Putting Simon Peter in His Place (Part 1 of 3)

While multitudes followed Jesus during his earthly ministry, one disciple stands out in the biblical record above most others. Simon was an uneducated fisherman from Galilee, whose name in the Greek NT (Σίμων) is the Grecized form of the Hebrew שִׁמעוֹן (Simeon), meaning “he has heard” (Gen. 29:33).¹ The name stems from the verb שָׁמַע (to “hear”), and at least in Simon’s case, it is suggestive of one needing to listen. Jesus gave Simon the nickname Πέτρος (Peter), the Greek equivalent of the Aramaic כֵּיפָא or Grecized Κηφᾶς (Cephas), meaning “rock” or “stone” (Mark 3:16; John 1:42)—indicative of one expected to be stable, solid, and firm.

Within the pages of the New Testament, especially the first five books, Simon Peter occupies significantly more space than most other Christ followers.

‣ He was counted among the Lord’s twelve closest disciples (Matt. 10:1-2; Mark 3:14-16; Luke 6:13-14).

‣  He, along with Andrew, James, and John, were the first to be called by Jesus, and on certain occasions Jesus was only with them (Mark 1:16-20, 29-31; 13:3-4).

‣  He, along with James and John, were repeatedly given unique opportunities unavailable to anyone else (Mark 5:37; 9:2; 14:32-35).

‣  Simon Peter is always named first when paired with John (Luke 22:8; Acts 3:1–4:23; 8:14)² and whenever the apostles are listed together by name (Matt. 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:13).

‣  On numerous occasions he is the main focus of the Lord’s attention and/or the biblical narrative (Matt. 14:28-31; 15:15; 16:16-23; 17:4, 24-27; 18:21; 19:27; 26:33-35, 40, 69-75; et al.).³

‣  At times the inspired record simply reads, “Simon and those with him …” (Mark 1:36), or “Peter and those with him …” (Luke 9:32).⁴

‣  In all four Gospels, the less-conspicuous Andrew is simply known as Simon Peter’s brother (Matt. 4:18; 10:2; Mark 1:16; Luke 6:14; John 1:40; 6:8).

‣  Having been promised “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:19), Simon Peter was the chief spokesman when the gospel was first preached to the Jews (Acts 2:14-40; Gal. 2:7b-8a) and the first to share the gospel with Gentiles (Acts 10:1–11:18; 15:7-14).

‣  Simon Peter contributed two inspired documents to the NT (1 Pet. 1:1a; 2 Pet 1:1a).

Why Simon Peter?

Simon Peter is consistently portrayed in the Gospels as erratic and impulsive, short tempered, quick to speak and react, slow to listen and understand. When he did not know what to do or say, his impulsive nature would not allow him to just sit back, be quiet, and observe. He regularly misread situations, misunderstood the Lord’s purpose, and required frequent chastisement and correction. Yet despite all of his shortcomings and mistakes (or perhaps because of them!), he received unparalleled attention from the Lord and from New Testament authors.

Repeatedly Singled Out

In the earliest days of the Lord’s ministry, Jesus got into Simon’s boat, asked him to go out a short distance, then said to Simon, “You [singular] launch out into the deep …” where loads of fish were caught by Simon and his partners (Luke 5:3-7). Irrespective of “all the ones with him,” including James and John, Luke reports that “Jesus said to Simon, ‘You [singular] stop fearing, from now on you [singular] will be catching men’” (Luke 5:8-10).⁵

While all the disciples struggled at times with their faith, and even though Simon Peter is the only one of them who actually walked on water, he is the one the Lord admonishes for having “little faith” (Matt. 14:31). This observation could have been repeated many times over.

Near the end of the Lord’s public ministry, he again focused his attention on this one disciple, saying, “Simon, Simon, behold Satan pleaded to sift you [all] as wheat, but I have prayed for you [singular], that your [singular] faith might not fail, and when you [singular/emphatic!] have returned, you [singular] strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:31-32).

Shortly thereafter in Gethsemane, Jesus approached Simon Peter, James, and John, finding all three of them sleeping, “and he says to Peter, ‘Simon, are you [singular] sleeping? Were you [singular] not able to watch one hour?’” (Mark 14:37).⁶

Three days later, from the empty tomb, an angel said to the women, “But go, and say to his disciples and to Peter, that [Jesus] is going before you [all] into Galilee; there you [all] will see him, as he said to you [all]” (Mark 16:7). The eleven were to be reminded and informed, but especially Peter.

The heart of the gospel message, preached from the earliest days of the Christian movement, is that “‘Christ died for our sins,’ according to the scriptures, and ‘he was buried,’ and ‘having been raised the third day,’ according to the scriptures, and ‘he was seen by Cephas, then the twelve …’” (1 Cor. 15:3b-5; cf. Luke 24:34).⁷

On the third occasion of the Lord’s post-resurrection appearances, Simon Peter, having disavowed Christ three times, is singled out yet again and is asked three pointed questions with the threefold exhortation: “You be feeding my lambs,” “You be shepherding my sheep,” and “You be feeding my sheep” (John 21:14-17). Then after revealing how Peter would eventually die, Jesus says to him, “You follow me” (v. 19), and after another brief exchange, Jesus again says to him, “You [emphatic!] follow me” (v. 22).

Awkward Moments and Miserable Failures

On the mountain where Jesus was transfigured in the presence of Moses and Elijah, Simon Peter did not know how to respond, so he arbitrarily offered to construct a makeshift hut for each of them (Mark 9:5-6). His well-intentioned suggestion, with no apparent logical or meaningful purpose, was immediately overshadowed by a cloud and the voice of God.

On multiple occasions he had the audacity to resist, disagree with, challenge, and even reprimand Jesus (Matt. 16:22; Mark 8:32; 14:29-31; Luke 5:4-5a; John 13:6-8). Because of his fallible human perspective, oblivious to the loftier ways of God, he proved to be “a stumbling block” to Jesus and an agent of Satan’s work, obstructing (albeit inadvertently) God’s predetermined plan (Matt. 16:23; Mark 8:33).

When he said to Jesus, “I will lay down my life for [ὑπέρ - ‘in behalf of’] you” (John 13:37), despite his good intentions and noble words, how would his sacrificial death have made any significant contribution to the divine scheme of redemption? When he said to Jesus, “Lord, I am ready to go with [μετά] you both to prison and to death” (Luke 22:33), he obviously didn’t get it. While the Lord had other plans for Simon Peter, it was the perfect Lamb of God who had to suffer and die, and the only one who could remedy the sin problem. Nevertheless, when it was time for the necessary and inevitable to be accomplished, Simon Peter would make a foolish attempt to prevent it (John 18:10).

Perhaps most notoriously, reported in all four Gospels, Simon Peter is remembered for his bold promise to the Lord, “I will never be made to stumble …. I will not deny you” (Matt. 26:33, 35; Mark 14:29, 31; Luke 22:33; John 13:37), followed by his infamous triple denial (Matt. 26:34, 69-75; Mark 14:30, 66-72; Luke 22:34, 54-62; John 13:38; 18:15-27).

James, the Lord’s brother, who knew Simon Peter well (Acts 12:17; 15:6-14; Gal. 2:9), may have had him in mind when he wrote: “Know this, my beloved brethren. But let every man be swift to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger. For man’s anger does not produce God’s righteousness” (Jas. 1:19-20).

In the next post we will consider what Simon Peter got right.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation, with emphasis added in italics.

     ² See also Mark 6:7; 14:13; John 13:23-24; 21:20-22.

     ³ See also Mark 8:29-33; 9:5-6; 10:28; 11:21; 14:29-31, 37, 54-72; 16:7; Luke 5:3-10; 8:45; 9:20, 33; 12:41; 18:28; 22:31-34, 54-62; 24:12, 34; John 1:40-42; 6:68-69; 13:6-10, 24, 36-38; 18:10-27; 21:2-22; Acts 1:15; 2:14, 38; 3:6, 12; 4:8-12; 5:3-9, 15; 9:32–11:18; 12:3-19; 15:7-14; 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Gal. 1:18–2:14.

     ⁴ See also Matt. 26:37; Luke 5:8-9; 8:45[text.variant]; John 20:3; 21:2-3; Acts 2:14, 37; 5:29.

     ⁵ Although spoken directly to Simon Peter, this was inclusive of and for the benefit of the others as well (Matt. 4:19; Mark 1:17).

     ⁶ Again, also for the benefit of the others (Matt. 26:40-41; Luke 22:46).

     ⁷ Paul’s repeated use of the conjunction ὅτι with the words that follow (1 Cor. 15:3b-5) is functionally equivalent to quotation marks, identifying this section as what some would call a “creedal formula,” i.e., the fundamental core of the Christian message commonly believed and reiterated in the early church. See BDAG 732; H. E. Dana and J. R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek NT (NY: Macmillan, 1927): 252; G. D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987): 718.

Related Posts: Simon, Simon Peter, The 12 Apostles (Part 2): Simon Peter, Christ's Inner Circle 

 

Image credit: https://truthbook.com/jesus/apostles/simon-peter/ 

Simon, Simon …. Peter

Assembled with his immediate disciples the evening prior to his crucifixion, Jesus turned to one of them and said: “Simon, Simon, behold Satan pleaded to sift you [all] as wheat, but I have prayed for you, that your faith might not fail, and when you have returned, you strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:31-32).¹ This is the only occasion in the biblical record where the name “Simon, Simon” is doubled. After a brief exchange the Lord then addressed the same disciple as “Peter” (v. 34). Why the difference? Other than the play on words in Matthew 16:18, this is the only occasion in the biblical record where Jesus directly addressed Simon as Peter.²

A Closer Look

Names in antiquity, particularly in a Jewish context, had special meaning. The name translated Simon is the Greek form of the Hebrew Simeon, meaning “he has heard” (Genesis 29:33). The idea of “listening” is inherent in the term. The name translated Peter is the Greek version of the Aramaic Cephas, the nickname Jesus gave to Simon when they first met (Mark 3:16; John 1:42). It means “stone” and projects the imagery of firmness and stability.

The Gospels repeatedly depict Simon as erratic, slow to hear and quick to misunderstand. Whenever the Lord addressed him by his given name, it doubled as a subtle reminder of his pressing need to pay attention. In our current text, the repeating of the name would be comparable to saying, “listen, listen,” getting Simon’s undivided attention and emphasizing the importance of what is about to be said.

Simon’s faith was soon to be tested. “But I have prayed for you, that your faith might not fail,” Jesus reassured him, followed by the exhortation, “and when you [emphatic!] have returned, you strengthen your brothers” (v. 32). Simon’s immediate reaction, rather than appreciative, humble, and compliant, is instead rash, oblivious, and obstinate. That’s when Jesus called him “Peter” (v. 34), an implicit reminder of the rock-solid faith he is expected to have (and will have), even though he is not quite there.

What’s the Point?

As Christ followers we too have been given a new name (2 Timothy 2:19), serving as a constant reminder of who we are and whose we are and a motivation to live up to the Lord’s expectations. And like Simon, our faith is established and strengthened only by “hearing, and hearing” (receptive listening and responsive heeding) the divine word (Romans 10:17).

Remember the Lord’s promise in an earlier exchange with our impulsive brother: “Blessed are you, Simon [you have ‘heard’ what the Father has revealed] …. you are Peter [a ‘stone’], and upon this rock [‘the Christ, the Son of the living God’] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it” (Matthew 16:16-18).

Conclusion

Simon, after many ups and downs, was sifted by Satan and returned as a solid man of faith. May we too, as Peter later informs his readers, be “living stones” (1 Peter 2:4-5), listening, obeying, and standing firm on the foundational Rock of our salvation.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation, emphasis added in italics.

     ² See K. L. Moore, “Jesus Called Him ‘Peter’ Only Twice,” Moore Perspective (29 Sept. 2012), <Link>.

Related Posts: The Tough Love of Jesus, The 12 Apostles (Part 2): Simon Peter, Putting Simon Peter in His Place: Part 1

 

Image credit: https://godwords.org/biography-of-simon-peter-jesus-disciple/

The Legacy of Simon the Cyrenian

In Mark’s record of the Lord’s crucifixion, the following is reported: “And they compelled one passing by, Simon a Cyrenian, coming from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, that he might carry the cross of [Jesus]” (Mark 15:21).¹ John’s Gospel mentions Jesus bearing his own cross (John 19:17), presumably at the beginning of the brutal trek to Golgotha. No doubt weakened by extreme blood loss and fatigue, all three Synoptic accounts report Simon’s conscription to provide assistance along the way (see also Matt. 27:32; Luke 23:26). 

Simon’s name is Jewish, the Grecized version of the Hebrew name Simeon (cf. Gen. 29:33). He is called a Cyrenian, being from the North African city of Cyrene in Libya. In order to celebrate the Passover in Jerusalem, if sea travel could be afforded, the journey from Cyrene would have taken over a week. Otherwise, land travel would have taken about a month. Whether Simon had made the lengthy pilgrimage or had actually moved to Jerusalem, his commitment to the Jewish faith is evident.

Mark is the only Gospel writer to mention Simon’s sons Alexander (a Greek name) and Rufus (a Latin name), indicative of a culturally diverse family. Cyrene, at one time a Greek city and then a Roman colony, was itself culturally diverse. There is no practical reason for Mark to have inserted these names in the crucifixion narrative unless these men were known to his original readership. It is historically understood that the Gospel of Mark was written for a Roman audience.² Years before its publication, the apostle Paul had penned his letter to the saints at Rome that includes a greeting to “Rufus, the chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine” (Rom. 16:13).

Paul had not yet been to Rome when this letter was drafted (Rom. 1:10-15; 15:22-24), so how did he know Rufus and Rufus’ mother? The apostle apparently had enjoyed their hospitality and knew them well enough to regard Rufus’ mother as his own. But when and where would this relationship have formed?

Attempting to Fill in the Gaps

Seeing that Simon of Cyrene and probably his family were in Jerusalem when Jesus was crucified, might they still have been around a few weeks later at Pentecost? Luke, who knew of Simon (Luke 23:26), reports the following: “now abiding in Jerusalem were Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven,” including those from “the parts of Libya down through Cyrene …” (Acts 2:5, 10). Multiplied thousands of these Jewish pilgrims and residents had obeyed the gospel by the time persecution forced them to disperse with their new-found faith proclaiming God’s word (Acts 8:1-4).

“So then those having been scattered by the persecution arising over Stephen, went through to Phoenicia, and Cyprus, and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except the Jews only. But some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who having entered Antioch, were also speaking to the Hellenists,³ proclaiming the good news of the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them; then a great number, having believed, turned to the Lord” (Acts 11:19-21).

Cyrenian Jewish Christians were involved in planting the church in Syrian Antioch, in whose work the apostle Paul became thoroughly engaged (Acts 11:25-30; 12:25; 13:1-3; 14:26-28; 15:1-3, 40; 18:22-23). Among the leaders of this congregation were “Simeon, called Niger, and Lucius the Cyrenian …” (Acts 13:1). The name Simeon is the Hebraic form of Simon (cp. Acts 15:14), and Niger is the Latin term for “black,” perhaps suggesting African descent. If Simeon (Simon) and Lucius, among others, were from the African city of Cyrene, the former may have needed a more distinctive distinguishing moniker.

While the biblical information is not detailed enough to draw definitive conclusions, Paul’s intimate connection with the Antioch church would have afforded him ample opportunity to develop relationships with Cyrenian families. If some had moved to Rome by the time he wrote his letter to the Romans, surely he would want to send them greetings. When Mark then produces his Gospel in the same environment, why else mention the sons of Simon unless they were known among his readers?

Observations and Inferences

If the above scenario is reasonably accurate, what can we learn from Simon the Cyrenian and his family?

·      Simon, albeit an unwilling participant, took part in the Lord’s ruthless execution. The difference is, you and I have been willing participants (Rom. 5:6-8; Heb. 6:6; Jas. 1:14-15).

·      Simon was apparently impacted by Christ’s suffering and death, earning him recognition in all three Synoptic Gospels, with additional information about his family. To the receptive heart, the cross of Jesus “is the power of God” (1 Cor. 1:18).

·      Simon appears to have taken seriously his role as spiritual leader of his household, his faith impacting his wife and sons. May we follow this example of influence among our loved ones in the “training and counsel of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4).

·      Simon and his family were not dormant appendages of the Lord’s body but very active in the work of the church. “Therefore, my beloved brethren, be firm, immovable, always abounding in the Lord’s work, knowing that your labor is not ineffective in the Lord” (1 Cor. 15:58).

Conclusion

Simon of Cyrene has typically been seen as a fringe character in the Gospel story, one simply at the wrong place at the wrong time. But closer examination allows us to learn more about him and from him, offering much encouragement as fellow cross bearers.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² See K. L. Moore, Mark's Audience.

     ³ There is uncertainty here whether the reference is applicable to Hellenistic Jews (ESV, ISV, NKJV, NRSV) or to Gentile Greeks (ASV, CSB, NASB, NET, NIV, RSV), or maybe more generically to Grecians (KJV).

Related Posts: Cross-Bearing: the Cost of Discipleship, and The Christianization of a Pagan Symbol 

Image credit: https://windingquest.wordpress.com/2015/03/28/conversation-simon-of-cyrene/

The Authorship of Second Peter

     The NT document historically known as 2 Peter claims to be from “Simon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ” (1:1), and the author goes on to acknowledge this as the “second letter I am writing to you” (3:1).¹ As would be expected, there are multiple allusions in 2 Peter to events recorded in the Gospels (e.g. 1:14, 16-18). Nevertheless, many modern-day scholars deny that the document was actually written by the apostle Peter.² Here are the main reasons:

1. In the opening address a number of manuscripts read Sumeōn (“Simeon”), the Hebraic form of the Greek Simōn (“Simon”), which indicates the work of a pseudepigraphical writer.

2. A comparison of 1 Peter and 2 Peter shows that the same author did not write both books: (a) The writing styles are different, with 2 Peter being more solemn, repetitive, and cumbersome than 1 Peter, and about 60% of the vocabulary of 2 Peter is not found in 1 Peter. (b) There are several OT quotations in 1 Peter but practically none in 2 Peter. (c) In reference to the Lord’s return, the word apokalupsis (“revelation”) is used in 1 Peter, whereas parousia (“appearance”) is used in 2 Peter.

3. Second Peter seems to have been written after the apostolic generation had died (cf. 3:4) and expectations of the Lord’s imminent return had been disappointed (3:7-15).

4. The writer’s knowledge of a collection of Paul’s letters, particularly viewed in the context of “scripture” (3:15-16), presupposes a much later date.

5. If 2 Peter uses Jude as a source (as is commonly believed by a number of critical scholars) and if Jude was not written until the end of the 1st century, then 2 Peter must have been composed several decades after the apostle Peter’s death.

6. No NT book is as weakly confirmed among the patristic writers or was as slowly accepted into the NT canon as 2 Peter.

Responses to these objections

1. In the opening verse of 2 Peter there is textual variation among extant manuscripts between the Hebraic Sumeōn and the Greek Simōn; the “weight of external support for the two readings is almost equally divided” (B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary [2nd ed.] 629). The former has been adopted by the NRSV, ESV and NEB, whereas the latter by the ASV, NASB, N/KJV, NIV, and RSV. If Sumeōn is original, it is more likely to have come from Peter himself rather than someone pretending to be the apostle (cf. Acts 15:14). A forger would have surely copied the more common form instead of using such an obscure form.

2. Any variations in style and vocabulary can easily be explained by the unique circumstances under which each document was written, the differences in subject matter, and the contribution of Silvanus to the first letter (1 Pet. 5:12) and his absence from the second.³ Moreover, any attempt to conclusively evaluate a hypothetical “Petrine style” or “Petrine vocabulary” is precluded by the brevity of these writings. While there are a number of OT allusions in 2 Peter (cf. 2:1, 4-8, 15-16; 3:2, 4-6, 9-13) and at least two OT quotations (2:22: 3:8), the theme of suffering in 1 Peter apparently called for more scripture references than the theme of false teachers in 2 Peter. Since the apostle Paul employs both apokalupsis and parousia in reference to the Lord’s return in 1 Corinthians and 2 Thessalonians,⁴ what would be so unusual about the apostle Peter using both words on different occasions?

3. The allusion to hoi pateres (“the fathers”) in 3:4 does not necessarily refer to first-generation Christian patriarchs (which is nowhere else used as such) but rather to Jewish patriarchs. Further, the teaching of the Lord’s return in 2 Peter is not inherently suggestive of a much later date and is in fact comparable to 1-2 Thessalonians.

4. If Paul kept copies of his letters (which was customary among contemporary authors) and/or these copies were included among the “scrolls” and “parchments” that Timothy was requested to bring to Rome (2 Tim. 4:13), the entire collection could have easily been shared with Peter while the two apostles were in Rome, especially since Mark and Silvanus were colleagues of both of them (2 Tim. 4:11; 1 Pet. 5:12-13). Nonetheless, Peter’s reference to Paul’s “letters” does not in itself imply the entire corpus (though historically possible), and recognition of these writings as “scripture” does not pose a problem for those who accept the self-claims of divine inspiration (e.g. 1 Cor. 2:7-13; 14:37; Eph. 3:1-5). 

5. Questioning 2 Peter because of its literary affinity with Jude is based on the twofold assumption of Jude’s priority and Jude’s late date, neither of which is proven or universally conceded (see The Epistle of Judas).

6. The apparently weak support of 2 Peter in the early church is a fair concern, although M. Green also notes that “no excluded book has nearly such weight of backing as 2 Peter” (The Second Epistle of Peter 13). The weakness of attestation should not be exaggerated, since several 2nd-century writings seem to betray an influence from 2 Peter (cf. R. J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter 162), and Eusebius, while acknowledging its disputed status, affirms its usefulness in study along with tō allōn graphōn (“the other scriptures”) (Eccl. Hist. 3.3.1). 

     While its absence from the Muratorian canon may very well be attributable to the fragmentary state of the text, D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo sensibly observe: “there is a good explanation for the neglect of 2 Peter. So many Petrine forgeries were in existence that the Fathers moved very cautiously in separating out 2 Peter from these other spurious books…. 2 Peter is not mentioned often by the fathers of the church—probably because it is short and so focused on false teaching that it makes little significant theological contribution” (An Introduction to the NT 662, 664).

     There are no close parallels to 2 Peter among the pseudepigraphical writings, and the 2nd century witnessed a whole body of pseudepigraphical literature attributed to Peter that was rejected from the NT canon.⁵

Conclusion:

     No argument against the Peterine authorship of 2 Peter can decisively stand on its own. Even collectively, when evaluated in light of all the potential variables and available evidence, a convincing case is not made. Unless one is predisposed to doubting the integrity of NT writings, there is no legitimate reason to deny 2 Peter’s self-claim of authorship.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² R. E. Brown contends that 2 Peter is a “pseudonymous work” that was in all likelihood “chronologically the last NT book to be written …. Indeed, the pseudonymity of II Pet is more certain than that of any other NT work” (An Introduction to the NT 761, cf. 766-68); see also B. D. Ehrman, The NT: A Historical Introduction 421-24; R. E. Van Voorst, Reading the NT Today 504-505. For a good refutation of the arguments, see D. Guthrie, NT Introduction 828-48.

     ³ Jerome (340-420) noted: “the two epistles, which circulate as Peter's, are also different in style among themselves and in character, and in word structure; from which we understand that he used different interpreters as necessary” (Ad Hedibiam 120).

     ⁴ On the Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians, see The Thessalonian Letters, and Biblical Authorship Part 3 and Part 4.

     ⁵ E.g., Acts of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, Gospel of Peter, Preaching of Peter, Martyrdom of Peter, Martyrdom of Peter and Paul, the Gnostic Letter of Peter to Philip, and the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter (see C. R. Holladay, A Critical Introduction to the NT 511).

Related Posts: Authorship of Ephesians, Authorship of 1 Peter

Image credit: https://www.wacriswell.com/sermons/1960/the-sure-word-of-god/