Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Simon Petru" in Romanian language version.
The evidence that Peter was "bishop" of Rome is corroborated by both positive and "negative" evidence. Positively, Clement's letter to the Corinthians situates Peter in Rome by mentioning his death there. Ignatius of Antioch writes to the Romans and says, "I do not command you as Peter and Paul did." The lists of Roman bishops given by Irenaeus and Tertullian support this, as does the honor given Peter's supposed burial place on Vatican Hill. Eamon Duffy's text for a BBC production, Saints and Sinners, soft-pedals the position of Peter as bishop. Duffy claims that there were five Christian neighborhoods in Rome, and that Peter could not possibly have been supervisor over all of them. One argument against this is the fact that the historical letters (from Paul, Ignatius, and Clement) are all addressed to "the Romans," and not one particular community in Rome. Historians cite negative evidence as well, namely that there is no rival tradition. No other city claims Peter as its bishop except Antioch, and even it conceded that Peter had moved on to Rome.
Most scholars believe that 1 Peter is pseudonymous (written anonymously in the name of a well-known figure) and was produced during postapostolic times.
Virtually no authorities defend the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter, which is believed to have been written by an anonymous churchman in Rome about 150 C.E.
[M]any scholars… accept Rome as the location of the martyrdom and the reign of Nero as the time.
But how did Peter become associated with Rome when there is no historical evidence that he went there? This is how legends work.
