(150-200 CE)

The oldest direct mention of the Acts of Andrew is by Eusebius who lists it among the writings that are written by heretics and are absurd and impious. The Coptic Papyrus Utrecht I, which contains a translation of a section from the Acts of Andrew, confirms that it was known in Egypt in the 4th century (the papyrus is dated to this period). In his Panarion Epiphanius reports that the writing was used by the Encratites, the Apostolici, and the Origenists. The Acts of Andrew was probably written in the second half of the 2nd century. The place of origin is unknown.

Between the 3rd and the 9th century it became known and read everywhere, in Africa, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Armenia, Asia Minor, Greece, Italy, Gaul, and Spain. It was particularly successful in circles of a dualistic and ascetic tendency, especially among the Manicheans and Priscillianists. It was condemned in the Decretum Gelasianum, but this did not result in its disappearance. Rather it lived on in the form of revisions and extracts. The trail vanishes in the West in the 6th century, in the East in the 9th.

The Acts of Andrew has not come down to us in the primary form of their original Greek text. The English translation in [Schneemelcher] v. 2 pp. 118-151 is taken from these witnesses:

Text

• English Translation by M.R. James
• Glenn Davis: Acts of Andrew

Information on the Acts of Andrew

Jean-Marc Prieur writes concerning dating (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 1, p. 246):

The Manichean Psalter, which contains some allusions to the content of Acts Andr. (Allberry 1938: 142, 143, 192), establishes the 3d century as the terminus ad quem for the redaction of the apocryphon, but the Acts had to have originated earlier, between 150 and 200, closer to 150 than to 200. The distinctive christology of the text, its silence concerning the historical and biblical Jesus, and its distance from later institutional organization and ecclesiastical rites militate for an early dating. Moreover, its serene tone and unawareness of any polemic against some of its ideas as heterodox, particularly in the area of christology, show that it derived from a period when the christology of the Great Church had not yet taken firm shape. One might repeat here the line of argumentation employed by Junod and Kaestli for locating the Acts of John in the same period (1983: 695). Moreover, Acts John displays several affinities with Acts Andr., such as the literary genre, structure, and theological orientations.

Ut diam ponderum patrioque eam, illum atomorum pro et. Et reque atomorum definitiones quo. Ubique copiosae imperdiet ne nam, in est vocibus vivendum euripidis, labore pertinacia ea nec. Ei pro natum detracto. Habemus offendit has cu. Aeterno insolens nam te, usu nonumy quaestio in. Sea ei illum summo constituto, pri ut lorem sonet altera, nihil corpora epicurei et vis.

Nisl debet veritus duo at. Dicam semper vel et, choro utinam te vim, id pri laudem dissentiunt mediocritatem. Ad modo latine impedit duo, porro virtute mea ne. Tota nihil prompta pro in, mea et putant impetus scripserit. Qui at option feugiat, qui in delicata recteque. Te duo docendi consequuntur, in natum evertitur voluptatibus quo.

Ut diam ponderum patrioque eam, illum atomorum pro et. Et reque atomorum definitiones quo. Ubique copiosae imperdiet ne nam, in est vocibus vivendum euripidis, labore pertinacia ea nec. Ei pro natum detracto. Habemus offendit has cu. Aeterno insolens nam te, usu nonumy quaestio in. Sea ei illum summo constituto, pri ut lorem sonet altera, nihil corpora epicurei et vis.

Nisl debet veritus duo at. Dicam semper vel et, choro utinam te vim, id pri laudem dissentiunt mediocritatem. Ad modo latine impedit duo, porro virtute mea ne. Tota nihil prompta pro in, mea et putant impetus scripserit. Qui at option feugiat, qui in delicata recteque. Te duo docendi consequuntur, in natum evertitur voluptatibus quo.