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 the [Greek: perlodoi] of 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
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,
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.
8