The series was begun by the man who called himself Leucius—that being the name (traditional or invented) of a companion and disciple of St. John. ‘Leucius’ writes the Acts of John not later than the middle of the second century, taking the Canonical Acts as his model, but infusing into his work more romantic elements. His presentation of the Person of our Lord, and his use of Gnostic terminology, cannot in my mind be reconciled with the view that he was an orthodox Christian. A generation later, a priest of Asia Minor writes the Acts of Paul, with the object of doing honour to the apostle. His authorship of the book is detected, his book is regarded as an imposture, and he is degraded from his office. So Tertullian tells us,[1] placing the event in his own time.
This writer also takes St. Luke’s Acts for his model. There is little imitation of Leucius, but enough to show that he knew the Acts of John. Next, not later than A. D. 200, come the Acts of Peter: orthodox, as are those of Paul, but written by a very close imitator of Leucius. So servile, indeed, is his imitation, that I have tried before now to prove that he was Leucius. I am, however, no longer of that opinion. This author was an Asiatic, probably: at any rate he knew very little about Rome.
The Acts of Andrew and of Thomas both belong to the third century. It is contended (I must refer the reader to the notice prefixed to Thomas) that the latter were composed in Syriac. Imitation of Leucius is very apparent in both books; but while Andrew may be regarded at a pinch as orthodox, Thomas certainly oversteps the line.
These five books were collected into a corpus, probably by the Manichaean sect. These, the disciples of Mani, who blended Christianity with the old Magian religion of Persia, teaching that the powers of Good and Evil were coeternal, and that the material world was of the Evil side, welcomed these books, in which asceticism is constantly
- ↑ A difficulty as to date has to be noted. Jerome, who repeats Tertullian’s story, adds something to it (we know not on what authority), namely, the detail that the priest was convicted ‘in the presence of John’ (‘apud Ioannem’). This is not possible historically, but the words stand for something. My conjecture that we ought to read ‘at Iconium’ (‘apud Iconium’) has met with some approval, and I believe it may be right. It certainly agrees with all else that we know of the provenance of these Acts.
