(a). _Gospels_:--
Uncanonical sayings of the Lord in Christian and Jewish
writings.
Gospel according to the Egyptians.
" " " Hebrews.
Protevangel of James.
Gospel of Nicodemus.
" " Peter.
" " Thomas.
" " the Twelve.
Gnostic gospels of Andrew, Apelles, Barnabas, Bartholomew,
Basilides, Cerinthus and some seventeen others.
(b) _Acts and Teachings of the Apostles_:--
Acts of Andrew and later forms of these Acts.
" John.
" Paul.
" Peter.
Preaching of Peter.
Acts of Thomas.
Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.
Apostolic constitutions.
(c) _Epistles_:--
The Abgar Epistles.
Epistle of Barnabas.
" " Clement.
"Clement's" 2nd Epistle of the Corinthians.
" Epistles on Virginity.
" " to James.
Epistles of Ignatius.
Epistle of Polycarp.
Pauline Epp. to the Laodiceans and Alexandrians.
3 Pauline Ep. to the Corinthians.
(d) _Apocalypses_: see under APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE.
(a) GOSPELS.--_Uncanonical Sayings of the Lord in Christian and Jewish
Sources._--Under the head of canonical sayings not found in the Gospels
only one is found, i.e. that in Acts xx. 35. Of the rest the uncanonical
sayings have been collected by Preuschen (_Reste der ausserkanonischen
Evangelien_, 1901, pp. 44-47). A different collection will be found in
Hennecke, _NTliche Apok._ 9-11. The same subject is dealt with in the
elaborate volumes of Resch (_Aussercanonische Paralleltexte zu den
Evangelien_, vols. i.-iii., 1893-1895).
To this section belongs also the _Fayum Gospel Fragment_ and the _Logia_
published by Grenfell and Hunt.[5] The former contains two sayings of
Christ and one of Peter, such as we find in the canonical gospels, Matt.
xxvi. 31-34, Mark xiv. 27-30. The papyrus, which is of the 3rd century,
was discovered by Bickell among the Rainer collection, who characterized
it (_Z. f. kath. Theol._, 1885, pp. 498-504) as a fragment of one of the
primitive gospels mentioned in Luke i. 1. On the other hand, it has been
contended that it is merely a fragment of an early patristic homily.
(See Zahn, _Gesch. Kanons_, ii. 780-790; Harnack, _Texte und
Untersuchungen_, v. 4; Preuschen, _op. cit._ p. 19.) The _Logia_ (q.v.)
is the name given to the sayings contained in a papyrus leaf, by its
discoverers Grenfell and Hunt. They think the papyrus was probably
written about A.D. 200. According to Harnack, it is an extract from the
_Gospel of the Egyptians_. All the passages referring to Jesus in the
Talmud are given by Laible, _Jesus Christus im Talmud_, with an
appendix, "Die talmudischen Texte," by G. Dalman (2nd ed. 1901). The
first edition of this work was translated into English by A.W. Streane
(_Jesus Christ in the Talmud_, 1893). In Hennecke's _NTliche Apok.
Handbuch_ (pp. 47-71) there is a valuable study of this question by A.
Meyer, entitled _Jesus, Jesu Junger und das Evangelium im Talmud und
verwandten judischen Schriflen_, to which also a good bibliography of
the subject is prefixed.
_Gospel according to the Egyptians._--This gospel is first mentioned by
Clem. Alex. (_Strom._ iii. 6. 45; 9. 63, 66; 13. 92), subsequently by
Origen (_Hom. in Luc._ i.) and Epiphanius (_Haer._ lxii. 2), and a
fragment is preserved in the so-called 2 Clem. Rom. xii. 2. It
circulated among various heretical circles; amongst the Encratites
(Clem. _Strom._ iii. 9), the Naas-senes (Hippolyt. _Philos._ v. 7), and
the Sabellians (Epiph. _Haer._ lxii. 2). Only three or four fragments
survive; see Lipsius (Smith and Wace, _Dict. of Christ. Biog._ ii. 712,
713); Zahn, _Gesch. Kanons_, ii. 628-642; Preuschen, _Reste d.
ausserkanonischen Evangelien_, 1901, p. 2, which show that it was a
product of pantheistic Gnosticism. With this pantheistic Gnosticism is
associated a severe asceticism. The distinctions of sex are one day to
come to an end; the prohibition of marriage follows naturally on this
view. Hence Christ is represented as coming to destroy the work of the
female (Clem. Alex. _Strom._ iii. 9. 63). Lipsius and Zahn assign it to
the middle of the 2nd century. It may be earlier.
_Protevangel of James._--This title was first given in the 16th century
to a writing which is referred to as _The Book of James_ ([Greek: he
biblos Iakobou]) by Origen (tom. xi. _in Matt._). Its author designates
it as [Greek: Istoria]. For various other designations see Tischendorf,
_Evang. Apocr.[2]_ 1 seq. The narrative extends from the Conception of the
Virgin to the Death of Zacharias. Lipsius shows that in the present form
of the book there is side by side a strange "admixture of intimate
knowledge and gross ignorance of Jewish thought and custom," and that
accordingly we must "distinguish between an original Jewish Christian
writing and a Gnostic recast of it." The former was known to Justin
(_Dial._ 78, 101) and Clem. Alex. (_Strom._ vii. 16), and belongs at
latest to the earliest years of the 2nd century. The Gnostic recast
Lipsius dates about the middle of the 3rd century. From these two works
arose independently the _Protevangel_ in its present form and the Latin
pseudo-Matthaeus (_Evangelium pseudo-Matthaei_). The _Evangelium de
Nativitate Mariae_ is a redaction of the latter. (See Lipsius in Smith's
_Dict. of Christ. Biog._ ii. 701-703.) But if we except the Zachariah
and John group of legends, it is not necessary to assume the Gnostic
recast of this work in the 3rd century as is done by Lipsius. The author
had at his disposal two distinct groups of legends about Mary. One of
these groups is certainly of non-Jewish origin, as it conceives Mary as
living in the temple somewhat after the manner of a vestal virgin or a
priestess of Isis. The other group is more in accord with the orthodox
gospels. The book appears to have been written in Egypt, and in the
early years of the 2nd century. For, since Origen states that many
appealed to it in support of the view that the brothers of Jesus were
sons of Joseph by a former marriage, the book must have been current
about A.D. 200. From Origen we may ascend to Clem. Alex. who (_Strom._
vi. 93) shows acquaintance with one of the chief doctrines of the
book--the perpetual virginity of Mary. Finally, as Justin's statements
as to the birth of Jesus in a cave and Mary's descent from David show in
all probability his acquaintance with the book, it may with good grounds
be assigned to the first decade of the 2nd century. (So Zahn, _Gesch.
Kanons_, i. 485, 499, 502, 504, 539; ii. 774-780.) For the Greek text
see Tischendorf, _Evang. Apocr.[2]_ 1-50; B.P. Grenfell, _An Alexandrian
erotic Fragment and other Papyri_, 1896, pp. 13-17: for the Syriac,
Wright, _Contributions to Apocryphal Literature of the N.T._, 1865, pp.
3-7; A.S. Lewis, _Studia Sinaitica_, xi. pp. 1-22. See literature
generally in Hennecke, _NT liche Apok. Handbuch_, 106 seq.
_Gospel of Nicodemus._--This title is first met with in the 13th
century. It is used to designate an apocryphal writing entitled in the
older MSS. [Greek: hypomnemata tou Kuriou hemon Iesou Christou
praxchenta epi Pontiou Pilatou]; also "Gesta Salvatoris Domini ...
inventa Theodosio magno imperatore in Ierusalem in praetorio Pontii
Pilati in codicibus publicis." See Tischendorf, _Evang. Apocr.[2]_ pp.
333-335. This work gives an account of the Passion (i.-xi.), the
Resurrection (xii.-xvi.), and the _Descensus ad Inferos_ (xvii.-xxvii.).
Chapters i.-xvi. are extant, in the Greek, Coptic, and two Armenian
versions. The two Latin versions and a Byzantine recension of the Greek
contain i.-xxvii. (see Tischendorf, _Evangelia Apocrypha[2]_, pp.
210-458). All known texts go back to A.D. 425, if one may trust the
reference to Theodosius. But this was only a revision, for as early as
376 Epiphanius (_Haer._ i. 1.) presupposes the existence of a like text.
In 325 Eusebius (_H.E._ ii. 2) was acquainted only with the heathen
_Acts of Pilate_, and knew nothing of a Christian work. Tischendorf and
Hofmann, however, find evidence of its existence in Justin's reference
to the [Greek: Hakta Pilatou] (_Apol._ i. 35, 48), and in Tertullian's
mention of the _Acta Pilati_ (_Apol._ 21), and on this evidence
attribute our texts to the first half of the 2nd century. But these
references have been denied by Scholten, Lipsius, and Lightfoot.
Recently Schubert has sought to derive the elements which are found in
the Petrine Gospel, but not in the canonical gospels, from the original
_Acta Pilati_, while Zahn exactly reverses the relation of these two
works. Rendel Harris (1899) advocated the view that the Gospel of
Nicodemus, as we possess it, is merely a prose version of the Gospel of
Nicodemus written originally in Homeric centones as early as the 2nd
century. Lipsius and Dobschutz relegate the book to the 4th century. The
question is not settled yet (see Lipsius in Smith's _Dict. of Christ.
Biography_, ii. 708-709, and Dobschutz in Hastings' _Bible Dictionary_,
iii. 544-547).
_Gospel according to the Hebrews._--This gospel was cited by Ignatius
(_Ad Smyrnaeos_, iii.) according to Jerome (_Viris illus._ 16, and _in
Jes._ lib. xviii.), but this is declared to be untrustworthy by Zahn,
op. cit. i. 921; ii. 701, 702. It was written in Aramaic in Hebrew
letters, according to Jerome (_Adv. Pelag._ iii. 2), and translated by
him into Greek and Latin. Both these translations are lost. A collection
of the Greek and Latin fragments that have survived, mainly in Origen
and Jerome, will be found in Hilgenfeld's _NT extra Canonem receptum_,
Nicholson's _Gospel according to the Hebrews_ (1879), Westcott's
_Introd. to the Gospels_, and Zahn's _Gesch. des NTlichen Kanons_, ii.
642-723; Preuschen, _op. cit_. 3-8. This gospel was regarded by many in
the first centuries as the Hebrew original of the canonical Matthew
(Jerome, _in Matt._ xii. 13; _Adv. Pelag._ iii. 1). With the canonical
gospel it agrees in some of its sayings; in others it is independent. It
circulated among the Nazarenes in Syria, and was composed, according to
Zahn (_op. cit._ ii. 722), between the years 135 and 150. Jerome
identifies it with the _Gospel of the Twelve_ (_Adv. Pelag._ iii. 2),
and states that it was used by the Ebionites (_Comm. in Matt._ xii. 13).
Zahn (_op. cit._ ii. 662, 724) contests both these statements. The
former he traces to a mistaken interpretation of Origen (_Hom. I. in
Luc._). Lipsius, on the other hand, accepts the statements of Jerome
(Smith and Wace, _Dict. of Christian Biography_, ii. 709-712), and is of
opinion that this gospel, in the form in which it was known to
Epiphanius, Jerome and Origen, was "a recast of an older original,"
which, written originally in Aramaic, was nearly related to the Logia
used by St Matthew and the Ebionitic writing used by St Luke, "which
itself was only a later redaction of the Logia."
According to the most recent investigations we may conclude that the
Gospel according to the Hebrews was current among the Nazarenes and
Ebionites as early as 100-125, since Ignatius was familiar with the
phrase "I am no bodiless demon"--a phrase which, according to Jerome
(_Comm. in Is._ xviii.), belonged to this Gospel.
The name "Gospel according to the Hebrews" cannot have been original;
for if it had been so named because of its general use among the
Hebrews, yet the Hebrews themselves would not have used this
designation. It may have been known simply as "the Gospel." The language
was Western Aramaic, the mother tongue of Jesus and his apostles. Two
forms of Western Aramaic survive: the Jerusalem form of the dialect, in
the Aramaic portions of Daniel and Ezra; and the Galilean, in isolated
expressions in the Talmud (3rd century), and in a fragmentary 5th
century translation of the Bible. The quotations from the Old Testament
are made from the Massoretic text.
This gospel must have been translated at an early date into Greek, as
Clement and Origen cite it as generally accessible, and Eusebius
recounts that many reckoned it among the received books The gospel is
synoptic in character and is closely related to Matthew, though in the
Resurrection accounts it has affinities with Luke. Like Mark it seems to
have had no history of the birth of Christ, and to have begun with the
baptism. (For the literature see Hennecke, _NTliche Apok. Handbuch_,
21-23.)
_Gospel of Peter._--Before 1892 we had some knowlege of this gospel.
Thus Serapion, bishop of Antioch (A.D. 190-203) found it in use in the
church of Rhossus in Cilicia, and condemned it as Docetic (Eusebius,
_H.E._ vi. 12). Again, Origen (_In Matt._ tom. xvii. 10) says that it
represented the brethren of Christ as his half-brothers In 1885 a long
fragment was discovered at Akhmim, and published by Bouriant in 1892,
and subsequently by Lods, Robinson, Harnack, Zahn, Schubert, Swete.
_Gospel of Thomas._--This gospel professes to give an account of our
Lord's boyhood. It appears in two recensions. The more complete
recension bears the title [Greek: Thoma Isrealitou Philosophou hreta eis
ta paidika Kuriou], and treats of the period from the 7th to the 12th
year (Tischendorf, _Evangelia Apocrypha[2]_, 1876, 140-157). The more
fragmentary recension gives the history of the childhood from the 5th to
the 8th year, and is entitled [Greek: Sungramma tou hagiou apostolou
Thoma peri tes paidikes anastrophes tou Kuriou] (Tischendorf, _op. cit._
pp. 158-163). Two Latin translations have been published in this work by
the same scholar--one on pp. 164-180, the other under the wrong title,
_Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium_, on pp. 93-112. A Syriac version, with an
English translation, was published by Wright in 1875. This gospel was
originally still more Docetic than it now is, according to Lipsius. Its
present form is due to an orthodox revision which discarded, so far as
possible, all Gnostic traces. Lipsius (Smith's _Dict. of Christ. Biog._
ii. 703) assigns it to the latter half of the 2nd century, but Zahn
(_Gesch. Kan._ ii. 771), on good grounds, to the earlier half. The
latter scholar shows that probably it was used by Justin (_Dial._ 88).
At all events it circulated among the Marcosians (Irenaeus, _Haer._ i.
20) and the Naasenes (Hippolytus, _Refut._ v. 7), and subsequently among
the Manichaeans, and is frequently quoted from Origen downwards (_Hom.
I. in Luc._). If the stichometry of Nicephorus is right, the existing
form of the book is merely fragmentary compared with its original
compass. For literature see Hennecke, _NTliche Apokryphen Handbuch_, 132
seq.
_Gospel of the Twelve._--This gospel, which Origen knew (_Hom. I. in
Luc._), is not to be identified with the _Gospel according to the
Hebrews_ (see above), with Lipsius and others, who have sought to
reconstruct the original gospel from the surviving fragments of these
two distinct works. The only surviving fragments of the _Gospel of the
Twelve_ have been preserved by Epiphanius (_Haer._ xxx. 13-16, 22: see
Preuschen, _op. cit._ 9-11). It began with an account of the baptism. It
was used by the Ebionites, and was written, according to Zahn (op. cit.
ii. 742), about A.D. 170.
OTHER GOSPELS MAINLY GNOSTIC AND ALMOST ALL LOST.--_Gospel of
Andrew._--This is condemned in the Gelasian Decree, and is probably the
gospel mentioned by Innocent (1 Ep. iii. 7) and Augustine (_Contra
advers. Leg. et Proph._ i. 20).
_Gospel of Apelles._--Mentioned by Jerome in his _Prooem. ad Matt._
_Gospel of Barnabas._--Condemned in the Gelasian Decree (see under
BARNABAS _ad fin_.).
_Gospel of Bartholomew._--Mentioned by Jerome in his _Prooem. ad Matt._
and condemned in the Gelasian Decree.
_Gospel of Basilides._--Mentioned by Origen (_Tract. 26 in Matt._
xxxiii. 34, and in his _Prooem. in Luc._); by Jerome in his _Prooem. in
Matt._ (See Harnack i. 161; ii. 536-537; Zahn, _Gesch. Kanons_, i.
763-774.)
_Gospel of Cerinthus._--Mentioned by Epiphanius (_Haer._ li. 7).
_Gospel of the Ebionites._--A fragmentary edition of the canonical
Matthew according to Epiphanius (_Haer._ xxx. 13), used by the Ebionites
and called by them the Hebrew Gospel.
_Gospel of Eve._--A quotation from this gospel is given by Epiphanius
(_Haer._ xxvi. 2, 3). It is possible that this is the Gospel of
Perfection ([Greek: Euangelion teleioseos]) which he touches upon in
xxvi. 2. The quotation shows that this gospel was the expression of
complete pantheism.
_Gospel of James the Less._--Condemned in the Gelasian Decree.
_Wisdom of Jesus Christ._--This third work contained in the Coptic MS.
referred to under _Gospel of Mary_ gives cosmological disclosures and is
presumably of Valentinian origin.
_Apocryph of John._--This book, which is found in the Coptic MS.
referred to under _Gospel of Mary_ and contains cosmological disclosures
of Christ, is said to have formed the source of Irenaeus' account of the
Gnostics of Barbelus (i. 29-31). Thus this work would have been written
before 170.
_Gospel of Judas Iscariot._--References to this gospel as in use among
the Cainites are made by Irenaeus (i. 31. 1); Epiphanius (xxxviii. 1.
3).
_Gospel, The Living (Evangelium Vivum)._--This was a gospel of the
Manichaeans. See Epiphanius, _Haer_. lxvi. 2; Photius, _Contra Manich_.
i.
_Gospel of Marcion._--On this important gospel see Zahn, _Gesch.
Kanons_, i. 585-718.
_Descent of Mary_ ([Greek: Tenna Marias]).--This book was an anti-Jewish
legend representing Zacharias as having been put to death by the Jews
because he had seen the God of the Jews in the form of an ass in the
temple (Epiphanius, _Haer_. xxvi. 12).
_Questions of Mary_ (_Great and Little_).--Epiphanius (_Haer_. xxvi. 8)
gives some excerpts from this revolting work.
_Gospel of Mary._--This gospel is found in a Coptic MS. of the 5th
century. According to Schmidt's short account, _Sitzungsberichte d.
preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. zu. Berlin_ (1896), pp. 839 sqq., this gospel
gives disclosures on the nature of matter ([Greek: ulae]) and the
progress of the Gnostic soul through the seven planets.
_Gospel of Matthias._--Though this gospel is attested by Origen (_Horm.
in Luc._ i.), Eusebius, _H.E._ iii. 25. 6, and the List of Sixty Books,
not a shred of it has been preserved, unless with Zahn ii. 751 sqq. we
are to identify it with the _Traditions of Matthias_, from which Clement
has drawn some quotations.
_Gospel of Perfection_ (_Evangelium perfectionis_).--Used by the
followers of Basilides and other Gnostics. See Epiphanius, _Haer._ xxvi.
2.
_Gospel of Philip._--This gospel described the progress of a soul
through the next world. It is of a strongly Encratite character and
dates from the 2nd century. A fragment is preserved in Epiphanius,
_Haer_. xxvi. 13. In Preuschen, _Reste_, p. 13, the quotation breaks off
too soon. See Zahn ii. 761-768.
_Gospel of Thaddaeus._--Condemned by the Gelasian Decree.
_Gospel of Thomas._--Of this gospel only one fragment has been preserved
in Hippolytus, _Philos_. v. 7, pp. 140 seq. See Zahn, _op. cit._ i. 746
seq.; ii. 768-773; Harnack ii. 593-595.
_Gospel of Truth._--This gospel is mentioned by Irenaeus i. 11. 9, and
was used by the Valentinians. See Zahn i. 748 sqq.
(b) ACTS AND TEACHINGS OF THE APOSTLES.--_Acts of Andrew._--These Acts,
which are of a strongly Encratite character, have come down to us in a
fragmentary condition. They belong to the earliest ages, for they are
mentioned by Eusebius, _H.E._ iii. 25; Epiphanius, _Haer._ xlvii. 1;
lxi. 1; lxiii. 2; Philaster, _Haer._ lxviii., as current among the
Manichaeans and heretics. They are attributed to Leucius, a Docetic
writer, by Augustine (_c. Felic. Manich._ ii. 6) and Euodius (_De Fide
c. Manich._ 38). Euodius in the passage just referred to preserves two
small fragments of the original Acts. On internal grounds the section
recounting Andrew's imprisonment (Bonnet, _Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha_,
ii. 38-45) is also probably a constituent of the original work. As
regards the martyrdom, owing to the confusion introduced by the
multitudinous Catholic revisions of this section of the Acts, it is
practically impossible to restore its original form. For a complete
discussion of the various documents see Lipsius, _Apokryphen
Apostelgeschichte_, i. 543-622; also James in Hastings' _Bible Dict._ i.
92-93; Hennecke, _NT. Apokryphen_, _in loc._ The best texts are given in
Bonnet's _Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha_, 1898, II. i. 1-127. These contain
also the _Acts of Andrew and Matthew_ (or Matthias) in which Matthew (or
Matthias) is represented as a captive in the country of the
anthropophagi. Christ takes Andrew and his disciples with Him, and
effects the rescue of Matthew. The legend is found also in Ethiopic,
Syriac and Anglo-Saxon. Also the _Acts of Peter and Andrew_, which among
other incidents recount the miracle of a camel passing through the eye
of a needle. This work is preserved partly in Greek, but in its entirety
in Slavonic.
_Acts of John._--Clement of Alexandria in his _Hypotyposes_ on 1 John i.
1 seems to refer to chapters xciii. (or lxxxix.) of these Acts. Eusebius
(_H.E._ iii. 25. 6), Epiphanius (_Haer._ xlvii. 1) and other ancient
writers assign them to the authorship of Leucius Charinus. It is
generally admitted that they were written in the 2nd century. The text
has been edited most completely by Bonnet, _Acta Apostol. Apocr._, 1898,
151-216. The contents might be summarized with Hennecke as
follows:--Arrival and first sojourn of the apostle in Ephesus
(xviii.-lv.); return to Ephesus and second sojourn (history of Drusiana,
lviii.-lxxxvi.); account of the crucifixion of Jesus and His apparent
death (lxxxvii.-cv.); the death of John (cvi.-cxv.). There are manifest
gaps in the narrative, a fact which we would infer from the extent
assigned to it (i.e. 2500 stichoi) by Nicephorus. According to this
authority one-third of the text is now lost. Many chapters are lost at
the beginning; there is a gap in chapter xxxvii., also before lviii.,
not to mention others. The encratite tendency in these Acts is not so
strongly developed as in those of Andrew and Thomas. James (_Anecdota_,
ii. 1-25) has given strong grounds for regarding the Acts of John and
Peter as derived from one and the same author, but there are like
affinities existing between the Acts of Peter and those of Paul. For a
discussion of this work see Zahn, _Gesch. Kanons_, ii. 856-865; Lipsius,
_Apok. Apostelgesch._ i. 348-542; Hennecke, _NT. Apokryphen_, 423-432.
For bibliography, Hennecke, _NT. Apok. Handbuch_, 492 sq.
_Acts of Paul._--The discovery of the Coptic translation of these Acts
in 1897, and its publication by C. Schmidt (_Acta Pauli aus der
Heidelberger koptischen Papyrushandschrift herausgegeben_, Leipzig,
1894), have confirmed what had been previously only a hypothesis that
the Acts of Thecla had formed a part of the larger Acts of Paul. The
Acts therefore embrace now the following elements:-(a) Two quotations
given by Origen in his _Princip._ i. 2. 3 and his comment on John xx.
12. From the latter it follows that in the Acts of Paul the death of
Peter was recounted, (b) _Apocryphal 3rd Epistle of Paul to the
Corinthians_ and _Epistle from the Corinthians to Paul_. These two
letters are connected by a short account which is intended to give the
historical situation. Paul is in prison on account of Stratonice, the
wife of Apollophanes. The Greek and Latin versions of these letters have
for the most part disappeared, but they have been preserved in Syriac,
and through Syriac they obtained for the time being a place in the
Armenian Bible immediately after 2 Corinthians. Aphraates cites two
passages from 3 Corinthians as words of the apostle, and Ephraem
expounded them in his commentary on the Pauline Epistles. They must
therefore have been regarded as canonical in the first half of the 4th
century. From the Syriac Bible they made their way into the Armenian and
maintained their place without opposition to the 7th century. On the
Latin text see Carriere and Berger, _Correspondance apocr. de S.P. et
des Corinthiens_, 1891. For a translation of Ephraem's commentary see
Zahn ii. 592-611 and Vetter, _Der Apocr. 3. Korinthien_, 70 sqq., 1894.
The Coptic version (C. Schmidt, _Acta Pauli_, pp. 74-82), which is here
imperfect, is clearly from a Greek original, while the Latin and
Armenian are from the Syriac. (c) _The Acts of Paul and Thecla_. These
were written, according to Tertullian (_De Baptismo_, 17) by a presbyter
of Asia, who was deposed from his office on account of his forgery.
This, the earliest of Christian romances (probably before A.D. 150),
recounts the adventures and sufferings of a virgin, Thecla of Iconium.
Lipsius discovers Gnostic traits in the story, but these are denied by
Zahn (_Gesch. Kanons_, ii. 902). See Lipsius, _op. cit._ ii. 424-467;
Zahn (_op. cit._ ii. 892-910). The best text is that of Lipsius, _Acta
Apostol. Apocr._, 1891, i. 235-272. There are Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic
and Slavonic versions. As we have seen above, these Acts are now
recognized as belonging originally to the Acts of Paul. They were,
however, published separately long before the Gelasian Decree (496).
Jerome also was acquainted with them as an independent work. Thecla was
most probably a real personage, around whom a legend had already
gathered in the 2nd century. Of this legend the author of the Acts of
Paul made use, and introduced into it certain historical and
geographical facts, (d) The healing of Hermocrates of dropsy in Myra.
Through a comparison of the Coptic version with the Pseudo-Cyprian
writing "Caena," Rolffs (Hennecke, _NT. Apok._ 361) concludes that this
incident formed originally a constituent of our book, (e) The strife
with beasts at Ephesus. This event is mentioned by Nicephorus Callistus
(_H.E._ ii. 25) as recounted in the [Greek: perlodoi] of Paul. The
identity of this work with the Acts of Paul is confirmed by a remark of
Hippolytus in his commentary on Daniel iii. 29. 4, ed. Bonwetsch 176
(so Rolffs). (f) Martyrdom of Paul. The death of Paul by the sentence of
Nero at Rome forms the close of the Acts of Paul. The text is in the
utmost confusion. It is best given by Lipsius, _Acta Apostol. Apocr._ i.
104-117.
Notwithstanding all the care that has been taken in collecting the
fragments of these Acts, only about 900 stichoi out of the 3600 assigned
to them in the Stichometry of Nicephorus have as yet been recovered.
The author was, according to Tertullian (_De Baptism._ 17), a presbyter
in Asia, who out of honour to Paul wrote the Acts, forging at the same
time 3 Corinthians. Thus the work was composed before 190, and, since it
most probably uses the martyrdom of Polycarp, after 155. The object of
the writer is to embody in St Paul the model ideal of the popular
Christianity of the 2nd century. His main emphasis is laid on chastity
and the resurrection of the flesh. The tone of the work is Catholic and
anti-Gnostic. For the bibliography of the subject see Hennecke, _NT.
Apok._ 358-360.
_Acts of Peter._--These acts are first mentioned by Eusebius (_H.E._
iii. 3) by name, and first referred to by the African poet Commodian
about A.D. 250. Harnack, who was the first to show that these Acts were
Catholic in character and not Gnostic as had previously been alleged,
assigns their composition to this period mainly on the ground that
Hippolytus was not acquainted with them; but even were this assumption
true, it would not prove the non-existence of the Acts in question.
According to Photius, moreover, the Acts of Peter also were composed by
this same Leucius Charinus, who, according to Zahn (_Gesch. Kanons_, ii.
864), wrote about 160 (_op. cit._ p. 848). Schmidt and Ficker, however,
maintain that the Acts were written about 200 and in Asia Minor. These
Acts, which Ficker holds were written as a continuation and completion
of the canonical Acts of the Apostles, deal with Peter's victorious
conflict with Simon Magus, and his subsequent martyrdom at Rome under
Nero. It is difficult to determine the relation of the so-called Latin
_Actus Vercellenses_ (which there are good grounds for assuming were
originally called the [Greek: Praxeis Petrou]) with the Acts of John and
Paul. Schmidt thinks that the author of the former made use of the
latter, James that the Acts of Peter and of John were by one and the
same author, but Ficker is of opinion that their affinities can be
explained by their derivation from the same ecclesiastical atmosphere
and school of theological thought. No less close affinities exist
between our Acts and the Acts of Thomas, Andrew and Philip. In the case
of the Acts of Thomas the problem is complicated, sometimes the Acts of
Peter seem dependent on the Acts of Thomas, and sometimes the converse.
For the relation of the _Actus Vercellenses_ to the "Martyrdom of the
holy apostles Peter and Paul" (_Acta Apostol. Apocr._ i. 118-177) and
to the "Acts of the holy apostles Peter and Paul" (_Acta Apostol.
Apocr._ i. 178-234) see Lipsius ii. 1. 84 sqq. The "Acts of Xanthippe
and Polyxena," first edited by James (_Texts and Studies_, ii. 3.
1893), and assigned by him to the middle of the 3rd century, as well
as the "Acts of the Disputation of Archelaus, bishop of Mesopotamia,
and the Heresiarch Manes" ("Acta Disputationis Archelai Episcopi
Mesopotamiae et Manetis Haeresiarchae," in Routh's _Reliquiae
Sacrae[2]_, v. 36-206), have borrowed largely from our work.
The text of the _Actus Vercellenses_ is edited by Lipsius, _Acta
Apostol. Apocr._ i. 45-79. An independent Latin translation of the
"Martyrdom of Peter" is published by Lipsius (_op. cit._ i. 1-22),
_Martyrium beati Petri Apostoli a Lino episcopo conscriptum_. On the
Coptic fragment, which Schmidt maintains is an original constituent of
these Acts, see that writer's work: _Die alten Petrusakten im
Zusammenhang der apokryphen Apostelliteratur nebst einem neuentdeckten
Fragment_, and _Texte und Untersuch_. N.F. ix. 1 (1903). For the
literature see Hennecke, _Neutestamentliche Apokryphen Handbuch_, 395
sqq.
_Preaching of Peter._--This book ([Greek: Petrou Kerygma]) gave the
substance of a series of discourses spoken by one person in the name of
the apostles. Clement of Alexandria quotes it several times as a genuine
record of Peter's teaching. Heracleon had previously used it (see
Origen, _In Evang. Johann._ t. xiii. 17). It is spoken unfavourably of
by Origen (_De Prin._ Praef. 8). It was probably in the hands of Justin
and Aristides. Hence Zahn gives its date as 90-100 at latest; Dobschutz,
as 100-110; and Harnack, as 110-130. The extant fragments contain
sayings of Jesus, and warnings against Judaism and Polytheism.
They have been edited by Hilgenfeld: _Nov. Test. extra Can._, 1884, iv.
51-65, and by von Dobschutz, _Das Kerygma Petri_, 1893. Salmon (_Dict.
Christ. Biog._ iv. 329-330) thinks that this work is part of a larger
work, _A Preaching of Peter and a Preaching of Paul_, implied in a
statement of Lactantius (_Inst. Div._ iv. 21); but this view is
contested by Zahn, see _Gesch. Kanons_, ii. 820-834, particularly pp.
827-828; Chase, in Hastings' _Bible Dict._ iv. 776.
_Acts of Thomas._--This is one of the earliest and most famous of the
Gnostic Acts. It has been but slightly tampered with by orthodox hands.
These Acts were used by the Encratites (Epiphanius, _Haer._ xlvii. 1),
the Manichaeans (Augustine, _Contra Faust_. xxii. 79), the Apostolici
(Epiphanius lxi. 1) and Priscillianists. The work is divided into
thirteen Acts, to which the Martyrdom of Thomas attaches as the
fourteenth. It was originally written in Syriac, as Burkitt (_Journ. of
Theol. Studies_, i. 278 sqq.) has finally proved, though Macke and
Noldeke had previously advanced grounds for this view. The Greek and
Latin texts were edited by Bonnet in 1883 and again in 1903, ii. 2; the
Greek also by James, _Apoc. Anec._ ii. 28-45, and the Syriac by Wright
(_Apocr. Acts of the Gospels_, 1871, i. 172-333). Photius ascribes their
composition to Leucius Charinus--therefore to the 2nd century, but
Lipsius assigns it to the early decades of the 3rd. (See Lipsius,
_Apokryphen Apostelgeschichten_, i. 225-347; Hennecke, _N.T.
Apokryphen_, 473-480.)
_Teaching of the Twelve Apostles_ (Didache).--This important work was
discovered by Philotheos Bryennios in Constantinople and published in
1883. Since that date it has been frequently edited. The bibliography
can be found in Schaff's and in Harnack's editions. The book divides
itself into three parts. The first (i.-vi.) contains a body of ethical
instruction which is founded on a Jewish and probably pre-Christian
document, which forms the basis also of the _Epistle of Barnabas_. The
second part consists of vii.-xv., and treats of church ritual and
discipline; and the third part is eschatological and deals with the
second Advent. The book is variously dated by different scholars: Zahn
assigns it to the years A.D. 80-120; Harnack to 120-165; Lightfoot and
Funk to 80-100; Salmon to 120. (See Salmon in _Dict. of Christ. Biog._
iv. 806-815, also article DIDACHE.)
_Apostolical Constitutions._--For the various collections of these
ecclesiastical regulations--the Syriac _Didascalia, Ecclesiastical
Canons of the Holy Apostles_, &c.--see separate article.
(c) EPISTLES.--_The Abgar Epistles._--These epistles are found in
Eusebius (_H.E._ i. 3), who translated them from the Syriac. They are
two in number, and purport to be a petition of Abgar Uchomo, king of
Edessa, to Christ to visit Edessa, and Christ's answer, promising after
his ascension to send one of his disciples, who should "cure thee of thy
disease, and give eternal life and peace to thee and all thy people."
Lipsius thinks that these letters were manufactured about the year 200.
(See _Dict. Christ. Biog._ iv. 878-881, with the literature there
mentioned.) The above correspondence, which appears also in Syriac, is
inwoven with the legend of Addai or Thaddaeus. The best critical edition
of the Greek text will be found in Lipsius, _Acta Apostolorum
Apocrypha_, 1891, pp. 279-283. (See also ABGAR.)
_Epistle of Barnabas._--The special object of this epistle was to guard
its readers against the danger of relapsing into Judaism. The date is
placed by some scholars as early as 70-79, by others as late as the
early years of the emperor Hadrian, 117. The text has been edited by
Hilgenfeld in 1877, Gebhardt and Harnack in 1878, and Funk in 1887 and
1901. In these works will be found full bibliographies. (See further
BARNABAS.)
_Epistle of Clement._--The object of this epistle is the restoration of
harmony to the church of Corinth, which had been vexed by internal
discussions. The epistle may be safely ascribed to the years 95-96. The
writer was in all probability the bishop of Rome of that name. He is
named an apostle and his work was reckoned as canonical by Clement of
Alexandria (_Strom._ iv. 17. 105), and as late as the time of Eusebius
(_H.E._ iii. 16) it was still read in some of the churches. Critical
editions have been published by Gebhardt and Harnack, _Patr. Apost.
Op._, 1876, and in the smaller form in 1900, Lightfoot[2], 1890,
Funk[2], 1901. The Syriac version has been edited by Kennet, _Epp. of St
Clement to the Corinthians in Syriac_, 1899, and the Old Latin version
by Morin, _S. Clementis Romani ad Corinthios epistulae versio Latina
antiquissima_, 1894.
"_Clement's_" _2nd Ep. to the Corinthians._--This so-called letter of
Clement is not mentioned by any writer before Eusebius (_H. E_. iii. 38.
4). It is not a letter but really a homily written in Rome about the
middle of the 2nd century. The writer is a Gentile. Some of his
citations are derived from the Gospel to the Egyptians.
_Clement's Epistles on Virginity._--These two letters are preserved only
in Syriac which is a translation from the Greek. They are first referred
to by Epiphanius and next by Jerome. Critics have assigned them to the
middle of the 2nd century. They have been edited by Beelen, Louvain,
1856.
_Clement's Epistles to James._--On these two letters which are found in
the Clementine Homilies, see Smith's _Dict. of Christian Biography_, i.
559, 570, and Lehmann's monograph, _Die Clementischen Schriften_, Gotha,
1867, in which references will be found to other sources of information.
_Epistles of Ignatius._--There are two collections of letters bearing
the name of Ignatius, who was martyred between 105 and 117. The first
consists of seven letters addressed by Ignatius to the Ephesians,
Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrnaeans and to
Polycarp. The second collection consists of the preceding extensively
interpolated, and six others of Mary to Ignatius, of Ignatius to Mary,
to the Tarsians, Antiochians, Philippians and Hero, a deacon of Antioch.
The latter collection is a pseudepigraph written in the 4th century or
the beginning of the 5th. The authenticity of the first collection also
has been denied, but the evidence appears to be against this contention.
The literature is overwhelming in its extent. See Zahn, _Patr. Apost.
Op_., 1876; Funk[2], _Die apostol. Vater_, 1901; Lightfoot[2],
_Apostolic Fathers_, 1889.
_Epistle of Polycarp._--The genuineness of this epistle stands or falls
with that of the Ignatian epistles. See article in Smith's _Dictionary
of Christian Biography_, iv. 423-431; Lightfoot, _Apostolic Fathers_, i.
629-702; also POLYCARP.
_Pauline Epistles to the Laodiceans and the Alexandrians_.--The first of
these is found only in Latin. This, according to Lightfoot (see
_Colossians[3]_, 272-298) and Zahn, is a translation from the Greek.
Such an epistle is mentioned in the Muratorian canon. See Zahn, _op.
cit_. ii. 566-585. The Epistle to the Alexandrians is mentioned only in
the Muratorian canon (see Zahn ii. 586-592).
For the _Third Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians_, and _Epistle from
the Corinthians to Paul_, see under "Acts of Paul" above.
(R. H. C.)