(iii.) History and date. At the end of the 4th cent. and onwards apocryphal Acts of Peter are spoken of as being in authoritative use among heretics, especially the Manichwans; cf. Augustine, c. Faust. xxx. 4, adv. Adimant. Manich. 17; and (somewhat earlier) Philaster, Her. 88. At the same time these Acts were not infrequently alluded to without note of suspicion, and occasionally even definitely cited, by catholic writers. Thus ἔπος of Pelusium (Zp. ii. 99; Migne, Pat. Gr. xxviii. 544) adduces a saying taken from the discourse of Peter in the house of Marcellus (Actus Petri cum Simone xx., ed. Lipsius Ρ. θ7)---καθὼς Πέτρος ὁ κορυφαῖος τοῦ χόρου ἐν ταῖς ἑαυτοῦ πράξεσι σαφῶς ἀπε- φήνατο “A ἐχωρήσαμεν ἐγράψαμεν. The earliest writer who refers to these Acts by name is Eusebius, HE
ΠΙ. iii. 2. ery them with the Gospel, the Preaching, and the Apocalypse of Peter, he says ‘we
do not own these writings as handed down among the catholic (books), because no Church writer, either among the ancients or among our own con- temporaries, has ever used the testimonies to be derived from them’ (cf. Jerome, de Virr. Jllustr. i.). The earliest writer who certainly refers to these Acts—he does not quote them by name—is the African poet Commodian, about A.D. 250, who, in Carmen Apologeticum 615 ff., writes: ‘Et canem arses ut Simoni diceret: clamaris a Petro... nfantem fecit quinto mense proloqui uolgo.’ Commodian, then, supplies a terminus ad quem for the composition of these Petrine Acts. Harnack, in- deed (Chronologie p. 552 ff.), argues that they were actually written about the middle of the Sri century. He lays special stress on the fact that ie fa
Hi rpc s (Refut. Hor. vi. 20) gives an account of ᾿ eter’s triumph over Simon, and of the latter's death, quite different from that contained in the Acts, and he concludes that Hippolytus did not know our Acts, and that therefore they could not have
been then written. To this line of argument it
© ep) Σν ὁ πίρινε iy μυστανν λίγω 'Ἕλν ed σωεέσετι σὰ Dele ὧς ce ἀμετινὼ wal τὼ ἀμετιρὼ ὠἐΤὺλ τὸ διδὰ wel τὰ ὅν ὲ ἃ whee καὶ τὰ ὑκίσω ὧε τὰ Laporte, οὖ μὲ ἐσνγνῶει σὺν Bard er
114 PETER (SIMON)
PETER (SIMON)
may be replied: (a) that Hippolytus’ ignorance of them would not prove their non-existence ; (δ) that ignorance of them on his part cannot be deduced from the fact that he follows quite another story ; for Hippolytus, a malleus eticorum, would naturally avoid a story which he found in a heretical book. Harnack further insists that allusions in these Acts to, ¢.g., the emperor and to details of Church life point to the 3rd cent., while, in opposition to Lipsius and Zahn, he alto- gether denies that the Acts bear a Gnostic char- acter. Itis quite possible that some of the allusions to which Harnack appeals as proving the later date of the Acts as a whole point to interpolations on the part of an editor or a translator. But there are strong reasons for assigning the Grund- schrift to the 2nd cent. Lipsius (p. 266) and Zahn (Ges. Kan. ii. p. 861) have both noted the re- semblance in ideas and modes of expression be- tween the Acts of Peter and the Leucian Acts of John. The fragment of the last-named Acts printed for the first time in James’ Apocr. Anec- dota ii. brings to light still further points of like- ness. James (p. xxiv ff.) has collected a number of parallels between the fragment of the Johannine Acts and the Actus Petri cum Simone, and is justified in concluding ‘that they show as clearly as any evidence of this kind could, that whoever wrote the Acts of John wrote the Acts of Peter’ (p. xxiv). ‘ Acts of Peter’ were among ‘the Acts’ which, according to Photius (Biblioth. Cod. exiv.), were contained in al λεγόμεναι τῶν ἀποστόλων περίοδοι —the work of Leucius Charinus, This Leucius (see ere Apokr. Apostelg. i. p. 83 1f.), a some- what shadowy personage, seems to have belonged to Asia Minor, and to have written during the 2nd cent., about 160 as Zahn thinks (ib. p. 864). Thus the original Gnostic Acts were a 2nd cent. romance, and had their origin in Asia Minor.
(2) From the Gnostic we turn to the catholic Acts. These are often distinguished by the name Marcellus, who in some Latin MSS appears (in a superscription) as the author. (i.) Documents. These Acts are found in two chief forms, which Tischendorf (Acta Apost. Apocr. pp. 1-39) has somewhat disastrously endeavoured to weave into a single whole. The one, which may be designated as A, is found in Latin MSS, and in one Vente Greek MS (which UE ΕΙΩΝ represents by the symbol E); the other, which may designated as B, is found in the majority of Greek MSS. The most important difference between the two forms is that B begins with a long account (§§ 1-21) of the fear caused by Paul’s appeal to Cesar among the Jews at Rome (who had already had rouble enough through Peter’s presence there), and of the closing stages of Paul’s journey to the city. This section seems to be quite late, and is attributed b Lipsius (Prolegom. p. 1χὶ) ‘insipido cuidam seculi ix monacho qui Siciliw# uel Magne Grecie nescio αὐϑὰ monasterium incolebat.? Of the common