SECRET Revelation of Peter (ancient Syriac vs Ethiopian)

Stumbled upon a fascinating translation on pdf from Manchester University, I think, I hook you up with a link at the bottom.

A translation of the Syriac version of the Apocalypse of Peter was written about by Woodbrooke Studies A. Mingana. It is quite different from the Ethiopian version and according to the translators Syriac scribes were meticulous and would copy everything exact while Ethiopians did some editing, omitting certain shocking things. Get ready for this.


The 8th Book of Roles is an Arabic document that features Peter and Clement's travels. It is the original Apocalypse of Peter and I am going to concentrate on what the Ethiopians censored. It's trinitarian and pre Islam.

Christ informs Peter he has converted Paul. He is definitely subservient to Peter at first. It says Stephen was Paul's nephew. Everything except that matches the story of Acts for the most part but then it says:

"... and we entered and found Paul praying and worshipping before idols, and suspicion entered our minds concerning his faith. "

Paul to Peter:

"What is your name?"

"Peter. " Then Paul said, "Who is your God?"

Peter:" A God, one in nature, three in attributes, worshipped and glorified by His creatures and His myriads... "

Paul grills Peter on the works and miracles of Christ. Paul requires Peter to perform one in a challenge and he is brought, and heals, a blind man. .

Paul gets jealous. " Do not be too ready to believe in this man who is possibly a medicine man who has special Indian drugs, similar to the ones that I have with me now, through which open the eyes of men."

Paul sways the crowd with the remarks, and so Peter can defend his honor the King (Caesar?) houses Peter and John. Then Peter cures a crowd of sick people. Paul still is not satisfied.

"Peter, if you words are true concerning your God you will raise a dead man. "

So he does it. Paul still doesn't believe.

Paul:" If you raise also the son of the King we will believe in your God, I, the King, and all his Kingdom. "

" Anytime you want me to have this done, I will perform such a miracle in the name of Christ our Lord, inhabitants of Antioch. "

Paul goes to the King and strikes a deal where Peter's success will convert the King, his failure will cause Peter and co. great torment.

The son, dead for three years, is raised. The King asks Paul why he, knowing this man's power, worshipped idols with him. Paul says it was just a "Stratagem" which amuses the King.

After some adventures we return to the subject of Paul :

"Paul... proceeded us and entered the palace of the Emperor who honored him and enhanced his prestige and caused him to sit next to him. And Paul never stopped praising idolatry and paganism until he gained his confidence. Then he [Paul] said :

"Who are these men causing disturbance in Rome? They show signs and proclaim a strange name of a God we know nothing about, especially in this region. " The Emporer decides to arrest them. Then lets Paul be in charge of doing so and doing as he sees fit.

" We were amazed with the nerve of Paul, and thought evil about him, but did not use our tongues to put it to word. "

Paul takes the role of prosecutor questioning Peter about God, his power, and Peter answers. Then Peter is challenged to convert the Emporer by banishing the Emporer's god who Satan possessed. He tells Peter to worship the god of Caesar or die.

Peter banished the demons of every Idol and they were destroyed. The Emporer converted with all his people.


The book is sealed thus:

"As God lives, no one is to divulge these mysteries to Paul or anyone like him." because it is said "Paul tampered with the language of the books."


This is the Arabic to Syriac version that Ethiopians call the "Contendings of the Apostles" but it edits almost everything bad said about Paul and the person who wrote this paper and translated it said it has to be before Arabic had vowel points and is definitely the original form. It is reminiscent of other Peter and Clement or Peter, Paul and Simon Magus legends but more blunt about Paul, obviously written by a staunch follower of Peter, John and James that dislikes Paul.

This was unknown to me until today, but I am excited to have found it. I will get a link in 5 minutes with a pdf and copy of the MSS.

Syriac Apocalypse of Peter rare

Any info on the date of this singular manuscript? A lot of tripe came out of northern Africa that contradicts itself as well as other apocryphal books

a reply to: Butterfinger

It's Arabic translated into Syriac.

Africa altered the Ethiopian version, this is the original.

originally posted by: Butterfinger
Any info on the date of this singular manuscript? A lot of tripe came out of northern Africa that contradicts itself as well as other apocryphal books

It's ancient, mentioned in the Gelasian decree or whatever and banned as heretical. First two centuries I think.

The pdf has that info just go to the website with the link and you can see the MSS.

Just marking the thread to check out and see what others have to say and read any links surrounding this .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I think Paul was not the apostle of Christ we have been told. I think he was a Roman collaborator and no doubt some of this is legend but some is also real feelings expressed about Paul in Asia, where he was not allowed to go. And was rejected by the whole of Asia. He says so himself.

a reply to: irenialilivenka

I don't buy into those stories about Paul and there is a good explanation why he didn't go to Asia . It has to do with The table of Nations in Genesis and the Tower of Babel incident . The book of acts has a thread in it where God is turning back to the nations and Paul was commissioned for that task which he completed .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I don't buy anything either.

But I know for certain Paul is a fraud.

a reply to: irenialilivenka

But why do you believe that?

Where is the provenance on this book?

originally posted by: Butterfinger
a reply to: irenialilivenka

But why do you believe that?

Where is the provenance on this book?

Believe what? That Paul is a fraud?

New Testament. What it says. I've analyzed the Apostles subtlety told issues with Paul in Acts and what the Pauline epistles say. Pretty much every word, then the Catholic epistles. Revelation. Paul plays the role of the wolf.

a reply to: Butterfinger

I just happened to come across a fascinating document and thought about sharing it, did because it was next to impossible to find and I really don't remember what I was looking for originally but found this. Petrine Apocrypha is an under studied genre.

It's worthy of attention.

I like to share.

That is clearly fiction.

But you'd have to actually read the Bible in its entirety to know that piece has no authority. It is likely a folk tale.

The demonization of Paul has happened for a long time. But without Paul, knowledge of God and the truth of our perceived battle with the flesh would be utterly incomplete.

originally posted by: irenialilivenka
a reply to: Butterfinger

It's worthy of attention.

I like to share.

It's certainly worthy of attention
How could you think that what you have posted up is even remotely valid

Do you know Paul was originally Saul, a Jew, a zealous Pharisee
A zealous Pharisee and worshiping idols?

You find one manuscript, just one, different from all the other letters written and say, behold, this is the real one

a reply to: TarzanBeta

I don't care for Paul, he was the enemy of the Way.

It's not demonization it's exactly what you said, reading the book. Anyone who upon close examination of the Bible doesn't see the light and listens to Paul still is abandoning Jesus ' teachings with his Law is dead, a curse.

"Don't think that I have come to abolish the Law."


It doesn't take much to prove Paul a phony.

This tale is part fiction but the message is real and they have been keeping it from you. Even if you get a chance to read the Ethiopian version you are getting a censored version.

a reply to: Raggedyman

I don't see me taking you seriously if you would talk about something you just found out about as if you know its history. You don't seem like an Apocrypha guy.

It's a worthy topic, you can let fly all the negativity and I won't bother with you. Open your mind you don't have to be negative, it's just an ancient book that shows the rift between the Petrine and the Pauline facions.

Nothing to fuss over.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
That is clearly fiction.

But you'd have to actually read the Bible in its entirety to know that piece has no authority. It is likely a folk tale.

The demonization of Paul has happened for a long time. But without Paul, knowledge of God and the truth of our perceived battle with the flesh would be utterly incomplete.

You are clearly fiction.

Exactly when did I say "Here is some history"?

Regardless, it's a legitimate MS. and known about since the second century. Third at the latest but it was clearly important to a sect that said no to Paul. And it reveals something about Christian history. All was not smooth sailing in the beginning.

Nobody needs you to believe it is history, the New Testament is fiction so it's unavoidable.

originally posted by: irenialilivenka

originally posted by: Butterfinger
Any info on the date of this singular manuscript? A lot of tripe came out of northern Africa that contradicts itself as well as other apocryphal books

It's ancient, mentioned in the Gelasian decree or whatever and banned as heretical. First two centuries I think.

I can't seem to load the Pdf at present, I'll try later, but this does seem like a mish-mash of other stories and given it's pro-Peter stance, kind of indicative of an apostolic choice on the part of the early establishment Christianity perhaps because Paul, through the correspondences, is much more of an overseerer, rule maker/administrator, not well known for his healing ability. As it is, what did make it into the Bible, even from Paul, is further edited in the Book of Common Worship certainly. The Church generally don't like difficult textual questions to be raised, so, particularly with modernity, some texts just cannot be approached catholically it starts to blur the whole distinctness of apostolic succession, not to mention infallibility.

The apocrypha generally provide a better read, story wise, in my opinion but some are quite political, not the sort of thing empire builders like to encourage.

Thanks for posting, I look forward to reading the paper (hopefully).

a reply to: Anaana

It's the 8th book of the Arab version of the Apocrypha. They didn't mess with Paul. Muslims don't either.

I downloaded it fine but you can download the Ethiopian version if you are Paul sensitive. I don't see the harm in portraying Paul as what he was even in the New Testament post "conversion."

The Apocrypha you would be familiar with would be Ethiopian, Latin, Greek or Slavonic. This is just what Arab and Syrian Christians must have used. They have the story of Iblis in them.

I don't think you are appreciating the rarity and age of the story, it's a religious story that you literally would never know about unless you stumbled upon the book of Rolls.

Even then this book is left out. The language shows the Ethiopians to be altered to change the status of Paul. It is similar to several Greek and Slavonic stories from Clement only Simon Magus plays the role of Paul, though it's Simon what he says much of the time is what Paul says about having secret revelations.

They were probably more safe writing the story they want to tell in Arabic. It is no more or less genuine than anything in the Apocrypha we mentioned or the New Testament where all types of unbelievable stuff happens.

The story does not seem to me to be presented as history it is an Apocalypse. It seems to be saying beware of Paul in book 8.

a reply to: irenialilivenka

I wasn't questioning it's authenticity or importance, and I have no idea what "Paul sensitive" might mean

My internet is just slow this time of day and doesn't like Pdfs...which is why I will have to read it later.

a reply to: Anaana

Ahh. I just coined that, Paul sensitive.

Some people can't handle criticism of Paul but it happens a lot because he was an enemy. I was just being humorous through I didn't mean anything by it, I have gotten a few complaints about it being fiction and I feel like telling people that is true for Canonical scripture too so I don't go by the Canon. But it is no big deal I did enjoy reading it, you can get the Ethiopian version too now, you already know what they censored and it's easier to get.