The theology of the Acts of Peter. — In general the account given above of the theology of the Acts of Paul will serve also for the Acts of Peter. But in some passages which depend on the Acts of John there is an appearance of a pronounced Modahsm or almost of Docetism. Lipsius and others, who beUeved, with Zahn and James, that the Acts of Peter was ^vTitten by the author of
the Acts of John, used to tliink that these passages pointed to a heretical and Gnostic origin. But Harnack (Altchr. Lit. ii. 660 ff.) and Schmidt (Petrusakten, p. Ill ff.) have argued very forcibly that this is not the case, and that the Acts of Peter represents the popular Christianity of the end of the 2nd cent, rather than any Gnostic sect.
No complete edition of the text exists : the Codex Vercellensis and the Greek text of the Martyrium are critically edited by R. A. Lipsius in Acta Apocrypha, i. [Leipzig, 1891] ; the Coptic npa|ei; IleTpou by C. Schmidt, Die alien Petrusakten {TU xxiv. 1), Leipzig, 1903. Very important is the treatment of Harnack in his Chronologic, 1897, i. 559 ff., and the article of Erbes in ZKG xxii. 1, p. 1 ff. and 2, p. 161 ff. 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 IMS is complete, but, from the comparison of many, the following inci- dents 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 Sm>Tna, 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 adulterj\ John raises the father, and converts both father and son ; he then goes to SmjTua.
(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 yoimg man KaUimachus, 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, Fortun- atus, 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 pubh.shed in 1897 in TS 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 Priscilhanists (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 hfe, hes do^-n 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 earhest writer to use the Acts of John is Clement of Alexandria. In the Adumbrationes to 1 Jn 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 disciouU.'
36
ACTS (APOCR\THAL)
ACTS (APOCRYPHAL)
This is a certain reference to the Acts of John (ed. Bonnet, 195 f.), and these Latin ' adumbration es ' are generally recognized as derived from the Hypotyposes. A similar reference, but less cer- tain, is in Strom, vi. 9. 71 :
aXX' IvX fxev ToC trcoTTJpos rb crUofiia airaiTe'v co? <rwfi<i ra.'S av ayKaia^ VTrrjpecrCa'; ei? Sa<.fjLOvr]v yeKw^ av eit), iifiayev yap ov Sia to <rwMct, SvfdfjL^L <Tvi'e\6^i:i'ov a-yta, aAA' tus ^xr} Tou? o'vi'OfTa^ oAAco? TTtpt auToi) (^poveLV vn-eicreA^ot, wCTrep ajLte'Aet ro'Tepoi' SoKritrci Tii't? auTor 7re<iai'epaja"6aL VTrtAa^o^, avTos 6e a7ra^a7rAu»5 ajra^i)? jji' ets ov ov&iv TrapeiaSi/eTai Kivrnxa naS'qTi.KOv, ktA.
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 : 6 OiXovrl jxoi iv v€6tt]T(, yrj/xat ivLcpavels Kal elp7}Kihs fj.oi^ Xpiffw (rou, "'liad.vvT]. It is noteworthy that neither Clement nor the author of the Prologues seems to have any consciousness that he has used a somxe of doubtful orthodoxy.