The Apocryphal Acts of Paul, Peter, John, Andrew and Thomas/Acts of Peter

←

Acts of Paul

The Apocryphal Acts of Paul, Peter, John, Andrew and Thomas (1909)
translated by Bernhard Pick

Acts of Peter

Acts of John

→

2737411The Apocryphal Acts of Paul, Peter, John, Andrew and Thomas — Acts of Peter1909Bernhard Pick

II

ACTS OF PETER

LITERATURE

Lipsius, Apokryphe Apostelgeschichten, II, i (1887) 96 ff., 174 ff. ; Supplement 1890, p. 98 f.

Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, I (1891), 1 pp. XXXIII–LV; 45-103.

Zahn, Geschichte des neutest. Kanons, II, 2 (1892), 835–855.

Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur, II, 1 (1897), 549–560.

Patristische Miscellen (in Texte und Untersuchungen, new series, V, 3, 1000, p. 100-106).

Ehrhard, Die altchristliche Litteratur, 1900, 156 ff.

Hilgenfeld, "Die alten Actus Petri" (in Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, XI (1903).

Ficker, Die Petrusakten. Beitr'dge zu ihrem Verstdndnis, 1903. "Petrusakten" in Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, 1904, 383 ff.; in Handbuch zu den neutestamentlichen Apokryphen, 1904, 395 ff.

Schmidt, Die alten Petrusakten, 1003.

Leipoldt, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, I (1907), 262 ff.

Flamion, "Les actes apocryphes de Pierre" (in Revue d' histoire ecclesiastique, Annee 9, No. 3, 15 Juillet, 1908).

Bardenhewer, Patrology, p. 98 ff.

Nissen, "Die Pertrusakten und ein Bardesanitisther Dialog in der Aberkiosvita" (in Zeitschrift fuer die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, etc., IX (1908), parts 3 and 4.

Photius in his Bibliothcca (cod. 114) mentions the Acts of Peter together with those of John, Andrew, Thomas and Paul. What we now have of these Acts is contained in a Latin seventh-century manuscript preserved at the Library in Vercelli, and published by Lipsius, i, pp. 5-103. These Acts are known as the Actus Vercellenses. A Coptic fragment was discovered by C. Schmidt, which also contains Acts of Peter. This fragment, together with a German translation, he published under the title Die alten Petrusakten im Zusammenhang der apokryphen Apostelliteratur, Leipzig, 1903. The deeds narrated in the Coptic take place, according to Schmidt, at Jerusalem, those in the Actus Vercellenses at Rome. Ficker thinks this possible, but not sufficiently established. It is possible that that which is narrated in the Coptic originally formed a part of a work which was called "Acts of Peter," and it is also possible that the Coptic narrative originally belonged to another work also called "Acts of Peter," differing from the Actus Vercellenses, which were intended to continue and supplement the canonical Acts of the Apostles. Ancient writers seem to have known the Acts of Peter which were used by certain communities, which the church regarded as heretical (Eusebius, His. eccles., Ill, 3, 2.)^[1] Whether these Acts were the same as the Actus Vercellenses cannot be said in view of the present state of the latter.

As to the author of the Acts of Peter, opinions differ. Zahn and James think that Leucius, the author of the Acts of John, is also the author of the Acts of Peter. Says James (Texts and Studies, V. 1, p. XXIV ff): "whoever wrote the Acts of John wrote the Acts of Peter." Not so Schmidt. After examining all the testimony, he comes to the conclusion that to Leucius belongs the honor of having composed the first apostolic romance; contrary to his own expectation he paved the way for an entirely new old Christian literary production, because his example was soon followed by the author of the Acts of Paul, who was also of Asia Minor. Standing on the shoulders of both, Pseudo-Peter wrote this romance. This will explain many things, especially the fact that Pseudo-Peter made use of the Acts of John and Paul, probably also of other sources.

According to Schmidt the Acts of Peter were composed between 200–210 A. D., at Jerusalem and Rome. Zahn pleads for Asia Minor, which would account for the author's ignorance of Roman affairs.

The Acts of Peter are valuable for our knowledge of the Ancient Catholic Church. They bring before us the Christian Church in its religious thinking, feeling and working at the end of the second century. Only a Catholic writer could present such a picture.

We first give the Coptic fragment. We then give Peter's affairs with Simon at Rome, or the Actus Vercellenses, which begin with Paul's abode at Rome and his taking leave of the congregation there (chaps. I–III). The next section (chaps. IV–XXXII) treats of Simon, the Magician, and the struggle which Peter had with him. Simon is overcome and the Roman congregation is re-established at Rome. The last section (chaps. XXXIII–XLI) treats of Peter's death and its causes.

With the exception of the martyrdom of Peter—which is extant in the Greek original—the greater part of the Actus Vercellenses is in Latin. This Latin text, which is found in MS. CVIII, 1 of the chapter library at Vercelli, follows after the Clementine Recognitions. The MS. belongs to the seventh century, but was probably copied from an earlier one, belonging, perhaps, to the fourth century.

I.

The Deed of Peter.

(P. 128).^[2] But on the first day of the week, i. e., on Sunday, a multitude gathered together, and they brought many sick people to Peter, that he might cure them. And one of the multitude was bold enough to say unto Peter, "Peter, behold, before our eyes thou didst make many blind see and deaf hear and the lame walk, and hast helped the weak, and given them strength; why hast thou not helped thy virgin daughter, which grew up beautifully and (p. 129) believed on the name of God? For behold, one of her sides is wholly paralyzed, and there she is helpless in the corner. One can see those which thou hast cured; but for thy own daughter thou didst not care."

But Peter smiled and said to him, "My son, God alone knows why her body is sick. Know that God is not unable or powerless, to give his present to my daughter. But that thy soul may be convinced and those present believe the more" (p. 130) he looked at his daughter and said to her, "Arise from thy place with the help of none except Jesus alone, and walk wholly before those present and come to me." And she arose and came to him. The multitude rejoiced over that which had taken place. And Peter said to them: "Behold, your hearts are convinced that God is not powerless concerning the things which we ask of him." They rejoiced the more and glorified God. Said (p. 131) Peter to his daughter, "Return to thy place, sit down there, and be helpless again, for it is good for me and thee." And the girl did as she was bidden, and became as before. The whole multitude wept and besought Peter to make her whole.

Peter said to them: "As the Lord liveth, this is good for her and for me. For on the day on which she was born to me, I saw a vision and the Lord said to me, 'Peter, this day has been born unto thee a great (p. 132) affliction, for this (i. e. daughter) will hurt many souls, if her body remains well!' I, however, thought that the vision was chaffing me.

"When the girl was ten years old, she became a stumbling-block to many. And a very rich man, Ptolemy by name, when he saw the girl bathing with her mother, sent for her to take her for his wife; but her mother consented not. He often sent for her, for he could not wait . . .

(Pages 133-134 are wanting.)

< the men of > (135) Ptolemy brought the girl, and leaving her before the door of the house, went away.

"When I saw this, I and her mother went downstairs and found the girl, one side of her body from head to foot being paralyzed and dried up. We carried her away, praising the Lord that he had kept his servant from defilement and violation and . . . This is the reason why the girl < remains > thus to this day. But now you shall hear what happened to (p. 136) Ptolemy. He repented and lamented night and day over that which had happened to him; and because of the many tears which he shed, he became blind. Having decided to hang himself, behold, about the ninth hour of that day, whilst alone in his bedroom, he saw a great light, which illuminated the whole house, and he heard a voice saving unto him: (p. 137) 'Ptolemy, God has not given the vessels for corruption and violation; it is unseemly for thee, as thou hast believed on me, to violate my virgin, whom thou shalt know as thy sister, as if I had become one spirit to both of you—but arise, and speedily go to the house of the apostle Peter and thou shalt see my glory. He will make known the matter to thee.' And Ptolemy delayed not, but ordered his people (p. 138) to show him the way and bring him to me. When he had come to me, he told all that had happened to him in the power of Jesus Christ, our Lord. And he saw with the eyes of his flesh and with the eyes of his soul, and many hoped on Christ; he did good unto them and gave them the presence of God.

"After this Ptolemy died; he departed and went to his Lord (p. 139). < When he >, however, < made > his will, he left a piece of land in the name of my daughter, because through her he became a "believer in God and was made whole. I, however, who was appointed administrator, have acted carefully. I sold the acre, and God alone knows that neither I nor my daughter have kept anything from the money of the acre, but I sent the whole sum to the poor. Know, therefore, O servant of Christ Jesus, that God (p. 140) rules (?) his people, and prepares for each what is good; we, however, think that God has forgotten us. Now then, brethren, let us mourn, be watchful and pray, and God's goodness will look upon us, and we hope for it."

And some other addresses delivered Peter before them, and glorifying the name of (p. 141) the Lord Christ he gave of the bread to every one of them; and after having distributed it, he rose and went into the house.

[THE PRAXIS OF PETER.]

Note.—It is evident that the narrative given above forms a part of a larger work. This is already clear from the beginning "on the first day of the week."

A copyist detached it from the entire work for a certain purpose which he had in view. The piece was much too small to be considered as an independent whole. The postscript in the Coptic presupposes a Greek original, "praxis Petru." The entire work must accordingly have had this title, and we have thus a hitherto unknown portion of the ancient Acts of Peter, first mentioned by Eusebius (Hist. eccles., III, 3, 2).

↑ Nevertheless the Acts were read by orthodox Christians, like Priscillian who recommends the reading of the Acts of the Apostles, because they recommended the purity of life. Priscillian's death was not because of heresy, but because of sorcery. Even his opponent Philastrius of Brescia recommended the reading of these Acts. See Leipoldt, loc. cit. p. 264; Schmidt, p. 43.
↑ This and the following numbers indicate the page in the Coptic manuscript.
↑ Acta St. Nerei et Achillei græce, ed. A. Wirth, Leipzig, 1890 (on which see Krüger in Theologische Litteraturzeitung, 1891, 69 f).; Acta St. Nerei et Achillei, ed. Achelis (Texte und Untersuchungen, XI, 2 (1893). See also Schæfer, Die Akten dcr heill. Nereus und Achilleus. Untersuchung über den Original text und die Zeit seiner Entstehung (in Römische Quartalschrift, 8 (1894) 89–119) who claims a Latin original; the same is also the view of Hilgenfeld in Berliner philol. Wochenschrift, 1894, p. 1383.

[1] Nevertheless the Acts were read by orthodox Christians, like Priscillian who recommends the reading of the Acts of the Apostles, because they recommended the purity of life. Priscillian's death was not because of heresy, but because of sorcery. Even his opponent Philastrius of Brescia recommended the reading of these Acts. See Leipoldt, loc. cit. p. 264; Schmidt, p. 43.

[2] This and the following numbers indicate the page in the Coptic manuscript.

[3] Acta St. Nerei et Achillei græce, ed. A. Wirth, Leipzig, 1890 (on which see Krüger in Theologische Litteraturzeitung, 1891, 69 f).; Acta St. Nerei et Achillei, ed. Achelis (Texte und Untersuchungen, XI, 2 (1893). See also Schæfer, Die Akten dcr heill. Nereus und Achilleus. Untersuchung über den Original text und die Zeit seiner Entstehung (in Römische Quartalschrift, 8 (1894) 89–119) who claims a Latin original; the same is also the view of Hilgenfeld in Berliner philol. Wochenschrift, 1894, p. 1383.

[1]

[2]

[3]