The Exhortation of Peter: Interpreting Peter with Late Ancient Monastic Communities

Apocryphal narratives and traditions about the apostle Peter abounded among early Christian communities. From some of the earliest and most well-known apocryphal texts, like the Acts of Peter and the Pseudo-Clementines, to more obscure later texts like the History of Simon Cephas, the Chief of the Apostles[1] and the Travels of Peter,[2] it is clear that the character of Peter became a vehicle for the literary imaginations of various early Christian authors as they thought through new questions of ethics and everyday life. Through these texts, the voice of the “chief of the apostles” could echo through the centuries, finding new scenarios to address and new audiences to exhort.

One such apocryphon featuring the apostle Peter is known as the Exhortation of Peter, a text that is known only in Syriac.[3] The text is found in only two manuscripts, and the form of the text is slightly different in each.[4] The full version of the text opens with an introductory paragraph that introduces Peter, who addresses a “large gathering of people” (1:1–4), followed by two stories spoken by Peter (2:1—12:7). The first story is in the form of a parable with a concluding explanation, and the second is a more targeted example story of a monastic figure who is tempted by the vision of a woman. These two stories do not immediately seem to be thematically related. But, when read in light of the narrative framing of the opening paragraph, it becomes clear that both stories are meant to be illustrations of Peter’s exhortation to be vigilant: “do not be taken captive by anything in this world” (1:2). The first story shows someone who, in classic parable style, misunderstands his circumstances and fails to act with vigilance while the latter story features a monastic figure who, lacking vigilance, allows a woman into his cave and then falls into temptation. So, while the two stories vary in form and style, they are united by Peter’s opening admonition.

The first story tells a parable of two servants who are exiled by their master because they acted foolishly. While they are separated from their master, the two men behave quite differently from each other. The first servant keeps himself occupied: buying buildings, planting vineyards, and managing multiple business affairs. The second servant, however, takes everything he owns, sells it, and then uses the money to have a crown of gold fashioned with the likeness of his master and his master’s son. Then he takes his crown and waits. One day, the master sends a harsh servant to retrieve the two exiled servants and bring them back. The first servant requests more time so that he can sell off all of his possessions and business properties so that he can return to his master with a profit, but the harsh servant tells him there is no time to wait. The servant is forced to return empty-handed. By contrast, the second servant was prepared and waiting, and as soon as the harsh servant finds him, he leaps up and gladly goes with him, happily carrying his crown. When they return, the industrious but empty-handed servant is criticized and then banished for not being prepared. The second servant is rewarded handsomely for his crown, and his master elevates him over all other servants in the household. In the explanation that follows, we are told that, of course, Jesus is the master of the house, and the two servants represent those who would follow Jesus. The harsh servant sent to retrieve the two banished servants is Death, for Death will not be persuaded by anyone to delay for preparations. And the fates of the two servants reflect the two fates that await humans: those who find themselves taken unprepared by Death—even those with good intentions—will be banished to a “place of torment” (8:11), while those who are vigilant and prepared will be rewarded.

The opening page of the Exhortation of Peter, from the manuscript Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Syr. 201 (15th cent.).

In the second example story, we are introduced to “a certain solitary”[5] who lives in a cave in a desert (9:1). The narrative opens with an allusion to the trial of Job, which sets the tone for the coming test that the solitary will face. The trial is in the form of a woman[6]—specifically a demon who appears in the form of a woman —who wanders by the solitary’s cave and asks for shelter because she’s lost. The solitary takes pity on the woman and allows her into the cave. The two engage in “long conversation” and “odious laughter” (10:6) and the woman ultimately tempts the solitary into sin. Just when the solitary reaches out to act on his desire, though, the woman disappears like smoke and the solitary hears a “sound of laughter of many demons” in the air (11:4). The demons then mock the solitary for his failure. This is followed by a concluding exhortation, in which Peter instructs the audience that it is not suitable for solitaries to live near inhabited places, so they can avoid being tempted by the sight of women.

So what are we to make of this odd text? While it is framed as a discourse of the apostle Peter, he is only mentioned at the very beginning of the text and does not feature prominently. In this regard, the Exhortation of Peter is quite distinct from other Petrine texts that are narratives about Peter (like the Acts of Peter). And, while the first parable story about the two servants doesn’t sound like anything that Peter says in other texts, whether canonical or non-canonical, it at least sounds vaguely like the parables of the New Testament, whereas the second story clearly and directly addresses those engaged in the ascetic life and reads much more like the Sayings of the Desert Fathers than anything from the New Testament. It seems unlikely that anyone who read or heard this second story in particular would have accepted it as an authentic speech of Peter. And yet, that is precisely how the text is transmitted. As such, this text provides an interesting window into the transmission and production of apocryphal works among late ancient monastic communities.

Given that the second example story in the text is explicitly about a “solitary,” there can be little doubt that the text—at least in its longer form—was created in a monastic setting with a monastic audience in mind. The setting and context of the shorter form of the text, which lacks the story about the solitary, is less clear. Taken by itself, the story about the two servants simply reads like a parable that one might expect to come from the mouth of an apocryphal Jesus rather than an apocryphal Peter. That is, the parable is an exhortation to be prepared, much like the parable of the ten virgins (Matt 25:10–13), and there is nothing necessarily monastic about this message. Yet, it is worth noting that the manuscript in which the short version is found—London, British Library, Add. 17183 (ca. 10th cent.)—contains a number of monastic texts, including a “discourse of Basil, to those who are commencing the ascetic life,” three epistles of Nilus (which cover typical monastic topics), letters of monastic leaders like Ammonius and Macarius, some writings of Isaiah of Scete, and selections from the “Lives of the Egyptian Fathers.”[7] Given the broader contents of this manuscript, it is clear that even the shorter version of the Exhortation of Peter circulated as part of a monastic miscellany, suggesting that even the shorter version was primarily intended for a monastic audience.[8]

The manuscript containing the longer version, Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Syr. 201 (Sachau 51; ca. 15th cent.) is also a monastic miscellany. The contents of Berlin Syr. 201 are quite different from those of BL Add. 17183, though, so it is quite unlikely that there is any direct relationship between these manuscripts.[9] While it is difficult to say much with certainty about the context of the production of the shorter version of the text, we can say with confidence that the text was received—in both forms—as part of a package of monastic texts. Furthermore, the content of the second example story in the longer form of the text clearly suggests a monastic setting of production in which Peter’s authoritative voice is extended beyond a parable and made more immediately practical through his direct address of the solitaries.

The monastic manuscript transmission of this text suggests that the Exhortation of Peter was regarded specifically as a monastic admonition, geared toward those who would think of themselves as well-prepared, but who were also always susceptible to a lack of vigilance. Furthermore, the very existence of both the short and long versions allows us to read the character of Peter along with these monastic communities and think about how apocryphal texts could function there. The longer form is explicit about its monastic audience, but the shorter form is not. The addition of the second story may suggest that some monastic readers found the short version to be incomplete, or, at least, impractical for their purposes. The addition of the second story, then, was meant to provide further clarity on Peter’s initial parable. The parable of a servant caught off guard might resonate with some monastic readers, but the very specific story about a solitary who is caught off guard by a demon would have brought the point home more broadly. In this regard, the additional story is a bit like the authors of the canonical Gospels adding commentary and explanation to Jesus’ parables. This additional story transforms the text from a distant echo of the voice of an apostle to a clear exhortation of late ancient monastics. The readers do not have to ask themselves “What would Peter do?”—he tells them directly.

As a final note, this text adds even further complexity to the question of genre in apocryphal literature. What, exactly, is the genre of this text? It is a discourse, but not a dialogue. It is pseudepigraphal, because it is attributed to Peter. It is half parable, half-example story. It also, as previously noted, reads both like “apocryphal” literature (because the parable sounds much like something that could be in the New Testament) and “monastic” literature (similar to the Sayings of the Desert Fathers). There are many apocryphal texts that transgress clear genre boundaries, so in this regard the Exhortation of Peter is not necessarily unique. But what is unique about this text is that its existence in two forms provides evidence of the on-going production of apocryphal/pseudepigraphal literature and the ways that such literature could allow ancient authorities to address contemporary concerns.

James E. Walters is a Syriac Manuscript Cataloger at the Hill Museum & Manuscript Library

[1] F. Stanley Jones, trans., “The History of Simon Cephas, the Chief of the Apostles,” in New Testament Apocrypha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, vol. 1 (ed. Tony Burke and Brent Landau; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 371–94.

[2] J. Edward Walters, trans., “The Travels of Peter, “ New Testament Apocrypha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, vol. 2 (ed. Tony Burke; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2020) [hereafter MNTA 2], 288–92.

[3] J. Edward Walters, trans., in MNTA 2:278–87. See also the introduction, edition, and translation of the shorter version of this text in Sergey Minov, “The Exhortation of the Apostle Peter: A Syriac Pseudepigraphon and Its Monastic Context,” in Scriptures, Sacred Traditions, and Strategies of Religious Subversion (ed. Moshe B. Blidstein, Serge Ruzer, and Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), 167–81.

[4] More details about the different versions of these texts can be found in the introduction to the text (MNTA 2: 279–80. In brief, the longer version of the text includes an additional story told from the mouth of Peter that is not in the shorter version. It is the longer version of the text that is translated and published in the MNTA volume, so the present paper deals with the longer version.

[5] The Syriac word iḥidāyā ‘solitary’ was the most commonly used term to refer to ascetics, particularly those who lived alone in the desert.

[6] For more on this trope in monastic literature, see David Brakke, “The Lady Appears: Materializations of ‘Women’ in Early Monastic Literature.” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 33.3 (2003): 387–402.

[7] For the full list of contents of this manuscript, see William Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired Since the year 1838 (3 vols.; London: British Museum, 1870–1872), 2:819–23.

[8] For more on “monastic miscellany” manuscripts, see Grigory Kessel, “Syriac monastic miscellanies,” in Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies: An Introduction (ed. Alessandro Bausi; Hamburg: Tredition, 2015), 439–43.

[9] For the full list of contents of this manuscript, see Eduard Sachau, Verzeichniss der syrischen Handschriften der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin (2 vols.; Berlin: Asher & Co., 1899), 2:663–67.