This is mentioned by Origen tom. xi.), b>y Eusebius (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 3.3, 25, 6.12), by Jerome ( 100.1), by Theodoret ( 2.2), who confounds it with the or Gospel used by the Nazarenes; and, according to two MSS., but not according to the printed editions by Pope Gelasius () This must not be confounded with the which an Oriental tradition ascribes to Peter; and still less with the canonical Gospel of Mark, which has sometimes been named after Peter, because supposed to have been written under his direction. The apocryphal Gospel of Peter is not extant. Serapion of Antioch, a Christian writer near the close of the second century, wrote a refutation of the fables contained in it, by which some Christians at Rhossus in Syria had been led into heresy. Eusebius (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 6.12) quotes a passage of this work of Serapion. (Fabric. p. 137.)

This work, is mentioned by Eusebius (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 2.3), by Jerome (), by Isidore of Pelusium ( 2.99), and apparently by Philastrius ( lxxxvii.), who speaks of an apocryphal work of Peter as received by the Manichaeans. It is not unlikely that these were substantially identical with or incorporated in the [CLEMENS ROMANUS]; for Photius ( codd. 112, 113) states that many copies of the were preceded by an introductory letter to james, the Lord's brother (Ἐπιστολἠ πρὸς τὸν ἀδελφόθεον Ἰάκωβον, ), of which there were two copies, one as from the Apostle Peter, stating that he had himself written his , and sent the to James, who had requested to have them; the other, as from Clement, stating that he had written the at the command of Peter. Photius conjectured, with apparent reason, that there were two editions or copies of the of which the one written as by himself had been lost, while the other, which was either the same with the or was incorporated in them, had been generally diffused. There is some room, however, to doubt the identity of the lost edition with the work mentioned by Eusebius and the other ancient writers. (Comp. Grabe, vol. i. p. 78.)

just mentioned. Turrianus, in his published (lib. 4. c.1, and lib. 5. c.23) a letter of Peter to James, which Cotelerius. in his prefixed to the a work which Cave appears justly to characterize as only another edition or form of the We consider the Ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς Ἰάκωβον, published by Turrianus and Cotelerius, to be the one mentioned by Photius; though Fabricins, who has reprinted it in his vol. ii. p. 997, &c. regards it as a different one.

This work is mentioned by Eusebius (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 3.3), Jerome (), Sozomen ( 7.19), and in some copies of the subjoined to the of Nicephorus of Constantinople. It was cited by the heretic Theodotus, as appears from a passage in the Ὑποτυπώσεις, of Clemens of Alexandria, noticed by Eusebius (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 6.14). Sozomen () states that the work was, in his time, read once a year in some of the churches in Palestine. A passage in Latin, cited by Jacobus de Vitriaco in the thirteenth cetury, as from the (apud Grabe. vol. i. p. 76), must be from a much later work than that noticed by Clement, Eusebius, and Jerome, for it bears internal evidence of having been written after the rise of Mohammedanism.

Mentioned by Clement of Alexandria ( libb. i. vi.), Eusebius (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 3.3), and Jerome () A few fragments of this work have been collected by Grabe ( vol. i. p. 62, &c.), from Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Lactantius, Gregory Nazianzen, and others. Dodwell supposed that the (No. 3) was the introduction to the but his opinion is rejected by Grabe (ibid. p. 59). The work entitled , quoted by Origen ( ad Libros, Πεὶ ἀρχῶν, vers. Rufini) and Damascanuse cenus ( 2.16), is probably only another name for the *Grabe, pp. 56, 57). The Κατήχησις Πέτρου, formerly in the Coislin library at Paris, is also apparently the same work.

This work is mentioned by Rufinus () and Jerome (). Grabe suspects that no such work ever existed; but that the supposition of its existence arose from Rufinus mistaking κρμα, the abbreviation of κήρυγμα, for κρίμα and that Jerome was misled by the error of Rufinus. The work is certainly not mentioned by Eusebius.

mentioned repeatedly by the ancients, appear to be only so many titles for the of Clement. The Πέτρου καὶ Ἀπίωνος ʽς. Ἀππίωνοσ̓ διάλογοι, Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 3.38; Hieron. 15), was not ascribed to Peter as its author, but to Clement of Rome. Eusebius speaks of it as a spurious work, recently produced, and not noticed by more ancient writers. Valesius () thinks it was a second, and now lost part of the

Now or formerly extant in the Medicean library at Florence, and the Bodleian at Oxford, appear to be portions of the well-known (Grabe, vol. i. pp. 85, 86).

The (Fabric. vol. iii. p. 721) is one of a parcel of forged documents, partly written on parchment, partly inscribed on leaden plates, professing to be Latin translations from the Arabic, which were dug up in a mountain near Granada, near the close of the sixteenth century.

The written by Pope Stephen III. in the name of the Apostle Peter, soliciting aid against the Lombards, is regarded by Fabricius rather as a piece of rhetorical affectation than a fraud.