Later on, Augustine and other writers against the Manichseans make tolerably frequent mention of the Acts ; a full collection of all the quotations is given by Lipsius, Apokr. Apostelgesch. i. 83 ff. Here, of course, there is no longer any doubt as to the heterodoxy of the book, which is condemned together •Rath the other Acts, with the sole excep- tion of the Acts of Paul.
The evidence of Clement is the chief, if not the only, testimony as to the date of the Acts of John. It iproves that it belongs to the 2nd cent., but there is really no evidence to say how much earher than Clement it may be. Twenty years either side of 160 seem to represent the hmits.
The provenance of the Ads 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 Ohves 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 signs of the zodiac. The distinc- tion between Gnosticism and Catholicism was not that one believed in an Ogdoad and the other did not, but in the view wliich 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 Irena^us re- sisted this teaching, he never denied the existence of the seven heavens, as is shown by his 'Apostolic Preaching.'
The best statement of the case aaainst the Gnostic theory is inC. Schmidt, Petrusakt en, 119 ff. The case for a Gnostic origin is best given, though very shortly, by M. R. James in Apocrypha Anecdota, ii. (TS v. 1), Cambridge, 1897, p. xviii ff., and for a definitely Valentinian origin, by Zahn (NKZ x. 211 ff.).
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 mj-stical reHgion, and is altogether finer hterature 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, rehgion.
The Acts of John may be studied best in Lipsius and Bonnet, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, ii. 1 , Leipzig, 1898. This is the only complete text of all the known fragments. See also M. R. James, Apocrypha Anecdota, ii. {TS v. 1) ; Th. Zahn, Acta Joannis, Erlangen, 1880, and E. Hennecke, Nei/fcst. Apok- ryphen, Tubingen, 1904, and Handhuch zu den Nentest. Apokr., do. 190i. Especially important is the section on the Acts of John in C. Schmidt, Die alten, Petrusakten (.TU xxiv. 1), Leipzig, 1903, p. 120 fif.
4. The Acts of Andrew.— No MS 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 Enodius of Uzala (end of the 4th cent.) some valuable fragments, of which traces are also found in Augustine ; from these, and on the gi-ounds of general resemblance to the Acts of John, it appears probable that a fragment in Cod. Vatican. Gr. 808 (lOth-llth cent.), deal- ing with Andrew in prison, belongs to the early Acts ; and from a variety of som-ccs it is also possible to reconstruct with some accui'acy 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 iEgeates — which is perhaps 'an inhabitant of .(Egea' rather than a personal name — because he perverted his wife MaximiUa by Encratitic doctrine against married Hfe. A prominent part is also played by Patrocles the brother of ^geates but a friend of the Apostle. The fragment ends, as it begins, abruptly in the middle of a speech by Andrew.