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
- ↑ 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.
