Sources suggest that at first, the termsepiscopos andpresbyteros were used interchangeably,[11] with the consensus among scholars being that by the turn of the 1st and 2nd centuries, local congregations were led by bishops and presbyters, whose duties of office overlapped or were indistinguishable from one another.[12]Protestant and secular historians generally agree that there was probably "no single 'monarchical' bishop in Rome before the middle of the 2nd century ... and likely later".[13] Outside of the New Testament, severalapocryphal books were later attributed to him, in particular theActs of Peter,Gospel of Peter,Preaching of Peter,Apocalypse of Peter, andJudgment of Peter, although scholars believe these works to bepseudepigrapha.[14][15][16]
The New Testament presents Peter's original name as Simon (/ˈsaɪmən/ⓘ;Σίμων,Simōn inGreek). In only two passages,[17] his name is instead spelled "Simeon" (Συμεών in Greek). The variation possibly reflects "the well-known custom among Jews at the time of giving the name of a famous patriarch or personage of theOld Testament to a male child [i.e.,Simeon] along with a similar sounding Greek/Roman name [in this case, Simon]".[18]
He was later given byJesus the nameCephas (/ˈsiːfəs/[19]), from theAramaicכֵּיפָא,Kepha, 'rock/stone'. In translations of the Bible from the originalGreek, his name is maintained asCephas in nine occurrences in theNew Testament,[20] whereas in the vast majority of mentions (156 occurrences in the New Testament) he is calledΠέτρος,Petros, from the Greek and Latin word for a rock or stone (petra)[21] to which the masculine ending was added, rendered into English asPeter.[22]
The precise meaning of the Aramaic word is disputed, some saying that its usual meaning is "rock" or "crag", others saying that it means rather "stone" and, particularly in its application by Jesus to Simon, like a "jewel", but most scholars agree that as a proper name, it denotes a rough or tough character.[23] Both meanings, "stone" (jewel or hewn stone) and "rock", are indicated in dictionaries of Aramaic[24] andSyriac.[25]
Catholic theologianRudolf Pesch argues that the Aramaic word would mean "precious stone" to designate a distinguishing person.[26][27] This cannot be sufficiently proven from Aramaic, however, since the use of the Aramaic rootkp as a personal name has not been proven and there are hardly any known examples of the word being used to mean "precious stone".[28]
The combined nameΣίμων Πέτρος (Símon Pétros, Simon Peter) appears 19 times in the New Testament. In someSyriac documents he is called, in English translation, Simon Cephas.[29]
In the New Testament, he is among the first[note 2] of the disciples called during Jesus' ministry. Peter became the first listedapostle ordained by Jesus in the early Church.[34]
In the synoptic gospels, Peter (then Simon) was a fisherman along with his brother,Andrew, and the sons ofZebedee,James andJohn. TheGospel of John also depicts Peter fishing, even after the resurrection of Jesus, in the story of theCatch of 153 fish. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus called Simon and his brother Andrew to be "fishers of men".[43][44]
The Calling of the Apostles Peter and Andrew (from theMaestà),c. 1308 – c. 1311
InLuke, Simon Peter owns theboat that Jesus uses to preach to the multitudes who were pressing on him at the shore ofLake Gennesaret.[48] Jesus then amazes Simon and his companions James and John (Andrew is not mentioned) by telling them to lower their nets, whereupon they catch a huge number of fish. Immediately after this, they follow him.[49] TheGospel of John gives a comparable account of "The First Disciples".[50] In John, the readers are told that it was two disciples ofJohn the Baptist (Andrew and an unnamed disciple) who heard John the Baptist announce Jesus as the "Lamb of God" and then followed Jesus. Andrew then went to his brother Simon, saying, "We have found theMessiah", and then brought Simon to Jesus, who immediately named him as "Cephas".[36]
Three of the four gospels—Matthew, Mark and John – recount the story ofJesus walking on water. Matthew additionally describes Peter walking on water for a moment but beginning to sink when his faith wavers.[51]
At the beginning of theLast Supper, Jesus washed his disciples' feet. Peter initially refused to let Jesus wash his feet, but when Jesus told him: "If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me", Peter replied: "Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head".[52] Thewashing of feet is often repeated in theservice of worship onMaundy Thursday by someChristian denominations.
The threesynoptic gospels all mention that, when Jesus was arrested, one of his companions cut off the ear of a servant of theHigh Priest of Israel.[53][54][55] The Gospel of John also includes this event and names Peter as the swordsman andMalchus as the victim.[56] Luke adds that Jesus touched the ear and miraculously healed it.[57] This healing of the servant's ear is the last of the37 miracles attributed to Jesus in the Bible.
Simon Peter was twicearraigned, with John, before theSanhedrin and directly defied them.[58][59] Peter takes a missionary journey toLydda,Joppa andCaesarea.[60] At Joppa, Peter had avision given him from God which allowed for the eating of previously unclean animals, leading the early believers to the decision to evangelise theGentiles.[61] Simon Peter applied the message of the vision on clean animals to the gentiles and follows his meeting withCornelius the Centurion by claiming that "God shows no partiality".
Acts 12 narrates how Peter, who was in Jerusalem, was put into prison byAgrippa I (AD 42–44) but wasrescued by an angel. After his liberation Peter left Jerusalem to go to "another place".[66] Concerning Peter's subsequent activity there is no further connected information from the extant sources, although there are short notices of certain individual episodes of his later life.[1]
The synoptic gospels mention that Peter had a mother-in-law at the time he joined Jesus and that Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law.[67] However, the gospels give no information about his wife.Clement of Alexandria claimed that Peter's wife was executed for her faith by the Roman authorities but he did not specify any date or location.[68] Another opinion states that Peter's wife was no longer alive at the time he met Jesus, so he was a widower.[69]
The Gospels and Acts portray Peter as the most prominent apostle, though he denied Jesus three times during the events of the crucifixion. According to the Christian tradition, Peter was the first disciple to whom Jesus appeared, balancing Peter's denial and restoring his position. Peter is regarded as the first leader of the early Church,[70][71] though he was soon eclipsed in this leadership byJames the Just, "the brother of the Lord".[72][73] Because Peter was the first to whom Jesus appeared, the leadership of Peter forms the basis of the Apostolic succession and the institutional power of orthodoxy, as the heirs of Peter,[74] and he is described as "the rock" on which the church will be built.[70]
Peter is often depicted in the gospels as spokesman of all the Apostles.[80]John Vidmar, a Catholic scholar, writes: "Catholic scholars agree that Peter had an authority that superseded that of the other apostles. Peter is their spokesman at several events, he conducts the election of Matthias, his opinion in the debate over converting Gentiles was crucial, etc".[81]
The author of theActs of the Apostles portrays Peter as the central figure within the early Christian community.[note 5]
All four canonical gospels recount that, during theLast Supper, Jesus foretold that Peter would deny him three times before the following cockcrow ("before the cock crows twice" in Mark's account). The three Synoptics and John describe the three denials as follows:
A denial when a female servant of the high priest spots Simon Peter, saying that he had been with Jesus. According to Mark (but not in all manuscripts), "the rooster crowed". Only Luke and John mention a fire by which Peter was warming himself among other people: according to Luke, Peter was "sitting"; according to John, he was "standing";
A denial when Simon Peter had gone out to the gateway, away from the firelight, but the same servant girl (perMark) or another servant girl (perMatthew) or a man (perLuke and alsoJohn, for whom, though, this is the third denial) told the bystanders he was a follower of Jesus. According to John, "the rooster crowed". The Gospel of John places the second denial while Peter was still warming himself at the fire and gives as the occasion of the third denial a claim by someone to have seen him in the garden ofGethsemane whenJesus was arrested;
A denial came when Peter's Galilean accent was taken as proof that he was indeed a disciple of Jesus. According to Matthew, Mark and Luke, "the rooster crowed". Matthew adds that it was hisaccent that gave him away as coming from Galilee. Luke deviates slightly from this by stating that, rather than a crowd accusing Simon Peter, it was a third individual. John does not mention the Galilean accent.
In the Gospel of Luke is a record of Christ telling Peter: "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren". In a reminiscent[87] scene in John's epilogue, Peter affirms three times that he loves Jesus.
Paul'sFirst Epistle to the Corinthians[88] contains a list ofresurrection appearances of Jesus, the first of which is an appearance to Peter.[89] Here, Paul apparently follows an early tradition that Peter was the first to see the risen Christ,[34] which, however, did not seem to have survived to the time when the gospels were written.[90]
In John's gospel, Peter is the first person to enter theempty tomb, although the women and thebeloved disciple see it before him.[91] In Luke's account, the women's report of the empty tomb is dismissed by the apostles, and Peter is the only one who goes to check for himself, running to the tomb. After seeing the graveclothes, he goes home, apparently without informing the other disciples.[92]
In thefinal chapter of the Gospel of John, Peter, in one of the resurrection appearances of Jesus,three times affirmed his love for Jesus, balancing his threefold denial, and Jesus reconfirmed Peter's position. The Church of the Primacy of St. Peter on theSea of Galilee is seen as the traditional site where Jesus Christ appeared to his disciples after his resurrection and, according to Catholic tradition, established Peter's supreme jurisdiction over the Christian church.
The Liberation of St. Peter from prison by an angel, byGiovanni Lanfranco, 1620–1621
Peter was considered along withJames the Just andJohn the Apostle as the threePillars of the Church.[93] Legitimised by Jesus' appearance, Peter assumed leadership of the group of early followers, forming the Jerusalemekklēsia mentioned by Paul.[70][71] He was soon eclipsed in this leadership by James the Just, "the Brother of the Lord".[72][73] According to Lüdemann, this was due to the discussions about thestrictness of adherence to the Jewish Law, when the more conservative faction of James the Just[94] took the overhand over the more liberal position of Peter, who soon lost influence.[73][note 6] According to Methodist historianJames D. G. Dunn, this was not a "usurpation of power", but a consequence of Peter's involvement in missionary activities.[96] The early Church historian Eusebius (c. 325) recordsClement of Alexandria (c. 190) as saying:
For they say that Peter andJames (the Greater) andJohn after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but choseJames the Just bishop of Jerusalem.[97]
Dunn proposes that Peter was a "bridge-man" between the opposing views of Paul andJames the Just [italics original]:
ForPeter was probably in fact and effect the bridge-man (pontifex maximus!)who did more than any other to hold together the diversity offirst-century Christianity. James the brother of Jesus and Paul, the two other most prominent leading figures in first-century Christianity, were too much identified with their respective "brands" of Christianity, at least in the eyes of Christians at the opposite ends of this particular spectrum.
Paul affirms that Peter had the special charge of being apostle to the Jews, just as he, Paul, was apostle to the Gentiles. Some argueJames the Just wasbishop of Jerusalem whilst Peter wasbishop of Rome and that this position at times gave James privilege in some (but not all) situations.
In a dialogue between Jesus and his disciples (Matthew 16:13–19), Jesus asks, "Who do people say that theSon of Man is?" The disciples give various answers. When he asks, "Who doyou say that I am?", Simon Peter answers, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God". Jesus then declares:
Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Cephas (Peter) (Petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
A common view of Peter is provided by Jesuit FatherDaniel J. Harrington, who suggests that Peter was an unlikely symbol of stability. While he was one of the first disciples called and was the spokesman for the group, Peter is also the exemplar of "little faith". InMatthew 14, Peter will soon have Jesus say to him, "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?", and he will eventually deny Jesus three times. Thus, in light of the Easter event, Peter became an exemplar of the forgiven sinner.[98] Outside the Catholic Church, opinions vary as to the interpretation of this passage with respect to what authority and responsibility, if any, Jesus was giving to Peter.[99]
In theEastern Orthodox Church this passage is interpreted as not implying a special prominence to the person of Peter, but to Peter's position as representative of the Apostles. The word used for "rock" (petra) grammatically refers to "a small detachment of the massive ledge",[100] not to a massive boulder. Thus, OrthodoxSacred Tradition understands Jesus' words as referring to the apostolic faith.
Petros had not previously been used as a name, but in the Greek-speaking world it became a popular Christian name after the tradition of Peter's prominence in the early Christian church had been established.
The leadership of Peter forms the basis of the Apostolic succession and the institutional power of orthodoxy, as the heirs of Peter,[74] and is described as "the rock" on which the church will be built.[70]Catholics refer to him as chief of the Apostles,[101] as do theEastern Orthodox[102] and theOriental Orthodox.[103][104] In Coptic Orthodox Church liturgy, he is once referred to as "prominent" or "head" among the Apostles, a title shared with Paul in the text (The Fraction of Fast and Feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul in the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria). Some, including the Orthodox Churches, believe this is not the same as saying that the other Apostles were under Peter's orders.
According to the Epistle to the Galatians (2:11), Peter went to Antioch where Paul rebuked him for following the conservative line regarding the conversion of Gentiles, having meals separate from Gentiles.[note 7] Subsequent tradition held that Peter had been the firstPatriarch of Antioch. According to the writings of Origen[106] and Eusebius in hisChurch History (III, 36) Peter had founded the church of Antioch.[107]
Later accounts expand on the brief biblical mention of his visit toAntioch. TheLiber Pontificalis (9th century) mentions Peter as having served as bishop of Antioch for seven years and having potentially left his family in the Greek city before his journey to Rome.[108] Claims of direct blood lineage from Simon Peter among the old population of Antioch existed in the 1st century and continue to exist today, notably by certainSemaan families of modern-day Syria and Lebanon. Historians have furnished other evidence of Peter's sojourn in Antioch.[note 8]
TheClementine literature, a group of related works written in the fourth century but believed to contain materials from earlier centuries, relates information about Peter that may come from earlier traditions. One is that Peter had a group of 12 to 16 followers, whom the Clementine writings name.[109] Another is that it provides an itinerary of Peter's route fromCaesarea Maritima to Antioch, where he debated his adversarySimon Magus; during this journey he ordainedZacchaeus as the first bishop of Caesarea and Maro as the first bishop ofTripolis. Historian Fred Lapham suggests the route recorded in the Clementine writings may have been taken from an earlier document mentioned byEpiphanius of Salamis in hisPanarion called "The Itinerary of Peter".[110]
Peter may have visitedCorinth, and maybe there existed a party of "Cephas".[34]First Corinthians suggests that perhaps Peter visited the city of Corinth, located in Greece, during their missions.[111]
Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, in his Epistle to the Roman Church underPope Soter (A.D. 165–174), declares that Peter and Paul founded the Church of Rome and the Church of Corinth, and they have lived in Corinth for some time, and finally in Italy where they found death:
You have thus by such an admonition bound together the planting of Peter and of Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both of them planted and likewise taught us in our Corinth. And they taught together in like manner in Italy, and suffered martyrdom at the same time.[112]
The Catholic Church speaks of the pope, the bishop of Rome, as the successor of Saint Peter. This is often interpreted to imply that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. However, it is also said that the institution of the papacy is not dependent on the idea that Peter was Bishop of Rome or even on his ever having been in Rome.[113]
In his bookChurch History,Eusebius notes that Linus succeeded Peter as the bishop of the Church in Rome:[115]
As to the rest of his followers, Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul; but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy as his companion at Rome, was Peter's successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown.
— Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, Book III, Chapter 4
According toTertullian's bookPrescription against Heretics, it is stated that Clement was ordained by Peter as the bishop of Rome:[116]
...as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter.
— Tertullian, Prescription against Heretics, Chapter 32
St. Clement of Rome identifies Peter and Paul as the outstanding heroes of the faith.[34]
There is no obvious biblical evidence that Peter was ever in Rome, but the first epistle of Peter does mention that "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son."[117] Most scholars agree that the city alluded to in this verse is Rome, for which Babylon was a common nickname in Jewish and Christian literature at the time, albeit mostly after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD (after Peter's death).[118][119][120]
Paul'sEpistle to the Romans, written about AD 57,[121] greets some fifty people in Rome by name,[122] but not Peterwhom he knew. There is also no mention of Peter in Rome later during Paul's two-year stay there in Acts 28, about AD 60–62. With regards to the latter, Acts 28 does not specifically mention any of Paul's visitors.
According toOrigen (184–253)[106] andEusebius,[107] Peter "after having first founded the church at Antioch, went away to Rome preaching the Gospel, and he also, after [presiding over] the church in Antioch, presided over that of Rome until his death".[126] After presiding over the church in Antioch for a while, Peter would have been succeeded byEvodius[127] and thereafter byIgnatius, who was a disciple ofJohn the Apostle.[128]
Lactantius, in his book calledOf the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died, written around 318, noted that "and while Nero reigned, the Apostle Peter came to Rome, and, through the power of God committed unto him, wrought certain miracles, and, by turning many to the true religion, built up a faithful and stedfast temple unto the Lord."[129]
Eusebius of Caesarea (260/265 – 339/340) relates that when Peter confrontsSimon Magus at Judea (mentioned in Acts 8), Simon Magus flees to Rome, where the Romans began to regard him as a god. According to Eusebius, his luck did not last long, since God sent Peter to Rome, and Simon was quenched and immediately destroyed.[130]
According toJerome (327–420): "Peter went to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero."[131]
An apocryphal work, theActus Vercellenses (7th century), a Latin text preserved in only one manuscript copy published widely in translation under the title Acts of Peter, sets Peter's confrontation with Simon Magus in Rome.[132][133]
In the epilogue[134] of the Gospel of John, Jesus is presented as hinting at Peter's death: "But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will fasten a belt around you and take you where you do not wish to go."[135] This is interpreted by some as a reference to Peter's crucifixion.[87] Unitarian theologian Donald Fay Robinson has suggested that the incident inActs 12:1–17,[136] where Peter is "released by an angel" and goes to "another place", really represents an idealised account of his death, which may have occurred in a Jerusalem prison as early as AD 44.[137]
Early Church tradition says that Peter died bycrucifixion (with arms outstretched) at the time of theGreat Fire of Rome in the year 64. This probably took place three months after the disastrous fire that destroyed Rome for which the emperorNero wished to blame the Christians. This "dies imperii" (regnal day anniversary) was an important one, exactly ten years after Nero ascended to the throne, and it was "as usual" accompanied by much bloodshed. Traditionally,Roman authorities sentenced him to death bycrucifixion atVatican Hill.[1] In accordance with theapocryphalActs of Peter, he wascrucified head down.[138] Tradition also locates his burial place where theBasilica of Saint Peter was later built, directly beneath the Basilica's high altar.
The apocryphal Acts of Peter (2nd cent.) (Vercelli Acts XXXV)[140] is the source for the tradition about the famous Latin phrase "Quo vadis, Domine?" (in Greek:Κύριε, ποῦ ὑπάγεις "Kyrie, pou hypageis?"), which means "Where are you going, Lord?". According to the story, Peter, fleeing Rome to avoid execution meets the risen Jesus. In the Latin translation, Peter asks Jesus, "Quo vadis?" He replies, "Romam eo iterum crucifigi" ("I am going to Rome to be crucified again"). Peter then gains the courage to continue his ministry and returns to the city, where he is martyred. This story is commemorated in anAnnibale Carracci painting. TheChurch of Quo Vadis, near theCatacombs ofSaint Callistus, contains a stone in which Jesus' footprints from this event are supposedly preserved, though this was apparently anex-voto from apilgrim, and indeed a copy of the original housed in theBasilica of St Sebastian.
Origen (184–253) in hisCommentary on the Book of Genesis III, quoted byEusebius in hisEcclesiastical History (III, 1), said: "Peter was crucified at Rome with his head downwards, as he himself had desired to suffer."[144] TheCross of St. Peter inverts theLatin cross based on this refusal, and on his claim of being unworthy to die the same way as his Saviour.[145]
Peter of Alexandria (d. 311), who wasbishop of Alexandria and died around AD 311, wrote an epistleon Penance, in which he says: "Peter, the first of the apostles, having been often apprehended and thrown into prison, and treated with ignominy, was last of all crucified at Rome."[146]
Jerome (327–420) wrote that "at Nero's hands Peter received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord".[131]
According to Jerome and Eusebius, Peter died in the year AD 67–68, twenty-five years after his arrival in Rome in AD 42.[131][147] Some modern scholars argue for a date between the years AD 64–68.[1] TheLiber Pontificalis also gives him a tenure of 25 years, and adds that he died in the 38th year after the death of Jesus, which, reckoning from AD 30, also gives AD 67–68. However, it also explicitly states thatPope Linus succeeded him in the year AD 56, which is the result of mixing two contradictory traditions.[148][149]
Catholic tradition holds that Peter's inverted crucifixion occurred in the gardens of Nero, with the burial inSaint Peter's tomb nearby.[150]
Caius in hisDisputation Against Proclus (A.D. 198), preserved in part by Eusebius, relates this of the places in which the remains of the apostles Peter and Paul were deposited: "I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to theVatican or to theOstian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church."[151]
According toJerome, in his workDe Viris Illustribus (A.D. 392), "Peter was buried at Rome in the Vatican near the triumphal way where he is venerated by the whole world."[131] TheLiber Pontificalis states that he was buried on 29 June[148] (the corruptedLiberian Catalogue gives it as the date of his death).[152] Some authors have argued that the date was deliberately chosen to replace an old Roman festival, but this seems unlikely.[153][154][155]
In the early 4th century, theEmperor Constantine I decided to honour Peter witha large basilica.[156][157] Because the precise location of Peter's burial was so firmly fixed in the belief of the Christians of Rome, the church to house the basilica had to be erected on a site that was not convenient to construction. The slope of theVatican Hill had to be excavated, even though the church could much more easily have been built on level ground only slightly to the south.[158] There were also moral and legal issues, such as demolishing a cemetery to make room for the building. The focal point of the Basilica, both in its original form and in its later complete reconstruction, is the altar located over what is said to be the point of Peter's burial.[159]
According to a letter quoted byBede,Pope Vitalian sent a cross containing filings said to be from Peter's chains to the queen ofOswy,Anglo-Saxon King ofNorthumbria in 665, as well as unspecified relics of the saint to the king.[160] The skull of Saint Peter is claimed to reside in theArchbasilica of Saint John Lateran since at least the ninth century, alongside the skull of Saint Paul.[161]
In 1950, human bones were found buried underneath the altar of St. Peter's Basilica. The bones have been claimed by many to have been those of Peter.[162] An attempt to contradict these claims was made in 1953 by the excavation of what some believe to beSaint Peter's tomb in Jerusalem.[163] However along with this supposed tomb in Jerusalem bearing his previous name Simon (but not Peter), tombs bearing the names of Jesus, Mary, James, John, and the rest of the apostles were also found at the same excavation—though all these names were very common among Jews at the time.
In the 1960s, items from the excavations beneathSt Peter's Basilica were re-examined, and the bones of a male person were identified. A forensic examination found them to be a male of about 61 years of age from the 1st century. This causedPope Paul VI in 1968 to announce them most likely to be the relics of Apostle Peter.[164] On 24 November 2013,Pope Francis presented part of the relics, consisting of bone fragments, for the first time in public during a Mass celebrated in St. Peter's Square.[165] On 2 July 2019, it was announced that Pope Francis had transferred nine of these bone fragments within a bronze reliquary to Orthodox Ecumenical PatriarchBartholomew of Constantinople.[166] Bartholomew, who serves as head of the Eastern Orthodox Christian church, described the gesture as "brave and bold".[166]Pope Francis has said his decision was born "out of prayer" and intended as a sign of the ongoing work towards communion between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.[167] The majority of Saint Peter's remains, however, are still preserved in Rome, under the high altar of St. Peter's Basilica.[168]
Some church historians consider Peter and Paul to have beenmartyred under the reign of Nero,[169][170] around AD 65 after the Great Fire of Rome.[note 9][171][172] Currently, most Catholic scholars,[173] and many scholars in general,[174] hold the view that Peter was martyred in Rome under Nero.[note 10]
While accepting that Peter came to Rome and was martyred there, there is no historical evidence that he held episcopal office there.[176][177][178][179][180] According to two studies published by the German philologistOtto Zwierlein [de] in 2009[181] and 2013 respectively,[182] "there is not a single piece of reliable literary evidence (and no archaeological evidence either) that Peter ever was in Rome."[183][184][note 11]Timothy Barnes has criticised Zwierlein's views as "a nadir in historical criticism".[190]
Clement of Rome's First Letter, a document that has been dated from the 90s to the 120s, is one of the earliest sources adduced in support of Peter's stay in Rome, but Zwierlein questions the text's authenticity and whether it has any knowledge about Peter's life beyond what is contained in the New TestamentActs of the Apostles.[183] The letter also does not mention any particular place, only saying: "Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him" (ch. 5).[191]
A letter to the Romans attributed toIgnatius of Antioch might imply that Peter and Paul had special authority over the Roman church,[34] telling the Roman Christians: "I do not command you, as Peter and Paul did" (ch. 4), although Zwierlein says he could be simply referring to the Epistles of the Apostles, or their mission work in the city, not a special authority given or bestowed. Zwierlein questions the authenticity of this document and its traditional dating toc. 105 – c. 110, saying it may date from the final decades of the 2nd century instead of from the beginning.[183]
The ancient historianJosephus describes how Roman soldiers would amuse themselves by crucifying criminals in different positions,[192] and it is likely that this would have been known to the author of theActs of Peter. The position attributed to Peter's crucifixion is thus plausible, either as having happened historically or as being an invention by the author of theActs of Peter. Death, after crucifixion head down, is unlikely to be caused bysuffocation, the usual "cause of death in ordinary crucifixion".[193]
Church tradition ascribes the epistlesFirst andSecond Peter to the Apostle Peter, as does the text of Second Peter itself, an attribution rejected by scholarship. First Peter[117] says the author is in "Babylon", which has been held to be a coded reference to Rome.[194][195][196] Early Church tradition reports that Peter wrote from Rome. Eusebius of Caesarea states:
Clement of Alexandria in the sixth [book] of the Hypotyposeis cites the story, and the bishop of Hierapolis namedPapias joins him in testifying that Peter mentions Mark in the first epistle, which they say he composed in Rome herself, and that he indicates this, calling the city more figuratively Babylon by these: "She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings and so does my son Mark. (1 Pet 5:13)"[197]
If the reference is to Rome, it is the only biblical reference to Peter being there. Many scholars regard both First and Second Peter as not having been authored by him, partly because other parts of theActs of the Apostles seem to describe Peter as an illiterate fisherman.[8][198]
Most Biblical scholars[120][199] believe that "Babylon" is a metaphor for the paganRoman Empire at the time it persecuted Christians, before theEdict of Milan in 313: perhaps specifically referencing some aspect of Rome's rule (brutality, greed,paganism). Although most scholars recognise that Babylon is a metaphor for Rome, some also claim that Babylon represents more than the Roman city of the first century. According to Lutheran scholar on Revelation Craig R. Koester "the whore [of Babylon] is Rome, yet more than Rome".[200] It "is the Roman imperial world, which in turn represents the world alienated from God".[201]
At that time in history, the ancient city of Babylon was no longer of any importance. E.g.,Strabo wrote, "The greater part of Babylon is so deserted that one would not hesitate to say ... the Great City is a great desert."[202]
Another theory is that "Babylon" refers to theBabylon in Egypt that was an importantfortress city in Egypt, just north of today's Cairo and this, combined with the "greetings from Mark" (1 Peter 5:13), who may beMark the Evangelist, regarded as the founder of theChurch of Alexandria (Egypt), has led some scholars to regard the First Peter epistle as having been written in Egypt.[203]
TheRoman Martyrology assigns 29 June as thefeast day of both Peter andPaul, without thereby declaring that to be the day of their deaths.Augustine of Hippo says in his Sermon 295: "One day is assigned for the celebration of the martyrdom of the two apostles. But those two were one. Although their martyrdom occurred on different days, they were one."
BeforePope John XXIII's revision in 1960, the Roman Calendar also included on 18 January another feast of the Chair of Saint Peter (denominated the Chair of Saint Peter in Rome, while the February feast was then called that of the Chair of Saint Peter at Antioch), and on 1 August the feast ofSaint Peter in Chains.
In the OrthodoxDaily Office every Thursday throughout the year is dedicated to the Holy Apostles, including St. Peter. There are also threefeast days in the year which are dedicated to him:
Christians of different theological backgrounds are in disagreement as to the exact significance of Peter's ministry. For instance:
Catholics view Peter as the first pope. The Catholic Church asserts that Peter's ministry, conferred upon him by Jesus of Nazareth in the gospels, lays down the theological foundation for the pope's exercise of pastoral authority over the Church.
Eastern Orthodox also believe that Peter's ministry points to an underlying theology wherein a special primacy ought to be granted to Peter's successors above other Church leaders but see this as merely a "primacy of honor", rather than the right to exercise pastoral authority.
Protestant denominations assert that Peter's apostolic work in Rome does not imply a connection between him and the papacy.
Similarly, historians of various backgrounds also offer differing interpretations of the Apostle's presence in Rome.
According to Catholic belief, Simon Peter was distinguished by Jesus to hold thefirst place of honor and authority. Also in Catholic belief, Peter was, as the first Bishop of Rome, the firstPope. Furthermore, they consider every Pope to be Peter's successor and the rightful superior of all otherbishops.[208] However, Peter never bore the title of "Pope" or "Vicar of Christ".[209]
The first passage is John 21:15–17 which is: "Feed my lambs... Tend my sheep... feed my sheep"[210] (within the Greek it is Ποίμαινε i.e., to feed and rule [as a Shepherd] v. 16, while Βόσκε i.e., to feed for v.15 & v. 17)[211] – which is seen by Catholics as Christ promising the spiritual supremacy to Peter. TheCatholic Encyclopedia of 1913 sees in this passage Jesus "charging [Peter] with the superintendency of all his sheep, without exception; and consequently of his whole flock, that is, of his own church".[208]
In this passage, the evangelist writes, "First, Simon called Peter..." The Greek word for "first" (protos), derived from the ancient Greek πρῶτος, can mean primacy in foundation, not just in a numerical sense.[212]
I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
In the story of thecalling of the disciples, Jesus addresses Simon Peter with the Greek term Κηφᾶς (Cephas), a Hellenised form of Aramaicܟ݁ܺܐܦ݂ܳܐ (keepa), which means "rock",[214] a term that before was not used as a proper name:
To better understand what Christ meant, St. Basil elaborates:[223]
Though Peter be a rock, yet he is not a rock as Christ is. For Christ is the true unmoveable rock of himself, Peter is unmoveable by Christ the rock. For Jesus doth communicate and impart his dignities, not voiding himself of them, but holding them to himself, bestoweth them also upon others. He is the light, and yet you are the light: he is the Priest, and yet he maketh Priests: he is the rock, and he made a rock.
— Basil li. De poenit. cƒ. Matt. v. 14; Luke 22:19
In reference to Peter's occupation before becoming an Apostle, the popes wear theFisherman's Ring, which bears an image of the saint casting his nets from a fishing boat. The keys used as a symbol of the pope's authority refer to the "keys of the kingdom of Heaven" promised to Peter.[224] The terminology of this "commission" of Peter is unmistakably parallel to the commissioning of Eliakim ben Hilkiah in Isaiah 22:15–23.[225] Peter is often depicted in both Western and Eastern Christian art holding akey or a set of keys.
In the originalGreek the word translated as "Peter" isΠέτρος (Petros) and that translated as "rock" isπέτρα (petra), two words that, while not identical, give an impression of one of many times when Jesus used a play on words. Furthermore, since Jesus presumably spoke to Peter in their native Aramaic language, he would have usedkepha in both instances.[226]The Peshitta Text andthe Old Syriac texts use the word "kepha" for both "Peter" and "rock" in Matthew 16:18.[213][227] John 1:42 says Jesus called Simon "Cephas", as Paul calls him in some letters.[228] He was instructed by Christ to strengthen his brethren, i.e., the apostles.[229] Peter also had a leadership role in the early Christian church at Jerusalem according to The Acts of the Apostles chapters 1–2, 10–11, and 15.
Early Catholic Latin and Greek writers (such as St.John Chrysostom) considered the "foundation rock" as applying to both Peter personally and his confession of faith (or the faith of his confession) symbolically, as well as seeing Christ's promise to apply more generally to his twelve apostles and the Church at large.[230] This "double meaning" interpretation is present in the currentCatechism of the Catholic Church.[231]
Protestant arguments against the Catholic interpretation are largely based on the difference between the Greek words translated "Rock" in the Matthean passage. They often claim that in classicalAttic Greekpetros (masculine) generally meant "pebble", whilepetra (feminine) meant "boulder" or "cliff", and accordingly, taking Peter's name to mean "pebble", they argue that the "rock" in question cannot have been Peter, but something else, either Jesus himself or the faith in Jesus that Peter had just professed.[232][233] These popular-level writings are disputed in similar popular-level Catholic writings.[234]
The New Testament was written inKoiné Greek, not Attic Greek and some authorities say no significant difference existed between the meanings ofpetros andpetra. So far from meaning a pebble was the wordpetros thatApollonius Rhodius, a writer of Koiné Greek of the third century B.C., used it to refer to "a huge roundboulder, a terrible quoit ofAresEnyalius; four stalwart youths could not have raised it from the ground even a little".[235]
The feminine nounpetra (πέτρα in Greek), translated asrock in the phrase "on this rock I will build my church", is also used in 1 Cor. 10:4 describing Jesus Christ, which reads: "They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ."[236]
Although Matthew 16 is used as a primary proof-text for the Catholic doctrine of Papal supremacy, some Protestant scholars say that prior to the Reformation of the 16th century, Matthew 16 was very rarely used to support papal claims, despite it being well documented as being used in the 3rd century by Stephen of Rome against Cyprian of Carriage in a "passionate disagreement" about baptism and in the 4th century by Pope Damasus as a claim to primacy as a lesson of the Arian Controversy for stricter discipline and centralised control.[237] Their position is that most of the early and medieval Church interpreted the "rock" as being a reference either to Christ or to Peter's faith, not Peter himself. They understand Jesus' remark to have been his affirmation of Peter's testimony that Jesus was the Son of God.[238]
Despite this claim, many Fathers saw a connection between Matthew 16:18 and the primacy of Peter and his office, such asTertullian, writing: "The Lord said to Peter, 'On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven' [Matt. 16:18–19]. ...Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church."[239]
Paul'sEpistle to the Romans, written about AD 57.[121] greets some fifty people in Rome by name,[122] but not Peterwhom he knew. There is also no mention of Peter in Rome later during Paul's two-year stay there inActs 28, about AD 60–62. Some Church historians consider Peter and Paul to have been martyred under the reign of Nero,[169][170] around AD 64 or 68.[note 9][171][172]
Other theologically conservative Christians, includingConfessional Lutherans, also rebut comments made by Karl Keating and D.A. Carson who claim that there is no distinction between the wordspetros andpetra in Koine Greek. The Lutheran theologians state that the dictionaries ofKoine/NT Greek, including the authoritative[240]Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich Lexicon, indeed list both words and the passages that give different meanings for each. The Lutheran theologians further note that:
We honor Peter and in fact some of our churches are named after him, but he was not the first pope, nor was he Roman Catholic. If you read his first letter, you will see that he did not teach a Roman hierarchy, but that all Christians are royal priests. The same keys given to Peter in Matthew 16 are given to the whole church of believers in Matthew 18.[241]
Oscar Cullmann, a Lutheran theologian and distinguished Church historian, disagrees with Luther and the Protestant reformers who held that by "rock" Christ did not mean Peter, but meant either himself or the faith of his followers. He believes the meaning of the original Aramaic is very clear: that "Kepha" was the Aramaic word for "rock", and that it was also the name by which Christ called Peter.[242]
Yet, Cullmann sharply rejects the Catholic claim that Peter began the papal succession. He writes: "In the life of Peter there is no starting point for a chain of succession to the leadership of the church at large". While he believes the Matthew text is entirely valid and is in no way spurious, he says it cannot be used as "warrant of the papal succession".[242] Cullmann concludes that while Peterwas the original head of the apostles, Peter was not the founder of any visible church succession.[242]
There are other Protestant scholars who also partially defend the historical Catholic position about "Rock".[243] Taking a somewhat different approach from Cullman, they point out that the Gospel of Matthew was not written in the classical Attic form of Greek, but in the HellenisticKoine dialect in which there is no distinction in meaning betweenpetros andpetra. Moreover, even in Attic Greek, in which the regular meaning ofpetros was a smallish "stone", there are instances of its use to refer to larger rocks, as inSophocles,Oedipus at Colonus, v. 1595, wherepetros refers to a boulder used as a landmark, obviously something more than a pebble. In any case, apetros/petra distinction is irrelevant considering the Aramaic language in which the phrase might well have been spoken. In Greek, of any period, the feminine nounpetra could not be used as the given name of a male, which may explain the use ofPetros as the Greek word with which to translate AramaicKepha.[226]
Yet, still other Protestant scholars believe that Jesus in factdid mean to single out Peter as the very rock which he will build upon, but that the passage does nothing to indicate a continued succession of Peter's implied position. They assert that Matthew uses the demonstrative pronountaute, which allegedly means "this very" or "this same" when he refers to the rock on which Jesus' church will be built. He also uses the Greek word for "and",kai. It is alleged that when a demonstrative pronoun is used withkai, the pronoun refers back to the preceding noun. The second rock Jesus refers to must then be the same rock as the first one; and if Peter is the first rock, he must also be the second.[244]
Unlike Oscar Cullmann,Confessional Lutherans and many other Protestant apologists agree that it's meaningless to elaborate the meaning of "Rock" by looking at the Aramaic language. While the Jews spoke mostly Aramaic at home, in public they usually spoke Greek. The few Aramaic words spoken by Jesus in public were unusual, which is why they are noted as such. And most importantly the New Testament was revealed in Koine Greek,not Aramaic.[245][246][247]
Lutheran historians even report that the Catholic church itself did not, at least unanimously, regard Peter as the rock until the 1870s:
Rome's rule for explaining the Scriptures and determining doctrine is theCreed ofPius IV. This Creed binds Rome to explain the Scriptures only according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. In the year 1870 when the Fathers gathered and the pope declared his infallibility, the cardinals were not in agreement on Matthew 16:18. They had five different interpretations. Seventeen insisted Peter is the rock. Sixteen held that Christ is the rock. Eight were emphatic that the whole apostolic college is the rock. Forty-four said Peter's faith is the rock, The remainder looked upon the whole body of believers as the rock. – And yet Rome taught and still teaches that Peter is the rock.[248]
TheEastern Orthodox Church regards Apostle Peter, together with Apostle Paul, as "Preeminent Apostles". Another title used for Peter isCoryphaeus, which could be translated as "Choir-director", or lead singer.[249] The church recognises Apostle Peter's leadership role in theearly church, especially in the very early days at Jerusalem, but does not consider him to have had any "princely" role over his fellow Apostles.
The New Testament is not seen by the Orthodox as supporting any extraordinary authority for Peter with regard to faith or morals. The Orthodox also hold that Peter did not act as leader at theCouncil of Jerusalem, but as merely one of a number who spoke. The final decision regarding the non-necessity ofcircumcision (and certain prohibitions) was spelled out byJames, brother of Jesus (though Catholics hold James merely reiterated and fleshed out what Peter had said, regarding the latter's earlier divine revelation regarding the inclusion of Gentiles).
Eastern and Oriental Orthodox do not recognise the Bishop of Rome as the successor of St. Peter but theEcumenical Patriarch of Constantinople sends a delegation each year to Rome to participate in the celebration of the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul. In theRavenna Document of 13 October 2007, the representatives of theEastern Orthodox Church agreed that "Rome, as the Church that "presides in love" according to the phrase of St. Ignatius of Antioch ("To the Romans", Prologue), occupied the first place in thetaxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore theprotos among the patriarchs if the Papacy unites with the Orthodox Church. They disagree, however, on the interpretation of the historical evidence from this era regarding the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome asprotos, a matter that was already understood in different ways in the first millennium".
With regard to Jesus' words to Peter, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church", the Orthodox hold Christ is referring to the confession of faith,not the person of Peter as that upon which he will build the church. This is allegedly shown by the fact that the original Septuagint uses the feminine demonstrative pronoun when he says, "upon this rock" (ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ); whereas, grammatically, if he had been referring to Peter, he would allegedly have used the masculine.[250]
The Fathers of the Syriac Orthodox Church tried to give a theological interpretation to the primacy of Apostle Peter. They were fully convinced of the unique office of Peter in the primitive Christian community.Ephrem,Aphrahat andMaruthas who were supposed to have been the best exponents of the earlySyriac tradition unequivocally acknowledge the office of Peter.
The Syriac Fathers, following the rabbinic tradition, call Jesus "Kepha" for they see "rock" in the Old Testament as a messianic Symbol (yet the Old Maronite Syriacs of Lebanon still refer to Saint Peter as "Saint Simon the Generous" or Simon Karam"). When Christ gave his own name "Kepha" to Simon he was giving him participation in the person and office of Christ. Christ who is the Kepha and shepherd made Simon the chief shepherd in his place and gave him the very name Kepha and said that on Kepha he would build the Church.Aphrahat shared the common Syriac tradition. For him Kepha is in fact another name of Jesus, and Simon was given the right to share the name. The person who receives somebody else's name also obtains the rights of the person who bestows the name. Aphrahat makes the stone taken from Jordan a type of Peter. He wrote: "Jesus [Joshua] son of Nun set up the stones for a witness in Israel; Jesus our Saviour called Simon Kepha Sarirto and set him as the faithful witness among nations."
Again, he wrote in his commentary onDeuteronomy thatMoses brought forth water from "rock" (Kepha) for the people and Jesus sent Simon Kepha to carry his teachings among nations. God accepted him and made him the foundation of the Church and called him Kepha. When he speaks about the transfiguration of Christ he calls himSimon Peter, the foundation of the Church. Ephrem also shared the same view. The Armenian version ofDe Virginitate records thatPeter the rock shunned honour. Amimro of Efrem found in Holy Week Liturgy points to the importance of Peter.
BothAphrahat andEphrem represent the authentic tradition of the Syrian Church. The different orders of liturgies used for sanctification of Church buildings, marriage, ordination,et cetera, reveal that the primacy of Peter is a part of living faith of the Church.[251]
In interpretingMatthew 16:13–19, Latter-day Saint leaderBruce R. McConkie stated, "The things of God are known only by the power of his Spirit",[255] and "that which the world calls Mormonism is based upon the rock of revelation".[256] In his April 1981general conference address, McConkie identified the rock of which Jesus spoke as the rock of revelation: "There is no other foundation upon which the Lord could build His Church and kingdom. ...Revelation: Pure, perfect, personal revelation—this is the rock!"[257]
According to an old Jewish tradition, Simon Peter joined the early Christians at the decision of the rabbis. Worried that early Christianity's similarity to Judaism would lead people to mistake it for a branch of Judaism, he was chosen to join them. As he moved up in rank, he would be able to lead them into forming their own, distinct belief system. Despite this, he was said to remain a practicing Jew and is ascribed with the authorship of the Nishmas prayer.[258]
Muslims considerJesus a prophet of God. TheQur'an also speaks of Jesus's disciples but does not mention their names, instead referring to them as "helpers to theprophet of God".[259] Muslim exegesis and Qur'an commentary, however, names them and includes Peter among the disciples.[260] An old tradition, which involvesHabib the Carpenter, mentions that Peter was one of the three disciples sent toAntioch to preach to the people there.[261]
TwelverShia Muslims see a parallel in the figure of Peter toAli atMuhammad's time. They look upon Ali as being thevicegerent, with Muhammad being the prophet; likewise, they see Peter as the vicegerent, behind Jesus the prophet andMasih. Peter's role as the first proper leader of the church is also seen by Shias to be a parallel to their belief in Ali as the firstcaliph after Muhammad.[262]
In theBahá'í Faith "the primacy of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is upheld and defended."[263] Bahá'ís understand Peter's station as The Rock upon which the church of God would be founded to mean that Peter's belief in Christ as the Son of the living God would serve as the foundation for Christianity, and that upon this belief would the foundation of the church of God, understood as the Law of God, be established.[264] Peter appears in the writings ofBahá'u'lláh, the Prophet-Founder of the Bahá'í Faith, often referred to as The Rock:
O followers of all religions! We behold you wandering distraught in the wilderness of error. Ye are the fish of this Ocean; wherefore do ye withhold yourselves from that which sustaineth you? Lo, it surgeth before your faces. Hasten unto it from every clime. This is the day whereon the Rock (Peter) crieth out and shouteth, and celebrateth the praise of its Lord, the All-Possessing, the Most High, saying: "Lo! The Father is come, and that which ye were promised in the Kingdom is fulfilled!"
San Pedro cactus(Echinopsis pachanoi) has a long history of being used inAndeantraditional medicine.[266] The common name "San Pedro cactus" – Saint Peter cactus, is attributed to the belief that as St Peter holds the keys to heaven, the effects of the cactus allow users "to reach heaven while still on earth". In 2022, the Peruvian Ministry of Culture declared the traditional use of San Pedro cactus in northern Peru ascultural heritage.[267]
The New Testament includes two letters (epistles) ascribed to Peter. Both demonstrate a high quality of cultured and urban Greek, at odds with the linguistic skill that would ordinarily be expected of an Aramaic-speaking fisherman, who would have learned Greek as a second or third language. The textual features of these two epistles are such that a majority of scholars doubt that they were written by the same hand. Some scholars argue that theological differences imply different sources and point to the lack of references toSecond Epistle of Peter among the early Church Fathers.
Daniel B. Wallace (who maintains that Peter was the author) writes that, for many scholars, "the issue of authorship is already settled, at least negatively: the apostle Peter did not write this letter" and that "the vast bulk of NT scholars adopts this perspective without much discussion". However, he later states, "Although a very strong case has been made against Petrine authorship of 2 Peter, we believe it is deficient. ...Taken together, these external and internal arguments strongly suggest the traditional view, viz., that Peter was indeed the author of the second epistle which bears his name."[268]
Of the two epistles, thefirst epistle is considered the earlier. A number of scholars have argued that the textual discrepancies with what would be expected of the biblical Peter are due to it having been written with the help of a secretary or as anamanuensis.[269]
The two Epistles attributed to St. Peter differ in style, character, and the construction of the words, which proves that according to the exigencies of the moment St. Peter made use of different interpreters.(Epistle 120 – To Hedibia)[270]
Some have seen a reference to the use of a secretary in the sentence: "By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand".[271] However New Testament scholarBart D. Ehrman in his 2011 bookForged states that "scholars now widely recognise that when the author indicates that he wrote the book "through Silvanus", he is indicating not the name of his secretary, but the person who was carrying his letter to the recipients".[272] The letter refers to Roman persecution of Christians, apparently of an official nature. The Roman historianTacitus and the biographerSuetonius do both record that Nero persecuted Christians, and Tacitus dates this to immediately after the fire that burned Rome in 64. Christian tradition, for example Eusebius of Caesarea (History book 2, 24.1), has maintained that Peter was killed in Nero's persecution, and thus had to assume that the Roman persecution alluded to in First Peter must be this Neronian persecution.[269] On the other hand, many modern scholars argue that First Peter refers to the persecution of Christians in Asia Minor during the reign of the emperorDomitian (81–96), as the letter is explicitly addressed to Jewish Christians from that region:
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.[273]
Those scholars who believe that the epistle dates from the time of Domitian argue that Nero's persecution of Christians was confined to the city of Rome itself and did not extend to the Asian provinces mentioned in 1 Pet 1:1–2.
Jerome says that Peter "wrote two epistles which are called Catholic, the second of which, on account of its difference from the first in style, is considered by many not to be by him" (De Viris Illustribus 1).[131] But he himself received the epistle, and explained the difference in style, character, and structure of words by the assumption that Peter used different interpreters in the composition of the two epistles;[270] and from his time onward the epistle was generally regarded as a part of the New Testament.
Even in early times there was controversy over its authorship, and Second Peter was often not included in thebiblical canon; it was only in the 4th century that it gained a firm foothold in the New Testament, in a series of synods. In the East theSyriac Orthodox Church still did not admit it into the canon until the 6th century.[269]
Traditionally, theGospel of Mark was said to have been written by a person namedJohn Mark, and that this person was an assistant to Peter; hence its content was traditionally seen as the closest to Peter's viewpoint. According to Eusebius'Ecclesiastical History,Papias recorded this belief fromJohn the Presbyter:
Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a normal or chronological narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictional into the statements.[275]
Clement of Alexandria in the fragments of his workHypotyposes (A.D. 190) preserved and cited by the historian Eusebius in hisChurch History (VI, 14: 6) writes that:
As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested thatMark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it.[125]
Also, Irenaeus wrote about this tradition:
After their (Peter and Paul's) passing, Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, transmitted to us in writing the things preached by Peter.[276]
Based on these quotes, and on the Christian tradition, the information in Mark's gospel about Peter would be based on eyewitness material.[269] The gospel itself isanonymous, and the above passages are the oldest surviving written testimony to its authorship.[269]
The Epistula Petri, the introductory letter ascribed to the Apostle Peter that appears at the beginning of at least one version of theClementine literature.
Two sayings are attributed to Peter in theGnosticGospel of Thomas. In the first, Peter compares Jesus to a "just messenger".[278] In the second, Peter asks Jesus to "make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."[279] In theApocalypse of Peter, Peter holds a dialogue with Jesus about theparable of the fig tree and the fate ofsinners.[280] In theGospel of Mary, whose text is largely fragmented, Peter appears to be jealous of "Mary" (probablyMary Magdalene). He says to the other disciples, "Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?"[281] In reply to this, Levi says, "Peter, you have always been hot tempered".[281] Other noncanonical texts that attribute sayings to Peter include theSecret Book of James and theActs of Peter.
In theFayyum Fragment, which dates to the end of the 3rd century, Jesus predicts that Peter will deny him three times before acock crows on the following morning. The account is similar to that of the canonical gospels, especially theGospel of Mark. It is unclear whether the fragment is an abridged version of the accounts in thesynoptic gospels, or a source text on which they were based, perhaps the apocryphal Gospel of Peter.[282]
The fragmentaryGospel of Peter contains an account of the death of Jesus differing significantly from the canonical gospels. It contains little information about Peter himself, except that after the discovery of theempty tomb, "I, Simon Peter, and Andrew my brother, took our fishing nets and went to the sea."[283]
The earliest portrait of Peter dates back to the 4th century and was located in 2010.[284] In traditionaliconography, Peter has been shown very consistently sinceearly Christian art as an oldish, thick-set man with a "slightly combative" face and a short beard, and usually white hair, sometimes balding. He thus contrasts withPaul the Apostle who is bald except at the sides, with a longer beard and often black hair, and thinner in the face. One exception to this is inAnglo-Saxon art, where he typically lacks a beard. Both Peter and Paul are shown thus as early as the 4th centuryCatacombs of Marcellinus and Peter in Rome.[285] Later in the Middle Ages hisattribute is one or two large keys in his hand or hanging from his belt, first seen in the early 8th century.[286] More than many medieval attributes, this continued to be depicted in the Renaissance and afterwards. By the 15th century Peter is more likely to be bald on the top of his head in the Western church, but he continues to have a good head of hair in Orthodox icons.
The depiction of Saint Peter as literally the keeper of thegates of heaven, popular with modern cartoonists, is not found in traditional religious art, but Peter usually heads groups of saints flanking God in heaven, on the right side (viewer's left) of God. Narrative images of Peter include several scenes from theLife of Christ where he is mentioned in the gospels, and he is often identifiable in scenes where his presence is not specifically mentioned. Usually, he stands nearest to Christ. In particular, depictions of theArrest of Christ usually include Peter cutting off the ear of one of the soldiers. Scenes without Jesus include his distinctive martyrdom, his rescue from prison, and sometimes his trial. In theCounter-Reformation scenes of Peter hearing the cock crow for the third time became popular, as a representation ofrepentance and hence the Catholicsacrament ofConfession or Reconciliation.
Another revisionist view was developed by supporters of theChrist myth theory, which holds that the figure of Peter is largely a development from mythological doorkeeper figures. According toArthur Drews andGeorge Albert Wells, if there was a historical Peter, then all that is known about him is the brief mentions in theEpistle to the Galatians.[288][289]
^The narrative of Jesus' calling of his first disciples varies throughout all four gospels. In Mark 1:16,[30] "Simon and his brother Andrew" are the first to be called; in Matthew 4:18,[31] "Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother" are also the first to be called; and in Luke 5:1–11,[32] Simon Peter, alongside "James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon", are the first to be called. The narrative in the Gospel of John deviates from the narrative in the three Synoptic Gospels; in John 1:40–42,[33] Andrew is the first disciple, and later brings Simon to Jesus, who names him Cephas (translated as Peter).
^His father's name is given as "Jonah"[36][37] although some manuscripts of John give his father's name as "John".
^SeeIncident at Antioch; see also the section below headed "Road to Rome: Antioch and Corinth".
^Peter delivering a significantopen-air sermon duringPentecost. According to the same book, Peter took the lead in selecting a replacement forJudas Iscariot.[82] Following this appointment, we see Peter establish the conditions for being an apostle as those who have spent time with Jesus.[83]Peter's authority lent to his role as an adjudicator in conflicts and moral matters. He takes on this role in the case of Ananias and Sapphira and holds them accountable for lying about their alms-giving. Peter passes judgement upon them and they are individually struck dead over the infraction.[84]Peter's role wasn't always leadership, since he also employed his gifts for taking care of those in need. We see Peter establish these trends by reaching out to the sick and lame. Peter heals two individuals who cannot walk or are paralysed[85][86] as well as raising Tabitha from the dead.[86] While these acts were miracles of compassion, they also contributed to the number of believers in the early Church.
^Galatians is accepted as authentic by almost all scholars. These may be the earliest mentions of Peter to be written. Eusebius of Caesarea, in his "Historia Ecclesiastica (I,12:2)" while naming some of the Seventy Disciples of Jesus, says: "This is the account of Clement, in the fifth book ofHypotyposes (A.D. 190); in which he also says that Cephas was one of the seventy disciples, a man who bore the same name as the apostle Peter, and the one concerning whom Paul says, [When Cephas came to Antioch I withstood him to his face.]"[105]
^This is provided in Downey,A History of Antioch, pp. 583–586. This evidence is accepted by M. Lapidge, among others, see Bischoff and Lapidge,Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury School (Cambridge, 1994) p. 16. Lastly, see Finegan,The Archaeology of the New Testament, pp. 63–71.
^abHistorians debate whether the Roman government distinguished between Christians and Jews prior to Nerva's modification of theFiscus Judaicus in 96. From then on, practising Jews paid the tax, Christians did not.
^Margherita Guarducci, who led the research leading to the rediscovery of Peter's reputed tomb in its last stages (1963–1968), concludes Peter died on 13 October AD 64 during the festivities on the occasion of the "dies imperii" of Emperor Nero.[175]
^Zwierlein's thesis has caused debate.[185][186] Zwierlein has made a summary of his view available online in English.[187] An edited volume in German was also written in rebuttal against Otto Zwierlein's views.[188][189]
^Πέτρᾳ (petra "rock") is the feminine form of the Greek noun (Πέτρος) (Petros), which represents the masculine form; the two forms are identical in meaning.[216][217][218]
^John P. Meier - Petrine Ministry in the New Testament and in the Early Patristic Traditions. In: James F. Puglisi et al.: How Can the Petrine Ministry be a Service to the Unity of the Universal Church? Cambridge 2010, S. 17 f.
^Stromata, book 7, ch. 11. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (eds.),Ante-Nicene Christian Library - Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to AD 325, vol. 12, p. 451
^Myllykoski, Matti (2006). "James the Just in History and Tradition - Perspectives of Past and Present Scholarship (Part I)".Currents in Research.5. Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies, Finland:73–122.doi:10.1177/1476993X06068700.S2CID162513014.James the Just, the brother of Jesus, is known from the New Testament as the chief apostle of the Torah-obedient Christians.
^Harris, Stephen L. (2010).Understanding the Bible (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. p. 420.ISBN978-0-07-340744-9.Christian Pharisees demand that the entire Torah be kept, but Peter reportedly opposes this ([Acts] 15:10) and ... silences the Judaizers.
^"Was Peter in Rome?". Catholic Answers. 10 August 2004. Archived fromthe original on 7 December 2013. Retrieved9 November 2014.If Peter never made it to the capital, he still could have been the first pope, since one of his successors could have been the first holder of that office to settle in Rome. After all, if the papacy exists, it was established by Christ during his lifetime, long before Peter is said to have reached Rome. There must have been a period of some years in which the papacy did not yet have its connection to Rome.
^Cook, John G. (2021)."The Tradition of Peter's Crucifixion". In Eisen, Ute E.; Mader, Heidrun Elisabeth (eds.).Talking God in Society - Multidisciplinary (Re)constructions of Ancient (Con)texts. Festschrift for Peter Lampe. Vol. 1: Theories and Applications. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. p. 741.ISBN978-3-647-57317-5.
^Harris, Stephen L. (2010).Understanding the Bible (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill. p. 381.ISBN978-0-07-340744-9.[John's] Gospel is commonly divided into a prologue (1:1–51); a Book of Signs [...] (2:1–11:57); the Book of Glory [...] (12:1–20:31); and an epilogue (21:1–25).
^Robinson, D. F., 'Where and When did Peter die?',Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 64 (1945), supported by Smaltz, W. M., Did Peter die in Jerusalem?,Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 71, No. 4 (December 1952), pp. 211–216. Accessed 31 August 2015.
^Quintus Septimius Florens, Tertullian."Prescription Against Heretics Chapter XXXVI". ccel.org. Retrieved1 June 2015.Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you haveRome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood;where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's; where Paul wins his crown in a death like John's [the Baptist]; where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile.
^Chronicon,AD 42, AD 68. "Peter the Apostle, by nation a Galilean, first high priest of the Christians, after he had been the first to found a church at Antioch, proceeded to Rome, where as bishop of the same city he remains, preaching the gospel for 25 years".
^Vatican Cardinal Angelo Comastri (interviewee) (2011).Secret Access - The Vatican (Video) (in English and Italian). Vatican City, Rome, Italy: A&E Studio Entertainment. Event occurs at 94 minutes.This is the holiest site in the Basilica, where the Apostle Peter was crucified and his blood shed to the ground
^O'Connor, Daniel William (2013)."Saint Peter the Apostle".Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. p. 5. Retrieved12 April 2013.[M]any scholars… accept Rome as the location of the martyrdom and the reign of Nero as the time.
^Rainer Riesner,Paul's Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1998) p. 65
^Brown, Raymond E. & Meier, John P. (1983).Antioch and Rome - New Testament Cradles of Christianity. Paulist Press. p. 98.ISBN978-0-8091-0339-3.As for Peter, we have no knowledge at all of when he came to Rome and what he did there before he was martyred.
^Cullmann, Oscar (1962).Peter - Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, 2nd ed. Westminster Press. p. 234.From the second half of the second century we do possess texts that mention the apostolic foundation of Rome, and at this time, which is indeed rather late, this foundation is traced back to Peter and Paul, an assertion that cannot be supported historically. Even here, however, nothing is said as yet of an episcopal office of Peter.
^Chadwick, Henry (1993).The Early Church, rev. ed.Penguin Books. p. 18.No doubt Peter's presence in Rome in the sixties must indicate a concern for Gentile Christianity, but we have no information whatever about his activity or the length of his stay there. That he was in Rome for twenty-five years is third-century legend.
^J.N.D. Kelly,Oxford Dictionary of the Popes (Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 6. "Ignatius assumed that Peter and Paul wielded special authority over the Roman church, while Irenaeus claimed that they jointly founded it and inaugurated its succession of bishops. Nothing, however, is known of their constitutional roles, least of all Peter's as presumed leader of the community."
^Building Unity, Ecumenical Documents IV (Paulist Press, 1989), p. 130. "There is increasing agreement that Peter went to Rome and was martyred there, but we have no trustworthy evidence that Peter ever served as the supervisor or bishop of the local church in Rome."
^Zwierlein, Otto:Petrus und Paulus in Jerusalem und Rom. Vom Neuen Testament zu den apokryphen Apostelakten. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2013.ISBN978-3-11-030331-5.
^Harris, Stephen L. (2010).Understanding the Bible (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. p. 477.ISBN978-0-07-340744-9."Babylon" became the Christian code name for Rome after Titus destroyed Jerusalem, thus duplicating the Babylonians' demolition of the holy city (587 BCE).
^Hitchcock, Tutu & Esposito 2004, p. 281 note "Some (Christian communities) had been founded by Peter, the disciple Jesus designated as the founder of his church. [...] Once the position was institutionalized, historians looked back and recognized Peter as the first pope of the Christian church in Rome"
^(Hebrew:כֵּיפׇא \ כֵּיף) is an indirect transliteration of the Syriac (ܟ݁ܺܐܦ݂ܳܐ), (Greek:Κηφᾶς) is a direct transliteration of the Syriac (ܟ݁ܺܐܦ݂ܳܐ), and (Hebrew:כֵּיפׇא \ כֵּיף) is a direct transliteration of the Greek. The Hebrew word (Hebrew:כאפא) is also a direct transliteration of the Syriac. (cƒ.Interlinear Peshitta Aramaic New Testament BibleMatthew xvi. 18Archived 24 August 2011 at theWayback Machine).
^"Peter the Rock".Catholic Answers. 10 August 2004. Archived fromthe original on 19 November 2011. Retrieved12 September 2010.And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra (It doesn't mean a little stone or a pebble) What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: "You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church".
^"Matthew 16:18".BibleHub. Online Parallel Bible Project. Retrieved9 June 2019.
^Allen C. Myers, ed. (1987). "Aramaic".The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, MI:William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 72.ISBN978-0-8028-2402-8.It is generally agreed that Aramaic was the common language of Palestine in the first century AD. Jesus and his disciples spoke the Galilean dialect, which was distinguished from that of Jerusalem (Matt. 26:73)
^Veselin Kesich (1992)."Peter's Primacy in the New Testament and the Early Tradition" in The Primacy of Peter. St. Vladimir's Seminary Press. pp. 61–66.
^Rykle Borger, "Remarks of an Outsider about Bauer's Worterbuch, BAGD, BDAG, and Their Textual Basis", Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker, Bernard A. Tayler (et al. eds.) pp. 32–47.
^Das Evangelium nach Petrus - Text, Kontexte, Intertexte, edited by Thomas J. Kraus and Tobias Nicklas (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, Archiv für die Ausgabe der Griechischen Christlichen Schiftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte (TU), 158.) viii–384 pp. Berlin–New York:Walter de Gruyter, 2007ISBN978-3-11-019313-8.
^Higgitt, John; "The Iconography of Saint Peter in Anglo-Saxon England, and Saint Cuthbert's Coffin", pp. 267–272, 270 quoted, in: Bonner, Gerald, Rollason, David & Stancliffe, Clare, eds.,St. Cuthbert, his Cult and his Community to AD 1200, Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer, 1989ISBN0-85115-610-X,978-0851156101,google books
Bockmuehl, Markus N. A. (2010).The Remembered Peter - In Ancient Reception and Modern Debate.Mohr Siebeck.
Dunn, James D. G. (2001). "Has the Canon a Continuing Function". In Lee Martin McDonald; James A. Sanders (eds.).The Canon Debate. Baker.ISBN978-1-4412-4163-4.
Jobes, Karen (2005).Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: 1 Peter.Baker Publishing Group.
Kruger, Michael J. (1999). "The Authenticity of 2 Peter".Journal of Evangelical Society.42 (4):645–671.
Lüdemann, Gerd; Özen, Alf (1996).De opstanding van Jezus - Een historische benadering (Was mit Jesus wirklich geschah. Die Auferstehung historisch betrachtet / The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry).Averbode.ISBN978-9-02594-665-4.
Pagels, Elaine (2005).De Gnostische Evangelien (The Gnostic Gospels). Servire.
_Crop.jpg)
_-_The_Calling_of_Saints_Peter_and_Andrew_-_RCIN_402824_-_Hampton_Court_Palace.jpg)
_%2c_Philadelphia_Museum_of_Art.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
