Please assist help the mission of latest Advent and get the full contents of this website as an on the spot 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 categorised, juxtaposed, and deciphered at a price of infinite labour ("Acta Pauli aus der Heidelberger koptischen Papyrushandschrift Nr. 1", Leipzig, 1904, and "Zusatze" and so on., Leipzig, 1905). Most critics, whether or not Catholic (Duchesne, Bardenhewer, Ehrhard and so on.), or Protestant (Zahn, Harnack, Corssen and many others.), imagine that these are actual "Acta Pauli", though the text edited by Schmidt, with its very quite a few gaps, represents but a small portion of the original work. This discovery modified the typically accepted ideas concerning the origin, contents, and value of those apocryphal Acts, and warrants the conclusion that three ancient 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 outcome with regard to the last two paperwork, and the style by 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 no much less interesting. Lipsius maintained and this was hitherto the widespread opinion that moreover the Catholic "Acts" there formerly existed Gnostic "Acts of Paul", however now every little thing tends to prove that the latter by no means existed. In reality 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", love 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 mentioning the legendary character of this writing, do not attack its orthodoxy. The exact goal 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 is no such thing as a purpose 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 well with them. The following is the reason of the confusion: The Manicheans and Priscillianists had circulated a set of five apocryphal "Acts", four of which have been tainted with heresy, and the fifth had been the "Acts of Paul". The "Acta Pauli", owing to this unlucky association, http://Woodspock.com%252F__media__%252Fjs%252Fnetsoltrademark.php%253Fd%253Dp.r.os.p.e.r.les.c@pezedium.free.fr?a%5B%5D=%3Ca+href%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ft.antj.link%2F192379%2F3785%2F0%3Fbo%3D2753%2C2754%2C2755%2C2756%26pyt%3Dmulti%26po%3D6456%26aff_sub5%3DSF_006OG000004lmDN%3Ehttps%3A%2F%2Ft.antj.link%2F192379%2F3785%2F0%3Fbo%3D2753%3C%2Fa%3E%3Cmeta+http-equiv%3Drefresh+content%3D0%3Burl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ft.antj.link%2F192379%2F3785%2F0%3Fbo%3D2753%2C2754%2C2755%2C2756%26pyt%3Dmulti%26po%3D6456%26aff_sub5%3DSF_006OG000004lmDN+%2F%3E are suspected of heterodoxy by the newer authors akin to 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 is a purely imaginative work in which improbability vies with absurdity. The creator, who was acquainted with the canonical Acts of the Apostles, locates the scene within the locations really visited by St. Paul (Antioch, Iconium, Myra, https://t.antj.link/192379/3785/0?bo=2753 Perge, Sidon, Tyre, Ephesus, Corinth, Philippi, Rome), but for the remainder he gives his fancy free rein. His chronology is absolutely not possible. Of the sixty-five individuals he names, very few are identified and the part performed by these is irreconcilable with the statements of the canonical "Acts". Briefly, if the canonical "Acts" are true the apocryphal "Acts" are false. This, nevertheless, doesn't suggest that none of the details have historic basis, but they must be confirmed by an independent authority. If we admit based on the nearly unanimous opinion of exegetes that Acts 15 and Galatians 2:1-10, relate to the identical truth it will be seen that an interval of seventeen years - or at the very 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 assembly held with regard to authorized observances (Galatians 2:1: "Epeita dia dekatessaron eton").