Lipsius on the Roman Peter-Legend [pp. 265-290]

2,8 LIPSIUS ON THE [April,
consequence of the works he wrought; his meeting with the
Lord; his return to Rome. It closes with the story of his trial
condemnation, final speech, and death, with its attendant
wonders. The second part describes the sufferings of Paul,
and apparently is a pure invention not connected with any previous writing. Paul enters the city after Peter's death. The
Gnostic character of these recitals is plainly revealed in the
preference shown for fantastic, fabulous embellishments to the
story-the introduction of mirac~s, visions, angels, etc. Particularly is the taste of the Gnostics revealed in the statement,
that Paul made his last prayer in Hcbrcw.
The Catholic version belongs to the fifth or sixth century
In it the two previous versions are united, as far as possible.
The growing church must be a witness to the whole truth.
Hence, she diligently collected the stories of her great founders
and wove them into a connected, consistent narrative. The
connection between "Acts of Peter and Paul," and the writing
styled the " Sermon of Peter and Paul in Rome" is not, with
certainty, to be determined. The latter was, before the closb
of the second century, made use of by Gnostic and Catholic
writers. Clement of Alexandria quotes it unhesitatingly as a
genuine writing of Peter. Origen expresses himself waveringly.
At one time he debates the question and leaves it undecided,
whether it is genuine, or compounded of genuine and spuflous
elements. Again, he argues against its genuineness and ecclesiastical importance. Eusebius and Jerome declare it to be
pseudo-pctri'ic. In the fragments now existing, there is no
mention of the strife between Peter and the magician. The
"Acts of Peter and Paul" have undergone three revisions.
The point which Dr. Lipsius again and again emphasizes is
that, under the mask of Simon no one else than Paul is concealed (c. 6~' Pctr~s-sagc, p. i). This is, indeed, of cardinal importance, and since it is so, we give it the larges~ place in this
discussion. We have in the Epistle to the Galatians Paul's
statement of his opposition to Peter in Antioch. Forgetting
that the epistle says nothing of any cherished resentment on
the part of Peter, in the face of all probability that such was
the case, in spite of Peter's own declaration, "our beloved
brother Paul "-(2 Pet. iii: 15) which, if not written by Peter,
was in the styic the writer supposed Peter would have used