Please assist support the mission of recent Advent and get the total contents of this webpage as an instant download. Professor Schmidt has printed a photographic copy, a transcription, a German translation, and a commentary of a Coptic papyrus composed of about 2000 fragments, which he has categorized, juxtaposed, and deciphered at a price of infinite labour ("Acta Pauli aus der Heidelberger koptischen Papyrushandschrift Nr. 1", Leipzig, 1904, and "Zusatze" and many others., Leipzig, 1905). Most critics, whether or not Catholic (Duchesne, Bardenhewer, Ehrhard and so forth.), or Protestant (Zahn, Harnack, sex Corssen and so on.), believe that these are actual "Acta Pauli", though the textual content edited by Schmidt, with its very quite a few gaps, represents however a small portion of the unique work. This discovery modified the usually accepted ideas regarding the origin, contents, and worth of these apocryphal Acts, and warrants the conclusion that three historic compositions which have reached us formed an integral a part of the "Acta Pauli" viz. Lipsius, ("Acta Apostolorum apocrypha", Leipzig, 1891, 235-72), a "Martyrium Pauli" preserved in Greek and a fragment of which also exists in Latin (op. This c ontent h as been written by GSA C ontent Generator Demoversion !
104-17), and a letter from the Corinthians to Paul with the latter's reply, the Armenian textual content of which was preserved (cf. Zahn, "Gesch. des neutest. Kanons", II, 592-611), and the Latin discovered by Berger in 1891 (d. Harnack, "Die apokryphen Briefe des Paulus an die Laodicener und Korinther", Bonn, 1905). With nice sagacity Zahn anticipated this consequence with regard to the last two paperwork, oral and the style in which St. Jerome speaks of the periodoi Pauli et Theclae (Illustrious Men 7) might need permitted the same surmise with regard to the first. Another consequence of Schmidt's discovery is not any less attention-grabbing. Lipsius maintained and this was hitherto the frequent opinion that moreover the Catholic "Acts" there previously existed Gnostic "Acts of Paul", but now all the things tends to show that the latter by no means existed. The truth is Origen quotes the "Acta Pauli" twice as an estimable writing (Commentary on John XX.12; De Principiis II.1.3); Eusebius (Church History III.3.5 and III.25.4) places them among the books in dispute, such because the "Shepherd" of Hermas, the "Apocalypse of Peter", the "Epistle of Barnabas", and the "Teaching of the Apostles".
The stichometry of the "Codex Claromontanus" (photograph in Vigouroux, "Dict. de la Bible", II, 147) places them after the canonical books. Tertullian and St. Jerome, while declaring the legendary character of this writing, don't attack its orthodoxy. The precise purpose of St. Paul's correspondence with the Corinthians which formed a part of the "Acts", was to oppose the Gnostics, Simon and Cleobius. But there isn't a reason to admit the existence of heretical "Acts" which have since been hopelessly misplaced, for all the small print given by historic authors are verified within the "Acts" which have been recovered or tally properly with them. The next is the explanation of the confusion: The Manicheans and Priscillianists had circulated a set of 5 apocryphal "Acts", four of which were tainted with heresy, and the fifth have been the "Acts of Paul". The "Acta Pauli", owing to this unlucky affiliation, are suspected of heterodoxy by the more recent authors reminiscent of Philastrius (De haeres., 88) and Photius (Cod., 114). Tertullian (On Baptism 17) and St. Jerome (Illustrious Men 7) denounce the fabulous character of the apocryphal "Acts" of Paul, and this severe judgment is amply confirmed by the examination of the fragments published by Schmidt.
It's a purely imaginative work by which improbability vies with absurdity. The creator, who was acquainted with the canonical Acts of the Apostles, locates the scene in the places really visited by St. Paul (Antioch, Iconium, Myra, Perge, Sidon, Tyre, Ephesus, Corinth, Philippi, Rome), however for the rest he provides his fancy free rein. His chronology is totally not possible. Of the sixty-five individuals he names, very few are recognized and the part played by these is irreconcilable with the statements of the canonical "Acts". Briefly, if the canonical "Acts" are true the apocryphal "Acts" are false. This, nonetheless, doesn't suggest that none of the small print have historic foundation, however they have to be confirmed by an unbiased authority. If we admit in keeping with the nearly unanimous opinion of exegetes that Acts 15 and Galatians 2:1-10, relate to the identical fact it will likely be seen that an interval of seventeen years - or at least sixteen, counting incomplete years as accomplished - elapsed between the conversion of Paul and the Apostolic council, for Paul visited Jerusalem three years after his conversion (Galatians 1:18) and returned after fourteen years for the meeting held with regard to authorized observances (Galatians 2:1: "Epeita dia dekatessaron eton").