DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49369#0071
THE ACTS OF XANTHIPPE AND POLYXENA
53
Probus are the principal figures in the first half. The second half
introduces us to Polyxena, Peter, Philip, Andrew and Rebecca,
besides a host of minor characters, and is moreover a much more
obvious mosaic than Part I. Traces of the use of the Acts of Paul
and Theda, of Paul, of Peter and of Thomas, seem to be present
throughout, but in the first part they are more deftly concealed.
In Part II. we have cases of plain quotation from Paul and Theda
and Peter, and two more sources, the Acts of Andrew and Ads of
Philip, appear for the first time. Again, in Part I. the scale of
treatment is different to that in Part II. In Part I. there are not
less than nine speeches or prayers of considerable length: in Part II.
there are at most three (cc. xxvii. xxxii.) and the events are more
crowded by far, and more briefly treated. At the same time, there
is no marked diversity of style between the two halves of the
book ; and I do not wish to advance any theory of interpolation,
or of dual authorship for the two parts. What does seem certain
is that the book is throughout a mosaic : episodes are borrowed
from distinct written sources which can be identified. And what
seems likely is that in cc. i.—xxi. the source chiefly employed
is one, whereas in cc. xxii.—xlii. the sources employed are
many. In other words Part I. is more homogeneous and coherent
than Part II. Further, in view of our previous investigation, it
seems a reasonable conjecture that the main source of Part I. is
the Acts of Paul. If we look at the kind of use which our author
has made of the documents before him, we shall see that he has
borrowed distinct episodes from the Acts of Paul and Thecla, from
those of Peter, and, in a less degree, from those of Andrew and
Philip : he has introduced those Apostles in scenes for which he
found authority in their Acts. Is it not more than likely that he
used the Acts of Paul, his chief hero, to a still larger extent ?
Resemblances have been already pointed out between our scanty
fragments of those Acts and the book before us: and when the
paucity of those fragments is considered, I think it must be
allowed that the resemblances even exceed anything that we had
a right to expect. A terminus a quo for determining the date of
the book is furnished by its use of the Acts of Philip. This
is allowed to be the latest of the six romances named here, and is
placed somewhere in the first half of the third century. It is by
53
Probus are the principal figures in the first half. The second half
introduces us to Polyxena, Peter, Philip, Andrew and Rebecca,
besides a host of minor characters, and is moreover a much more
obvious mosaic than Part I. Traces of the use of the Acts of Paul
and Theda, of Paul, of Peter and of Thomas, seem to be present
throughout, but in the first part they are more deftly concealed.
In Part II. we have cases of plain quotation from Paul and Theda
and Peter, and two more sources, the Acts of Andrew and Ads of
Philip, appear for the first time. Again, in Part I. the scale of
treatment is different to that in Part II. In Part I. there are not
less than nine speeches or prayers of considerable length: in Part II.
there are at most three (cc. xxvii. xxxii.) and the events are more
crowded by far, and more briefly treated. At the same time, there
is no marked diversity of style between the two halves of the
book ; and I do not wish to advance any theory of interpolation,
or of dual authorship for the two parts. What does seem certain
is that the book is throughout a mosaic : episodes are borrowed
from distinct written sources which can be identified. And what
seems likely is that in cc. i.—xxi. the source chiefly employed
is one, whereas in cc. xxii.—xlii. the sources employed are
many. In other words Part I. is more homogeneous and coherent
than Part II. Further, in view of our previous investigation, it
seems a reasonable conjecture that the main source of Part I. is
the Acts of Paul. If we look at the kind of use which our author
has made of the documents before him, we shall see that he has
borrowed distinct episodes from the Acts of Paul and Thecla, from
those of Peter, and, in a less degree, from those of Andrew and
Philip : he has introduced those Apostles in scenes for which he
found authority in their Acts. Is it not more than likely that he
used the Acts of Paul, his chief hero, to a still larger extent ?
Resemblances have been already pointed out between our scanty
fragments of those Acts and the book before us: and when the
paucity of those fragments is considered, I think it must be
allowed that the resemblances even exceed anything that we had
a right to expect. A terminus a quo for determining the date of
the book is furnished by its use of the Acts of Philip. This
is allowed to be the latest of the six romances named here, and is
placed somewhere in the first half of the third century. It is by