_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 t.i.tle [Greek: Thoma Isrealitou Philosophou hreta eis ta paidika Kuriou], and treats of the period from the 7th to the 12th year (Tischendorf, _Evangelia Apocrypha_, 1876, 140-157). The more fragmentary recension gives the history of the childhood from the 5th to the 8th year, and is ent.i.tled [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 t.i.tle, _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) a.s.signs 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 compa.s.s. 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._ x.x.x. 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._ x.x.xiii. 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._ x.x.x. 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 (x.x.xviii. 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 G.o.d of the Jews in the form of an a.s.s 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 Encrat.i.te 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 Encrat.i.te 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 pa.s.sage 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 const.i.tuent of the original work. As regards the martyrdom, owing to the confusion introduced by the mult.i.tudinous Catholic revisions of this section of the Acts, it is practically impossible to restore its original form. For a complete discussion of the various doc.u.ments 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 pa.s.sing 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 lx.x.xix.) of these Acts. Eusebius (_H.E._ iii. 25. 6), Epiphanius (_Haer._ xlvii. 1) and other ancient writers a.s.sign 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.-lx.x.xvi.); account of the crucifixion of Jesus and His apparent death (lx.x.xvii.-cv.); the death of John (cvi.-cxv.). There are manifest gaps in the narrative, a fact which we would infer from the extent a.s.signed 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 x.x.xvii., also before lviii., not to mention others. The encrat.i.te 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 pa.s.sages 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 const.i.tuent 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 ident.i.ty 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 a.s.signed 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 chast.i.ty 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, a.s.signs their composition to this period mainly on the ground that Hippolytus was not acquainted with them; but even were this a.s.sumption 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 a.s.suming 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 a.s.signed 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_, 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 const.i.tuent 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.