These days, St. Peter is mostly known as a guy who has a basilica in Rome and a burg
in Russia, but St. Peter was actually one of the most important people in the New Testament
Here's a bunch of stuff you probably never knew about him. The story of Peter first meeting Jesus varies a little from one gospel to the other
but basically, Peter is fishing with his brother Andrew. Jesus tells them to drop their nets and
come with him because he's going to have them fish for people instead, and Peter does, just like that
But the Bible and modern archaeology tell us a lot about what he was leaving behind
Many Christians have an idea that the disciples were poor before they started wandering around
with Jesus. But Peter, at least, was probably doing pretty well for himself
From the various Gospels, we learn he had at least three employees, his own boat, and
a house big enough to accommodate some extended family. We also know that he was from the city of Bethsaida, and archaeologists believe they
found it. Ancient Bethsaida appears to have been a thriving urban settlement with elements of posh Roman
culture, extremely significant in a place that was then generally a backwater of the empire
So, Peter? He wasn't just following Jesus in the hopes of finding something better
He already had it pretty good. When it comes to the disciples, Peter is unquestionably the most important, as all four gospel writers
give him the most coverage by far. Across all of the New Testament, Peter is mentioned by name over 200 times, while the
His next most talked-about disciple is John, who gets a mere 29 name drops
More than that, the Gospels agree that he served as sort of a spokesman for the group
and he enjoyed as much of a position of authority as any of the disciples had He even chosen to be the first male follower who witnessed the resurrection although Mary Magdalene got the real honor And Jesus even selects him to be the one to build the church after he goes to heaven That extra strange
since the Gospels paint Peter as an argumentative screw-up. Peter is always asking Jesus questions
and arguing with him, and he doesn't always have unwavering faith in his Messiah. Still
Jesus gives him the benefit of the doubt, and that says a lot about forgiveness and faith
After the Last Supper, the group goes to the Garden of Gethsemane to pray, and they're
met by Judas Iscariot and some armed guards. But one of the disciples, identified as Peter in John 18.10, wasn't going down without a
fight, and whipped out a sword to cut off the ear of some random unarmed servant
Unlike many gospel stories, it's included in all four books, with just a few different details
Even the basics make no sense. Jesus was very specific that his disciples shouldn't carry anything of value with him
even an extra tunic or sandals, but suddenly one of them has a sword
Not to mention that Peter was a fisherman by trade, not the kind of person you'd expect
to know how to use a sword at all. And swinging it at someone's head and causing some serious bodily harm was definitely illegal
yet Peter doesn't get arrested or killed on the spot? Add in the fact that when the books were written, early Christians were trying to promote themselves
as non-violent revolutionaries. So if the scene didn't happen, why make the story up
And if it did happen, why did every Gospel writer include it if Peter made them look bad
Here's a strange little tale. Acts introduces readers to a guy named Simon Magus, who sees the disciples performing great
feats and miracles and offers to pay them to give him the same powers Peter shuts him down tells him to repent and that all we hear about Simon Magus in the New Testament But the apocryphal books that didn get included in the Bible have a lot more to say about this magician Simon supposedly arrived in Rome by
flying in on a cloud of smoke, performed miracles throughout the city, and started calling himself
the Great Power of God. Simon and Peter decide the only way to settle their differences is with a
good old-fashioned miracle contest in public, Peter goes all out, raising people from the
dead and exposing Simon as a fraud. To save face, Simon declares he's going to jump off the Roman Forum in front of the Emperor
Nero, no less, to prove that he can fly. But Peter prays for Simon to crash, and he does, causing an injury that later kills him
But Simon got his time when a sect that believed he was God arose in the second century
The Bible doesn't actually tell us what happened to Peter after he went off to preach
The only thing to go on is a very metaphorical statement Jesus makes in John that says, quote
"...when you grow older, you will stretch out your hands and someone else will tie you
and carry you where you don't want to go." This is supposed to show that Peter, too, will be crucified, even if it's extremely vague
and symbolic. But non-biblical early church sources are unanimous in their reports that Peter was crucified
most likely in Rome. While the exact year is harder to pin down, it's generally accepted that Peter was caught
up in Nero's crackdown on the budding Christian religion starting in 64 AD
But the oft-repeated story that he was crucified upside down at his own request because he
didn't think he was good enough to die in the same way as Jesus is harder to substantiate
Very few sources mention this detail and while there is evidence Roman executioners sometimes mixed up the whole crucifixion process just for their own entertainment why would they do what a condemned prisoner asked them to Peter is considered a key guy in many religions from Protestantism to Islam But the Catholics
took his importance a major step further. They interpret a passage in Matthew to show that Peter
wasn't just an important apostle. He was the guy who was going to be in complete charge after Jesus
was gone. From just a few simple sentences grew a huge, complex organization with one guy at the
head — the pope. Peter was followed by other popes after his death, and the line is considered
unbroken to this day, minus some anti-pope drama here and there. Tradition not only says Peter was
crucified in Rome, it is extremely specific about where he was supposedly buried. According to the
University of Alberta, the current St. Peter's Basilica in Vatican City is built on another
church from the 300s, which was built on top of a necropolis, alleged to contain the remains
of St. Peter. This was all completely theoretical for almost 2,000 years
Then, in 1939, archaeologists got permission to do some digging. In a niche by the high altar
they found some bones, and when they were yzed, the tests showed they were from
a guy of the right age from the right time period. They also showed evidence of the remains of purple
vestments. The BBC says the cherry on the cake was the ancient inscription next to the bones
reading, Petros Imi, or Peter is Within. Pope Francis unveiled the bones for the first time
in 2013. That didn't stop another church from stepping forward in 2017 to claim that they had
the real remains of St. Peter, so one thing seems sure we'll never really know