Ten Interesting Things About the Acts of Peter

10. The figure of 'Marcellus' - Marcellus is the Latin equivalent of 'Marcion' (i.e. 'little Mark'). The description of Marcellus here is almost identical to that of 'Marcellus' in Harran from the Acts of Archelaus. In either case 'Marcellus' is a prominent, wise, rich man in whom "all the widows that trusted in Christ had recourse unto him; all the fatherless were fed by him; and what more, brother? all the poor called Marcellus their patron, and his house was called the house of the strangers and of the poor." [Acts of Peter 8] There is something more to Marcellus than just the imaginary name of a Roman senator.

9. The purpose of Peter's visit - It is strange that both Peter and Mani have the exact same mission. In the Acts of Peter, Peter purpose in coming to Rome is to attempt to change 'Marcellus' mind about seeing Simon as a 'new god.' In the Acts of Archelaus, Mani wants to convince 'Marcellus' that he is the awaited Paraclete rather than Paul. In either case the ultimate arbiter of the truth is strangely - a man named 'Marcellus' or if you will - Marcion.

8. The Christian community in Rome gathers in a synagogue on the first day of the week.

7. The Church of 'Marcellus' employed a variant gospel - Peter comes to Rome not only to change Marcellus' mind or to reject Simon but also to reject the Marcionite interpretation of Peter as the 'rejected disciple' of Jesus. The narrative begins with Peter saying to the crowd in the synagogue:

Almighty God, moved with compassion, sent his Son into the world. With whom I was; and he (or I) walked upon the water, whereof I myself remain awitness, and do testify that he then worked in the world by signs and wonders, all of which he did.

I do confess, dearly-beloved brethren, that I was with him: yet I denied him, even our Lord Jesus Christ, and that not once only, but thrice; for there were evil dogs that were come about me as they did unto the Lord's prophets. And the Lord imputed it not unto me, but turned unto me and had compassion on the infirmity of my flesh, when (or so that) afterward I bitterly bewailed myself, and lamented the weakness of my faith, because I was befooled by the devil and kept not in mind the word of my Lord. [Acts of Peter 7]

Interestingly 'Marcellus' learns to use Peter's redemption to ask for forgiveness for his past association with 'heresy':

But this Simon said that thou, Peter, wast without faith when thou didst doubt, in the waters. And I have heard that Christ said this also: They that are with me have not understood me.[Acts of Peter 10]

6. the reference to the 'statue of Simon Magus' - Justin makes reference to this statue and it is clear that the idea that someone dedicated a statue to Simon Magus is a gross misunderstanding. The statue has been found and the inscription 'Semoni Sanco Deo' demonstrates that Justin got the word order wrong but that he misidentified the statue as being related to 'Simon Magus' (it was devoted to an ancient Roman god Sancus). Nevertheless we see that Simon could be related with the form semon which is important for our argument relating Simon to the mystical significance of episemon (the Greek equivalent of the letter vav).

5. Simon must have originally claimed that he was Jesus - how else can we interpret the words he directs at Peter viz. "I will convict thee that thou hast believed on a man which is a Jew and a carpenter's son." If Jesus isn't a Jew or a carpenter's son he can only be an angelic being like Simon. Simon must have claimed to be Jesus.

4. The Transfiguration occurred on Mount Gerizim - I get the same sense from Ephraim's Against Marcion Book 1. The Acts of Peter identify the transfiguration as occurring on 'the holy mountain.' This can't be Tabor which has no particular holiness. "Our Lord, willing that I should behold his majesty in the holy mount -I, when I with the sons of Zebedee saw the brightness of his light, fell as one dead and shut mine eyes, and heard such a voice from him as I am not able to describe, and thought myself to be blinded by his brightness."[Acts of Peter 20] The normal description of the mountain is that of 'the high mountain' which is also a well known epithet of the Samaritan holy mountain.

3. The prefect who executes Peter is named 'Agrippa' - not only are there two Simons, one good and one bad, one can argue that there are two Marks, Marcellus and Marcus Agrippa, who similarly represent good and evil 'Marks.'

2. Agrippa is said to have executed Peter because he convinced a group of maidens to abandon him - this has echoes of Irenaeus' story about a group of ladies devoted to Marcus "He devotes himself especially to women, and those such as are well-bred, and elegantly attired, and of great wealth, whom he frequently seeks to draw after him, by addressing them in such seductive words ... Henceforth she reckons herself a prophetess, and expresses her thanks to Marcus for having imparted to her of his own grace. She then makes the effort to reward him, not only by the gift of her possessions (in which way he has collected a very large fortune), but also by yielding up to him her person, desiring in every way to be united to him, that she may become altogether one with him.

But already some of the most faithful women, possessed of the fear of God, and not being deceived ... abhorring and execrating him, have withdrawn from such a vile company of revellers. ... Marcus compounds philters and love-potions, in order to insult the persons of some of these women, if not of all, those of them who have returned to the Church of God--a thing which frequently occurs--have acknowledged, confessing, too, that they have been defiled by him, and that they were filled with a burning passion towards him. A sad example of this occurred in the case of a certain Asiatic, one of our deacons, who had received him (Marcus) into his house. His wife, a woman of remarkable beauty, fell a victim both in mind and body to this magician, and, for a long time, travelled about with him. At last, when, with no small difficulty, the brethren had converted her, she spent her whole time in the exercise of public confession, weeping over and lamenting the defilement which she had received from this magician. [Irenaeus AH 1.14.3 -6]

1. Simon Peter's death sounds remarkably similar to Simon bar Goria at the end of the Jewish War - we read in Jewish War that another Simon came to Rome in 70 CE and was dragged with a rope around his neck to the Tarpeian Rock and cast downward from its precipice. While the Acts of Peter injects the artificiality of a crucifixion (you have to read the ridiculous speech of Peter to believe it) the apostle does make reference to his death being like Adam cast down from a 'heavenly paradise.' Peter declares:

Learn ye the mystery of all nature, and the beginning of all things, what it was. For the first man, whose race I bear in mine appearance (or, of the race of whom I bear the likeness), fell head downwards, and showed forth a manner of birth such as was not heretofore: for it was dead, having no motion. He, then, being pulled down -who also cast his first state down upon the earth- established this whole disposition of all things, being hanged up an image of the creation wherein he made the things of the right hand into left hand and the left hand into right hand, and changed about all the marks of their nature, so that he thought those things that were not fair to be fair, and those that were in truth evil, to be good. Concerning which the Lord saith in a mystery: Unless ye make the things of the right hand as those of the left, and those of the left as those of the right, and those that are above as those below, and those that are behind as those that are before, ye shall not have knowedge of the kingdom.

This thought, therefore, have I declared unto you; and the figure wherein ye now see me hanging is the representation of that man that first came unto birth. Ye therefore, my beloved, and ye that hear me and that shall hear, ought to cease from your former error and return back again. For it is right to mount upon the cross of Christ, who is the word stretched out, the one and only, of whom the spirit saith: For what else is Christ, but the word, the sound of God? So that the word is the upright beam whereon I am crucified. And the sound is that which crosseth it, the nature of man. And the nail which holdeth the cross-tree unto the upright in the midst thereof is the conversion and repentance of man.[Acts of Peter 38]

As I think that Mark was the real historical Marcus Agrippa I believe that Simon was his real historical adversary Simon bar Giora. The rivalry which Weeden sees between Mark in Paneas and Peter and his company in Jerusalem matches perfectly the historical situation during the Jewish Revolt. I also think that the reference in Galatians to 'the apostle' condemning Simon (changed to 'Cephas' in our canonical texts) likely never referenced Antioch originally. The Acts of Peter narrative with Agrippa condemning Simon is the common point of origin.