Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 03-12-2008, 04:25 AM

The "Leucian Acts", so-called on account of their purported authorship sometime "roughly" between 150-and 250 CE by the very shadowy Leucius Charinus. The five "Leucian Acts" are as follows:

* The Acts of John
* The Acts of Peter
* The Acts of Paul
* The Acts of Andrew
* The Acts of Thomas

In a new article here I have provided a summary comparitive review of extant (online) scholarship on the "Leucian Acts" which may interest anyone who is looking into the apocrypha.

Additionally, there is a section outlining a number of different background Overviews of the Apocryphal New Testament literature, and a section containing the relevant extract from Eusebius on the Non Canonical Literature (H.E. 3.25). I would be appreciative of further information on any other sources in this area, on these five "Leucian Acts".

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDC

"The canon is neither a total nor a random collection of early Christian texts. It is both deliberate and selective and it excludes just as surely as it includes. I would even say that you cannot understand what is included in the canon unless you understand what was excluded from it. When the [extracanonical] gospels are played over against the four canonical gospels, both the products and the processes of those latter texts appear in a radically different light."

— John Dominic Crossan, Prof. Religious Studies, DePaul Univ.

If you have any comments about any of these comments about these five "Leucian Acts", or about the acts themselves, and specifically about their conjectured chronology, I would be interested in hearing from you.

As far as I know, the Gospel of Thomas, having Manichaean overtones, has dragged the conjectural chronology of this set of Acts of the Apostles from the mid second century to the mid third century, seeing Mani lived until the year c.272 CE, before being executed, and his writings condemned.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

mountainman · 03-18-2008, 07:22 AM

I would have thought discussions about Leucius Charinus belonged right beside those of Papias and Hegessipus. And, if we were to set aside the problem of the clearly two Ammonias Saccas' in history, I can immediately find no better example of a fraudulently historical author that this author Leucius Charinus.

On the one hand we have Tertullian mentioning him.
(Eusebius') Tertullian kicks the bucket c.220 CE.
Tertullian cannot have known anything about Mani.

Yet some of Leucius' purported works (eg" Acts of Thomas)
are regarded as written "under Manichaean influence"
and are thus dated to as late as 250 CE.

(In fact perhaps even after 292 CE when the
Manichaean persecutions exploded the common
opinion and assessment of this influence)

How can this be? Who can explain the mystery?

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

03-18-2008, 07:22 AM	#2
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	the shadowy Leucius Charinus I would have thought discussions about Leucius Charinus belonged right beside those of Papias and Hegessipus. And, if we were to set aside the problem of the clearly two Ammonias Saccas' in history, I can immediately find no better example of a fraudulently historical author that this author Leucius Charinus. On the one hand we have Tertullian mentioning him. (Eusebius') Tertullian kicks the bucket c.220 CE. Tertullian cannot have known anything about Mani. Yet some of Leucius' purported works (eg" Acts of Thomas) are regarded as written "under Manichaean influence" and are thus dated to as late as 250 CE. (In fact perhaps even after 292 CE when the Manichaean persecutions exploded the common opinion and assessment of this influence) How can this be? Who can explain the mystery? Best wishes, Pete Brown

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.