Uncanonical sayings of the Lord in Christian and Jewish writings.Gospel according to the Egyptians.Gospel according to the Hebrews.Protevangel of James.Gospel of Nicodemus.Gospel of Peter.Gospel of Thomas.Gospel of the Twelve.Gnostic gospels of Andrew, Apelles, Barnabas, Bartholomew, Basilides, Cerinthus and some seventeen others.
Uncanonical sayings of the Lord in Christian and Jewish writings.
Gospel according to the Egyptians.
Gospel according to the Hebrews.
Protevangel of James.
Gospel of Nicodemus.
Gospel of Peter.
Gospel of Thomas.
Gospel of 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.Acts of John.Acts of Paul.Acts of Peter.Preaching of Peter.Acts of Thomas.Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.Apostolic constitutions.
Acts of Andrew and later forms of these Acts.
Acts of John.
Acts of Paul.
Acts of Peter.
Preaching of Peter.
Acts of Thomas.
Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.
Apostolic constitutions.
(c)Epistles:—
The Abgar Epistles.Epistle of Barnabas.Epistle of Clement.“Clement’s” 2nd Epistle of the Corinthians.Clement’s Epistles on Virginity.Clement’s Epistles to James.Epistles of Ignatius.Epistle of Polycarp.Pauline Epp. to the Laodiceans and Alexandrians.3 Pauline Ep. to the Corinthians.
The Abgar Epistles.
Epistle of Barnabas.
Epistle of Clement.
“Clement’s” 2nd Epistle of the Corinthians.
Clement’s Epistles on Virginity.
Clement’s Epistles to James.
Epistles of Ignatius.
Epistle of Polycarp.
Pauline Epp. to the Laodiceans and Alexandrians.
3 Pauline Ep. to the Corinthians.
(d)Apocalypses: see underApocalyptic 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 theFayum Gospel Fragmentand theLogiapublished by Grenfell and Hunt.5The 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.) TheLogia(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 aboutA.D.200. According to Harnack, it is an extract from theGospel 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’sNTliche Apok. Handbuch(pp. 47-71) there is a valuable study of this question by A. Meyer, entitledJesus, Jesu Jünger und das Evangelium im Talmud und verwandten jüdischen 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 asThe Book of James(ἡ βίβλος Ίακώβου) by Origen (tom. xi.in Matt.). Its author designates it asΊστορία. For various other designations see Tischendorf,Evang. Apocr.21 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 theProtevangelin its present form and the Latin pseudo-Matthaeus (Evangelium pseudo-Matthaei). TheEvangelium de Nativitate Mariaeis a redaction of the latter. (See Lipsius in Smith’sDict. 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 aboutA.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.21-50; 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.ὑπομνήματα τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ίησοῦ Χριστοῦ πραχθέντα ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου; also “Gesta Salvatoris Domini ... inventa Theodosio magno imperatore in Ierusalem in praetorio Pontii Pilati in codicibus publicis.” See Tischendorf,Evang. Apocr.2pp. 333-335. This work gives an account of the Passion (i.-xi.), the Resurrection (xii.-xvi.), and theDescensus 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 Apocrypha2, pp. 210-458). All known texts go back toA.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 heathenActs of Pilate, and knew nothing of a Christian work. Tischendorf and Hofmann, however, find evidence of its existence in Justin’s reference to the῎Ακτα Πιλάτου(Apol.i. 35, 48), and in Tertullian’s mention of theActa 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 elementswhich are found in the Petrine Gospel, but not in the canonical gospels, from the originalActa 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 Dobschütz relegate the book to the 4th century. The question is not settled yet (see Lipsius in Smith’sDict. of Christ. Biography, ii. 708-709, and Dobschütz 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, andin 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’sNT extra Canonem receptum, Nicholson’sGospel according to the Hebrews(1879), Westcott’sIntrod. to the Gospels, and Zahn’sGesch. 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 theGospel 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 titleΘωμᾶ Ίσραηλίτου Φιλοσόφου ῥητὰ εἰς τὰ παιδικὰ τοῦ Κυρίου, and treats of the period from the 7th to the 12th year (Tischendorf,Evangelia Apocrypha2, 1876, 140-157). The more fragmentary recension gives the history of the childhood from the 5th to the 8th year, and is entitledΣύγγραμμα τοῦ ἁγίου ἀποστόλου Θωμᾶ περὶ τῆς παιδικῆς ἀναστροφῆς τοῦ Κυρίου(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’sDict. 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 theGospel 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 theGospel of the Twelvehave 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), aboutA.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 hisProoem. ad Matt.
Gospel of Barnabas.—Condemned in the Gelasian Decree (see underBarnabasad fin.).
Gospel of Bartholomew.—Mentioned by Jerome in hisProoem. ad Matt.and condemned in the Gelasian Decree.
Gospel of Basilides.—Mentioned by Origen (Tract. 26 in Matt.xxxiii. 34, and in hisProoem. in Luc.); by Jerome in hisProoem. 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 (Εὐαγγέλιον τελειώσεως) 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 underGospel of Marygives cosmological disclosures and is presumably of Valentinian origin.
Apocryph of John.—This book, which is found in the Coptic MS. referred to underGospel of Maryand 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(Γέννα Μαρίας).—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 (ὕλη) 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 theTraditions 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’sActa Apostolorum Apocrypha, 1898, II. i. 1-127. These contain also theActs 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 theActs 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 hisHypotyposeson 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 hisPrincip.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 CorinthiansandEpistle 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 Carrière 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 beforeA.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 theπερίοδοιof 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 aboutA.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 LatinActus Vercellenses(which there are good grounds for assuming were originally called theΠράξεις Πέτρου) 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 theActus Vercellensesto 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’sReliquiae Sacrae2, v. 36-206), have borrowed largely from our work.The text of theActus Vercellensesis 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, andTexte und Untersuch. N.F. ix. 1 (1903). For the literature see Hennecke,Neutestamentliche Apokryphen Handbuch, 395 sqq.
For the relation of theActus Vercellensesto 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’sReliquiae Sacrae2, v. 36-206), have borrowed largely from our work.
The text of theActus Vercellensesis 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, andTexte und Untersuch. N.F. ix. 1 (1903). For the literature see Hennecke,Neutestamentliche Apokryphen Handbuch, 395 sqq.
Preaching of Peter.—This book (Πέτρου κήρυγμα) 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; Dobschütz, 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 Dobschütz,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, seeGesch. 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 Nöldeke 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(Didachē).—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 theEpistle 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 yearsA.D.80-120; Harnack to 120-165; Lightfoot and Funk to 80-100; Salmon to 120. (See Salmon inDict. of Christ. Biog.iv. 806-815, also articleDidachē.)
Apostolical Constitutions.—For the various collections of these ecclesiastical regulations—the SyriacDidascalia, 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. (SeeDict. 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 alsoAbgar.)
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 furtherBarnabas.)
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, Lightfoot2, 1890, Funk2, 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’sDict. 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; Funk2,Die apostol. Väter, 1901; Lightfoot2,Apostolic Fathers, 1889.
Epistle of Polycarp.—The genuineness of this epistle stands or falls with that of the Ignatian epistles. See article in Smith’sDictionary of Christian Biography, iv. 423-431; Lightfoot,Apostolic Fathers, i. 629-702; alsoPolycarp.
Pauline Epistles to the Laodiceans and the Alexandrians.— The first of these is found only in Latin. This, according to Lightfoot (seeColossians3, 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 theThird Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, andEpistle from the Corinthians to Paul, see under “Acts of Paul” above.
For theThird Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, andEpistle from the Corinthians to Paul, see under “Acts of Paul” above.
(R. H. C.)
1Judaism was long accustomed to lay claim to an esoteric tradition. Thus though it insisted on the exclusive canonicity of the 24 books, it claimed the possession of an oral law handed down from Moses, and just as the apocryphal books overshadowed in certain instances the canonical scriptures, so often the oral law displaced the written in the regard of Judaism.2See Porter in Hastings’Bible Dict.i. 1133The New Testament shows undoubtedly an acquaintance with several of the apocryphal books. Thus James i. 19 shows dependence on Sirach v. 11, Hebrews i. 3 on Wisdom vii. 26, Romans ix. 21 on Wisdom xv. 7, 2 Cor. v. 1, 4 on Wisdom ix. 15, &c.4Thus some of the additions to Daniel and the Prayer of Manasses are most probably derived from a Semitic original written in Palestine, yet in compliance with the prevailing opinion they are classed under Hellenistic Jewish literature. Again, the Slavonic Enoch goes back undoubtedly in parts to a Semitic original, though most of it was written by a Greek Jew in Egypt.5These editors have discovered (1907) a gospel fragment of the 2nd century which represents a dialogue between our Lord and a chief priest—a Pharisee.
1Judaism was long accustomed to lay claim to an esoteric tradition. Thus though it insisted on the exclusive canonicity of the 24 books, it claimed the possession of an oral law handed down from Moses, and just as the apocryphal books overshadowed in certain instances the canonical scriptures, so often the oral law displaced the written in the regard of Judaism.
2See Porter in Hastings’Bible Dict.i. 113
3The New Testament shows undoubtedly an acquaintance with several of the apocryphal books. Thus James i. 19 shows dependence on Sirach v. 11, Hebrews i. 3 on Wisdom vii. 26, Romans ix. 21 on Wisdom xv. 7, 2 Cor. v. 1, 4 on Wisdom ix. 15, &c.
4Thus some of the additions to Daniel and the Prayer of Manasses are most probably derived from a Semitic original written in Palestine, yet in compliance with the prevailing opinion they are classed under Hellenistic Jewish literature. Again, the Slavonic Enoch goes back undoubtedly in parts to a Semitic original, though most of it was written by a Greek Jew in Egypt.
5These editors have discovered (1907) a gospel fragment of the 2nd century which represents a dialogue between our Lord and a chief priest—a Pharisee.
APODICTIC(Gr.ἀποδεικτικός, capable of demonstration), a logical term, applied to judgments which are necessarily true, as of mathematical conclusions. The term in Aristotelian logic is opposed to dialectic, as scientific proof to probable reasoning. Kant contrasts apodictical with problematic and assertorical judgments.
APOLDA,a town of Germany, in the grand-duchy of Saxe-Weimar, near the river Ilm, 9 m. E. by N. from Weimar, on the main line of railway from Berlin via Halle, to Frankfort-On-Main. Pop. (1900) 20,352. It has few notable public buildings, but possesses three churches and monuments to the emperor Frederick III. and to Christian Zimmermann (1759-1842), who, by introducing the hosiery and cloth manufacture, made Apolda one of the most important places in Germany in these branches of industry. It has also extensive dyeworks, bell foundries, and manufactures of steam engines, boilers and bicycles.
APOLLINARIS,“the Younger” (d.A.D.390), bishop of Laodicea in Syria. He collaborated with his father Apollinaris the Elder in reproducing the Old Testament in the form of Homeric and Pindaric poetry, and the New after the fashion of Platonic dialogues, when the emperor Julian had forbidden Christians to teach the classics. He is best known, however, as a warm opponent of Arianism, whose eagerness to emphasize the deity of Christ and the unity of His person led him so far as a denial of the existence of a rational human soul (νοῦς) in Christ’s human nature, this being replaced in Him by a prevailing principle of holiness, to wit the Logos, so that His body was a glorified and spiritualized form of humanity. Over against this the orthodox or Catholic position maintained that Christ assumed human nature in its entirety including theνοῦς, for only so could He be example and redeemer. It was held that the system of Apollinaris was really Docetism (seeDocetae), that if the Godhood without constraint swayed the manhood there was no possibility of real human probation or of real advance in Christ’s manhood. The position was accordingly condemned by several synods and in particular by that of Constantinople (A.D.381). This did not prevent its having a considerable following, which after Apollinaris’s death divided into two sects, the more conservative taking its name (Vitalians) from Vitalis, bishop of Antioch, the other (Polemeans) adding the further assertion that the two natures were so blended that even the body of Christ was a fit object of adoration. The whole Apollinarian type of thought persisted in what was later the Monophysite (q.v.) school.
Although Apollinaris was a prolific writer, scarcely anything has survived under his own name. But a number of his writings are concealed under the names of orthodox Fathers,e.g.ἡ κατὰ μέρος πίστις, long ascribed to Gregory Thaumaturgus. These have been collected and edited by Hans Lietzmann.He must be distinguished from the bishop of Hierapolis who bore the same name, and who wrote one of the early Christian “Apologies” (c.170). See A. Harnack,History of Dogma, vols. iii. and iv.passim; R.L. Ottley,The Doctrine of the Incarnation; G. Voisin,L’Apollinarisme(Louvain, 1901); H. Lietzmann,Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule(Tubingen, 1905).
Although Apollinaris was a prolific writer, scarcely anything has survived under his own name. But a number of his writings are concealed under the names of orthodox Fathers,e.g.ἡ κατὰ μέρος πίστις, long ascribed to Gregory Thaumaturgus. These have been collected and edited by Hans Lietzmann.
He must be distinguished from the bishop of Hierapolis who bore the same name, and who wrote one of the early Christian “Apologies” (c.170). See A. Harnack,History of Dogma, vols. iii. and iv.passim; R.L. Ottley,The Doctrine of the Incarnation; G. Voisin,L’Apollinarisme(Louvain, 1901); H. Lietzmann,Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule(Tubingen, 1905).
APOLLINARIS, SULPICIUS,a learned grammarian of Carthage, who flourished in the 2nd centuryA.D.He taught Pertinax—himself a teacher of grammar before he was emperor,—and Aulus Gellius, who speaks of him in the highest terms (iv. 17). He is the reputed author of the metrical arguments to theAeneidand to the plays of Terence and (probably) Plautus (J.W. Beck,De Sulpicio Apollinari, 1884).
APOLLINARIS SIDONIUS, CAIUS SOLLIUS(c.430-487 or 488), Christian writer and bishop, was born in Lyons aboutA.D.430. Belonging to a noble family, he was educated under the best masters, and particularly excelled in poetry and polite literature. He married (about 452) Papianilla, the daughter of Avitus, who was consul and afterwards emperor. But Majorianus, in the year 457, having deprived Avitus of the empire and taken the city of Lyons, Apollinaris fell into the hands of the enemy. The reputation of his learning led Majorianus to treat him with the greatest respect. In return Apollinaris composed a panegyric in his honour (as he had previously done for Avitus), which won for him a statue at Rome and the title of count. In 467 the emperor Anthemius rewarded him for the panegyric which he had written in honour of him by raising him to the post of prefect of Rome, and afterwards to the dignity of a patrician and senator. In 472, more for his political than for his theological abilities, he was chosen to succeed Eparchius in the bishopric of Arverna (Clermont). On the capture of that city by the Goths in 474 he was imprisoned, as he had taken an active part in its defence; but he was afterwards restored by Euric, king of the Goths, and continued to govern his bishopric as before. He died inA.D.487 or 488. His extant works are hisPanegyricson different emperors (in which he draws largely upon Statius, Ausonius and Claudian); and nine books ofLettersandPoems, whose chief value consists in the light they shed on the political and literary history of the 5th century. TheLetters, which are very stilted, also reveal Apollinaris as a man of genial temper, fond of good living and of pleasure. The best edition is that in theMonumenta Germaniae Historica(Berlin, 1887), which gives a survey of the manuscripts.