Abstract:

Previous scholarly consensus held that the text preserved in the Latin Actus Vercellenses was a relatively faithful translation of a second-century Greek Acts of Peter. In partial support of this date was the posited intertextual relationship with the Acts of Paul, with particular attention given to the so-called "quo vadis" scenes related in both apocryphal acts. More recent scholarship has cast doubt on this, thus removing the terminus ad quem of a late second-century date that this posited relationship provided. Taking this as his starting point, Matthew Baldwin's work constitutes a formidable challenge to previous consensus of both the date and the faithfulness of the Latin translation. He argues that the Vercelli Acts should be understood as a fourth-century product in its own right and of no value for recovering an earlier Acts of Peter. While some brief counterarguments to this have been offered, to the best of my knowledge none have yet incorporated the fourth-century Syriac History of Simon Cephas, Chief of the Apostles, which has extensive parallels with the Vercelli Acts. Doing so lends additional evidence to the priority of the Acts of Peter, as well as potentially verifies scholarly argument regarding a redactional history of the Acts of Peter in the second century. As a fourth-century composition itself that includes material reflecting this date, it is also useful in comparison with details preserved in the Vercelli Acts that scholars have suggested attest to the preservation of earlier material. Taken together, these three avenues of discussion can potentially reinstate the consensus regarding the existence of a second-century Acts of Peter that is more or less faithfully preserved in the Vercelli Acts.

摘要：

先前的学术共识认为，以拉丁文保存的文本Actus Vercellenses是对二世纪希腊语的相对忠实的翻译本身就应该被理解为四世纪的产物，对于恢复更早的时代没有任何价值《维切利法案》。以此为出发点，马修·鲍德温的作品对拉丁语译本的日期和忠实度先前达成的共识构成了巨大的挑战。他认为终点”两起杜撰行为中相关的场景。最近的学术研究对此表示怀疑，从而消除了这种假定关系所提供的二世纪末日期的过去的互文关系，特别关注所谓的“。在部分支持这一日期的是所假定的与《保罗行传》彼得行传。虽然对此提出了一些简短的反驳，但据我所知，还没有一个将四世纪的叙利亚语纳入其中使徒首领西蒙·西法斯的历史，与维切利法案有广泛的相似之处。这样做为彼得行传的优先级提供了额外的证据，并有可能验证有关彼得行传编辑历史的学术论点< a i=21>二世纪彼得行传。作为一部四世纪的作品，其本身包含反映该日期的材料，与学者们建议证明的维切利法案中保存的细节进行比较也很有用以保存早期材料。总而言之，这三种讨论途径有可能恢复关于二世纪彼得使徒行传的存在的共识，该书或多或少忠实地保存在维切利法案。