This is the revised version of the author's PhD dissertation on the Latin Acts of Peter under the supervision of Christoph Markschies, which was accepted in 2016 by the Humboldt University in Berlin. The work offers a new critical edition and German translation (both of the acta and of the martyrium) of the Latin text of this well-known piece of ancient Christian controversy literature that has the Apostle Peter confront his nemesis Simon Magus, as this is the case also in other such writings. The edition and translation are accompanied by a substantial introduction (pp. 1–48) and detailed commentaries on the language and contents of the work (the former as a second apparatus under the edition, the latter on pp. 145–318). In appendix i there is the text of the parallel Greek tradition (none of the texts reproduced there can claim to be the original model for the Latin version).

The introduction opens with a detailed description of the sole manuscript that has preserved the Latin text of the Acts of Peter – Biblioteca Capitolare, Vercelli, Bibl. Capitol. 158 (here V), dated to the seventh century, as well as a survey of the two previous critical editions, by R. A. Lipsius and L. Vouaux, whose readings are included in the apparatus. The apparatus also contains references to readings from the edition that G. Poupon is currently preparing for CC Ap. and which the latter graciously has made accessible to the author. Also included are proposals for a variant reading suggested by a number of scholars in studies dedicated to the Acts of Peter (above all by C. H. Turner and A. Hilhorst). For some passages from chapters 35–6 that are lacking in the Latin, use has been made of O. Zwierlein's edition of the Greek parallel tradition for offering at least a translation. Döhler continues with a presentation of the author's own edition, the apparatus and the commentary, together with a word of comment on the Greek tradition. Then follows a summary of the contents of the Acts of Peter and a selective but helpful survey of previous research since 1891.

One might perhaps ask what is the use of producing one more edition of a text that is preserved in only one manuscript. The apparatus shows that there is room for yet another such edition, if only because of the sorry state of the manuscript, which has further deteriorated since Lipsius’ edition, and the differences in opinion between editors that follows from it. Döhler in particular points out that in some cases it is better to stick to Lipsius’ conjecture for lack of better evidence (p. 11). It would be inappropriate to offer here a full list of the readings where Döhler differs from Lipsius, Vouaux or Poupon, but a few instances can perhaps be cited, in order to give the reader an idea of what kind of problems are met. In Acts of Peter chapter 1, line 4 (henceforth such references are given as 1.4), Vouaux follows V in reading ‘permansit’, whereas Lipsius and Poupon have ‘persuasit’, and Turner suggested ‘permisit’; Döhler goes with Vouaux. In the same context (1.7), Döhler follows V and Poupon against the conjecture ‘surge et eis’ for plain ‘surge et’, but then goes with Vouaux and Poupon in adding ‘tuo’ to ‘corpore’, which is in any case the more reasonable option compared to Turner's ‘constituti’ or Lipsius’ ‘conpariturus’. In 1.11 Döhler keeps to V's ‘Paulus conmisisset’, which is perfectly understandable, against Poupon’ addition of ‘se’ after ‘Paulus’ and Bonnet's ‘conquisisset’ in his edition of Lipsius. The phrase ‘hunc esse Christum quem ego praedico’ in 7.225 led Turner to read ‘conuicisset eos Christum esse eum’ in 1.12 instead of V's ‘conuicisset eos Christus enim’, which makes good sense and is also kept by Döhler. The manuscript's negligence in writing final ‘m’ should caution against changing V's ‘sabbatu’ into ‘sabbata’ (so Poupon) instead of merely adding ‘m’ for ‘sabbatum’ (1.13). Döhler follows the conjecture ‘urgebant’ (Lipsius, Vouaux) for V's ‘lucebant’ (or any of several other suggestions that have been made), and this too is a safe option. The manuscript's simple ‘fratres’ in 1.15 again is preferred by Döhler against Bo's and Poupon's addition of resp. ‘et adiurabant or rogantes’. There is no need to add ‘in Spaniam’ after ‘perueneris’ in 1.17 (so Lipsius), and so Döhler once more sticks to V. These few examples from the opening chapter may give an idea of how Döhler has proceeded, and perhaps also convince the reader that at least in all of these cases she seems to have chosen the better part.

But for many readers the commentary may be the more important part of this work. Döhler comments on the text in a systematic way, with ample references to the secondary literature. Here are a few randomly chosen comments on the comments. Döhler rightly notes that there is no reason to interpret the Peter/Simon controversy in light of the tensions other ancient sources say there have been between Peter and Paul. The latter is looked upon most positively and mentioned for his own sake, even if he is obviously not a main figure. I am not certain, however, if this happened in order to make it clear that the author of the Acts of Peter does not want to be part of this tradition, as Döhler suggests when writing, ‘Es ist sogar denkbar, dass das Auftreten des Paulus in den text aufgenommen wurde, um die Assoziation einer Parallel zwischen Paulus und Simon unmöglich zu machen’ (p. 146). Such a conclusion is perhaps somewhat gratuitous, even if the author of the Acts of Peter seems to have some knowledge of a tradition that links Paul to magic (Acts of Peter 4.96–7). Simon Magus’ entrance on the scene is most impressive. He presents himself in such a way and with such conviction that the crowds ask if he is perhaps Christ himself (4.80, ‘Numquid ipse esse Christus?’). Döhler points out that Simon seems only interested in deluding Christians, which makes him into a sort of pseudo-Christ (p. 189). Now that Paul has left, the crowds are helpless. Their question gives an acute sense of urgency to the scene, as such a figure is known to announce the coming of the end-time. This aspect is no doubt present in the background, but perhaps also present is a twist on that other motif – the crowds asking Jesus in the Gospels about his identity. Almost immediately Simon counters his own claims about being the ‘power of God’ by claiming too much when announcing his flight through the skies. This is a typical case of hubris, well known in ancient literature, that inevitably exposes the claimant as a crook or a person who does not want to recognise the limits of human power. Döhler sees this correctly, but also notes that a variant on the theme (about the flight of the soul) was well known in philosophical and then also came to be appreciated in Christian hagiographical tradition (pp. 191–2). Simon's failure to deliver upon his promise exposes him for what he is: neither a saint, nor philosopher, but a crook: ‘Der Simon der Averc steht also in der Tradition all der gescheiterten menschlichen Flugbestrebungen’ (p. 192). One might add to this that it is proof that he is not the Christ for whom he was taken. The wonder is then that he still manages to stay in his role and that the crowds maintain their interest in him.

These few examples of the choices that Döhler has made in her edition and of the sort of observations one meets in the commentary may suffice to show that this is a most useful contribution to the study of the Acts of Peter, one that will have a prominent place in furthering the discussion.