who was peter to jesus in the bible

Saint Peter (Syriac/Aramaic: ܫܸܡܥܘܿܢ ܟܹ݁ܐܦ݂ܵܐ, Shemayon Keppa; Hebrew: שמעון בר יונה Shim'on bar Yona; Greek: Πέτρος Petros; Coptic: ⲡⲉⲧⲣⲟⲥ, translit. Petros; Latin: Petrus; r. AD 30;[1] died between AD 64 and 68),[2] also known as Simon Peter, Simeon, or Simon (/ˈsaɪmən/,  pronunciation (help·info)), according to the New Testament, was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ, leaders of the early Christian Great Church. Pope Gregory I called him repeatedly the "Prince of the Apostles".[3] According to Catholic teaching, Jesus promised Peter in the "Rock of My Church" dialogue in Matthew 16:18 a special position in the Church. He is traditionally counted as the first Bishop of Rome—or pope—and also by Eastern Christian tradition as the first Patriarch of Antioch. The ancient Christian churches all venerate Peter as a major saint and as the founder of the Church of Antioch and the Roman Church,[2] but differ in their attitudes regarding the authority of his present-day successors (the primacy of the Bishop of Rome).

Saint Peter

The New Testament indicates that Peter's father's name was John (or Jonah or Jona)[4] and was from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee or Gaulanitis. His brother Andrew was also an apostle. According to New Testament accounts, Peter was one of twelve apostles chosen by Jesus from his first disciples. Originally a fisherman, he played a leadership role and was with Jesus during events witnessed by only a few apostles, such as the Transfiguration. According to the gospels, Peter confessed Jesus as the Messiah,[5] was part of Jesus's inner circle,[6] thrice denied Jesus[7] and wept bitterly once he realised his deed, and preached on the day of Pentecost.[8]

According to Christian tradition, Peter was crucified in Rome under Emperor Nero Augustus Caesar. It is traditionally held that he was crucified upside down at his own request, since he saw himself unworthy to be crucified in the same way as Jesus. Tradition holds that he was crucified at the site of the Clementine Chapel. His remains are said to be those contained in the underground Confessio of St. Peter's Basilica, where Pope Paul VI announced in 1968 the excavated discovery of a first-century Roman cemetery. Every 29 June since 1736, a statue of Saint Peter in St. Peter's Basilica is adorned with papal tiara, ring of the fisherman, and papal vestments, as part of the celebration of the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul. According to Catholic doctrine, the direct papal successor to Saint Peter is the incumbent pope, currently Pope Francis.

Two general epistles in the New Testament are ascribed to Peter, but modern scholars generally reject the Petrine authorship of both.[9] The Gospel of Mark was traditionally thought to show the influence of Peter's preaching and eyewitness memories. Several other books bearing his name—the Acts of Peter, Gospel of Peter, Preaching of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, and Judgment of Peter—are considered by Christian denominations as apocryphal, and are thus not included in their Bible canons.[10][11][12]

Peter's original name, as indicated in the New Testament, was "Simon" (Σίμων Simōn in Greek) or (only in Acts 15:14 and 2 Peter 1:1) "Simeon" (Συμεών in Greek). The Simon/Simeon variation has been explained as reflecting "the well-known custom among Jews at the time of giving the name of a famous patriarch or personage of the Old Testament to a male child along with a similar sounding Greek/Roman name".[13]

He was later given the name כֵּיפָא (Kepha) in Aramaic, which was rendered in Greek (by transliteration and the addition of a final sigma to make it a masculine word) as Κηφᾶς, whence Latin and English Cephas (9 occurrences in the New Testament);[14] or (by translation with masculine termination) as Πέτρος, whence Latin Petrus and English Peter (156 occurrences in the New Testament).[15]

The precise meaning of the Aramaic word is disputed, some saying that its usual meaning is "rock" or "crag", others saying that it means rather "stone" and, particularly in its application by Jesus to Simon, "precious stone" or "jewel", but most scholars agree that as a proper name it denotes a rough or tough character.[16] Both meanings, "stone" (jewel or hewn stone) and "rock", are indicated in dictionaries of Aramaic[17] and Syriac.[18] Catholic theologian Rudolf Pesch argues that the Aramaic cepha means "stone, ball, clump, clew" and that "rock" is only a connotation; that in the Attic Greek petra denotes "grown rock, rocky range, cliff, grotto"; and that petros means "small stone, firestone, sling stone, moving boulder".[19]

The combined name Σίμων Πέτρος (Simon Peter) appears 19 times in the New Testament. In some Syriac documents he is called, in English translation, Simon Cephas.[20]

Peter's life story is told in the four canonical gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, New Testament letters, the non-canonical Gospel of the Hebrews and other Early Church accounts of his life and death. In the New Testament, he is among the first of the disciples called during Jesus' ministry. Peter became the first listed apostle ordained by Jesus in the early church.[21]

Peter was a fisherman in Bethsaida.[Jn. 1:44] He was named Simon, son of Jonah or John.[22] The three Synoptic Gospels recount how Peter's mother-in-law was healed by Jesus at their home in Capernaum[Matt. 8:14–17] [Mk. 1:29–31] [Lk. 4:38]; this passage clearly depicts Peter as being married. 1 Cor. 9:5 has also been taken to imply that he was married.[23]

In the Synoptic Gospels, Peter (then Simon) was a fisherman along with his brother, Andrew, and the sons of Zebedee, James and John. The Gospel of John also depicts Peter fishing, even after the resurrection of Jesus, in the story of the Catch of 153 fish. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus called Simon and his brother Andrew to be "fishers of men".[Matt. 4:18–19] [Mk. 1:16–17]

A Franciscan church is built upon the traditional site of Apostle Peter's house.[24]
In Luke, Simon Peter owns the boat that Jesus uses to preach to the multitudes who were pressing on him at the shore of Lake Gennesaret.[Lk. 5:3] Jesus then amazes Simon and his companions James and John (Andrew is not mentioned) by telling them to lower their nets, whereupon they catch a huge number of fish. Immediately after this, they follow him.[Lk. 5:4–11] The Gospel of John gives a comparable account of "The First Disciples".[Jn. 1:35–42] In John, we are told that it was two disciples of John the Baptist (Andrew and an unnamed disciple) who heard John the Baptist announce Jesus as the "Lamb of God" and then followed Jesus. Andrew then went to his brother Simon, saying, "We have found the Messiah", and then brought Simon to Jesus.

Three of the four gospels – Matthew, Mark and John – recount the story of Jesus walking on water. Matthew additionally describes Peter walking on water for a moment but beginning to sink when his faith wavers.[Matt. 14:28–31]

At the beginning of the Last Supper, Jesus washed his disciples' feet. Peter initially refused to let Jesus wash his feet, but when Jesus responded: "If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me", Peter replied: "Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head".[Jn. 13:2â€“11] The washing of feet is often repeated in the service of worship on Maundy Thursday by some Christian denominations.

The three Synoptic Gospels all mention that, when Jesus was arrested, one of his companions cut off the ear of a servant of the High Priest.[25] The Gospel of John also includes this event and names Peter as the swordsman and Malchus as the victim.[Jn. 18:10] Luke adds that Jesus touched the ear and miraculously healed it.[Lk. 22:49â€“51] This healing of the servant's ear is the last of the 37 miracles attributed to Jesus in the Bible.

In a dialogue between Jesus and his disciples (Matthew 16:13–19), Jesus asks, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" The disciples give various answers. When he asks, "Who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answers, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Jesus then declares:

Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Cephas (Peter) (Petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

A common view of Peter is provided by Jesuit Father Daniel J. Harrington, who suggests that Peter was an unlikely symbol of stability. While he was one of the first disciples called and was the spokesman for the group, Peter is also the exemplar of "little faith". In Matthew 14, Peter will soon have Jesus say to him, "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?", and he will eventually deny Jesus three times. Thus, in light of the Easter event, Peter became an exemplar of the forgiven sinner.[26] Outside the Catholic Church, opinions vary as to the interpretation of this passage with respect to what authority and responsibility, if any, Jesus was giving to Peter.[27]

In the Eastern Orthodox Church this passage is interpreted as not implying a special prominence to the person of Peter, but to Peter's position as representative of the Apostles. The word used for "rock" (petra) grammatically refers to "a small detachment of the massive ledge",[28] not to a massive boulder. Thus, Orthodox Sacred Tradition understands Jesus' words as referring to the apostolic faith.

Petros had not previously been used as a name, but in the Greek-speaking world it became a popular Christian name, after the tradition of Peter's prominence in the early Christian church had been established.

All four canonical gospels recount that, during the Last Supper, Jesus foretold that Peter would deny him three times before the following cockcrow ("before the cock crows twice" in Mark's account).

The three Synoptics and John describe the three denials as follows:

The Gospel of John places the second denial while Peter was still warming himself at the fire, and gives as the occasion of the third denial a claim by someone to have seen him in the garden of Gethsemane when Jesus was arrested.

In the Gospel of Luke is a record of Christ telling Peter: "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."

In a reminiscent[29] scene in John's epilogue, Peter affirms three times that he loves Jesus.

In John's gospel, Peter is the first person to enter the empty tomb, although the women and the beloved disciple see it before him.[Jn. 20:1–9] In Luke's account, the women's report of the empty tomb is dismissed by the apostles, and Peter is the only one who goes to check for himself, running to the tomb. After seeing the graveclothes he goes home, apparently without informing the other disciples.[Lk. 24:1–12]

Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians[30] contains a list of resurrection appearances of Jesus, the first of which is an appearance to Peter.[31] Here, Paul apparently follows an early tradition that Peter was the first to see the risen Christ,[21] which, however, did not seem to have survived to the time when the gospels were written.[32]

In the final chapter of the Gospel of John, Peter, in one of the resurrection appearances of Jesus, three times affirmed his love for Jesus, balancing his threefold denial, and Jesus reconfirmed Peter's position. The Church of the Primacy of St. Peter on the Sea of Galilee is seen as the traditional site where Jesus Christ appeared to his disciples after his resurrection and, according to Catholic tradition, established Peter's supreme jurisdiction over the Christian church.

Peter is always listed first among the Twelve Apostles in the gospels[33] and in the Book of Acts (Acts 1:13). He is also frequently mentioned in the gospels as forming with James the Elder and John a special group within the Twelve Apostles, present at incidents at which the others were not present, such as at the Transfiguration of Jesus,[34] at the raising of Jairus' daughter[35] and at the agony in the Garden of Gethsemane.[36] Peter often confesses his faith in Jesus as the Messiah.

Peter is often depicted in the gospels as spokesman of all the Apostles.[37] Catholics refer to him as chief of the Apostles,[38] as do the Eastern Orthodox[39] and the Oriental Orthodox.[40][41] In Coptic Orthodox Church liturgy, he is once referred to as "prominent" or "head" among the Apostles, a title shared with Paul in the text (The Fraction of Fast and Feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul in the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria). Some, including the Orthodox Churches, believe this is not the same as saying that the other Apostles were under Peter's orders. In contrast, Jewish Christians are said to have argued that James the Just was the leader of the group.[42] Some argue James the Just was bishop of Jerusalem whilst Peter was bishop of Rome and that this position at times gave James privilege in some (but not all) situations. The early Church historian Eusebius (c. AD 325) records Clement of Alexandria (c. AD 190) as saying,

"For they say that Peter and James (the Greater) and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem."[43]

Peter was considered along with James the Just and John the Apostle as pillars of the Church (Galatians 2:9). Paul affirms that Peter had the special charge of being apostle to the Jews, just as he, Paul, was apostle to the Gentiles.

The author of the Acts of the Apostles portrays Peter as an extremely important figure within the early Christian community, with Peter delivering a significant open-air sermon during Pentecost. According to the same book, Peter took the lead in selecting a replacement for Judas Iscariot.[Acts 1:15] Following this appointment, we see Peter establish the conditions for being an apostle as those who have spent time with Jesus.[44]

Peter's authority lent to his role as an adjudicator in conflicts and moral matters.  He takes on this role in the case of Ananias and Sapphira and holds them accountable for lying about their alms-giving.  Peter passes judgement upon them and they are individually struck dead over the infraction.[45]

Peter's role wasn't always based around his leadership, but around his gifts for taking care of those in need.  We see Peter establish these trends by reaching out to the sick and lame. Peter heals 2 individuals who cannot walk or are paralyzed[46][47] as well as raising Tabitha from the dead.[47]  While these acts were miracles of compassion, they also contributed to the number of believers in the early church

He was twice arraigned, with John, before the Sanhedrin and directly defied them.[Acts 4:7–22] [5:18–42] After receiving a vision from God that allowed for the eating of previously unclean animals, Peter takes a missionary journey to Lydda, Joppa and Caesarea,[9:32–10:2] becoming instrumental in the decision to evangelise the Gentiles.[10] He applied the message of the vision on clean animals to the gentiles and follows his meeting with Cornelius by claiming that 'God shows no partiality.'[48]

Following the 13th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, the narrative turns its attention away from Peter and to the activities of Paul, and the Bible is mostly silent on what occurred to Peter afterwards.

John Vidmar, a Catholic scholar, writes: "Catholic scholars agree that Peter had an authority that superseded that of the other apostles. Peter is their spokesman at several events, he conducts the election of Matthias, his opinion in the debate over converting Gentiles was crucial, etc.[49]

According to the Acts of the Apostles, Peter and John were sent from Jerusalem to Samaria (Acts 8:14).
Peter/Cephas is mentioned briefly in the opening chapter of Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, which mentions a trip by Paul to Jerusalem where he meets Peter (Galatians 1:18).   Peter features again in Galatians, fourteen years later, when Paul (now with Barnabas and Titus) returned to Jerusalem (Galatians 2:7–9), and then, when Peter came to Antioch, Paul opposed Peter to his face "because he [Peter] was in the wrong" (NIV) (Galatians 2:11).[50]

Acts 12 tells how Peter, who was in Jerusalem, was put into prison by King Herod (A.D. 42–44), but was rescued by an angel. After his liberation Peter left Jerusalem to go to "another place" (Acts 12:1–18). Concerning St. Peter's subsequent activity we receive no further connected information from the extant sources, although we possess short notices of certain individual episodes of his later life.[2]

At the Council of Jerusalem (c. 50), the early Church, Paul and the leaders of the Jerusalem church met and decided to embrace Gentile converts. Acts portrays Peter and other leaders as successfully opposing the Christian Pharisees who insisted on circumcision.[51]

The church in Rome was already flourishing when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans about AD 57,[52] he greets some fifty people in Rome by name,[53] but not Peter whom he knew. There is also no mention of Peter in Rome later during Paul's two-year stay there in Acts 28, about AD 60–62. Some Church historians consider Peter and Paul to have been martyred under the reign of Nero,[54][55][56] around AD 65.[57][58][59]

In a strong tradition of the Early Church, Peter is said to have founded the Church in Rome with Paul, served as its bishop, authored two epistles, and then met martyrdom there along with Paul. Christians of different theological backgrounds are in disagreement as to the exact significance of Peter's ministry. For instance:

Similarly, historians of various backgrounds also offer differing interpretations of the Apostle's presence in Rome.

According to the epistle to the Galatians 2:11, Peter went to Antioch where Paul rebuked him for separating himself from Gentiles (see the Incident at Antioch). Galatians is accepted as authentic by almost all scholars. These may be the earliest mentions of Peter to be written. Later accounts expand on the brief biblical mention of his visit to Antioch. The Liber Pontificalis (9th century) mentions Peter as having served as bishop of Antioch for seven years and having potentially left his family in the Greek city before his journey to Rome.[60] Claims of direct blood lineage from Simon Peter among the old population of Antioch existed in the 1st century and continue to exist today, notably by certain Semaan families of modern-day Syria and Lebanon. Historians have furnished other evidence of Peter's sojourn in Antioch.[61] Subsequent tradition held that Peter had been the first Patriarch of Antioch. According to the writings of Origen[62] and Eusebius in his Church History (III, 36) Peter would have been the founder of the Church of Antioch[63] and "after having first founded the church at Antioch, went away to Rome preaching the Gospel, and he also, after [presiding over] the church in Antioch, presided over that of Rome until his death".[64]

After presiding over the church in Antioch by a while, Peter would have been succeeded by Evodius,[65] and after by Ignatius, who was a student of John the Apostle.[66]

Eusebius of Caesarea, in his "Historia Ecclesiastica (I,12:2)" while naming some of the Seventy Disciples of Jesus, says:

This is the account of Clement, in the fifth book of Hypotyposes (A.D. 190); in which he also says that Cephas was one of the seventy disciples, a man who bore the same name as the apostle Peter, and the one concerning whom Paul says, [When Cephas came to Antioch I withstood him to his face.]

The Clementine literature, a group of related works written in the fourth century but believed to contain materials from earlier centuries, relate information about Peter that may come from earlier traditions. One is that Peter had a group of 12 to 16 followers, whom the Clementine writings name.[69] Another is that it provides an itinerary of Peter's route from Caesarea Maritima to Antioch, where he debated his adversary Simon Magus; during this journey he ordained Zacchaeus as the first bishop of Caesarea and Maro as the first bishop of Tripolis. Fred Lapham suggests the route recorded in the Clementine writings may have been taken from an earlier document mentioned by Epiphanius of Salamis in his Panarion called "The Itinerary of Peter".[70]

Eusebius of Caesarea relates that when Peter confronts Simon Magus at Judea (mentioned in Acts 8), Simon flees to Rome where the Romans got to regard him as a god. According to Eusebius, his luck did not last long since God sent Peter to Rome and Simon was quenched and immediately destroyed.[71]

An apocryphal work, the Actus Vercellenses (7th century), a Latin text preserved in only one manuscript copy published widely in translation under the title Acts of Peter, sets Peter's confrontation with Simon Magus in Rome.[72][73]

Peter might have visited Corinth and maybe would have existed a party of "Cephas".[21]
First Corinthians suggests that perhaps Peter visited the city of Corinth, located at Greece, during their missions.[1Cor. 1:12]

Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, in his Epistle to the Roman Church under Pope Soter (A.D. 165â€“174) declares that Peter and Paul founded the Church of Rome and the Church of Corinth, and they have lived in Corinth for some time and finally in Italy where they found death:

You have thus by such an admonition bound together the planting of Peter and of Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both of them planted and likewise taught us in our Corinth. And they taught together in like manner in Italy, and suffered martyrdom at the same time.[74]

Irenaeus of Lyons wrote in the 2nd century that Peter and Paul had been the founders of the Church in Rome and had appointed Linus as succeeding bishop.[75]

Clement of Alexandria states that "Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome. (A.D. 190)"[76]

According to Jerome "Peter went to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero."[77]

Lactantius, in his book called Of the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died, written around 318, noted that "And while Nero reigned, the Apostle Peter came to Rome, and, through the power of God committed unto him, wrought certain miracles, and, by turning many to the true religion, built up a faithful and stedfast temple unto the Lord."[78]

The Catholic Church speaks of the pope, the bishop of Rome, as the successor of Saint Peter. This is often interpreted to imply that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. However, it is also said that the institution of the papacy is not dependent on the idea that Peter was Bishop of Rome or even on his ever having been in Rome.[79] While accepting that Peter came to Rome and was martyred there, some scholars claim to find no historical evidence that he held episcopal office there.[80][81][82][83][84]

While the church in Rome was already flourishing when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans about AD 57,[52] he greets some fifty people in Rome by name,[53] but not Peter whom he knew. There is also no mention of Peter in Rome later during Paul's two-year stay there in Acts 28, about AD 60–62. Some church historians consider Peter and Paul to have been martyred under the reign of Nero,[54][55][56] around AD 65 such as after the Great Fire of Rome.[57][58][59] Presently, most Catholic scholars,[85] and many scholars in general,[86] hold the view that Peter was martyred in Rome under Nero. There is no obvious biblical evidence that Peter was ever in Rome, but he does mention that "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son" (1 Peter 5:13). It is not certain whether this refers to the actual Babylon or to Rome, for which Babylon was a common nickname at the time, or to the Jewish diaspora in general, as a recent theory has proposed.[87][88] Marcus, however, is a very typical Roman name, which strengthens the theory that Peter refers to Rome in his letter. In the preceding verse (1 Peter 5:12) he also mentions Silvanus, another typical Roman name.[89]

In two extensive studies published respectively in 2009[90] and 2013,[91] Otto ZwierleinÂ (de) held that "there is not a single piece of reliable literary evidence (and no archaeological evidence either) that Peter ever was in Rome."[87][92] Zwierlein's thesis has caused debate.[93][88] Zwierlein has made a summary of his view available online in English.[94]

Clement of Rome' First Letter, a document that has been dated from the 90s to the 120s, is one of the earliest sources adduced in support of Peter's stay in Rome, but Zwierlein questions the text's authenticity and whether it has any knowledge about Peter's life beyond what is contained in the New Testament Acts of the Apostles.[87] The letter also does not mention any particular place, only saying: "Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him." (ch. 5)[95] A letter attributed to Ignatius of Antioch to the Romans might imply that Peter and Paul had special authority over the Roman church,[21] telling the Roman Christians: "I do not command you, as Peter and Paul did" (ch. 4), although Zwierlein says he could be simply referring to the Epistles of the Apostles, or their mission work in the city, not a special authority given or bestowed. Zwierlein has questioned the authenticity of this document and its traditional dating to c. 105â€“10, who says it may date from the final decades of the 2nd century instead of from the beginning.[87] It should be stated, however obviously, that Otto Zwierlein is not the sole academic, scholar, or authority on the subject and his statements have caused controversy within the field.

In the epilogue [51] of the Gospel of John, Jesus hints at the death by which Peter would glorify God,[Jn. 21:18–19] saying "when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go." This is interpreted by some as a reference to Peter's crucifixion.[29] Theologians Donald Fay Robinson and Warren M. Smaltz have suggested that the incident in Acts 12:1–17, where Peter is "released by an angel" and goes to "another place", really represents an idealized account of his death, which may have occurred in a Jerusalem prison in as early as 44 AD.[96]

The Muratorian fragment, dated to the second century A.D., notes that the primary eyewitness to Acts, Luke, was not present at Peter's death.[97] However, early Church Tradition (as indicated below) says that Peter probably died by crucifixion (with arms outstretched) at the time of the Great Fire of Rome in the year 64. The writings of the 1st century Church Father Ignatius of Antioch refer to Peter and Paul giving admonitions to the Romans, indicating Peter's presence in Rome.[98] Margherita Guarducci, who led the research leading to the rediscovery of Peter's reputed tomb in its last stages (1963â€“1968), concludes Peter died on 13 October AD 64 during the festivities on the occasion of the "dies imperii" of Emperor Nero.[99] This took place three months after the disastrous fire that destroyed Rome for which the emperor (Nero) wished to blame the Christians. This "dies imperii" (regnal day anniversary) was an important one, exactly ten years after Nero ascended to the throne, and it was 'as usual' accompanied by much bloodshed. Traditionally, Roman authorities sentenced him to death by crucifixion. In accordance with the apocryphal Acts of Peter, he was crucified head down.[100] Tradition also locates his burial place where the Basilica of Saint Peter was later built, directly beneath the Basilica's high altar.

According to the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, Peter labored in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there his life was ended by martyrdom.[101]

Pope Clement I, in his Letter to the Corinthians (Chapter 5), written c. 80–98, speaks of Peter's martyrdom in the following terms: "Let us take the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most just pillars of the Church were persecuted, and came even unto death. … Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labours, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him."[102]

The death of Peter is attested to by Tertullian at the end of the 2nd century, in his Prescription Against Heretics, noting that Peter endured a passion like his Lord's:[103] In his work Scorpiace 15, he also speaks of Peter's crucifixion: "The budding faith Nero first made bloody in Rome. There Peter was girded by another, since he was bound to the cross".[104]

Origen in his Commentary on the Book of Genesis III, quoted by Eusebius of Caesaria in his Ecclesiastical History (III, 1), said: "Peter was crucified at Rome with his head downwards, as he himself had desired to suffer."[38] The Cross of St. Peter inverts the Latin cross based on this refusal, and his claim of being unworthy to die the same way as his Saviour.[105]

Peter of Alexandria, who was bishop of Alexandria and died around A.D. 311, wrote an epistle on Penance, in which he says: "Peter, the first of the apostles, having been often apprehended, and thrown into prison, and treated with ignominy, was last of all crucified at Rome".[106]

Jerome describes that "At his Nero's hands Peter received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord."[77]

The apocryphal Acts of Peter (Vercelli Acts XXXV[107]), is the source for the tradition about the Latin famous phrase "Quo vadis, Domine?" (in Greek: Κύριε, ποῦ ὑπάγεις "Kyrie, pou hypageis?"), which means "Where are you going, Lord?". According to the story, Peter, fleeing Rome to avoid execution meets the risen Jesus. In the Latin translation, Peter asks Jesus, "Quo vadis?" He replies, "Romam eo iterum crucifigi ("I am going to Rome to be crucified again"). Peter then gains the courage to continue his ministry and returns to the city, where he is martyred. This story is commemorated in an Annibale Carracci painting. The Church of Quo Vadis, near the Catacombs of Saint Callistus, contains a stone in which Jesus' footprints from this event are supposedly preserved, though this was apparently an ex-voto from a pilgrim, and indeed a copy of the original, housed in the Basilica of St Sebastian.

The ancient historian Josephus describes how Roman soldiers would amuse themselves by crucifying criminals in different positions,[108] and it is likely that this would have been known to the author of the Acts of Peter. The position attributed to Peter's crucifixion is thus plausible, either as having happened historically or as being an invention by the author of the Acts of Peter. Death, after crucifixion head down, is unlikely to be caused by suffocation, the usual "cause of death in ordinary crucifixion".[109]

St. Clement of Rome identifies Peter and Paul as the outstanding heroes of the faith.[21] Papias reported that the Gospel of Mark was based on Peter's memoirs, a tradition still accepted by some scholars today.[21]

Catholic tradition holds that Peter's inverted crucifixion occurred at the spot now occupied by the Clementine Chapel in the grottoes of Saint Peter's Basilica, with the burial in Saint Peter's tomb nearby.[110]

Caius in his Disputation Against Proclus (A.D. 198), preserved in part by Eusebius, relates this of the places in which the remains of the apostles Peter and Paul were deposited: "I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church".[111]

According to Jerome, in his work De Viris Illustribus (A.D. 392), "Peter was buried at Rome in the Vatican near the triumphal way where he is venerated by the whole world."[77]

In the early 4th century, the Emperor Constantine I decided to honour Peter with a large basilica.[112][113] Because the precise location of Peter's burial was so firmly fixed in the belief of the Christians of Rome, the church to house the basilica had to be erected on a site that was not convenient to construction. The slope of the Vatican Hill had to be excavated, even though the church could much more easily have been built on level ground only slightly to the south. There were also moral and legal issues, such as demolishing a cemetery to make room for the building. The focal point of the Basilica, both in its original form and in its later complete reconstruction, is the altar located over what is said to be the point of Peter's burial.

According to a letter quoted by Bede, Pope Vitalian sent a cross containing filings said to be from Peter's chains to the queen of Oswy, Anglo-Saxon King of Northumbria in 665, as well as unspecified relics of the saint to the king.[114]

In 1950, human bones were found buried underneath the altar of St. Peter's Basilica. The bones have been claimed by many to have been those of Peter.[115] An attempt to contradict these claims was made in 1953 by the excavation of what some believe to be St Peter's tomb in Jerusalem.[116] However along with this supposed tomb in Jerusalem bearing his previous name Simon (but not Peter), tombs bearing the names of Jesus, Mary, James, John, and the rest of the apostles were also found at the same excavationâ€”though all these names were very common among Jews at the time.

In the 1960s, items from the excavations beneath St Peter's Basilica were re-examined, and the bones of a male person were identified. A forensic examination found them to be a male of about 61 years of age from the 1st century. This caused Pope Paul VI in 1968 to announce them most likely to be the relics of Apostle Peter.[117] On November 24, 2013, Pope Francis revealed these relics of nine bone fragments for the first time in public during a Mass celebrated in St. Peter's Square.[118]

Church tradition ascribes the epistles First and Second Peter to the Apostle Peter, as does the text of Second Peter itself. First Peter implies the author is in "Babylon", which has been held to be a coded reference to Rome[51] (1 Peter 5:13).

Most Biblical scholars[119][120] believe that "Babylon" is a metaphor for the pagan Roman Empire at the time it persecuted Christians, before the Edict of Milan in 313: perhaps specifically referencing some aspect of Rome's rule (brutality, greed, paganism).

In 4 Ezra,[121][122] 2 Baruch[123] and the Sibylline oracles,[124] "Babylon" is a cryptic name for Rome.[125] Reinhard Feldmeier speculates that "Babylon" is used to refer to Rome in 1 Peter 5:13.[126] In Revelation 17:9 it is said that she sits on "seven mountains",[127] typically understood as the seven hills of Rome.[128][129][130][131][132] A Roman coin minted under the Emperor Vespasian (ca. 70 AD) depicts Rome as a woman sitting on seven hills.[133]

According to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, "The characteristics ascribed to this Babylon apply to Rome rather than to any other city of that age: (a) as ruling over the kings of the earth (Revelation 17:18); (b) as sitting on seven mountains (Revelation 17:9); (c) as the center of the world's merchandise (Revelation 18:3, 11â€“13); (d) as the corrupter of the nations (Revelation 17:2; 18:3; 19:2); (e) as the persecutor of the saints (Revelation 17:6)."[134]

At that time in history, the ancient city of Babylon was no longer of any importance.  E.g., Strabo wrote, "The greater part of Babylon is so deserted that one would not hesitate to say... The Great City is a great desert."[135]

Another theory is that Babylon term refers to the Babylon in Egypt that was an important fortress city in Egypt, just north of today's Cairo and this, combined with the "greetings from Mark" (1 Peter 5:13), who may be Mark the Evangelist, regarded as the founder of the Church of Alexandria (Egypt), has led some scholars to regard the First Peter epistle as having been written in Egypt.

Early Church tradition reports that Peter wrote from Rome.  Eusebius of Caesarea states:

Clement of Alexandria in the sixth [book] of the Hypotyposeis cites the story, and the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias joins him in testifying that Peter mentions Mark in the first epistle, which they say he composed in Rome herself, and that he indicates this, calling the city more figuratively Babylon by these: "She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings and so does my son Mark. (1 Pet 5:13)[136]

If the reference is to Rome, it is the only biblical reference to Peter being there. Many scholars regard both First and Second Peter as not having been authored by him, partly because other parts of the Acts of the Apostles seem to describe Peter as an illiterate fisherman.[9][137]

According to Catholic belief, Simon Peter was distinguished by Jesus to hold the first place of honor and authority. Also in Catholic belief, Peter was, as the first Bishop of Rome, the first Pope. Furthermore, they consider every Pope to be Peter's successor and the rightful superior of all other bishops.[138] Although Peter never bore the title of "Pope", or "Vicar of Christ", in this sense the Catholic Church considers Peter the first Pope.[139]

The Catholic Church's recognition of Peter as head of its church on Earth (with Christ being its heavenly head) is based on its interpretation of two passages from the canonical gospels of the New Testament; as well as sacred tradition. The first passage is John 21:15–17 which is: "Feed my lambs... feed my lambs... feed my sheep" (within the Greek it is Ποίμαινε i.e., to feed and rule [as a Shepherd]., v. 16 while Βόσκε i.e., to feed., for v.15 & v. 17)[140]—which is seen by Catholics as Christ promising the spiritual supremacy to Peter. The Catholic Encyclopedia sees in this passage Jesus "charging [Peter] with the superintendency of all his sheep, without exception; and consequently of his whole flock, that is, of his own church".[138]

The second passage is Matthew 16:18:

I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Jesus could have said the following phrase in Aramaic, which could have spoken:[141]

ܐܳܦ݂ ܐܶܢܳܐ ܐܳܡܰܪ ܐ݈ܢܳܐ ܠܳܟ݂ ܕ݁ܰܐܢ݈ܬ݁ ܗ݈ܽܘ ܟ݁ܺܐܦ݂ܳܐ ܘܥܰܠ ܗܳܕ݂ܶܐ ܟ݁ܺܐܦ݂ܳܐ ܐܶܒ݂ܢܶܝܗ ܠܥܺܕ݈݁ܬ݁ܝ ܘܬ݂ܰܪܥܶܐ ܕ݁ܰܫܝܽܘܠ ܠܳܐ ܢܶܚܣܢܽܘܢܳܗ܂

also I say I to you that you are Keepa (Cephas) and on this Keepa (Cephas) I will build my Church and the gates of Sheol not will subdue it.[142]

You are a rock, and upon this rock will I build my Church and the gates of Sheol not will subdue it.

Paul of Tarsus called Peter as "Cephas",[143] in the same way that Jesus did.[144] This Hellenized Hebrew word of Aramaic ܟ݁ܺܐܦ݂ܳܐ (Cephas), was not a proper name, but Paul assigns him as such.

Petros (Πέτρος) and petra (πέτρᾳ) are the Greek equivalent to the Syriac Cephas (ܟ݁ܺܐܦ݂ܳܐ) which means "rock",[145] and there is no difference at all between Petros and petra.[146][147]

To better understand what Christ meant, St. Basil elaborates:[148]

Though Peter be a rock, yet he is not a rock as Christ is. For Christ is the true unmoveable rock of himself, Peter is unmoveable by Christ the rock. For Jesus doth communicate and impart his dignities, not voiding himself of them, but holding them to himself, bestoweth them also upon others. He is the light, and yet 2. You are the light: he is the Priest, and yet he 3. maketh Priests: he is the rock, and he made a rock.

In reference to Peter's occupation before becoming an Apostle, the popes wear the Fisherman's Ring, which bears an image of the saint casting his nets from a fishing boat. The keys used as a symbol of the pope's authority refer to the "keys of the kingdom of Heaven" promised to Peter.[Matt. 16:18–19] The terminology of this "commission" of Peter is unmistakably parallel to the commissioning of Eliakim ben Hilkiah in Isaiah 22:15–23. Peter is often depicted in both Western and Eastern Christian art holding a key or a set of keys.

Though the authenticity of this account has been challenged, the general consensus is that these are Jesus' words.[1]

The Roman Martyrology assigns 29 June as the feast day of both Peter and Paul, without thereby declaring that to be the day of their deaths. Augustine of Hippo says in his Sermon 295: "One day is assigned for the celebration of the martyrdom of the two apostles. But those two were one. Although their martyrdom occurred on different days, they were one."

This is also the feast of both Apostles in the calendar of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

In the Roman Rite, the feast of the Chair of Saint Peter is celebrated on 22 February, and the anniversary of the dedication of the two papal basilicas of Saint Peter's and Saint Paul's outside the Walls is held on 18 November.

Before Pope John XXIII's revision in 1960, the Roman Calendar also included on 18 January another feast of the Chair of Saint Peter (denominated the Chair of Saint Peter in Rome, while the February feast was then called that of the Chair of Saint Peter at Antioch), and on 1 August the feast of Saint Peter in Chains.

In the original Greek the word translated as "Peter" is Πέτρος (Petros) and that translated as "rock" is πέτρα (petra), two words that, while not identical, give an impression of one of many times when Jesus used a play on words. Furthermore, since Jesus presumably spoke to Peter in their native Aramaic language, he would have used kepha in both instances.[149] The Peshitta Text and the Old Syriac texts use the word "kepha" for both "Peter" and "rock" in Matthew 16:18.[150] John 1:42 says Jesus called Simon "Cephas", as Paul calls him in some letters. He was instructed by Christ to strengthen his brethren, i.e., the apostles.[Lk 22:31–32] Peter also had a leadership role in the early Christian church at Jerusalem according to The Acts of the Apostles chapters 1–2, 10–11, and 15.

Early Catholic Latin and Greek writers (such as St. John Chrysostom) considered the "foundation rock" as applying to both Peter personally and his confession of faith (or the faith of his confession) symbolically, as well as seeing Christ's promise to apply more generally to his twelve apostles and the Church at large.[151] This "double meaning" interpretation is present in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church.[152]

Protestant counter-claims to the Catholic interpretation are largely based on the difference between the Greek words translated "Rock" in the Matthean passage. In popular-level writings, rather than in academic studies, they claim that in classical Attic Greek petros (masculine) generally meant "pebble", while petra (feminine) meant "boulder" or "cliff", and accordingly, taking Peter's name to mean "pebble," they argue that the "rock" in question cannot have been Peter, but something else, either Jesus himself, or the faith in Jesus that Peter had just professed.[153][154] These popular-level writings are rebutted in similar popular-level Catholic writings.[155]

The New Testament was written in Koiné Greek, not Attic Greek, and some authorities say no significant difference existed between the meanings of petros and petra. So far from meaning a pebble was the word petros that Apollonius Rhodius a writer of Koiné Greek of the third century B.C., used it to refer to "a huge round boulder, a terrible quoit of Ares Enyalius; four stalwart youths could not have raised it from the ground even a little".[156]

The feminine noun petra (πέτρα in Greek), translated as rock in the phrase "on this rock I will build my church", is also used at 1 Cor. 10:4 in describing Jesus Christ, which reads: "They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ."

Although Matthew 16 is used as a primary proof-text for the Catholic doctrine of Papal supremacy, some Protestant scholars say that prior to the Reformation of the 16th century, Matthew 16 was very rarely used to support papal claims, despite it being well documented as being used in the 3rd century by Stephen of Rome against Cyprian of Carriage in a "passionate disagreement" about baptism and in the 4th century by Pope Damasus as a claim to primacy as a lesson of the Arian Controversy for stricter discipline and centralized control.[157] Their position is that most of the early and medieval Church interpreted the 'rock' as being a reference either to Christ or to Peter's faith, not Peter himself. They understand Jesus' remark to have been his affirmation of Peter's testimony that Jesus was the Son of God.[158]

Despite this claim, many Fathers saw a connection between Matthew 16:18 and the primacy of Peter and his office, such as Tertullian, writing: the Lord said to Peter, 'On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven' [Matt. 16:18â€“19].... Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church.[159]

Other theologically conservative Christians, including Confessional Lutherans, also rebut comments made by Karl Keating and D.A. Carson who claim that there is no distinction between the words petros and petra in Koine Greek. The Lutheran theologians state that the dictionaries of Koine/NT Greek, including the authoritative[160] Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich Lexicon, indeed list both words and the passages that give different meanings for each. The Lutheran theologians further note that:

We honor Peter and in fact some of our churches are named after him, but he was not the first pope, nor was he Roman Catholic. If you read his first letter, you will see that he did not teach a Roman hierarchy, but that all Christians are royal priests. The same keys given to Peter in Matthew 16 are given to the whole church of believers in Matthew 18.[161]

Oscar Cullmann, a Lutheran theologian and distinguished Church historian, disagrees with Luther and the Protestant reformers who held that by "rock" Christ did not mean Peter, but meant either himself or the faith of His followers. He believes the meaning of the original Aramaic is very clear: that "Kepha" was the Aramaic word for "rock", and that it was also the name by which Christ called Peter.[162]

Yet, Cullmann sharply rejects the Catholic claim that Peter began the papal succession. He writes: "In the life of Peter there is no starting point for a chain of succession to the leadership of the church at large." While he believes the Matthew text is entirely valid and is in no way spurious, he says it cannot be used as "warrant of the papal succession."[162]

Cullmann concludes that while Peter was the original head of the apostles, Peter was not the founder of any visible church succession.[162]

There are other Protestant scholars who also partially defend the historical Catholic position about "Rock."[163] Taking a somewhat different approach from Cullman, they point out that the Gospel of Matthew was not written in the classical Attic form of Greek, but in the Hellenistic Koine dialect in which there is no distinction in meaning between petros and petra. Moreover, even in Attic Greek, in which the regular meaning of petros was a smallish "stone," there are instances of its use to refer to larger rocks, as in Sophocles, Oedipus at Colonus v. 1595, where petros refers to a boulder used as a landmark, obviously something more than a pebble. In any case, a petros/petra distinction is irrelevant considering the Aramaic language in which the phrase might well have been spoken. In Greek, of any period, the feminine noun petra could not be used as the given name of a male, which may explain the use of Petros as the Greek word with which to translate Aramaic Kepha.[149]

Yet, still other Protestant scholars believe that Jesus in fact did mean to single out Peter as the very rock which he will build upon, but that the passage does nothing to indicate a continued succession of Peter's implied position. They assert that Matthew uses the demonstrative pronoun taute, which allegedly means "this very" or this same, when he refers to the rock on which Jesus' church will be built. He also uses the Greek word for "and", kai. It is alleged that when a demonstrative pronoun is used with kai, the pronoun refers back to the preceding noun. The second rock Jesus refers to must then be the same rock as the first one; and if Peter is the first rock he must also be the second.[164]

Unlike Oscar Cullmann, Confessional Lutherans and many other Protestant apologists agree that it's meaningless to elaborate the meaning of Rock by looking at the Aramaic language, this is true that the Jews spoke mostly Aramaic at home, however in public they usually spoke Greek. The few Aramaic words spoken by Jesus in public were unusual and that is why they are noted as such. And most importantly the New Testament was revealed in Koine Greek, not Aramaic.[165][166][167]

Lutheran historians even report that the Catholic church itself didn't, at least unanimously, regard Peter as the Rock until the 1870s:

Rome's rule for explaining the Scriptures and determining doctrine is the Creed of Pius IV. This Creed binds Rome to explain the Scriptures only according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. In the year 1870 when the Fathers gathered and the pope declared his infallibility, the cardinals were not in agreement on Matthew 16, 18. They had five different interpretations. Seventeen insisted, Peter is the rock. Sixteen held that Christ is the rock. Eight were emphatic that the whole apostolic college is the rock. Forty-four said, Peter's faith is the rock, The remainder looked upon the whole body of believers as the rock. â€” And yet Rome taught and still teaches that Peter is the rock.[168]

The Eastern Orthodox Church regards Apostle Peter, together with Apostle Paul, as "Preeminent Apostles". Another title used for Peter is Coryphaeus, which could be translated as "Choir-director", or lead singer.[169] The church recognizes Apostle Peter's leadership role in the early church, especially in the very early days at Jerusalem, but does not consider him to have had any "princely" role over his fellow Apostles.

The New Testament is not seen by the Orthodox as supporting any extraordinary authority for Peter with regard to faith or morals. The Orthodox also hold that Peter did not act as leader at the Council of Jerusalem, but as merely one of a number who spoke. The final decision regarding the non-necessity of circumcision (and certain prohibitions) was spelled out by James, the Brother of the Lord (though Catholics hold James merely reiterated and fleshed out what Peter had said, regarding the latter's earlier divine revelation regarding the inclusion of Gentiles).

Eastern and Oriental Orthodox do not recognize the Bishop of Rome as the successor of St. Peter but the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople sends a delegation each year to Rome to participate in the celebration of the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul. In the Ravenna Document of 13 October 2007, the representatives of the Eastern Orthodox Church agreed that "Rome, as the Church that 'presides in love' according to the phrase of St. Ignatius of Antioch (To the Romans, Prologue), occupied the first place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among the patriarchs, if the Papacy unites with the Orthodox Church. They disagree, however, on the interpretation of the historical evidence from this era regarding the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as protos, a matter that was already understood in different ways in the first millennium."

With regard to Jesus' words to Peter, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church", the Orthodox hold Christ is referring to the confession of faith, not the person of Peter as that upon which he will build the church. This is allegedly shown by the fact that the original Greek uses the feminine demonstrative pronoun when he says "upon this rock" (ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ); whereas, grammatically, if he had been referring to Peter, he would allegedly have used the masculine.[170] This "gender distinction" argument is also held by some Protestants.

In the Orthodox Daily Office every Thursday throughout the year is dedicated to the Holy Apostles, including St. Peter. There are also two feast days in the year which are dedicated to him:

The Fathers of the Syriac Orthodox Church tried to give a theological interpretation to the primacy of Apostle Peter. They were fully convinced of the unique office of Peter in the primitive Christian community. Ephrem, Aphrahat and Maruthas who were supposed to have been the best exponents of the early Syriac tradition unequivocally acknowledge the office of Peter.

The Syriac Fathers, following the rabbinic tradition, call Jesus "Kepha" for they see "rock" in the Old Testament as a messianic Symbol (yet the Old Maronite Syriacs of Lebanon still refer to Saint Peter as "Saint Simon the Generous" or Simon Karam"). When Christ gave his own name "Kepha" to Simon he was giving him participation in the person and office of Christ. Christ who is the Kepha and shepherd made Simon the chief shepherd in his place and gave him the very name Kepha and said that on Kepha he would build the Church. Aphrahat shared the common Syriac tradition. For him Kepha is in fact another name of Jesus, and Simon was given the right to share the name. The person who receives somebody else's name also obtains the rights of the person who bestows the name. Aphrahat makes the stone taken from Jordan a type of Peter. He wrote: "Jesus son of Nun set up the stones for a witness in Israel; Jesus our Saviour called Simon Kepha Sarirto and set him as the faithful witness among nations".

Again he wrote in his commentary on Deuteronomy that Moses brought forth water from "rock" (Kepha) for the people and Jesus sent Simon Kepha to carry his teachings among nations. God accepted him and made him the foundation of the Church and called him Kepha. When he speaks about the transfiguration of Christ he calls him Simon Peter, the foundation of the Church. Ephrem also shared the same view. In the Armenian version of De Virginitate records that Peter the rock shunned honour. In a mimro of Efrem found in Holy Week Liturgy points to the importance of Peter.

Both Aphrahat and Ephrem represent the authentic tradition of the Syrian Church. The different orders of liturgies used for sanctification of Church buildings, marriage, ordination etcetera, reveal that the primacy of Peter is a part of living faith of the Church.[171]

The New Apostolic Church, who believes in the re-established Apostle ministry, sees Peter as the first Chief Apostle.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) teaches that Peter was the first leader of the early Christian church after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. While Mormons accept apostolic succession from Peter, they reject papal successors as illegitimate.

In interpreting Matthew 16:13–19, LDS Church leader Bruce R. McConkie stated, "The things of God are known only by the power of his Spirit,"[172] and "that which the world calls Mormonism is based upon the rock of revelation."[173] In his April 1981 general conference address, McConkie identified the rock of which Jesus spoke as the rock of revelation: "There is no other foundation upon which the Lord could build His Church and kingdom.... Revelation: Pure, perfect, personal revelation—this is the rock!"[174] Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, recorded in multiple revelations that Peter appeared to him and Oliver Cowdery in 1829, near Harmony Township, Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania, in order to bestow the apostleship and keys of the kingdom as part of a restoration of priesthood authority.[175][176]

Muslims consider Jesus a prophet of God. The Qur'an also speaks of Jesus's disciples but does not mention their names, instead referring to them as "helpers to the prophet of God".[177] Muslim exegesis and Qur'an commentary, however, names them and includes Peter among the disciples.[178] An old tradition, which involves the legend of Habib the Carpenter, mentions that Peter was one of the three disciples sent to Antioch to preach to the people there.[179]

Shia Muslims see a parallel in the figure of Peter to Ali at Muhammad's time. They look upon Ali as being the vicegerent, with Muhammad being the prophet; likewise, they see Peter as the vicegerent, behind Jesus the prophet and Masih. Peter's role as the first proper leader of the church is also seen by Shias to be a parallel to their belief in Ali as the first caliph after Muhammad.[180]

In his Advent of Divine Justice, Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith, refers to Peter:[181]

"Peter," 'Abdu'l-Bahá has testified, "according to the history of the Church, was also incapable of keeping count of the days of the week. Whenever he decided to go fishing, he would tie up his weekly food into seven parcels, and every day he would eat one of them, and when he had reached the seventh, he would know that the Sabbath had arrived, and thereupon would observe it." If the Son of Man was capable of infusing into apparently so crude and helpless an instrument such potency as to cause, in the words of Bahá'u'lláh, "the mysteries of wisdom and of utterance to flow out of his mouth," and to exalt him above the rest of His disciples, and render him fit to become His successor and the founder of His Church, how much more can the Father, Who is Bahá'u'lláh, empower the most puny and insignificant among His followers to achieve, for the execution of His purpose, such wonders as would dwarf the mightiest achievements of even the first apostle of Jesus Christ!

Traditionally, two canonical epistles (1 and 2 Peter) and several apocryphal works have been attributed to Peter.

The New Testament includes two letters (epistles) ascribed to Peter. Both demonstrate a high quality of cultured and urban Greek, at odds with the linguistic skill that would ordinarily be expected of an Aramaic-speaking fisherman, who would have learned Greek as a second or third language. The textual features of these two epistles are such that a majority of scholars doubt that they were written by the same hand. Some scholars argue that theological differences imply different sources, and point to the lack of references to 2Â Peter among the early Church Fathers.

Daniel B. Wallace (who maintains that Peter was the author) writes that, for many scholars, "the issue of authorship is already settled, at least negatively: the apostle Peter did not write this letter" and that "the vast bulk of NT scholars adopts this perspective without much discussion". However, he later states, "Although a very strong case has been made against Petrine authorship of 2 Peter, we believe it is deficient... Taken together, these external and internal arguments strongly suggest the traditional view, viz., that Peter was indeed the author of the second epistle which bears his name."[182]

Of the two epistles, the first epistle is considered the earlier. A number of scholars have argued that the textual discrepancies with what would be expected of the biblical Peter are due to it having been written with the help of a secretary or as an amanuensis.[183]

Jerome explains:

The two Epistles attributed to St. Peter differ in style, character, and the construction of the words, which proves that according to the exigencies of the moment St. Peter made use of different interpreters (Epistle 120 â€“ To Hedibia)[184]

Some have seen a reference to the use of a secretary in the sentence: "By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand".[1 Pet. 5:12] However New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman in his 2011 book Forged states that "scholars now widely recognize that when the author indicates that he wrote the book 'through Silvanus', he is indicating not the name of his secretary, but the person who was carrying his letter to the recipients."[185] The letter refers to Roman persecution of Christians, apparently of an official nature. The Roman historian Tacitus and the biographer Suetonius do both record that Nero persecuted Christians, and Tacitus dates this to immediately after the fire that burned Rome in 64. Christian tradition, for example Eusebius of Caesarea (History book 2, 24.1), has maintained that Peter was killed in Nero's persecution, and thus had to assume that the Roman persecution alluded to in First Peter must be this Neronian persecution.[183] On the other hand, many modern scholars argue that First Peter refers to the persecution of Christians in Asia Minor during the reign of the emperor Domitian (81â€“96), as the letter is explicitly addressed to Jewish Christians from that region:

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.[1Pet 1:1â€“2]

Those scholars who believe that the epistle dates from the time of Domitian argue that Nero's persecution of Christians was confined to the city of Rome itself, and did not extend to the Asian provinces mentioned in 1 Pet 1:1â€“2.

The Second Epistle of Peter, on the other hand, appears to have been copied, in part, from the Epistle of Jude, and some modern scholars date its composition as late as c. 150. Some scholars argue the opposite, that the Epistle of Jude copied Second Peter, while others contend an early date for Jude and thus observe that an early date is not incompatible with the text.[183] Many scholars have noted the similarities between the apocryphal Second Epistle of Clement (2nd century) and Second Peter. Second Peter may be earlier than 150, there are a few possible references to it that date back to the 1st century or early 2nd century, e.g., 1 Clement written in c. AD 96, and the later church historian Eusebius wrote that Origen had made reference to the epistle before 250.
[183][186]

Jerome says that Peter "wrote two epistles which are called Catholic, the second of which, on account of its difference from the first in style, is considered by many not to be by him". (De Viris Illustribus 1)[187] But he himself received the epistle, and explained the difference in style and character and structure of words by the assumption that Peter used different interpreters in the composition of the two epistles;[184] and from his time onward the epistle was generally regarded as a part of the New Testament.

Even in early times there was controversy over its authorship, and Second Peter was often not included in the biblical canon; it was only in the 4th century that it gained a firm foothold in the New Testament, in a series of synods. In the east the Syriac Orthodox Church still did not admit it into the canon until the 6th century.[183]

Traditionally, the Gospel of Mark was said to have been written by a person named John Mark, and that this person was an assistant to Peter, hence its content was traditionally seen as the closest to Peter's viewpoint. According to Eusebius' |Ecclesiastical History, Papias recorded this belief from John the Presbyter:

Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a normal or chronological narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictional into the statements[188]

Clement of Alexandria in the fragments of his work Hypotyposes (A.D. 190) preserved and cited by the historian Eusebius in his Church History (VI, 14: 6) writes that:

As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it.[76]

Also Irenaeus wrote about this tradition:

After their (Peter and Paul's) passing, Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, transmitted to us in writing the things preached by Peter.[189]

Based on these quotes, and on the Christian tradition, the information in Mark's gospel about Peter would be based on eyewitness material.[183] The gospel itself is anonymous, and the above passages are the oldest surviving written testimony to its authorship.[183]

There are also a number of other apocryphal writings, that have been either attributed to or written about Peter. These include:

Two sayings are attributed to Peter in the gnostic Gospel of Thomas. In the first, Peter compares Jesus to a "just messenger."[190] In the second, Peter asks Jesus to "make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."[191] In the Apocalypse of Peter, Peter holds a dialogue with Jesus about the parable of the fig tree and the fate of sinners.[192] In the Gospel of Mary, whose text is largely fragmented, Peter appears to be jealous of "Mary" (probably Mary Magdalene). He says to the other disciples, "Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?"[193] In reply to this, Levi says "Peter, you have always been hot tempered."[194] Other noncanonical texts that attribute sayings to Peter include the Secret Book of James and the Acts of Peter.

In the Fayyum Fragment, which dates to the end of the 3rd century, Jesus predicts that Peter will deny him three times before a cock crows on the following morning. The account is similar to that of the canonical gospels, especially the Gospel of Mark. It is unclear whether the fragment is an abridged version of the accounts in the synoptic gospels, or a source text on which they were based, perhaps the apocryphal Gospel of Peter.[195]

The fragmentary Gospel of Peter contains an account of the death of Jesus differing significantly from the canonical gospels. It contains little information about Peter himself, except that after the discovery of the empty tomb, "I, Simon Peter, and Andrew my brother, took our fishing nets and went to the sea."[196]

The earliest portrait of Peter dates back to the 4th century and was located in 2010.[197] In traditional iconography, Peter has been shown very consistently since early Christian art as an oldish thick-set man with a "slightly combative" face and a short beard, and usually white hair, sometimes balding. He thus contrasts with Paul the Apostle who is bald except at the sides, with a longer beard and often black hair, and thinner in the face. One exception to this is in Anglo-Saxon art, where he typically lacks a beard. Both Peter and Paul are shown thus as early as the 4th century Catacombs of Marcellinus and Peter in Rome.[198] Later in the Middle Ages his attribute is one or two large keys in his hand or hanging from his belt, first seen in the early 8th century.[199] More than many medieval attributes, this continued to be depicted in the Renaissance and afterwards. By the 15th century Peter is more likely to be bald on the top of his head in the Western church, but he continues to have a good head of hair in Orthodox icons.

The depiction of Saint Peter as literally the keeper of the gates of heaven, popular with modern cartoonists, is not found in traditional religious art, but Peter usually heads groups of saints flanking God in heaven, on the right hand side (viewer's left) of God. Narrative images of Peter include several scenes from the Life of Christ where he is mentioned in the gospels, and he is often identifiable in scenes where his presence is not specifically mentioned. Usually he stands nearest to Christ. In particular, depictions of the Arrest of Christ usually include Peter cutting off the ear of one of the soldiers. Scenes without Jesus include his distinctive martyrdom, his rescue from prison, and sometimes his trial. In the Counter-Reformation scenes of Peter hearing the cock crow for the third time became popular, as a representation of repentance and hence the Catholic sacrament of Confession or Repentance.

Many Protestant scholars accept the traditional story of Peter's martyrdom in Rome. Some Protestants, however, have rejected Peter's martyrdom as a later invention, arguing that evidence of Peter exists only in biblical accounts.

It has also been suggested that there was a serious division between Peter's Jewish Christian party and Paul's Hellenizing party, seen in e.g. the Incident at Antioch, which later Christian accounts have downplayed.[200]

Another revisionist view was developed by supporters of the Christ myth theory, which holds that the figure of Peter is largely a development from some mythological doorkeeper figures. According to Arthur Drews and G. A. Wells, if there was a historical Peter, then all that is known about him is the brief mentions in Galatians.[201][202]

Peter tying to walk on water like Jesus, by François Boucher, 1766

The Release of St. Peter by Bernardo Strozzi, 1635

Jesus gives Peter the keys to Heaven by Pieter Paul Rubens, 1614

Peter Enthroned, by Arnolfo di Cambio (13th-century statue in St Peter's Basilica, Rome)

The Miraculous Draught of Fishes, by Raphael, 1515

Jesus calling Simon Peter and Andrew by Duccio di Buoninsegna, 1308-1311

An apparition of the Apostle Peter to Saint Peter Nolasco, by Francisco Zurbarán, 1629

Alessandro Turchi, Saint Agatha Attended by Saint Peter and an Angel in Prison

Fresco by Pietro Perugino in the Sistine Chapel


the manubrium body and xiphoid process are portions of the

The sternum or breastbone is a long flat bone located in the center of the chest. It connects to the ribs via cartilage and forms the front of the rib cage, thus helping to protect the heart, lungs, and major blood vessels from injury. Shaped roughly like a necktie, it is one of the largest and longest flat bones of the body. Its three regions are the manubrium, the body, and the xiphoid process.[1] The word "sternum" originates from the Greek στέρνον, meaning "chest".

Sternum

The sternum is a long, flat bone, forming the middle portion of the front of the chest. The top of the sternum supports the clavicles (collarbones) and its edges join with the costal cartilages of the first seven pairs of ribs. The inner surface of the sternum is also the attachment of the sternopericardial ligaments.[2] Its top is also connected to the sternocleidomastoid muscle. The sternum consists of three main parts, listed from the top:

In its natural position,the sternum is angled obliquely, downward and forward. It is slightly convex in front and concave behind; broad above, shaped like a "T", becoming narrowed at the point where the manubrium joins the body, after which it again widens a little to below the middle of the body, and then narrows to its lower extremity. In adults the sternum is on average about 17Â cm, longer in the male than in the female.

The manubrium (Latin: handle) is the broad upper part of the sternum. It has a quadrangular shape, narrowing from the top, which gives it four borders. The suprasternal notch (jugular notch) is located in the middle at the upper broadest part of the manubrium. This notch can be felt between the two clavicles. On either side of this notch are the right and left clavicular notches.[1]

The manubrium joins with the body of the sternum, the clavicles and the cartilages of the first pair of ribs. The inferior border, oval and rough, is covered with a thin layer of cartilage for articulation with the body. The lateral borders are each marked above by a depression for the first costal cartilage, and below by a small facet, which, with a similar facet on the upper angle of the body, forms a notch for the reception of the costal cartilage of the second rib. Between the depression for the first costal cartilage and the demi-facet for the second is a narrow, curved edge, which slopes from above downward towards the middle. Also, the superior sternopericardial ligament attaches the pericardium to the posterior side of the manubrium.

The body, or gladiolus, is the longest part. It is flat and considered to have only a front and back surface. It is flat on the front, directed upward and forward, and marked by three transverse ridges which cross the bone opposite the third, fourth, and fifth articular depressions. The pectoralis major attaches to it on either side. At the junction of the third and fourth parts of the body is occasionally seen an orifice, the sternal foramen, of varying size and form. The posterior surface, slightly concave, is also marked by three transverse lines, less distinct, however, than those in front; from its lower part, on either side, the transversus thoracis takes origin.

The sternal angle is located at the point where the body joins the manubrium. The sternal angle can be felt at the point where the sternum projects farthest forward. However, in some people the sternal angle is concave or rounded. During physical examinations, the sternal angle is a useful landmark because the second rib attaches here.[1]

Each outer border, at its superior angle, has a small facet, which with a similar facet on the manubrium, forms a cavity for the cartilage of the second rib; below this are four angular depressions which receive the cartilages of the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth ribs. The inferior angle has a small facet, which, with a corresponding one on the xiphoid process, forms a notch for the cartilage of the seventh rib. These articular depressions are separated by a series of curved interarticular intervals, which diminish in length from above downward, and correspond to the intercostal spaces. Most of the cartilages belonging to the true ribs, articulate with the sternum at the lines of junction of its primitive component segments. This is well seen in some other vertebrates, where the parts of the bone remain separated for longer.[citation needed]

The upper border is oval and articulates with the manubrium, at the sternal angle. The lower border is narrow, and articulates with the xiphoid process.

Located at the inferior end of the sternum is the pointed xiphoid process. Improperly performed chest compressions during cardiopulmonary resuscitation can cause the xiphoid process to snap off, driving it into the liver which can cause a fatal hemorrhage.[1]

The sternum is composed of highly vascular tissue, covered by a thin layer of compact bone which is thickest in the manubrium between the articular facets for the clavicles. The inferior sternopericardial ligament attaches the pericardium to the posterior xiphoid process.

Substernal triangle, surface pendant of xhipoid process, of pectoralis major, rectus abdominis and sternum, form sternal fossa, calix, and as to rectum fossae sequences of tendinous intersections.[3]

The cartilages of the top seven ribs join with the sternum at the sternocostal joints. The right and left clavicular notches articulate with the right and left clavicles, respectively. The costal cartilage of the second rib articulates with the sternum at the sternal angle making it easy to locate.[4]

The transversus thoracis muscle is innervated by one of the intercostal nerves and superiorly attaches at the posterior surface of the lower sternum. Its inferior attachment is the internal surface of costal cartilages two through six and works to depress the ribs.[5]

The sternum develops from two cartilaginous bars one on the left and one on the right, connected with the cartilages of the ribs on each side. These two bars fuse together along the middle to form the cartilaginous sternum which is ossified from six centers: one for the manubrium, four for the body, and one for the xiphoid process.

The ossification centers appear in the intervals between the articular depressions for the costal cartilages, in the following order: in the manubrium and first piece of the body, during the sixth month of fetal life; in the second and third pieces of the body, during the seventh month of fetal life; in its fourth piece, during the first year after birth; and in the xiphoid process, between the fifth and eighteenth years.

The centers make their appearance at the upper parts of the segments, and proceed gradually downward. To these may be added the occasional existence of two small episternal centers, which make their appearance one on either side of the jugular notch; they are probably vestiges of the episternal bone of the monotremata and lizards.[citation needed]

Occasionally some of the segments are formed from more than one center, the number and position of which vary [Fig. 6]. Thus, the first piece may have two, three, or even six centers.

When two are present, they are generally situated one above the other, the upper being the larger; the second piece has seldom more than one; the third, fourth, and fifth pieces are often formed from two centers placed laterally, the irregular union of which explains the rare occurrence of the sternal foramen [Fig. 7], or of the vertical fissure which occasionally intersects this part of the bone constituting the malformation known as fissura sterni; these conditions are further explained by the manner in which the cartilaginous sternum is formed.

More rarely still the upper end of the sternum may be divided by a fissure. Union of the various centers of the body begins about puberty, and proceeds from below upward [Fig. 5]; by the age of twenty-five they are all united.

The xiphoid process may become joined to the body before the age of thirty, but this occurs more frequently after forty; on the other hand, it sometimes remains ununited in old age. In advanced life the manubrium is occasionally joined to the body by bone. When this takes place, however, the bony tissue is generally only superficial, the central portion of the intervening cartilage remaining unossified.

In early life, the sternum's body is divided into four segments, not three, called sternebrae (singular: sternebra).

Because the sternum contains bone marrow, it is sometimes used as a site for bone marrow biopsy. In particular, patients with a high BMI (obese or grossly overweight) may present with excess tissue that makes access to traditional marrow biopsy sites such as the pelvis difficult.

A somewhat rare congenital disorder of the sternum sometimes referred to as an anatomical variation is a sternal foramen, a single round hole in the sternum that is present from birth and usually is off-centered to the right or left, commonly forming in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th segments of the breastbone body. Congenital sternal foramina can often be mistaken for bullet holes.[6] They are usually without symptoms but can be problematic if acupuncture in the area is intended.[7]

Fractures of the sternum are rather uncommon. They may result from trauma, such as when a driver's chest is forced into the steering column of a car in a car accident. A fracture of the sternum is usually a comminuted fracture. The most common site of sternal fractures is at the sternal angle. Some studies reveal that repeated punches or continual beatings, sometimes called "breastbone punches", to the sternum area have also caused fractured sternums. Those are known to have occurred in contact sports such as rugby and football. Sternal fractures are frequently associated with underlying injuries such as pulmonary contusions, or bruised lung tissue.[8]

A manubriosternal dislocation is rare and usually caused by severe trauma. It may also result from minor trauma where there is a precondition of arthritis.[9]

The breastbone is sometimes cut open (a median sternotomy) to gain access to the thoracic contents when performing cardiothoracic surgery.

The sternum can be totally removed (resected) as part of a radical surgery, usually to surgically treat a malignancy, either with or without a mediastinal lymphadenectomy (Current Procedural Terminology codes # 21632 and # 21630, respectively).

A bifid sternum is an extremely rare congenital abnormality caused by the fusion failure of the sternum.[10] This condition results in sternal cleft which can be observed at birth without any symptom.[10]

The sternum, in vertebrate anatomy, is a flat bone that lies in the middle front part of the rib cage. It is endochondral in origin.[11] It probably first evolved in early tetrapods as an extension of the pectoral girdle; it is not found in fish. In amphibians and reptiles it is typically a shield-shaped structure, often composed entirely of cartilage. It is absent in both turtles and snakes. In birds it is a relatively large bone and typically bears an enormous projecting keel to which the flight muscles are attached.[12] Only in mammals does the sternum take on the elongated, segmented form seen in humans.

In arachnids, the sternum is the ventral (lower) portion of the cephalothorax. It consists of a single sclerite situated between the coxa, opposite the carapace.

English sternum is a translation of Ancient Greek στέρνον, sternon.[13] The Greek writer Homer used the term στέρνον to refer to the male chest.[14][15] The term στῆθος, stithos was used by Homer to refer to the chest of both sexes.[14][15] The Greek physician Hippocrates used στέρνον to refer to the chest,[14][15] and στῆθος to the breastbone.[14][15] The Greek physician Galen was the first to use στέρνον in the present meaning of breastbone.[14][15]

The sternum as the solid bony part of the chest[16] can be related to Ancient Greek στερεός/στερρός, (stereόs/sterrόs),[16] meaning firm or solid.[15] The English term breastbone is actually more like the Latin os pectoris,[17][18] derived from classical Latin os, bone[19] and pectus, chest or breast.[19] Confusingly, pectus is also used in classical Latin as breastbone.[19]

Position of sternum (shown in red). Animation.

Sternum seen posteriorly.

Sternum cut along the frontal plane showing interior of the bone.

Sternum, lateral aspect.

Position of the sternum the thoracic cage.


who was the first ghanaian to become a lawyer

The British parliament established the Supreme Court of Judicature for the Gold Coast Colony in 1876, with a Chief Justice and no more than four Puisne Justices.[3]
John Mensah Sarbah was the first native of Ghana to be called to the bar by Lincoln's Inn in 1887.
The legal system was based on that of England, in which solicitors provide legal advice and prepare legal documents while barristers act as advocates in court. However, this division was not observed in practice in Ghana, and in 1960 an act abolished the distinction.[4]
Until the Ghana School of Law was established in 1958, all lawyers were trained abroad, almost always at the Inns of Court in England.
As of 2011 there are about 2,500 practicing lawyers, although not all have registered as members of the Bar Association.[5]

Ghana Bar Association

The Ghana Bar Association (GBA) is a professional association of lawyers in Ghana, including what used to be called solicitors and barristers but are now called legal practitioners, as well as magistrates.
By convention all lawyers admitted to practice in Ghana become automatic members of the association.[1] The first president of the Ghanaian Bar was Sierra Leonean lawyer Frans Dove.[2]

Nene Amegatcher was elected as president of the GBA on 20 September 2012, with Peter Zwennes as his vice.[6][7]

The current national president of the GBA is Benson Nutsupkui.[8]

Some past presidents of the GBA include:

The Ghana Bar Association is a member of the International Bar Association.[20]

In October 2010 then GBA Vice President, Mr. Justice Kusi-Minkah Premo, called on the Chief Justice and the Council to eliminate inconsistency, corruption and misconduct by judges.[21]
In April 2011 then National President Frank W. K. Beecham spoke in defence of Mr Justice E. K. Ayebi, a judge who had come under attack after acquitting 14 defendants in a murder trial.[22]

In July 2011 four lawyers made allegations of widespread corruption among judges. The GBA condemned the four for making unsubstantiated claims, and asked them to name the judges. Another lawyer openly confessed to having bribed a judge.
The GBA said it would take legal steps to prosecute him.[23]
The four lawyers were blacklisted by the Association of Magistrates and Judges.
They and others stated that they were considering forming an alternative Association.[24]
The Ghana Bar Association held its annual general meeting in Cape Coast in September 2011, soon after two magistrates had been sacked for demanding bribes. Then GBA President Frank Beecham said the association would fight corruption in all its forms.
The GBA would establish a complaints unit to take complaints about corruption and ensure that offenders were prosecuted.[25]


who does gary cole play in family guy

Cole currently provides the voice of Sergeant Boscoe on Bob's Burgers and Principal Shepherd on Family Guy.

Gary Cole

Gary Michael Cole (born September 20, 1956) is an American actor and voice actor. Cole began his professional acting career on stage at Chicago's Steppenwolf Theatre Company in 1985. On television, he has had starring roles in the series Midnight Caller, American Gothic, Crusade, "The Good Wife,"[ [Veep]] and, most recently, The Good Fight." In film, Cole has appeared in The Brady Bunch Movie, One Hour Photo, Office Space, Dodgeball, and Talladega Nights. Cole is also known for voicing the title character of Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law, and was the voice of Dr. James Timothy Possible on Kim Possible.

Gary Michael Cole was born on September 20, 1956 in Park Ridge, Illinois, and raised in Rolling Meadows, Illinois. His father, Robert, was a school administrative assistant, and his mother, Peggy J., was a director of finance.[1][2][3] Cole has an older sister, Nancy.[4] While attending Rolling Meadows High School, Cole made his acting debut as Snoopy in a high school production of You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown. Cole attended Illinois State University, where he studied theater as a classmate with other future actors Laurie Metcalf and John Malkovich.

Cole began his professional career in 1983 as a stage actor in Chicago, where he joined the ensemble of the Steppenwolf Theatre Company in 1985. In an early role Cole played an accused Army triple-murderer Capt Jeffrey MacDonald in the mini-series Fatal Vision. Cole has also appeared in several off-Broadway productions in New York City. He has done voice work on several animated series (Family Guy; Kim Possible; Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law; Archer) and had a recurring role on the drama The West Wing as Vice President Bob Russell. He also starred as Captain Matthew Gideon on the short-lived Babylon 5 spin-off Crusade, and had notable guest appearances on Law & Order: Special Victims Unit and Arrested Development. He also played Joe Maxwell on DCOM Cadet Kelly and appeared as real-life astronaut Edgar Mitchell in HBO's recreation of Project Apollo, From the Earth to the Moon. One of his most notable roles in 1991 was as General Custer in the much acclaimed television film Son of the Morning Star.

Between 1988 and 1991, Cole became popular on TV for playing the part of Jack "Nighthawk" Killian in the series Midnight Caller. In 1999, Cole starred in the film Office Space, in which he portrayed the sadistic office supervisor Bill Lumbergh. When asked about the oft-quoted character, Cole said:

He played The Brady Bunch patriarch Mike Brady in the 1995 film The Brady Bunch Movie, the 1996 sequel A Very Brady Sequel, and the 2002 television film The Brady Bunch in the White House.

Cole starred as Lt. Conrad Rose on the TNT series Wanted, he is also the voice of the title character on the Adult Swim series Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law, and starred as Sheriff Lucas Buck on the one season 1995 show, American Gothic. Cole also appeared in the films Talladega Nights, Forever Strong, and American Pastime.

Cole played Katherine Mayfair's ex-husband Wayne on Desperate Housewives[6] and has more recently played the dangerous drug lord Ted Jones in Pineapple Express with Seth Rogen and James Franco. He also appeared in an episode from the third season of the USA Network series Psych as S.W.A.T. commander Cameron Luntz. Cole also played Bill Owens, Sy Parrish's (Robin Williams) boss, in the film One Hour Photo.

In 2008, Cole appeared on Chuck as Sarah's con-artist father (in "Chuck Versus the DeLorean"), a role which he reprised in 2011 (in "Chuck Versus the Wedding Planner"). He also appeared in the fifth season of HBO's Entourage playing Ari Gold's old pal Andrew Klein for a 3-episode story arc prior to joining the regular cast in the sixth season.

Cole had a guest-appearance on the fourth season of the HBO series True Blood, playing Sookie Stackhouse's grandfather.

In 2011, Cole joined Fox's comedy pilot Tagged, but the series was not picked up.[7]

In 2013, Cole began a recurring role on Suits as Cameron Dennis, the former mentor of Harvey Specter, one of the show's main characters. Also in 2013, Cole began a major recurring role as Kent Davison on the HBO comedy series Veep, and has appeared throughout the second, third, fourth, and fifth seasons of the show. In 2014, he was nominated for the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Guest Actor in a Comedy Series for his work in the third season.

Cole married actress Teddi Siddall on March 8, 1992.[3] Their daughter Mary is pursuing an acting career. On June 19, 2017, the couple announced they were divorcing.[8] Cole is an active Democrat.[9]


what point of view is the book monster written in

The book uses a mixture of a third-person screenplay and a first-person diary format to tell, through the perspective of Steve Harmon, an African American teenager, the story of his trial along with James King for felony murder in the state of New York.

Monster (Myers novel)

Monster is a young adult drama novel by American author Walter Dean Myers and was published by Harpercollins in 1999. It was nominated for the 1999 National Book Award for Young People's Literature, won the Michael L. Printz Award in 2000,[1] and was named a Coretta Scott King Award Honor the same year.

The novel begins with 16-year-old Steve Harmon writing in his diary awaiting for his trial for murder. Musing on his short time in prison so far, he decides to record this upcoming experience in the form of a movie screenplay. Kathy O'Brien, Steve's lawyer, informs him on what will happen during the trial. At this stage, only two of the four accused - James King and Steve - will be tried, since the other two accused - Richard "Bobo" Evans and Osvaldo Cruz - have entered into a plea bargain. When the trial first begins, Steve flashes back to a movie he saw in his school's film club and the discussion he had with his teacher in which they discuss the idea of predictability with queers.

The trial begins with the opening statements of the prosecutor Sandra Petrocelli, Miss Oâ€™ Brien, and King's lawyer, Asa Briggs. Petrocelli labels the four accused men, including Steve, as "monsters." The lawyers call on several witnesses, including Salvatore Zinzi and Wendell Bolden, illicit cigarette traders, who admit to buying cigarettes that came from a drugstore robbery that led to the murder. The story of the trial is often broken up by a variety of flashbacks, including ones showing that King is only acquainted with Steve, that King had accused Steve of pulling the trigger during the robbery. Petrocelli calls as a witness Osvaldo Cruz, who is affiliated with the Diablos, a violent street gang. Cruz admits to participating in the crime only due to coercion by Bobo.

Steve recounts a visit from his father, who wishes Steve would have gone on to attend his alma mater, Morehouse College. After detailing various news reports covering the robbery and murder, Steve documents his arrest and his mother's panicked reaction. Before returning to the trial, Steve writes in his notes that he cannot psychologically handle writing down the tragic details of the robbery itself. The coroner, the city clerk, and a detective are questioned in a four-way split screen montage. Miss O'Brien warns Steve not to write down in his notebook anything he wants the prosecutor to see.

According to Cruz, the original plan was that Steve would go into the drugstore and signal if the coast was clear. After King and Bobo robbed the store owner, Mr. Nesbitt, Cruz would slow down any potential pursuers. All sources indicate that Mr. Nesbitt drew a gun, which one of the robbers wrestled him for, causing the gun to discharge and kill Mr. Nesbitt. Bobo takes the witness stand to say that James King pulled the trigger and vaguely recalls that Steve, whom he hardly knows, was meant to give an all-clear signal.

Briggs argues that neither King nor Steve was ever involved in the crime since the only eyewitness to the robbery saw only two men involved, which can be accounted for by Bobo and Cruz alone. Though Miss O'Brien seems doubtful of Steve's innocence, she wisely has him distance himself from King. Steve appears to know King and Cruz only as remote acquaintances, and Bobo hardly at all. Steve testifies that he does not particularly remember where he was on the day of the robbery, but that he certainly was not a participant. The defense systematically casts the honesty of Petrocelli's witnesses in doubt. Although many of the testimonies contradict, even the most incriminating toward Steve claims only that he acted as a lookout in the first stage of the robbery.

George Sawicki, Steve's film club mentor, serves as a character witness, proudly defending Steve's moral character. Briggs, Miss O'Brien, and Petrocelli finally make their closing statements, before the jury decides on a verdict. James King is found guilty, while Steve is found not guilty. As Steve moves to hug O'Brien, she turns away, leaving Steve to question why. The end of the novel takes place five months after Steve has been cleared of all charges and released from prison. Steve has continued his film-making, but his father has moved away, creating a noticeable distance between the two. He is still confused as to Miss O'Brien's demeanor at the end of the trial, wondering whether she saw some real Steve or a "monster."

The novel depicts the themes of identity, race, peer pressure, dehumanization, crime, teenaged masculinity, and the relative or subjective nature of the truth. This idea comes up multiple times throughout the novel. There is the truth in relation to the law, but also the truth of a person's character. Steve, during the trial, writes about experiences he has had that directly contradict the thug persona he has been labeled with. The book reads like a formal screenplay, written by Steve Harmon, interspersed with seemingly handwritten fragments from his diary. The screenplay's verisimilitude is enhanced by such cues as "fade in," "voice over," and “fade out." As one critic wrote, the novel is "Presented alternately as the first‑person, handwritten memoir... [and] a neatly typed screenplay."[2] Critics have commented on how the novel offers "surface effects – marginalia, drawing, photographs, mugshots, and video stills – to offer an analysis of the complex identities that emerge in the context of such surfaces." Generally, the novel has been praised for remarkably sophisticated levels of thematic and formal complexity, considering its ostensible status as a young adult novel. As another critic wrote, "Monster is an experiment in form and structure," demonstrating Steve's "vent[ing of] his passionate perplexity."[3]

The novel is interspersed with various photos depicting Steve. Many appear to be placed around the prison, possibly taken after he has been released as he is dressed in plain clothes although his oversized T-shirt is striped. Possibly indicating that he will never be free from this experience. Myers had an affinity for addressing issues of race in many of his other novels as well as several articles he penned.[4]

As a young man, Myers struggled with a speech impediment that caused many of his classmates and teachers to ridicule him and think him unintelligent.[5] He often got into trouble at school for selling drugs in school and on the streets. When trying to defend himself against the ridicule, many labeled him a â€œMonster" much like how Steve Harmon was labeled a "Monster."[6] Later, while working as a construction worker, Myers decided to follow advice given to him by his high school writing teacher and began writing at night after work, just as the character Steve Harmon writes throughout the novel.

Myers' novel is also one of very few young adult novels that features a protagonist of color.[7]

The cover artist for the novel is Myers' son, Christopher Myers.

Monster has been adapted into a film of the same name directed by Anthony Mandler. It will premiere at the 2018 Sundance Film Festival.[8]