30S203
38
ACTS (APOCR\THAL)
ACTS (APOCRITHAL)
(d) Of other versiona, the Ethiopic is wholly, the Latin not entirely, useless (cf. Fabricius, Cod. apncr. NT'-, Hamburg, 1903, ii. 687 f. ; Bonnet, Ada ThomcB, 1883, p. 96 ff.).
(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. Tlie intellectual pursuits of the Gnostic mind are absent, while the rigoristic ethics have close parallels in early Syriac Christi- anity. All this exactly suits Bardesanes (a.d. 154^222) and his school (see Burkitt, Early Eastern Christianity, London, 1904, pp. 170 n., 199, 205 ff., and Nau, Diet. Theol. Cath., Paris, 1907, ii. 391- 401, artt. 'Bardesane' and * Bardesanites ' ; also Kriiger, GGA, 1905, p. 718, and Noldeke, ib.p. 82). The language (with the proper names) points to Syria, the figure of Thomas to Edessa, the char- acter and style ('Acts' ixf., the 'Hymn of the Soul' in thia 'Act') to the literary capacities of Bardesanes' environment. R. Reitzenstein (Hellenist. Wundererzdhlungen, Leipzig, 1906, p. 104 ff .) raises the question whether the material of the story was created in Edessa or imported. He points out that miracle-stories {' aretalogies') were a Mterary genre, spread by several petites religions from Egypt on the waves of universal S5mcretism. 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 {LCBl, 1888, no. 44, p. 1508, Apokr. Apostelgesch., ii. 2, p. 418 note [on 1. p. 225 f .]) 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 Act ix., the 'Hymn of the Soul,' was composed before the rise of the Sasanid power in a.d. 226, since 'Parthian kings' are mentioned in 1. 38 (ed. Bevan, TS 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 MSS 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. Noldeke {GGA, 1905, p. 82) suspects interpolations and detects a nucleus in Acts i. and ii. (except the Andrapolis episode) . He supposes a rather intricate genesis for our collection. Following this line of Uterary criticism, the vigorous style of Acts ix.-xii. causes them to stand out as another unit. Acts iii.-viii. and the remaining parts might come in as later accretions. It seems, however, unsafe to in- dulge much in literary criticism before a more ade- quate knowledge of the original text is available. Reitzenstein has emphasized {op. cit.) the proba- bihty of hterary sources. One author may have composed the whole by adapting pagan stories to Thomas's name. In this case the different shades of style may be due to close adherence to or fn^e expansion of such sources. Future criticism may even see its way to combine this point of view with the first. Possible sources certainly de- serve serious consideration (cf. Gutschmid, Kleine Schriften, ii. [Leipzig, _ 1890] 332 ff.,_ advocating Buddhism ; Prcuschen in Hennecke, i. 477, Parsi- ism; Hilgenfeld, ZWT, 1904, p. 240, Persian influences).
(6) //7/mns.— The Bridal 'Ode' (ch. 7, 1st Act) 18 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 degi'ee 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 SjTiac and for the largest part omitted by Sachau 222 ; cf. Hennecke, i. 692-594) is omitted in most MSS. 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 ThT and JThSt, 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 ratselhaf t ' strong influence of pagan literature {op. cit. 122). On the 'sleepy forgetfulness' cf. Conybeare, JThSt vi. 609-610. Identification of the soul and Christ is present in the Odes of Solomon. Hilgenfeld {ZWT, 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.