7. Mode of Peter's Death. — The tradition of this apostle's being crucified with his head downwards is probably to be relegated to the regions of the fabulous. Tertullian, who is the first to mention Peter's cruci- fixion, says simply (De Prceser. Harts. S6), " Petrus passioni Dominica; adsequatur;" which would rather lead to the conclusion that he was crucified in the. usual way, as our Lord was. The next witness is Origen, whose words are, dveoKoXoirioSn Kara KHpu- Xijc o'i'Twe avroQ dZiwoac, vaBuv (ap. Euseb. //. E. iii, 1); and these are generally cited as intimating the peculiarity traditionally ascribed to the mode of Peter's crucifixion. Bul do the words really intimate this? Allowing that the verb may mean "was crucified," can Kara Kt<pd\t)Q mean "with the head downwards?" No instance, we believe, can be adduced which would justify such a translation. The combination Kara K£^dXnc occurs both in classical and Biblical Greek (see Plato, Rep. iii, 308; Pint. Apoph. de Scipione Jun. 13; Mark xiv, 3; 1 Cor. xi, 4), but in every case it means "upon the head" (comp. Kara Koppnc, irard^ai, Lucian, GaU. c. 30, and Kara Kuppnc. waittv, Cutapl. c. 12). According to analogy, therefore, Origen's words should mean that the apostle was impaled, or fastened to the cross upon, i. e. by, the head. When Eusebius has to mention the crucifying of martyrs with the head downwards, he says distinctly oi ii arn—a\ir KarutKctpa irpoffn\w$tvrtQ (II. E. viii, 8). It is proba- bly to a misunderstanding of Origen's words that this story is to be traced and it is curious to see how it grows as it advances. First, we have Origen's vague and doubtful statement above quoted; then we have EuBebius's more precise statement : Wirpoc, Kara Ktipd- ,\j;c oravpovrat (Dem. Ev. iii. 116, c); and at length, in the hands of Jerome, it expands into " Ailixus cruci martyrio coronatus est capite ad terrain verso et in sul. lime pedibus elevatis, asserens se tndignum qui sic crucifigeretur nt Dominus buus" (Caial. •*<■.,«
i). See Ckucify.
8. Spnrio,,.< Writings attributed to Peter.- Some apoc- ryphal works of very early date obtained currency in the church as containing the Bubstance of the apostle's
teaching. The fragments which remain are not ol much
importance, bin they demand a brie!' not ice. See APOC- i;l ill \.
(1.) The Preaching (Ktipvyud)m /'or/rim (iiiaxn) of Piti r. probably identical with a work called the Preach- ing of Paul, or of Paul ami /'</' r. quoted hy Lactantius, may have contained some traces of the apostle's teat h- ing, if, as Grabe, Ziegler, and other- supposed, it was
published b after Ids death. The passagi b, howei er,
.pi, .nil by Clement ol Ah zandria arc for the most part
wholly unlike Peter's mode ol 'treating doelrinal or prac- tical subjects. Rufinua Bud Jerome allude to a work which they call "Judicium Petri;" for which Cave ac- counts by a happy conjecture, adopted by Nil/.scho,
PETER (FIRST EPISTLE OF) 15 PETER (FIRST EPISTLE OF)
Mayerhoff, Reuss, and Schliemann, that Rufinus found Kp/la for nrjpvyfia, and read npi/ia. Epiphaniua also names TlepioSoi Ylirpov as a book among the Ebionites (Hcei-es. xxx, 15). It is probably only a different name for the foregoing (Schwegler, Nach-apost. Zeitalt. ii, 30). See Gospels, Spurious.
(2.) Another work, called the Revelation of Peter (airoKiiXvtyic. Ylirpov'), was held in much esteem for centuries. It was commented on by Clement of Alex- andria, quoted by Theodotus in the Eclogce, named to- gether with the Revelation of John in the Fragment on the Canon published by Muratori (but with the remark, " Quam quidam ex nostris legi in Ecclesia nolunt"), and according to Sozomen {Hist. Eccles. vii, 19) was read once a year in some churches of Palestine. It is said, but not on good authority, to have been preserved among the Coptic Christians. Eusebius looked on it as spuri- ous, but not of heretical origin. From the fragments and notices it appears to have consisted chiefly of denuncia- tions against the Jews, and predictions of the fall of Jerusalem, and to have been of a wild, fanatical charac- ter. The most complete account of this curious work is given by Lttcke in his general introduction to the Revelation of John, p. 47. See Revelations, Spuri- ous.
There are traces in ancient writers of a few other writings attributed to the apostle Peter, but they seem to have wholly perished (see Smith, Diet, of Class. Biog. iii, 221 sq.). See Acts, Spurious.
The legends of the Clementines are wholly devoid of historical worth ; but from those fictions, originating ■with an obscure and heretical sect, have been derived some of the most mischievous speculations of modern rationalists, especially as regards the assumed antago- nism between St. Paul and the earlier apostles. It is im- portant to observe, however, that in none of these spu- rious documents, which belong undoubtedly to the first two centuries, are there any indications that our apostle was regarded as in any peculiar sense connected with the Church or see of Rome, or that he exercised or claimed any authority over the apostolic body of which he was the recognised leader or representative (Schlie- mann, Die Clementinen nebst den verwandten Schriften, 1814). See Clementines.
Among other legends which have come down to us concerning Peter is that relating to his contention at Rome with Simon Magus. This seems to have no better foundation than a misunderstanding of an inscription on the part of Justin Martyr (Apol. i, 26). See Simon Magus.