twins, Cambr., 1906) had already found a way. That, in fact, Dioscuric attainments are ascribed to Thomas is evident, and just here a parallel between Bardesanian literature and our Acts come in (cf. Burkitt, 170 note and 199). The name Thomas = twin has been the point de dpart, the cult of Aziz (the morning star) a presupposition. Probably it was this Dioscuric god, whose month of free-markets (cf. Harris, Cult of the Heavenly Twins, p. 158) and whose place as a patron of Edessa Thomas was honoured with (cf. Joh 11:16; Joh 20:24; Pauly-Wissowa [Note: Pauly-Wissowas Realencyklopdie.] , i. 2644 [Cumont]; R. Duval, Histoire politique, relig. et litt. d Edesse, Paris, 1892, p. 74ff.). The ways and by-paths of syncretistic monotheism are still obscure to us, but research in this field is certainly destined to cast light on the dark places of the Acts of Thomas.
Besides the works already quoted, see F. Cumont, Die or. Rel. im rm. Heidentum, Leipzig, 1910; P. Wendland, Die hellenistisch-rmische Kultur, Tbingen, 1907; R. Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen, Leipzig, 1910, also Poimandres Stud. z. griech.-gypt. u. frhchristl. Lit., do. 1904; F. J. Dlger, Sphragis, eine altchr. Taufbezeichnung in ihren Beziehungen zur prof. und relig. Kultur des Altertums, Paderborn, 1911; F. Haase, Zur bardesanischen Gnosis, Leipzig, 1910.
6. Later Acts.-Besides the five Apocryphal Acts which have been discussed, there are several others of later date, but they are comparatively unimportant. The most valuable is the Acts of Philip, which is edited by Bonnet in Acts Apocrypha, ii. 2. It describes the adventures of Philip in Phrygia, Asia, Samaria, etc., in the company of his sister Mariamne. It may be as early as the 3rd cent., and belongs either to a mildly Gnostic sect or to the same Modalistic Christianity as the Acts of Peter. It is discussed by Lipsius in Die apok. Apostelgeschichten, Supplement, pp. 65-70, and by Zahn, Forschungen, vi. 18-24. Besides this a series of Acts, growing ever shorter and less valuable, can be found attached to the name of every Apostle or Teacher in NT times in the Acta Sanctorum, arranged under the date assigned in the calendar to the saint in question.
7. Catholic recensions.-In the course of the Manichaean controversy the view was adopted that the miracles in the Leucian Acts were genuine, but that the doctrine connected with them was heretical. This view finds its clearest expression in the Prologue of pseudo-Mellitus:
Volo sollicitam esse fraternitatem vestram de Leucio quodam qui scripsit Apostolorum actus, Ioannis evangelistae et sancti Andreae vel Thomae apostoli qui de virtutibus quidem quae per eos dominus fecit, plurima vera dixit, de doctrine vero multa mentitus est.
The result was a series of Catholic recensions which left out, speaking generally, the speeches, and preserved or even added to all the miracles. Of these Catholic recensions, which are very numerous, the most famous are the Prochorus edition of the Acts of John (the text is best given by Zahn, Acta Joannis, Erlangen, 1880), and the so-called Abdias collection. The disentanglement of various recensions of the separate Acts is very difficult, and not very profitable.
The materials for a more detailed statement of the Catholic recensions can be found in Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur, Leipzig, i. [1893] p. 123ff., and in R. A. Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten, 1883-87.
Kirsopp Lake and J. de Zwaan.* [Note: The section on the Acts of Thomas is from the pen of de Zwaan; the rest of the art. is by Kirsopp Lake.]