(3) The Apocalypse of Peter.—A considerable fragment of the Apocalypse of Peter was dis- covered and published with the fragment of the Gospel. Before 1892only some half dozen small frag- ments were known to exist (see, e.g., Zahn, Ges. Kan. IL. ii. Ἔ 818). The Akhmim fragment begins in the middle of a sentence containing apocalyptic words put into our Lord’s mouth. The apostles—‘ we, the twelve disciples’—then go into the ‘mountain’ with the Lord to pray, and ask to see one of the righteous who had ‘departed from the world,’ ‘in order that . . . being encouraged we may encourage also the men who hear us.’ In answer to Peter’s questions the Lord reveals the place of happiness and the place of torment, in which punishments are meted out to various classes of sinners. It appears from the reference to the apostles’ hearers that they had received a com- mand to teach; but a time during the Lord’s ministry is perhaps less in harmony with the sup-
osed situation than a time after the resurrection.
he Apocalypse of Peter is mentioned in the Mura- torian fragment (unless the passage is corrupt; see p. 780). Clement of Alexandria quotes it three or four times, once as Scripture (cl. ex Scrip. Proph. xli.); and, according to Eusebius, he com- mented on it. Thus there is good ground for regarding the Apocalypse as a 2nd cent. document, especially if it is allowed that it was used in the
“The ‘Preaching of Peter’ in an Arabic MS, published by Mrs. Gibson in Studia Sinaitica ΝΟ. y., has no connexion with the Preaching under discussion.
| The first person singular is used in one fragment (Hilgen feld p. 57, 1, 28); but this fragment is derived ἐκ τῆς διδασκαλίαμ Πέτρου (von Dobschiitz p. 118; cf. Holl, Fragmente vornican Kirchenviter (1899) p. 234).
PETER (SIMON) Acts of Thomas (ed. Bonnet, p. 39) and in the
Passion ae Perpetua (James, p. 60f.). Zahn, writing before the publication of the Akhmim fragment, piacere on the fact that Origen shows no sign of having known the Apocalypse, that Clement may have derived his knowledge of it from his Hebrew teacher, that several notices of it seem to connect it with Palestine, and he there- fore thinks that Palestine was its birthplace. On the other hand, the coincidences with the Pistis Sophia, both in vocabulary and matter, seem to make an Egyptian origin more probable. The text has been edited by Bouriant, James, Lods (1892), Harnack (1893); see Zahn, Ges. Kan. τι. ii.
. S10fF. ; Salmon, Introduction to NT, Appendix Fiso4) . 589 f.
(4) Jerome in de Virr. Illustr. i. 5 mentions the Judicium among the apocryphal books which bear St. Peter’s name. Rufinus, in Symb. Apost. 38, gives the Libri Ecclesiastici which ee to the NT as ‘libellus qui dicitur Pastoris sine Hermes, gel appellatur Vie uel Judicium Petri.’
t seems probable that Jerome and Rufinus have the same document in mind. Further, the whole list of books in “pcre J to be based upon the list given in the Fes pistle of Athanasius, who couples together ‘the so-called Teaching of the Apostles and the Shepherd.’ It is probable that the Judicium Petri was a Latin document, in which Peter alone was represented as the speaker, corresponding to the Greek document al διαταγαὶ al διὰ Κλήμεντος καὶ κανόνες ἐκκλησιαστικοὶ τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων. See Hilgenfeld, NT extra Can. Rec. iv. p. 111ff.; Salmon, Introduction p. 654 i k, Die Lehre der zwolf Apostel p. 193
(5) An ‘Epistle of Peter to James’ is prefixed to the Clementine Homilies, and is thoroughly Ebionite in its teaching.
IV. RECONSTRUCTION OF THE LATER HISTORY OF St. PETER.—Except the testimony of 1 Peter, we have in the NT no clear evidence as to the apostle’s movements after St. Paul’s notice in Gal 2. What evidence the NT supplies as to later times is negative. But the tradition of the Church and the statements of early writers, together with the evidence of 1 Peter, ae a basis for conclusions which reach a very high degree of probability. An endeavour will abs made to interpret the evidence as to the three following points—(1) St. Peter’s visit to Rome; (2) the Simonian legend ; (8 the period which succeeded the ‘Council’ at
erusalem.
1. St. Peter’s visit to Rome.—Of those who deny that St. Peter visited Rome, Lipsius may be taken as the His interpretation of the evidence is given in his great work, Die Apokr. Apostelges- chichten τι. ii. pp. 1-69 (1887), where he embodies the results of his previous investigations—Quellen der rimischen Petrussage, arts. in Schenkel’s Bibellexikon, arts. in Jarhrb. f. protest. Theologie (1876). His theory is briefly as follows. The tradition of St. Peter's presence at Rome takes two forms. The one brings St. Peter and St. Paul together at Rome; together they found the Church there, and together they suffer. The other represents St. Peter as the opponent of the false apostle, Simon Magus, who is St. Paul under a thin disguise ; as pursuing him from land to land and finally in Rome triumphing over him, and then dying a martyr’s death. The first form of the legend may be called the Petro-Pauline legend, the second the Simonian. Since the two agree in bringing the apostle to Rome, they cannot be in- dependent; and the question at once arises—Which is the original form? The Petro-Pauline legend corresponds to the Gentile view of the relation of the two apostles: they are friends and fellow-