Saint Peter: A Biography Book

Why do I have a dog in this fight? I probably don't really. I picked up the book because I was curious. I have become interested in church history recently, especially the early history. And I find myself reading books and articles. I am not a historian. And I don't know a ton about the church honestly. Maybe that's why this book rubbed me the wrong way. Nobody is a bigger expert that somebody with a little information. Anyway, I gave the book my time, and... having an opinion, I'll share it.

On the one hand, its a discussion of the difficulty of establishing historical fact. The revisions to the Gospels. The doubts about their authorship. The historical mindset of writers of the period who include exaggeration or miraculous details to edify and illustrate, and the difficulties that the modern reader has understanding 'typology' or the conviction that all significant events must be presaged by the events, relationships, or sayings of the old testament like an endless fugue or series of variations on a theme.

Fine and good. Interesting. I didn't really know about typology, and that explains a lot.
And I get it. We can't know Peter. And a great deal of the doubts are well-documented by the author, who often cites competing scholarship to establish facts like the unclear authority of the Gospels.

My issue was that it seemed that in the next breath he would make assumptions without any support and then argue from them. For example, he asserts that Paul, in 'not unnatural egotism', along with the author of Acts, tries to diminish Peter's role by 'moving the actions and sayings from one to the other'. Unable to establish a single author, it seems odd to make this characterization of the author's motives and build an argument on it. It is in these areas where he might actually assert something that this writer includes no support or citations, as in the places where he says that "the tradition that Peter was poor and humble... seems mistaken" because Peter was from an important trade route, and then generalizes from the supposition.

I also felt that there were stodgy readings of the Gospel's themselves that showed a lack of imagination. The statement that Peter's weakness serves to show up the perfection of Jesus, though on the surface true, felt facile. I agree with the author that there may have been confusion in ancient listeners about 'turn the other cheek'. But I've read contemporary writers who have shown that the image may be far more an act of defiance than weakness, by making someone strike you with an unclean hand and recognize your humanity. In the same way as giving your cloak with your coat will make them confront your nakedness. In cases when metaphor or parable are included, although the write worked hard in his introductory chapters to describe the imaginative and imagistic thinking of the people of the time, he seems unable to employ it himself as a tool for understanding.


Perhaps my review reveals more of my ignorance than anything else. So, as a layman, to laymen, I wouldn't spend your time on this book. If anybody has read this far, and can recommend a better book on Peter... in particular the historical Peter and his probable life in Rome leading up to his matyrdom, I would like to read it!