What is the story of the historical St. Peter (or Simon Peter). I have had a hard time finding unbiased information into the life of this man. Was he Bishop of Rome? Did he ever live in Rome? Was he executed there? Did he exist at all? Is there any archeological evidence?
It seems all the information on the net comes courtesy of people with axes to grind and either attack or defend the Catholic church with their “histories” of the man. I want the unvarnished truth in as much as it exists. I am not interested in anyone’s opinion on the validity of the papacy.
Almost every source we have on St. Peter was compiled by early Christians. The principal source is the New Testament, specifically the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and some of the Pauline Letters. The most important source for Peter’s execution and death is from [url="http://www.bartleby.com/65/cl/Clement1St.html"Saint Clement I, Bishop of Rome, the 3rd or 4th pope.
Looking for “objective truth” is usually a Quixotic endeavor, but especially in this case. What would you call “unbiased”?
What’s known about St. Peter from objective factual non-religious sources:
The Gospels describe him as de facto leader of the disciples under Jesus, a man somewhat dense but intensely loyal, impulsive, almost a perfect foil for Jesus’s wisdom (which is probably why those aspects of him are emphasized). After Pentecost, according to Luke in Acts, he became a fearless preacher, steadfast for the truth, and prepared to learn new things and adopt new ways of doing things as God led him. The abolition of the Torah dietary laws is attributed to his vision in Acts 8.
Extra-Biblical tradition has him stay in Antioch (which he visits in Acts) for a substantial period, founding the Patriarchate there, and then going to Rome, after Paul and numerous other Christians had, and becoming its first known bishop. He was allegedly crucified there.
A pseudopigraphical book called the Acts of Peter goes into more depth on his activities after Pentecost, but is not considered at all reliable.
It depends on your definition of evidence. Pope Pius announced they had found Peter’s tomb and later Paul the 6th claimed they were Peter’s bones. The “we found the bones” part has since been softened - a bit.
The supposed tomb of St. Peter is part of an ancient Roman necropolis buried 40 feet deep under St. Peter’s Basilica. This is where Peter’s grave has been rationally placed since before 320 AD (circa 250 years after Peter would have been buried there). What they found was bones belonging to an older man; the bones of the feet are missing, as they would be from a man crucified upside down as Peter is said to have been, wrapped in Purple. There is some graffiti, that shows the site was some kind of a shrine to Peter quite probably pre-Constantine (although how long before is an open question).