Simon: called Peter
Simon: called Peter
Historical Accounts in Early Sources
New Testament and Early Christian Writings: Peter (originally Simon, also called Cephas) is prominently featured in the New Testament Gospels and Acts as a leading disciple of Jesus. Outside the New Testament, one of the earliest references to his fate comes from Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD), who speaks of Peter’s heroic martyrdom. Clement writes that “by reason of unrighteous jealousy” Peter endured many labors and ultimately “went to his appointed place of glory,” a clear allusion to his death for the faith (1). Other 1st- and 2nd-century Christian writers likewise honor Peter. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110) acknowledged Peter (and Paul) as authoritative figures in the Roman church (2). Papias of Hierapolis (c. 120), as later quoted by Eusebius, claimed that the Gospel of Mark was based on Peter’s reminiscences – “Mark, having become Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately everything he remembered” (3). By the late 2nd century, Irenaeus described Peter and Paul as the founders of the church in Rome (4), and Tertullian around 200 AD likewise spoke of Rome as the place “where the apostles Peter and Paul... poured out their blood” in martyrdom. Early Christian history, as compiled by Eusebius of Caesarea (early 4th century), draws on such sources to paint a portrait of Peter as a pivotal apostolic figure who preached in various regions and eventually suffered martyrdom in Rome. Eusebius preserves Origen’s testimony about the manner of Peter’s death and records how memorials of Peter were known in Rome (see below) (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles) (5).
Jewish and Roman References: References to Peter in contemporary non-Christian sources are scant. The 1st-century Jewish historian Josephus mentions other New Testament figures (like Jesus’ brother James), but he makes no mention of Simon Peter (6). Likewise, no known Roman record from the 1st century explicitly names Peter. Tacitus, the Roman historian, does confirm that Christians in Rome were persecuted under Nero after the great fire of 64 AD (7) – an event during which Peter’s execution likely occurred (by Christian tradition) – but Tacitus’ account does not list individual victims. Another Roman writer, Suetonius, vaguely notes that Emperor Claudius expelled Jews from Rome due to disturbances “impulsore Chresto” (perhaps referring to Christ or the Christian message) around 49 AD, which suggests a Christian presence in Rome but again does not name Peter. In sum, while Peter does not appear by name in surviving non-Christian texts of the 1st century, Roman and Jewish sources provide context for the events (persecutions, community disputes) in which Christian testimony places Peter. The historical record of Peter’s life rests primarily on Christian testimony – the New Testament and the writings of the early Church Fathers – which consistently portray him as a real person who led the early church and died as a martyr. By the early 3rd century, even Roman Christians were pointing out Peter’s burial place in the city, indicating how concrete the memory of Peter was for the Christian community of that era (8).
Role in Early Christianity
Leader of the Disciples: Given the Gospel accounts, it is not unexpected that Peter emerged “immediately after Jesus’ death as the leader of the earliest church.” For about fifteen years following the Resurrection, Peter’s presence “dominated the community” of believers (9). In the Book of Acts, Peter takes the initiative in the appointment of a new apostle (Matthias) and then becomes the chief preacher at Pentecost, when he “raised his voice” to address the crowd and inaugurated the Christian mission (10). He is portrayed as the spokesman and central figure among the Twelve Apostles. Peter led the first efforts to expand the young church: he oversaw the spread of the gospel “here and there among them all” in Judea (11) and was the first to preach to the Samaritans (accompanied by John) who accepted the word of God (12). Acts describes Peter performing healings, defending the faith before the Jewish Sanhedrin, and exercising disciplinary authority within the church (e.g. the episode of Ananias and Sapphira). Importantly, Peter is the apostle who opened the door to Gentiles: in Caesarea, he baptized the Roman centurion Cornelius after receiving a divine vision, thus formally welcoming uncircumcised Gentiles into the Christian fold (13) (14). This bold move – “ordering them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” without requiring circumcision – was an “innovation” that stirred controversy among Jewish Christians (15). Peter’s advocacy for the Gentile converts at the subsequent Council of Jerusalem was crucial: he testified how God had given the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles, indicating that “we [Jews] will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will” (Acts 15:7–11).
Jerusalem Church and Beyond: In the very earliest years, Peter was the most prominent leader of the church in Jerusalem. However, after King Herod Agrippa I arrested Peter and Peter miraculously escaped (around 44 AD), “he went to another place,” and leadership in Jerusalem gradually shifted to James the Just (the brother of Jesus) (16) (17). The New Testament hints and modern scholars agree that “the unchallenged leadership of Peter in Jerusalem came to an end” at that point (18) (19). James became the resident head of the Jerusalem church, especially by the time of the Jerusalem Council (c. 49 AD), where James gave the final decision (Acts 15:13–21). Peter, for his part, assumed a more itinerant, missionary role after leaving Jerusalem (20). The Apostle Paul informs us that Peter (Cephas) traveled, for Paul encountered him at Antioch in Syria and later notes that Peter had a reputation as the apostle to the Jews just as Paul was apostle to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:7–9). Paul even remarks that Peter was well-known enough that some Christians in Corinth aligned themselves under his name (claiming “I follow Cephas”) (1 Cor. 1:12). Later tradition holds that Peter spent time in Antioch (where he is considered the first bishop) before eventually journeying to Rome. In Peter’s own New Testament letter (1 Peter 5:13), he sends greetings from “Babylon,” a likely cryptogram for Rome (21). This suggests Peter was in Rome by the end of his life, ministering to the church there. In summary, Peter’s role evolved from inaugural leader in Jerusalem to a roving emissary for the gospel. Even as the “actual leadership of the [Jerusalem] church devolved upon James” after the mid-40s AD, Peter remained a foremost “pillar” of the Christian community at large (22), respected by Jewish- and Gentile-Christian alike. His collaboration and sometimes tension with Paul (see below) also show that Peter was a central figure in balancing the Jewish roots of Christianity with its expansion to the nations.
Relationship with Jesus and the Other Apostles
Peter’s Interactions with Jesus: The New Testament presents Peter as one of Jesus’ closest companions, marked by both bold faith and human failings. In a famous episode at Caesarea Philippi, Peter was the first disciple to openly confess Jesus’s identity: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” In response, Jesus declared: “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona… you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church” (Matthew 16:16–18) – a moment seen as commissioning Peter for leadership. Yet shortly thereafter, Peter earned a rebuke (“Get behind me, Satan!”) for misunderstanding Jesus’ mission. This mix of commendation and correction typifies Peter’s relationship with Christ. During the Last Supper, Peter ardently vowed never to abandon Jesus, but later that night – in Jesus’ darkest hour – Peter infamously lost courage and denied three times that he even knew Jesus. All four Gospels record Peter’s triple denial, after which “Peter… wept bitterly” in remorse (23). Despite this failure, the resurrected Jesus extended grace to Peter. John’s Gospel recounts how Jesus appeared to Peter on the shores of the Sea of Galilee and three times asked him, “Do you love me?”, inviting Peter to affirm his love and commissioning him each time: “Feed my sheep” (24). This poignant scene, often called the Restoration of Peter, shows Jesus forgiving Peter and restoring him to service as a shepherd of Christ’s flock. It effectively reverses Peter’s three denials with a threefold charge to care for the church. From that point, Peter emerges in Acts as a fearless witness for Jesus, suggesting that his personal experience of Jesus’ mercy transformed him into the leader we see in the early church.
Relations with Fellow Apostles: Peter was part of Jesus’ inner circle (with James and John) and often acted as spokesman for the Twelve. He is depicted as first among equals – for example, he alone stepped out of the boat to walk (briefly) on water toward Jesus, and he was one of only three apostles taken up the mountain to witness the Transfiguration. Peter’s outspoken nature sometimes caused friction. The Gospels note a rivalry among the disciples about who was greatest; while Jesus taught servanthood in response, Peter’s prominent role was unmistakable. After Jesus’ ascension, Peter worked closely with John (they are paired in Acts 3–4 in preaching and miracles). At the same time, Peter had to navigate relationships with new leaders like Paul. Paul regarded Peter (Cephas) as a foundational “pillar” of the church in Jerusalem alongside James and John (Galatians 2:9). Yet Paul also recounts a famous confrontation with Peter at Antioch: initially Peter ate freely with Gentile Christians, but when men from James arrived (who were more conservative), Peter drew back from the Gentiles. Paul says he rebuked Peter to his face for this inconsistency, accusing him of hypocrisy (Gal. 2:11–14). This incident suggests Peter struggled with the transition from Jewish norms to a fully inclusive Gentile fellowship – a tension at the heart of the early church. Importantly, Peter apparently accepted Paul’s correction, since he later worked in harmony with Paul (they do not appear as rivals in any subsequent source). By the time of the Jerusalem Council, Peter advocated for Gentile inclusion, essentially aligning with Paul’s position (Acts 15:7–11). In Peter’s own writings (if 1 Peter is indeed his), he speaks of “our beloved brother Paul” and acknowledges Paul’s letters (25). Thus, despite the one moment of conflict, Peter and Paul share a legacy of collaboration; tradition even holds they suffered martyrdom together in Rome. In summary, Peter’s relationships with the other apostles show him as a first among the early brethren – respected and deferential when needed (he heeded the guidance of James in Jerusalem (36)), yet unafraid to lead and, when necessary, to be corrected. His close friendship with John, his deference to James on certain matters, and his eventual partnership with Paul all demonstrate Peter’s role as a unifying figure in the apostolic circle, helping bridge different groups in the fledgling Church.
Theological Perspectives on Peter’s Role
(27) Christ Handing the Keys to St. Peter – fresco by Pietro Perugino (1481–82), Sistine Chapel. In this scene (Matthew 16:18–19), Jesus entrusts Peter with the “keys of the kingdom of heaven.” This biblical moment underpins the Catholic doctrine of Peter’s primacy in the Church (28).
Catholic Tradition – Primacy and Papacy: The Catholic Church regards Peter as the first Bishop of Rome and the premier apostle, whose authority (the “Petrine primacy”) is passed down to his successors, the popes. The foundation for this view is Jesus’ proclamation: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church… I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven” (Matt. 16:18–19). Catholics interpret this as Christ establishing Peter as the earthly head of His Church and entrusting him (and by extension, future popes) with unique authority (29) (30). In Catholic doctrine, Peter’s role as the rock and key-bearer supports the papacy: the Pope, as successor of Peter, is seen as the visible head of the universal Church. The Catholic Church also links Jesus’ words “the gates of hell shall not prevail” (Matt. 16:18) to the idea of the Church’s indefectibility and the Pope’s infallibility when teaching ex cathedra on matters of faith or morals (31). Furthermore, Catholics point to Jesus’ instruction to Peter in John 21, “Feed my sheep,” as evidence of Peter’s pastoral responsibility over the whole flock of Christ. They also note that Peter is often singled out by Jesus (e.g. “strengthen your brethren,” Luke 22:32) in ways that suggest a singular leadership. Thus, in Catholic understanding, Peter was the first Pope, leading the Church in the decades after Christ, and his unique ministry continues in the unbroken apostolic succession of the Roman bishops from Peter onward (32). Catholic theology holds that this Petrine office was intended by Christ to be the perpetual principle of unity and authority in the Church. (For example, the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter each year commemorates Peter’s episcopal authority.) In short, the Catholic view highly exalts Peter’s role: he is Prince of the Apostles, the first Pope, and the touchstone of unity, with all later popes tracing their mandate to him.
Eastern Orthodox Perspective: Orthodox Christianity also deeply venerates St. Peter but interprets his role less in terms of exclusive jurisdiction and more as primus inter pares (“first among equals”) among the apostles. The Orthodox acknowledge that Peter held a foremost place of honor – he often spoke for the Twelve and was a leader – yet they believe Jesus’ promises to Peter were ultimately shared by all the apostles and their successors. For instance, while Jesus gave Peter the keys in Matthew 16, Orthodox theologians point out that in Matthew 18:18 Jesus gave all the apostles the power to bind and loose, and in John 20:22–23 he gave them all authority to forgive sins (33). Thus, Orthodox teaching does not recognize a singular papal office with supreme authority. They maintain apostolic succession, meaning the continuity of the bishops from the apostles, but this succession is collegial – every bishop, in communion with the whole Church, collectively carries on the apostolic ministry. The bishop of Rome (the Pope) was historically honored as “first among equals” because of Rome’s connection to Peter and Paul, but the Orthodox Church rejects the later doctrines of papal supremacy and infallibility (34). Instead, Orthodoxy holds that the infallibility of the Church resides in Ecumenical Councils guided by the Holy Spirit, not in any single bishop. Peter’s role is seen as representative of episcopal leadership that should be marked by service and orthodox faith, not a unilateral authority. In Orthodox tradition, Peter is often symbolically paired with Paul as the two great “Coryphaei” (chief apostles) – they are commemorated together in feast days – emphasizing that leadership in the Church was shared. In summary, the Orthodox revere Peter as a great saint and leader of the apostolic band, but they do not accord him (or his successor in Rome) universal jurisdiction over all Christians. Peter’s primacy is understood as one of honor and leadership in love, which must be balanced by the conciliar nature of the Church’s governance.
Protestant Perspectives: Protestants have varied interpretations of Peter’s role, but generally they reject the idea that Peter’s authority was passed on in a papal office. Many Protestants read Jesus’ words “on this rock I will build my church” as referring either to Peter’s faith or to Christ himself, rather than investing authority in Peter as a person. They often note the biblical usage of petros (stone) and petra (rock) to argue that the “rock” may be the confession that Jesus is Messiah, not Peter alone (35). Even those Protestants who accept that Peter had a leading role among the apostles do not see evidence that Jesus intended to establish a perpetual Petrine monarchy. For example, Anglican and some Lutheran traditions might honor Peter as proto-primate (and even celebrate the Confession of Peter in their liturgical calendar), but they consider all apostles (and their successors in ministry) to share equally in authority. Apostolic succession in the Protestant view (if acknowledged at all) is generally a succession of apostolic teaching (faithfulness to the apostles’ doctrine) rather than a physical laying on of hands from Peter. Historically, the Reformers criticized the papacy by pointing out instances in the New Testament where Peter appears fallible and accountable to others – e.g. at the Jerusalem Council, Peter speaks but James presides, and in Antioch Paul corrects Peter. They argued that these passages undermine claims of Peter’s supreme authority. As a result, most Protestant denominations do not accord the Bishop of Rome any special authority over the wider Church. Some denominations, like the Lutherans, explicitly state that the Church is built upon Christ or the preaching of the gospel, not on any single apostle (36). That said, Protestants universally regard Peter as a heroic figure of faith – a model of both human frailty and God’s grace. They draw lessons from his life (e.g. his restoration after failure) but maintain that Peter’s legacy is shared by all believers and leaders who uphold the apostolic gospel. In sum, Protestant interpretations range from seeing Peter as the first among equals in the New Testament community to simply one important leader among several, but they do not accept the Catholic doctrines of Petrine supremacy or an exclusive apostolic authority residing in the Pope (37).
Writings and Attributions: 1 Peter and 2 Peter
The New Testament includes two letters attributed to Peter: First Peter and Second Peter, part of the collection of “Catholic Epistles.” These writings provide insight into early Christian teaching, but their authorship has been much debated.
1 Peter – Authorship and Themes: The First Epistle of Peter is addressed to the “exiles of the Dispersion” in Asia Minor (modern Turkey), offering encouragement to persecuted Christians. In it, the author (purportedly “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ”) urges believers to stand firm in their faith amid suffering, recalling how Christ suffered and then entered glory (Letters of Peter | Summary, Authorship, & Facts | Britannica). Key themes include persevering in trials with hope, the refining nature of suffering, holiness in conduct, and the example of Christ’s unjust suffering (“when he was reviled, he did not revile in return” – 1 Pe 2:23). The letter counsels readers to “honor everyone,” “love the brotherhood,” and repay evil with good (Letters of Peter | Summary, Authorship, & Facts | Britannica), so that even hostile onlookers may be silenced by believers’ good behavior. It also addresses the community’s internal life – urging elders to be shepherds to God’s flock and younger members to be humble. Toward the end, 1 Peter cryptically says “She who is at Babylon… sends you greetings” (5:13), which most scholars take as a coded reference to the church in Rome (38).
Authorship of 1 Peter has traditionally been ascribed to the Apostle Peter, and the letter itself claims Petrine authorship (1:1). However, modern critical scholarship largely questions whether a Galilean fisherman wrote this text. The style of Greek in 1 Peter is polished and sophisticated, and the letter alludes to concepts and even passages from Paul’s epistles (which would imply a later, post-Pauline context) (39). For these reasons, “most scholars conclude that it is pseudonymous,” written by a later follower using Peter’s name (40). They argue Peter likely lacked the formal education in rhetoric and Greek composition that the epistle exhibits (41). Some suggest it may have been composed after Peter’s lifetime (perhaps in the 80s AD) by a member of the Petrine circle who sought to summarize the apostle’s message for a subsequent generation (42). On the other hand, a minority of scholars defend Petrine authorship or a scenario of Peter using a secretary (amanuensis) to pen the letter. Notably, the epistle itself mentions “By Silvanus… I have written to you briefly” (5:12), which could indicate that Silvanus (Silas) acted as Peter’s secretary or courier. This could account for the proficient Greek. Additionally, some internal evidence (such as the reference to a primitive church structure of “elders” and “deacons,” and the lack of obvious 2nd-century anachronisms) might suggest an earlier date, within Peter’s lifetime (Letters of Peter | Summary, Authorship, & Facts | Britannica). In sum, the authorship of 1 Peter remains debated. Many scholars lean toward pseudonymity, but it’s acknowledged that if Peter did author it (with help), the letter likely dates to the early 60s AD during a time of rising persecution (possibly the Neronic era). Either way, 1 Peter’s message of steadfast faith amid hardship has been highly valued in the Christian tradition. Its canonical status was never seriously contested in the early church, implying that from early on it was believed to faithfully convey apostolic teaching.
2 Peter – Authorship and Content: Second Peter is a shorter letter and has the distinction of being perhaps the most contested book in the New Testament. The text presents itself as Peter’s swan-song, written when he knows his death is imminent (“since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon” – 2 Pe 1:14) (44). It pointedly claims Petrine identity, referring to the author as “Simon Peter” (or Simeon Peter) and even referencing a previous letter (apparently 1 Peter) (45). The author speaks as an eyewitness of the Transfiguration of Jesus (recalling how “we heard the voice from heaven” on the holy mountain) and makes affectionate mention of Paul as “our beloved brother” whose letters had sometimes been misinterpreted (3:15–16). Despite these internal claims, Second Peter is widely regarded by scholars as pseudepigraphical – in fact, it is often considered the latest New Testament document, perhaps written c. 80–100+ AD rather than by Peter in the 60s (46) (47). There are several reasons for doubt: the Greek style and vocabulary of 2 Peter are markedly different from 1 Peter (far beyond what one might attribute to using a different secretary), it seems to borrow extensively from the Epistle of Jude (which itself was likely written around 80s AD) (48), and it addresses issues that became pressing in the late 1st or early 2nd century – particularly the delay of Christ’s Second Coming and the rise of false teachers challenging apostolic doctrine (49). By the time 2 Peter was composed, collections of Paul’s letters seem to be known (since 2 Pe 3:16 refers to them), and the author even calls those letters “Scriptures,” suggesting a developed stage of the New Testament canon. Moreover, early church fathers were slow to accept 2 Peter; the external evidence for it is sparse before the 3rd century. Origen (3rd century) notes that its authenticity was disputed, and Eusebius (early 4th century) classified it as a work that was spoken against (antilegomena) (50). It eventually made its way into the canon, but not without lingering questions.
In content, 2 Peter’s themes are distinct: it is principally concerned with combating false teachers and reassuring believers about the promise of Christ’s return. The letter warns that “in the last days scoffers will come,” mocking the delay of the Second Coming, but it explains that “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years… The Lord is not slow about his promise, but is patient” – giving time for more to repent (3:8–9) (Letters of Peter | Summary, Authorship, & Facts | Britannica). 2 Peter thus encourages Christians not to lose hope but to live virtuously as they await “new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (3:13) (Letters of Peter | Summary, Authorship, & Facts | Britannica). It vividly condemns the immoral behavior of the false teachers infiltrating the community, likening them to “irrational animals” and “waterless springs” (chapter 2, which borrows imagery from the Epistle of Jude). These opponents apparently distorted Christian freedom into licentiousness. The author assures readers that such false teachers will face judgment, citing past divine punishments (the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah) as examples. Another notable element is the emphasis on apostolic testimony: the letter opens by asserting it is from “Simon Peter, a servant and apostle” and later appeals to the Transfiguration event, where Peter, James, and John personally witnessed Jesus’ glory and heard God’s voice (1:16–18) (51). This stress on eyewitness authority is perhaps meant to bolster the letter’s credibility against heretical teachers. Finally, 2 Peter expresses concern that believers remember the teachings passed down to them – a farewell exhortation to “recall the words” of the prophets and apostles (3:2). If written pseudonymously, this would be a devout Christian writing in Peter’s name to fortify the church’s doctrine one last time. If by Peter himself, it would mean Peter was consciously leaving a testament knowing he was near martyrdom. Most modern scholars side with the former view – “most biblical scholars have concluded that Peter is not the author” of 2 Peter (52) – citing its late style and the lack of strong early attestation. Regardless of authorship, the church eventually recognized 2 Peter for its apostolic truth, and it stands as a solemn reminder in the New Testament to hold fast to the faith against error.
(It’s worth noting that other ancient writings were attributed to Peter beyond these two canonical letters – see below on apocryphal texts – but 1 and 2 Peter are the only ones accepted into the New Testament.)
Portrayal in Apocryphal and Non-Canonical Texts
From the second century onwards, numerous apocryphal works circulated that feature Peter, reflecting the wide fascination with his persona in Christian communities. These extracanonical texts range from alternative Gospels to adventure-like Acts and apocalyptic visions. They are not part of the Bible, often containing legendary or theologically heterodox material, yet they offer insight into how Peter’s legacy was elaborated in early Christian lore.
The Gospel of Peter: An example of an apocryphal gospel is the so-called Gospel of Peter, likely written in the mid-2nd century. Fragments of this text (discovered in the 19th century) depict a dramatic account of Jesus’ trial, crucifixion, and resurrection, purportedly from Peter’s viewpoint. The extant portion begins with the Passion narrative and includes striking, non-canonical details – for instance, the resurrected Jesus emerging from the tomb as a giant figure accompanied by angels, and a talking cross following behind him. The Gospel of Peter is notable for its docetic tone (it downplays Jesus’ sufferings, implying a divine impassibility) and its harsher blame of Jewish authorities. Early church fathers quickly deemed this gospel heretical. Around 190 AD, Serapion of Antioch banned the Gospel of Peter in churches, stating that although it carried Peter’s name, some of its contents were false and aligned with the Docetist heresy (53) (54). Eusebius likewise classified the Gospel of Peter (and other Petrine apocrypha like the Acts and Preaching of Peter) as writings “not handed down among the Catholic Scriptures”. In other words, orthodox leaders “repudiated what is falsely written under [Peter’s] name,” recognizing it as pseudepigrapha with unorthodox doctrine (55) (56). Thus, while the Gospel of Peter shows that some Christians in antiquity sought to augment Peter’s testimony (perhaps to elevate his authority for their teachings), the mainstream church rejected it. Today it remains a curious window into early deviant traditions, but it contributes little reliable information about the historical Peter.
The Acts of Peter: Far more influential in later Christian imagination were the various apocryphal Acts that feature Peter. Chief among these is the Acts of Peter, a late 2nd-century text that narrates Peter’s missionary adventures, primarily in Rome. This work is legendary in style, full of miracle stories intended to edify. One famous episode is Peter’s contest with Simon Magus, a magician in Rome who had won some followers by magic arts. In the Acts of Peter, Simon Magus boasts he can fly, and indeed he levitates above the forum – until Peter prays to God to stop the fraud. Simon comes crashing down, surviving the fall but badly injured, and the people of Rome turn back to Peter’s true miracle-working power (57). This dramatic scene underscores Peter’s supremacy over pagan sorcery (a tale also alluded to by church fathers like Cyril of Jerusalem). The Acts of Peter also emphasizes Peter’s ascetic teachings – for example, it claims Peter encouraged wives of prominent men to practice continence, which in the story provokes the wrath of those men and leads to persecution (58). The climax of the Acts of Peter is the account of Peter’s martyrdom in Rome, which includes the famous “Quo Vadis?” incident: as persecution rises, Peter initially flees Rome, but on the road he meets a vision of the risen Christ heading into the city. Peter asks, *“Lord, where are you going?” (Latin: Quo vadis?) and Jesus replies, “I am going to Rome to be crucified again.” Struck with remorse, Peter turns back to face his fate. He is arrested and sentenced to crucifixion. Peter then asks his executioners to crucify him upside down, saying he is not worthy to die in the same manner as his Lord. The Acts of Peter duly reports that Peter was crucified head-downwards (59) (60). (This humble request by Peter is likewise noted by Origen and later Christian writers (61).) While the Acts of Peter is a work of fiction, it had a considerable impact on Christian tradition: the imagery of Peter’s upside-down cross and the “Quo Vadis” encounter come directly from this apocryphal text. It portrays Peter as a wonder-worker and heroic martyr, reinforcing his stature. Early Christians in Rome certainly knew a form of this narrative – by the 4th century, paintings in the catacombs depict Peter’s crucifixion, reflecting the story told in Acts of Peter.
Other Apocrypha: Peter appears in a number of other non-canonical writings as well. The Apocalypse of Peter (early 2nd century) is a Greek apocalypse in which Peter is granted a guided tour of Heaven and Hell – it’s the earliest Christian text to describe the torments of hell in detail (62). Though once read in some churches, it was ultimately excluded from the Bible. In it, Jesus shows Peter the fate of the righteous and wicked, using Peter as the questioner who receives divine revelations. There are also Clementine writings (3rd–4th century, e.g. the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions) in which Peter is the central protagonist. In these romance-like narratives, Peter travels through the Mediterranean preaching, performing healings, and engaging in lengthy theological debates – notably again with Simon Magus, who functions as an arch-heretic opponent. The Clementine literature portrays Peter as the ultimate guardian of true doctrine, refuting Gnostic-like teachings attributed to Simon. Although these texts are fiction, they preserve a memory of Peter as the Church’s great debate-winner and defender of monotheism. Gnostic and heterodox writings also mention Peter: for instance, in the Gospel of Thomas (saying 114), Peter is depicted as dismissive of Mary Magdalene, reflecting some tension between Petrine authority and Gnostic esteem for Mary. In the Gospel of Mary, Peter likewise initially doubts Mary’s visionary testimony. These nuances show that various Christian groups sometimes used Peter either as a model disciple or as a foil, depending on their agenda – a sign of how prominent Peter’s name was in early Christian thought.
In summary, Peter’s extracanonical portraits range widely – from faithful chronicler of Jesus’ passion (Gospel of Peter), to miracle-working nemesis of heretics (Acts of Peter and Clementines), to recipient of esoteric revelations (Apocalypse of Peter). The mainstream church sifted these legends, accepting those consistent with orthodoxy and setting aside the rest. What emerges consistently is the esteem for Peter as the leading apostolic figure: whether confronting a magician, shepherding souls in an apocalypse, or simply standing as a symbol of pure faith (and sometimes of fallibility), Peter’s character loomed large in the Christian imagination. These apocryphal tales, while not historically reliable, testify to Peter’s enduring legacy – he was a pillar of the Church, and around that pillar many stories were woven. Notably, the account of Peter’s upside-down crucifixion under Nero – first told in the Acts of Peter – became an accepted part of Christian tradition (attested by Origen and others (63) (64)), illustrating how an apocryphal depiction of Peter could eventually inform orthodox belief about him.
Martyrdom and Death of Peter
Traditions of Peter’s Death: All historical accounts agree that Peter met a martyr’s death in Rome during the persecution of Christians under Emperor Nero. The New Testament itself does not describe Peter’s death (Acts ends with Peter still alive, and John 21 only alludes prophetically to Peter dying an old man with “hands stretched out”). However, by the end of the 1st century the martyrdom of Peter was already a well-known story. Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD) cites Peter and Paul as examples of steadfast endurance, noting that “There was Peter who… having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory” (65). He places Peter’s martyrdom in the context of jealousy and strife, possibly alluding to the persecution under Nero in which both apostles suffered. Later in the 2nd century, Irenaeus and Tertullian explicitly state that Peter died in Rome. Tertullian writes that Peter was crucified and Paul beheaded, both in Rome, during Nero’s reign – and even mockingly challenges heretics to visit the “trophies” (tombs) of these apostles in Rome (66).
Crucifixion Under Nero: According to Christian tradition, Peter was condemned to die by crucifixion. This likely occurred around 64 AD, after the Great Fire of Rome when Nero targeted Christians with brutal executions. (Tacitus describes Nero’s persecuting Christians – having them torn by dogs, burned, or crucified – in the aftermath of the fire (67), which aligns with the timeframe of Peter’s death, although Tacitus does not name Peter specifically.) Later sources provide more detail. Origen (c. AD 240) is credited as the first to report that when the moment of execution came, Peter requested to be crucified upside down, feeling unworthy to die in the exact same manner as Jesus (68). “Peter was crucified at Rome with his head downwards, as he himself had desired to suffer,” writes Origen (as quoted by Eusebius) (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles). The act of humility inverting the cross became one of the most enduring elements of Peter’s martyrdom story. Early evidence suggests the execution took place in Nero’s own gardens on the Vatican Hill. The Roman presbyter Caius (c. 200 AD) mentions that Peter suffered in the Vatican area, and archaeologically this is where a necropolis and Peter’s grave were later venerated (69). The Acts of Peter (see above) dramatizes the upside-down crucifixion and adds the “Quo vadis?” legend of Peter meeting Jesus on the road. While that encounter may be apocryphal, the core tradition of Peter’s crucifixion in Nero’s persecution is extremely ancient and was accepted across Christendom.
70 Historical Assessment: From a historical standpoint, the manner of Peter’s death – crucifixion – is very plausible (crucifixion was a common punishment for non-citizens in Rome, and Christians by Nero’s time were an easy target). There is no competing tradition of Peter dying peacefully; all early testimonies point to martyrdom. The location in Rome is likewise strongly attested by the uniform voice of second-century writers and by the early veneration of Peter’s tomb (see below). No early source claims Peter died elsewhere. Some modern scholars note the lack of contemporary Roman records and the silence of Acts on Peter’s demise, but given Nero’s documented antipathy to Christians (FAQ: How Did Peter and Paul Die? | Bible & Archaeology - The University of Iowa) (FAQ: How Did Peter and Paul Die? | Bible & Archaeology - The University of Iowa), Peter’s execution in that context fits the puzzle. The timeline commonly suggested is that Peter was in Rome by the early 60s AD and was killed in the Neronian persecution either in 64 (immediately post-fire) or a few years later (some date it 67 AD). In either case, he likely was around 60–65 years old at death.
Legacy of Martyrdom: Peter’s martyrdom had immense symbolic impact on the early Church. Later Christian writers like Tertullian and Chrysostom held up Peter’s example of faith unto death as a model for all believers. Peter, once a man who faltered under pressure (denying Jesus), ultimately displayed supreme courage – this narrative arc itself became a powerful testimony of divine grace. The manner of Peter’s death also contributed to Christian symbolism: the upside-down cross (often called the Cross of St. Peter) became an iconographic attribute of Peter. It is even used in Catholic tradition (for example, the Pope’s chair sometimes features an inverted cross not as a satanic symbol, as misunderstood by some, but as a sign of the Petrine martyrdom). According to tradition, Peter was buried just outside the Circus of Nero, along the Via Cornelia on Vatican Hill (71). Eusebius tells us that about 25 years after Peter’s death, in the reign of Constantine, a basilica was built over the burial site. For almost two millennia since, Peter’s martyrdom and burial in Rome have anchored the Roman Church’s sense of continuity with the apostolic age. As the Catholic Encyclopedia aptly summarizes: “the Prince of the Apostles found his burial place” at the foot of the Vatican, and from the beginning Christians kept the memory of his grave (72). In life Peter confessed Christ; in death he glorified God (as Jesus had predicted in John 21:19). His martyrdom sealed his apostolic witness.
Archaeological Evidence: Tomb and Relics of Peter
Because of Peter’s importance, significant archaeological efforts have focused on corroborating the tradition of his tomb in Rome and identifying relics associated with him. Early testimony locates Peter’s grave on the Vatican Hill. Writing around 200 AD, the Roman presbyter Caius stated, “I can show the trophies of the Apostles. For if you go to the Vatican… you will find the trophies of those who founded this church.” (73). By “trophies” Caius meant the monuments or memorials at the tombs of Peter and Paul in Rome. This indicates that within about a century of Peter’s death, the Christian community knew the site of his burial and honored it. Indeed, when the Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in the 4th century, he built the first St. Peter’s Basilica directly over what was believed to be Peter’s tomb. That basilica (and the current Renaissance-era St. Peter’s) centered on the area of Peter’s grave, under the high altar. For centuries, only tradition and sparse records attested to the tomb’s exact spot. But in the mid-20th century, a great opportunity arose to investigate.
The Vatican Necropolis Excavations: In the 1940s, excavations were conducted beneath St. Peter’s Basilica (a project initiated by Pope Pius XII). Archaeologists uncovered a necropolis (city of the dead) – essentially a 1st–2nd century cemetery with mausoleums and grave sites – directly below the basilica’s foundations. In the area presumed to be near Peter’s grave, they found a small niche or shrine (often called the “Aedicula” or Trophy of Gaius), flanked by red plastered walls, one of which was a graffiti wall. On these walls were numerous scratched inscriptions left by early pilgrims. Notably, some graffiti referenced Peter, including what has been interpreted as “PETROS ENI” (Greek for “Peter is here”) (74). Behind the graffiti wall, archaeologists discovered a repository of human bones. After years of analysis, in 1968 Pope Paul VI announced that these remains were very likely those of St. Peter (75). He stated that the relics of Peter had been identified “in a manner which we believe convincing.” The evidence cited included: the location of the bones in the immediate vicinity of the venerated spot, the fact that they belonged to a robust male around 60–70 years old (consistent with Peter’s age), and the presence of first-century coins and debris in the niche. Additionally, the particular bones found showed no feet – one theory is that Peter’s feet may have been cut off his corpse when removing him from the cross (since crucified victims’ feet were sometimes nailed in such a way that cutting the ankles was easier than removing the nails) (76). While this detail is not certain, it fits the upside-down crucifixion story (where removal might have been done by severing feet).
Modern scientists note that the evidence is largely circumstantial – we cannot with absolute certainty prove these bones are Peter’s. There was no inscription on the bones, and DNA testing cannot identify a specific individual from antiquity without comparative samples. Skeptics point out that the graves in the necropolis were not all Christian and that some bones in the niche might have been moved or commingled over time. However, the convergence of clues (the ancient literary testimony, the graffiti “Peter”, the positioning beneath the historical shrine, and the bones’ characteristics) has led the Vatican and many scholars to conclude that it is highly probable that Peter’s remains were indeed recovered (77). Those bones – mostly fragments from a single individual – are now kept in a sealed plexiglass box deep under the basilica, near their original resting place. In 2013, for the first time, a portion of these relics were displayed publicly by Pope Francis at a Mass, giving the faithful a chance to reverence what are believed to be pieces of the Apostle’s body (78). And in 2019, Pope Francis gifted some fragments of these bones to the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew, as a gesture of unity (79).
Other Relics and Claims: Apart from the bones in the Vatican tomb, tradition holds a few other relics associated with Peter. One famous set of relics are the chains of St. Peter. According to legend, two sets of chains that held Peter (one from his imprisonment under Herod in Jerusalem in Acts 12, and one from his Roman imprisonment before martyrdom) were miraculously fused together. These chains have long been venerated in Rome at the Church of San Pietro in Vincoli (St. Peter in Chains). While this is largely legendary piety, the chains are an example of how objects tied to Peter’s story became holy relics. Another notable tradition: the heads (skulls) of Peter and Paul were reputedly preserved and later enshrined in the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome. This tradition stems from a story that their remains were moved for safekeeping during persecutions and that their skulls were separated from their other bones. The Lateran’s reliquaries labeled for Peter and Paul still exist, though it’s uncertain whose crania they actually contain.
Interestingly, in the 1950s, archaeologists uncovered a tomb on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem containing ossuaries (stone bone boxes) with inscriptions of common Jewish names. One ossuary had an inscription interpreted by some as “Shimon bar Yonah” – which is Simon son of Jonah, the Hebrew name of Peter (cf. Matt. 16:17) (80). This raised the speculative question: could Peter have been buried in Jerusalem after all? However, this theory has been widely disputed by scholars (81). For one, by all accounts Peter died in Rome, not Jerusalem; and the inscription in question is fragmented – other epigraphists read it as Shimon Barzillai, a different name entirely (82). Given the strong Roman tradition and the improbability that Peter’s remains would be transported to Jerusalem, the consensus rejects the Mount of Olives ossuary as Peter’s. It was likely another individual named Simon (a very common name). Thus, the Jerusalem ossuary claim is an outlier and has not gained acceptance.
Aside from bones and chains, there are also archaeological sites linked to Peter’s life. In Capernaum (Galilee), excavations have revealed the remains of a 1st-century house that was later converted into an octagonal Christian shrine by the 5th century – many believe this was the house of Peter, where Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law (Mark 1:29–31). Graffiti with Christian symbols and the name of Peter were found on the walls, suggesting it was venerated very early. This lends tangible weight to Peter’s Galilean origins and ministry with Jesus.
In summary, archaeology supports the Petrine tradition most strikingly at the Vatican tomb. The combination of historical testimony and modern excavation makes a compelling case that the site beneath St. Peter’s Basilica is indeed the final resting place of the apostle. The graffiti “Peter is here” scratched by pilgrims of old and the bones identified by researchers allow us a rare, concrete connection to the very foundation of the Church. For believers, these findings affirm that Peter was not just a figure of legend but a flesh-and-blood person whose grave can be visited. Even for skeptics, the continuity of the tradition from the first century to now, backed by archaeological discovery, is a fascinating instance of history and faith intersecting. Peter’s physical legacy – his tomb and relics – has thus become an enduring witness in stone (and bone) to his spiritual legacy.
Modern Scholarly Debates on Peter’s Significance
In contemporary scholarship, Peter’s historical role and legacy remain subjects of active study and debate. Modern scholars such as James D. Tabor, John Dominic Crossan, and Bart D. Ehrman have each offered insights into Peter’s place in the development of early Christianity and in the historical Jesus narrative.
Peter’s Leadership vs. James and Paul: James Tabor (a historian of early Christianity) emphasizes that, in the very earliest Jerusalem community, Peter was a leading figure but not the sole head. He points out that James the Just, Jesus’ brother, emerged as the principal leader of the Jerusalem church, possibly within a few years of Jesus’ death – a transition also reflected in Acts and Galatians (83). Tabor and others note that Peter seemed to serve as a bridge between the Jesus movement’s initial Jewish context and its expansion to Gentiles, but that James held the top leadership in Jerusalem once Peter embarked on broader missions (84). This view somewhat de-centers Peter in favor of James when it comes to the mother church at Jerusalem, aligning with evidence that Peter left Jerusalem relatively early (mid-40s AD) to travel. In contrast, Paul’s role becomes dominant in the New Testament narrative after Peter’s departure. Scholars like Crossan and Ehrman discuss how Peter and Paul represented different but complementary apostolic missions – Peter primarily to Jews, Paul to Gentiles – and how the early church had to reconcile these two ministries. Notably, despite occasional tension (like the Antioch incident), Christian tradition early on portrayed Peter and Paul as cooperative pillars. Crossan, for example, sees the eventual pairing of Peter and Paul in Rome (in both legend and art) as symbolic: they jointly symbolize the unity of Jew and Gentile in the Church. Modern scholars often seek to peel back later legends to find the historical Peter: likely a charismatic Galilean who was less formally educated than Paul, more rooted in the Jewish-Christian milieu of Palestine, and someone who had to adapt from being a fisherman to being a leader of an international faith – a transition that itself speaks to the transformative power of the movement he helped lead.
Peter as Witness to the Resurrection: Both Crossan and Ehrman stress Peter’s foundational role in the resurrection faith of the early Church. The apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:5, notes that the risen Jesus “appeared to Cephas (Peter), then to the Twelve.” This is a tremendously important statement: it indicates that Peter was likely the first named apostle to have a resurrection experience of Jesus. Many scholars infer that Peter may have been the one to convince the other disciples that Jesus was risen – his personal encounter with the empty tomb or risen Christ would have galvanized the group. Crossan, who often approaches the resurrection narratives critically, nonetheless acknowledges that Peter believed he saw the risen Christ and that this belief was the nucleus of the Easter proclamation. In historical Jesus studies, Peter is frequently highlighted as a key eyewitness: the Gospel of Mark (widely thought to preserve Peter’s reminiscences) centers the empty tomb story on Peter (the angel says “tell his disciples and Peter…”). Modern scholars like Ehrman agree that something happened to Peter after Jesus’ crucifixion – some profound experience – that turned him from a distraught, hiding individual into a bold preacher willing to face martyrdom. This “turnaround” is considered a critical piece of the puzzle of Christian origins. So in discussions of the credibility of the resurrection accounts, Peter’s sincerity and conviction are often cited. Even skeptics concede that Peter and others believed they had seen Jesus alive, whatever one concludes about the nature of those experiences.
Authorship and Legend – Discerning Peter’s Voice: Bart Ehrman has written extensively about the difference between the historical Peter and the legendary Peter that evolved in later Christian tradition. He underscores that Peter was likely illiterate in Greek and did not pen the epistles attributed to him – as we have discussed, most scholars concur that 2 Peter (and probably 1 Peter) were written in Peter’s name by others (85). Ehrman highlights this as part of a broader phenomenon of pseudepigraphy in the early church, where apostles like Peter became “brand names” that authors would use to lend authority to their works (86). For instance, gospels and apocalypses bearing Peter’s name cropped up (the ones we reviewed above). Ehrman’s view, shared by many textual critics, is that Peter left no writings of his own that we can be sure of; instead we have layers of tradition – some possibly traceable to Peter (e.g. Mark’s Gospel traditions), others clearly legendary (e.g. Acts of Peter miracles). He also notes how Peter’s image was sometimes enhanced to serve later institutional needs: for example, by the 3rd and 4th centuries, as the Roman Church’s primacy grew, writers like Cyprian and Leo the Great played up Peter’s role as bishop of Rome, even though the concept of “bishop” in Peter’s time was nascent. Modern scholarship thus often tries to differentiate Peter’s actual contributions from the accretions of later piety. Ehrman’s work Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene delves into how little we reliably know about Peter’s own thoughts versus how many stories sprung up about him. Yet, Ehrman does not deny Peter’s importance – on the contrary, the very abundance of Petrine legend testifies that Peter was immensely revered. Historians like Ehrman, Crossan, and Tabor all attempt to reconstruct a plausible picture: Peter was a Galilean fisherman, likely born in Bethsaida and later living in Capernaum, who became Jesus’ disciple. After Jesus’ death, Peter was a central leader in Jerusalem, although probably under the patronage of James after a while. He traveled (perhaps to Antioch, Corinth, etc.) and later suffered martyrdom in Rome during Nero’s crackdowns. Beyond that, many details are opaque or shaped by later theological motives.
Significance in Christian Origins: Despite scholarly debates on specific issues (authorship of epistles, extent of Petrine authority, etc.), there is a consensus that Peter was one of the most crucial figures in Christian origins. John Dominic Crossan points out that any historical account of early Christianity must place Peter near the center alongside James and Paul. Peter was the leading disciple of Jesus during Jesus’ life (according to multiple Gospel sources), and in the formative years after Jesus’ death, Peter’s leadership helped the Jesus movement survive and spread. Without Peter (and the trust he inspired), the demoralized disciples might not have regrouped in the way they did. James Tabor often emphasizes the Jewish-Christian aspect of Peter’s faith – that Peter likely remained Torah-observant and saw the Christian message as the fulfillment of Judaism, working in concert with James in that regard. Meanwhile, Paul’s mission would extend it in new directions. The interplay between Peter and Paul is sometimes cast by scholars as the reconciliation of two strains of early Christianity – and in the end, tradition says they joined hands (figuratively) in Rome. It is telling that by the second century, Dionysius of Corinth wrote, “Peter and Paul… taught together in Italy and suffered martyrdom at the same time.” (87). This suggests that the early church wanted to stress unity, not division, between its great apostles.
In modern discussions, Peter’s legacy is also considered in ecumenical dialogues. For instance, the role of Peter (and thus the Pope) remains a point of contention between Catholics and other Christians, making the historical Peter a subject of interest beyond academia. Scholars like Crossan (who is Catholic but part of critical scholarship) have engaged in dialogues about how the ministry of Peter can be understood and perhaps re-envisioned in a reunited Christendom – often by going back to the model of Peter as servant leader, not as an autocrat. Meanwhile, historians examine Peter’s memory to understand how leadership was exercised in the early Church: Was Peter more a consensus builder or a solitary decider? The New Testament evidence (Acts 15, Galatians 2) suggests Peter practiced a degree of flexibility and humility, which modern scholars sometimes contrast with the later monarchical papacy.
In conclusion, contemporary scholarship on Peter, as exemplified by Tabor, Crossan, Ehrman and others, attempts to strip away myth and anachronism to find the real Peter – a first-century Jew from Galilee who became an ardent follower of Jesus, a “rock” of the early community, and who was executed for his faith. While debates continue on issues like what texts he actually wrote or how far his authority extended, there is broad agreement that without Peter, Christianity as we know it would have been markedly different. Peter’s courage to proclaim the resurrection, his bridging of cultural divides (even if imperfectly), and his example of repentance and forgiveness have left an indelible mark. Even the very critiques that scholars like Ehrman raise (e.g. pseudonymous writings in Peter’s name) underscore Peter’s towering reputation – many in the early church wanted to claim Peter’s endorsement. As Crossan quips, “It is the stories told and retold about Peter that certify his importance.” And as Ehrman notes, the historical Peter’s greatest legacy may simply be that he was there at the beginning, leading the fledgling church when it most needed a rock. Thus, the fisherman from Galilee continues to fascinate historians and theologians alike, his life and legend intertwined with the story of Christianity itself.
Sources: Early Christian writings and modern analyses have been used to compile this study. References include Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History for historical testimonies (The Gospel of Peter - Patristic References) (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles), the New Testament (Gospels, Acts, Epistles) for the primary narrative (St. Peter the Apostle - Apostle, Fisherman, Leader | Britannica) (Restoration of Peter - Wikipedia), patristic letters like 1 Clement (Simon Peter | Bob's Corner), and scholarly summaries from Britannica and academic works for interpretation (St. Peter the Apostle - Apostle, Fisherman, Leader | Britannica) (First Epistle of Peter - Wikipedia). The archaeological details are drawn from Vatican excavation reports and related analyses (Saint Peter's tomb - Wikipedia) (Saint Peter's tomb - Wikipedia). These sources collectively paint a comprehensive picture of Simon Peter’s multifaceted role as disciple, church leader, martyr, and enduring symbol of the Christian faith.
