(3) Epiphanius. — In the Panarion Epiphanius mentions the Acts of Thomas, Andrew, and John in connexion with the Encratites {Pan. xlvii. 1), the ApostoUci {ib. Lxi. 1), and other heretics (cf. xxx. 16, bdii. 2). But there is no sign of any con- sciousness that there was a Manichsean 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 Manichseans must have used at least some of the Acts.
(4) Amphilochius of Iconium (c. 374). — At the Second Council of Nicsea (787) a quotation was read from Amphilochius' lost book -n-epl tQv \pevS- eiriypdcpuiv rQv wapa aiperiKoTs, in which he proposed Sei^opiev 5^ rd /3i/3Xta ravra . & Trpocpepovcriviju'ti' ol dirbffra- rai Trjs iKKXrjcrlas, ovx^ tCov a.iro(TT6\(i}v irpd^eis dXXd 5ai)j.bvwv (rvyypdp.paTa. It also appears from the Acts of the CouncU 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.
32
ACTS (APOCRYPHAL)
ACTS (APOCRITHAL)
(5) John of Thcssalonica (c. 6S0). — In the preface to his recension of the reXelcoais Mapias (M. Bonnet, ZWT, ISSO, p. 239 ff.), Jehn explains that the Acts of Peter, Paul, Andrew, and John were hereti- cal productions, but seems to argue that they made use of genuine material, just as had been the case
with the reXetwo-is.
From this evidence, which is given with a full and clear discussion in his Alie Petrusakten (cf. also his Acta Pauli, 112 f.), C. Schmidt draws the following conclusion : (a) The Manichseans had formed a corpus of the five Acts, but were not them- selves the authors of any of them. They used this corpus instead of the canonical Acts, and the Priscilhanists used it in addition to the Canon. (b) In the course of the struggle between the Mani- chseans and the Church the view was adopted that the corpus was the work of a certain heretical Leucius. (c) The name of Leucius originally be- longed to the Acts of John alone, and was errone- ously attributed to the other books, (d) In this way the Acts of Paul, which was originally recog- nized as orthodox if not canonical, came to be regarded as heretical.
On the evidence as we have it no serious objec- tion 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 Manichseans, or was the peculiar possession of the Western branch.
II. The I X dividual Acts.—I. The Acts of Paul. — By far the most important discovery con- cerning the Apocryphal Gospels in recent years was the Coptic text of the Acts of Paul found by C. Schmidt in the Heidelberg Pap>TUS 1, and pub- hshed 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 re- garded as roughly established, with the exception of certain rather serious lacunse, especially at the beginning and in the middle. The contents, as we have them, can be divided most conveniently as follows :
(1) /re Antioch. — Paul is in the house of a Jew named Anchares and his wife Phila, whose son is dead. Paul restores the boy to hfe, 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 pecuhar doctrine of an dvdffTaffis not of the flesh. In Iconium Paul was entertained by Onesiphorus, and preached in his house on dvdcrTa<ris and ijKpd- Teia, with the result that Thekla, the daughter of Theokleia, abandoned her betrothal to Thamyris and vowed herseK to a life of virginity. Theokleia and Tham>Tis 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, where she found Paul. In Antioch her beauty attracted the atten- tion of Alexander, a prominent Antiochian, and her refusal to consent to his wishes led to her con- demnation 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 Tryph^na 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 man's 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 storv.