Acts of Archelaus (Acta Archelai)

...had a Greek text deviating from Epiphanius before him, and sometimes the text of Epiphanius can be improved according to it, e.g., p. 9, 17. 23; 10, 6. 20; 11, 9. 21; 13, 6. 20; 18, 3. 17; 18, 4. 18; 19, 1. 15; 20, 4. 22.

Regarding the time and place of the translation, see Traube, op. cit., p. 547, 548 and Harnack, op. cit., p. 548, 549.

Since it was assumed that the translator himself composed the appendix, which is found at the end of the Acta in Traube's manuscript and contains a Ketzerkatalog heresy catalog, it was concluded on internal grounds that the translation was made in Rome around the year 400. After a thorough comparison of the linguistic usage of the Acta and this heresy catalog, I believe I can prove, or at least make it very probable, that the appendix cannot have originated from the translator¹. Although the material for such a comparison is not very extensive, and the fact that one part is a translation while the other is a free creation complicates the task, a sum of various minor indications seems to speak against the idea that the translator composed the appendix.

This invalidates the proof that the translation originated in Rome, because it would be possible that it could have been accomplished elsewhere (e.g., in Africa, which Traube pointed out with a 'slight suspicion') and only received its appendix in Rome. The translation date assumed by Harnack can hardly be shaken, because an earlier dating is impossible due to the terminus a quo limit from which (392) given by Hieronymus Jerome. It also does not seem unlikely that the heresy catalog was not connected to the translation by chance, but was intended for it from the beginning, perhaps added by one of the first readers. In that case, the Acta, regardless of where and when they were written, would have already been in Rome by 400².

If one assumes that the translation was created before 392 without Jerome having had knowledge of it, one could still hardly go back to a much earlier time. The assumption remains possible

1. See the Latin word register at the end of the present volume; the words that only occur in the appendix are marked with *; some deviations in word meaning and linguistic usage are listed under a, addo, alter, aeones, discutio, modicum, multum, quippe, quod, sic. In the appendix one reads Maron and Valentinus, but in the Acta correctly Marcion and Valentinianus; in the appendix Mytram and Mytras, in the Acta always Mitra.

2. The fact that the heresy catalog was in the very old exemplar of CM original: "Codex Montis-pessulani" is made probable by the spelling IS with a horizontal stroke above for Iesus Jesus (see below p. XXXVII) alone.