The Roman Catholic Church claims that St Peter was the first pope, which would imply that he was also one of the first bishops of Rome.

Some statements from the New Testament make this seem unlikely:

• A church already existed in Rome when Paul wrote his epistle to them (Romans.) In it he greets many people by name, but not Peter
• Galatians 2 describes Peter as the "apostle to the circumcised" and Paul as the "apostle to the uncircumcised", suggesting that Peter's primary responsibility was for Jewish people, not the Romans.

Some scholars, such as Otto Zwierlein assert there is no evidence that Peter ever went to Rome.

So is there evidence to support the Catholic Church's claim?

The Roman Catholic Church claims that St Peter was the first pope, which would imply that he was also one of the first bishops of Rome.

Some statements from the New Testament make this seem unlikely:

• A church already existed in Rome when Paul wrote his epistle to them (Romans.) In it he greets many people by name, but not Peter
• Galatians 2 describes Peter as the "apostle to the circumcised" and Paul as the "apostle to the uncircumcised", suggesting that Peter's primary responsibility was for Jewish people, not the Romans.

Some scholars, such as Otto Zwierlein assert there is no evidence that Peter ever went to Rome.

Some may consider that since Peter is considered to be the first pope he was also by definition the bishop of Rome. Even if that was the case, I would like to know if there is any evidence that Peter had a specific and particular authority over Rome that was distinct from his authority as pope, and whether there is evidence that he lived in Rome for any substantial length of time.

The Roman Catholic Church claims that St Peter was the first bishop of Rome (and therefore the first Pope).

Some statements from the New Testament make this seem unlikely:

• A church already existed in Rome when Paul wrote his epistle to them (Romans.) In it he greets many people by name, but not Peter
• Galatians 2 describes Peter as the "apostle to the circumcised" and Paul as the "apostle to the uncircumcised", suggesting that Peter's primary responsibility was for Jewish people, not the Romans.

Some scholars, such as Otto Zwierlein assert there is no evidence that Peter ever went to Rome.

So is there evidence to support the Catholic Church's claim?

The Roman Catholic Church claims that St Peter was the first pope, which would imply that he was also one of the first bishops of Rome.

Some statements from the New Testament make this seem unlikely:

• A church already existed in Rome when Paul wrote his epistle to them (Romans.) In it he greets many people by name, but not Peter
• Galatians 2 describes Peter as the "apostle to the circumcised" and Paul as the "apostle to the uncircumcised", suggesting that Peter's primary responsibility was for Jewish people, not the Romans.

Some scholars, such as Otto Zwierlein assert there is no evidence that Peter ever went to Rome.

So is there evidence to support the Catholic Church's claim?