**PETER, apostle, saint.** — First of the Apostles, constituted by Jesus as head of His Church.
Summary:
I. Life
II. St. Peter in Rome. —III. Martyrdom
IV. Tomb
V. Letters
VI. Liturgy
VII. Iconography
VIII. Apocrypha
IX. Legends.---
### I. Life
His name appears in the New Testament in four forms: Σωμείον (Simeon, from Σίμων, a Semitic form: Acts 15:14; 2 Pet 1:1), Σίμων (Simon, the more common form, a Hellenized abbreviation of the previous), Κηφᾶς (Lat. Cephas, a transcription of the Aramaic כֵּיפָא, meaning “rock”), Πέτρος (Lat. Petrus, a translation of the aforementioned Aramaic nickname, given to Simon by Jesus [Jn 1:42]). His father was called John (’Ιωάννης; Jn 1:42; 21:15-17) or Jonah. In Mt 16:17, Simon is called the son of Jonah (Βαριωνᾶ; cf. BAR IONA), but it is possible that the name Jonah, attributed to Peter’s father (also in the Vulgate at Jn 1:42), is an abbreviation of John (perhaps due to a corruption by the Greek translator of Mt 16:17; cf. U. Holzmeister [cf. bibliography], p. 6).
Peter was born in Bethsaida (cf.) near the Sea of Galilee, where he worked as a fisherman with his brother Andrew (cf.), who was also called to apostleship, and with the sons of Zebedee (cf.), James the Greater (cf.) and John (cf.), who later also became apostles.
The fact that Peter had a mother-in-law in Capernaum, healed by Jesus (Mt 8:14; Mk 1:30-31; Lk 4:38), indicates that Peter was married; the name of his wife is not known with certainty, being called Joanna by the Easterners and Perpetua by the Westerners; it is also unknown whether his wife was still alive at the time of Peter’s call. Some exegetes have sought to identify Peter’s wife with the “sister-woman” whom Cephas is said to have taken with him on his apostolic journeys (1 Cor 9:5), but this is far from proven. It was probably a Christian woman (a household servant or deaconess) who followed Peter and the other missionaries mentioned there, based on the tradition that attributes a daughter, Petronilla (cf.), to Peter.
Peter and John are called “unlettered and ignorant” by the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:13), indicating that they had not attended the rabbinic schools of learning. However, they had followed the teachings of John the Baptist (cf.). This is certain for the sons of Zebedee and for Andrew; it is probable for Simon Peter. Peter’s call to apostleship occurred gradually. When his brother Andrew presented him to Jesus with the words, “We have found the Messiah,” he received the nickname Cephas (Jn 1:42). He was present at the miracle at Cana (ibid., 2:2-11) and then settled with Jesus in Capernaum (ibid., 2:12). He was definitively called to apostleship after the first miraculous catch of fish (Lk 5:11; Mk 1:18; Mt 4:22), thus becoming a “fisher of men.”
**
Pietro De Ambroggi
---
### II. St. Peter in Rome
Pope Clement, in his Letter to the Corinthians, written between September 18, 96, and January 25, 98 (A. Casamassa, *I Padri Apostolici*, Rome 1938, p. 49), mentions the martyrdom of the holy founders Peter and Paul, attesting that to these men of holy life was added a multitude of the elect who, amidst so many torments, provided a magnificent example among us (*1 Corinthians*: PG 1, 217-21). Ignatius of Antioch, martyred in Rome under Trajan, writing in transit to the faithful of the Urbe, entreats them not to command him, as Peter and Paul did (*Ad Rom.*, IV, 3). Bishop Dionysius of Corinth, writing between 165-70 to the bishop of Rome, Soter, explicitly testifies that Rome and Corinth had as founders of their respective Churches the same apostles Peter and Paul (*Ad Rom.*, in Eusebius, *Hist. eccl.*, II, 25, 8). The same testimony is given a few years later by St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (*Against Heresies*, III, 3, 3), and later by Tertullian (*Against Marcion*, IV, 5, 2; CSEL, 47, 430). He also calls the Church of Rome “blessed” because the Apostles poured out their blood there, where Peter conformed himself to the Passion of the Lord (*De praescr.*, 36, 2). Commodian attests that Nero “first punished Peter and Paul in the city” (*Carmen Apologet.*, 828; CSEL, 15, 169). Peter of Alexandria and Athanasius indicate Rome as the place of martyrdom of the two princes of the Apostles (*Epist. canon.*, 9, 9; PG 18, 484; *Apol. de fuga sua*: PG 25, 668); the same is affirmed twice by Gregory of Nyssa (*In s. Stephanum*, 2; PG 46, 729; *Epist.*, 17; PG 46, 1061). St. John Chrysostom repeatedly states that St. Peter died in Rome (*Contra Iudaeos et Gentiles*, 9; PG 48, 825; *In s. Ignatium*, 4; PG 50, 593; *In Psalm.*, 48, 6; PG 55, 232; *In Rom.*, 32, 2 sg.; PG 60, 678).
Whatever interpretation one may give to some expressions in the context of the poem placed by Damasus (366-84) “in catacumbas,” it is undisputed that he claims Peter and Paul as Roman citizens for their martyrdom: “Rome rather deserved to defend its own citizens” (A. Ferrua, *Epigramm. Damasiana*, Vatican City 1942, pp. 139-44). While the year of St. Peter’s arrival in Rome cannot be fixed with certainty, there is instead a series of indisputable testimonies that he suffered martyrdom in Rome and was buried there. Although attempts have been made, beginning with heretics of the 13th century, to deny St. Peter’s coming to Rome, this has been confirmed time and again even by learned Protestants, such as A. Harnack and above all H. Lietzmann (*Petrus und Paulus in Rom*, 2nd ed., Berlin-Leipzig 1927; id., *Gesch. der alten Kirche*, I, ibid. 1932, p. 201 and especially *Petrus römische Martyrer*, in *Sitzungsbericht. der Preuss. Akad. der Wissenschaft.*, Philolog.-Hist. Klasse, 29 [1936], pp. 1-21), in which he refutes Daunzenbauer (1932) and K. Heussi (1936).
###
III. Martyrdom
1. The Year
The sources and interpreters are not in agreement regarding the year of the martyrdom of St Peter. Indeed, in the Catalogue, known as the Liberian, it is stated that the Apostle Peter “passus est autem cum Paulo die III Kal(endas) Iulias, consulibus suprascriptis,” that is, on 29 June in the year in which Nero and Vetus were consuls, namely 55. This year for the death of the Apostle was accepted by Th. Mommsen (Über den Chronographen des fahrens 354, in Abhandlungen der König. der Sächsisch. Gesellschaft. der Wissenschaft., 1 [1850], pp. 634-37) and later by H. Kellner (Jesus von Nazareth und seine Apostel, Ratisbona 1908, pp. 216-43). The death of Peter is assigned to the year 57 in the “Fasti Vindobonenses priores” and in the “Consularia Ravenna,” while the “Consularia Constantinopolitana” place the martyrdom in the year 58 (ed. Th. Mommsen, in MGH, Auct. antiquiss., IX, pp. 283, 194, 220). Not a few authors place the death of St Peter in the year 64, coinciding with that of the fire of Rome, which occurred in the month of July. Such is the opinion, among Protestants, of C. Erbes (Die Todstage der Apesteln Petrus und Paulus, Berlino 1899, pp. 1-138); A. Harnack (Chronologie, I, Lipsia 1897, p. 242); T. Zahn (Grundriss der Gesch. des apostol. Zeitalters, 2a ed., ivi 1927, p. 68); and, among Catholics, of L. Duchesne (Hist. ancienne de l’Église, I, Parigi 1906, p. 64); P. Franchi de’ Cavalieri (in N. Bull. di arch. crist., 13 [1907], p. 113); M. Lagrange (Evang. selon st Luc, Parigi 1921, p. xxxi). Other authors, however, prefer the following year, 65. Indeed, the text of Tacitus’ Annals interposes a certain time between the fire and the persecution, which arose when “non ope humana, non largitionibus principis aut deum placamentis decedebat infamia, quin iussum incendium crederetur. Ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos” (XV, 44). This was already the opinion of D. Papebroch (Acta SS. Iunii [Parigi 1867], § 2, 17-25, pp. 367 B-369 B) and, in more recent times, of O. Marucchi (La crocifissione di s. P. in Vattic., in N. Bull. arch. crist., 11 [1905], pp. 137-53); A. Profumo (Le fonti ed i tempi dell’incendio
