Would you know if Jerome included this apocryphal work in his Latin Vulgate?. And whether it ever appeared on the list of the early church known as "non-recipiendi", ie, "not to be received [believed]". Wasn't this well known even by Jerome to be a heretical work of Gnostic fiction? Certainly this discredited work was not relied upon as the source of the great legend of that 25 year Petrine Bishopric in Rome or was it?
No, I don't think so. It is not canonical, and I refer to it as a historical evidence that lacks verification.
Wasn't this well known even by Jerome to be a heretical work of Gnostic fiction?
It is not listed as such in the New Advent library, where works of Gnostic origin are labeled as such: Fathers In the article (3) APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES another book is mentioned as bearing gnostic elements:
Acts of St. PeterThere exist a Greek and a Latin Martyrdom of Peter, the latter attributed to Pope Linus, which from patristic citations are recognized as the conclusion of an ancient Greek narrative entitled "Acts, or Circuits of St. Peter". Another manuscript, bearing the name "Actus Petri cum Simone", contains a superior translation with several passages from the original narrative preceding the Martyrdom. The work betrays certain tokens of Gnosticism, although it has been purged of its grossest features by a Catholic reviser. It describes the triumph of St. Peter over Simon Magus at Rome, and the Apostle's subsequent crucifixion. These Acts as we have them are of high antiquity, though it is impossible to always discern whether patristic writers are quoting from them or an earlier tradition. Undoubtedly Commodian (c. 250) employed our extant Acts of Peter.
Possibly, what I referenced to Aliska is that "revised" version, or else it is a different book entirely.