Peter, St, apostle, named originally SYMEON (Acts, xv. 14) or SIMON, was 'of Bethsaida' (John, i. 44) on the Lake of Galilee, but during the public ministry of Jesus had his house at Capernaum, which he appears to have shared with his brother Andrew, the household including his mother-in-law and probably children (Mark, ix. 33, 36). His father was called John (John, i. 42; xxi. 15, 16, R.V.) or
Jonas (Jonah), and the name by which he himself is known in Christian history is the Greek translation of that given him by Jesus (Cephas, Græcised form of Aramaic kepha, meaning 'rock' or 'stone,' Gr. Petra, masc. Petros). He was a fisherman by occupation, and together with his brother Andrew was actually engaged in the pursuit of his calling on the Sea of Galilee when Jesus called both to be his disciples, promising to make them 'fishers of men.' For this invitation they had been prepared by previous acquaintance, formed perhaps for the first time when they were attending the preaching of John the Baptist (John, i. 40-42), and they both accepted it without hesitation. For the incidents recorded in the life of Peter as a disciple reference must be made to the four canonical gospels. It is plain, especially from the Synoptics, that he was regarded by Jesus with particular favour and affection. In many respects he was indeed an ideal disciple, warmly attached to his master, quick (on occasions at least) to apprehend new ideas, and ardent, energetic, and fearless in following them out. This is seen most clearly at that most important crisis in the life of Jesus when Peter was the first to see and say 'Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God' (Matt. xvi. 16-18); and it is not without reason therefore that Matthew significantly heads his list of the apostles with 'the first, Simon, who is called Peter.' This position of leadership among the twelve Peter continued to hold. In the earliest extant account of the resurrection (1 Cor. xv. 5) it is stated that the risen Christ appeared first 'to Cephas, then to the twelve;' and in the Epistle to the Galatians the apostle Paul tells us that his first errand to Jerusalem after his conversion was 'to visit Cephas' (Gal. i. 18). In the Acts of the Apostles Peter was the first mover in the election of a new apostle in the room of Judas Iscariot; he was the spokesman of the rest on the day of Pentecost, and also when they were brought before the council; he was the judge who condemned Ananias and Sapphira; along with John he was sent from Jerusalem to the Samaritan converts that they might receive the Holy Ghost; and he was the first to baptise a Gentile convert. He took a prominent part in the council or conference at Jerusalem, the result of which, though its events are somewhat differently related in Gal. ii. 1-10 and in Acts, xv. 4-29, was his acceptance of the policy of conciliation between the contending Jewish and Gentile parties. The date of this conference cannot be accurately fixed, but no recent scholar has placed it earlier than 47 A.D. or later than 53 A.D. He afterwards came to Antioch and for a time worked in harmony with Paul, but ultimately the famous dispute arose (Gal. ii. 11-21) which in conjunction with other causes led to the termination of Paul's ministry in that city. Peter, however, seems to have remained in Antioch, and was afterwards regarded as the founder of its church. His subsequent history is very obscure. On any theory of the authorship of 1 Peter that writing bears witness to an early belief that his missionary activity extended as far as to Pontus, Cappadocia, Galatia, Asia, and Bithynia; and, on one interpretation of 1 Peter, v. 13 (which, however, has little probability), he also laboured in Babylon. That he suffered martyrdom is clear from John, xxi. 18, 19, and is confirmed by the unanimous voice of ecclesiastical tradition: as to the manner of it, we have it on the authority of Eusebius (H.E. iii. 1, interpreted by some as resting on Origen) that he was impaled or crucified with his head downward; as to the place, tradition from the end of the 2d century invariably mentions Rome, and this also is most probably implied in the vague phraseology of Clemens Romanus (1 Ep. v. 4). Another circum- stance that makes somewhat for a residence, however brief, of Peter in Rome is his probable connection with Mark and the second gospel (see MARK). It may be taken as certain that Peter was not in Rome when the Epistle to the Romans was written, if the 16th chapter of that epistle is to be accepted as genuine; and it is almost equally evident that he cannot have been there when Paul was writing to the Philippians. Thus the comparatively late tradition which assigns him a continuous bishopric of twenty-five years in Rome from 42 A.D. to 67 A.D. must be regarded as unhistorical. If he came at all to Rome it can only have been after 64 A.D. Of the duration of his stay we have no means of judging.
The dispute between Protestants and Catholics as to whether Peter was ever at Rome began as early at least as 1520, when Vehlen (Velenus) published his Demonstratio contra Romani papæ primatus ygmentum; it was answered by Bishop Fisher of Rochester in his Convulsio calumniarum Aldrichi Veleni. For the arguments current in that and the following century, see Spanheim, Dissertatio de ficta protectione Petri apostoli in urbem Romam (1679). In later times the question has been the subject of equally acute controversy, but not with the same motives or entirely on the same grounds. The recent discussions began with Baur, who has been followed by Lipsius, Zeller, and others in a complete denial of any historical foundation for the 'Roman Peter-legend'; among those who have sought to vindicate for it some basis of truth may be named Credner, Wieseler, Ewald, Hilgenfeld, and Renan. For the apocryphal Acts of Peter and Paul, see Tischendorf. The Greek text of the apocryphal Gospel according to Peter and the Revelation of Peter, found in 1886-87 at Akhmim in Egypt, was published in 1892 by J. A. Robinson and M. R. James, and by others. For those of the Preaching of Peter, his Journeys, &c., see also Hilgenfeld. And see Littledale's Petrine Claims (1889). Lightfoot's Apostolic Fathers, part i. (2d ed. 1890); on the Catholic side, Allies, The See of St Peter (1850) and St Peter (2d ed. 1871); Döllinger's First Age of the Church (3d Eng. ed. 1877); and Johann Schmid, Petrus in Rom, where the literature on both sides of the question is very fully given. On the whole subject of the history and legends connected with the name of Peter the important work of Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden (1883-90), ought to be consulted.