Is there proof that Saint Peter existed?

Answer 1

Paul, in his epistles, refers to meeting Peter on a number of occasions, so there should be no doubt that Saint Peter existed.

The four New Testament gospels would also normally be given as proof of this, but we now know that the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John were actually based on Mark's Gospel, so we only have one independent account, not four as previously assumed. We do not know where the anonymous author of Mark obtained his information about the events portrayed, including those relating to Peter, but he seems to have known of Paul's epistles and might have written a story around Paul's basic facts. Therefore the gospels do not reliably add to our knowledge about Peter.

There is no contemporary evidence that Peter ever went to Rome or that he was executed by crucifixion or otherwise. These legends began long after his death.

Answer 2

A:Yes and no:

Although the Apostle Paul is not mentioned by any independent contemporary, it can reasonably be concluded from his genuine epistles that he really did exist. Someone had to write these epistles, and there was no reason for the author to have used the name Paul, if that was not his real name.

Paul also mentioned Peter, John and James, the brother of Jesus, so we can conclude that these apostles also lived, although not necessarily that they were really the disciples described in the gospels.

There is no evidence outside the gospels that any of the twelve disciples were real, historical people. Scholars have demonstrated that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were largely copied from Mark's Gospel, and that John's Gospel was inspired in turn by Luke, so the existence of four different accounts does not create proof: at best, only Mark's Gospel can be relied on, but it is unclear where its author sourced his information. The gospels do mention Peter and John, but there is some evidence that the author of Mark knew of Paul's epistles, and it is possible that he used the same names and certain key events from the epistles in order to develop his gospels.

The existence of the epistles attributed to John, Jude and Peter does not prove the existence of those apostles, as the six epistles have all been identified as second-century pseudepigraphical works.

Also in the second century, traditions began to appear as to the travels, missions and eventual martyrdom of each of the apostles, but there is no evidence to support any of these traditions, which in many cases exist in multiple, contradictory forms. These traditions are not evidence for the former existence of the apostles they portray.