Abstract
Critically acute, historically perceptive, and highly readable, Martin Hengel's book, Saint Peter, takes the reader on a historical journey as it seeks to answer a critical question about Early Christianity: “Did the Apostle Peter have a decisive role in shaping the theology of the Christian traditions?” Following the legendary work of Oscar Cullmann in wrestling with the complex figure of Peter (Peter, Disciple, Apostle, Martyr: A Historical and Theological Study [London: SCM Press, 1953]), Hengel gives an affirmative answer, arguing that Peter was in fact the Rock—the apostolic foundational figure of the Church.
In the first section, “Peter the Rock, Paul, and the Gospel Tradition,” Hengel pictures Peter as the “ecclesial centrist” on the basis that the Matthean Christ identifies him as the authoritative teacher and leader over the other disciples (Matt 16:17–19). Appeal is also made to the Nag Hammadi texts and Pseudo-Clementine literature that are pro-Petrine and magnify the high Matthean view of Peter. Coupled with the radical difference of the statistical comparison of names in the New Testament between James (11 times), Peter (181 times) and Paul (177 times), these pieces of evidence set Peter as the elite among the disciples.
At the heart of Hengel's proposal also lies the claim that Peter is “the empowered guarantor of the traditions about Jesus” because his testimony not only lies behind Mark's Gospel but also motivates Luke and Matthew to use Mark as their source (pp. 36–48). In this respect, Hengel adds his voice to the growing chorus of scholars who suggest that Mark reproduced Peter's testimony, which again points to Peter's considerable influence in Early Christianity.
Hengel also emphasizes that Peter's apostolate was not restricted solely to the Christian community in Jerusalem. In fact, Hengel endorses the possibility that there was a “Petrine school,” and that “almost all communities between Jerusalem and Rome … in some way ‘went to school’ under him” (pp. 35–36).
Unlike Perkins, who sought to create a bridge between Petrine and Pauline Christianity (Pheme Perkins, Peter: Apostle for the Whole Church Studies on Personalities of the New Testament [Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1994), Hengel inherits and highlights the Tübingen position of the deep divide between Petrinism and Paulism (pp. 57–79), yet still arrives at the conclusion that Peter and Paul shared a “common apostolic witness.”
The second and final section, “The Family of Peter and Other Apostolic Families” (pp. 103–33) is a revised and extended version of a previously published essay (“Apostolische Ehen und Familien,” INTAMS Review 3.1 (1997):62–74); the later version seeks “to place the person of Peter … into the central position” (p. ix). The emphasis, however, is on the house communities and their function in Early Christianity, and as a result this section seems out of place in a book that seeks to reevaluate the role played by Peter in the early church (p. viii).
There is much to learn from Hengel's reconstruction of the historical Peter and his influence on Early Christianity, but one questions whether Hengel brings the pendulum too far the other way. In the process of emphasizing Peter's unique status, he not only leaves out the candid portrayal of Peter's failures but also underestimates the other disciples when he says that in Matthew, Peter is “the only authoritative disciple figure, with all the other disciples disappearing completely behind him” (p. 25). While Peter is singled out as an important disciple, it is not all that clear that he is placed above the disciples. More than two decades ago, Wilkins sustained a more balanced position, namely that (1) being reproached by Jesus for his lack of faith, highlights that Peter is not above the disciples, and (2) while Peter is a leader, he shares the foundational role with the other apostles (Michael J. Wilkins, The Concept of Disciple in Matthew's Gospel: As Reflected in the Term Mathetes [Leiden: Brill, 1988]).
If given serious consideration, Hengel's overall thesis, clearly resting upon many years of research and reflection, will challenge those that consider Peter as a vague, less significant figure in Christian history. Readers at all levels, students and scholars alike, will be challenged by this first-rate contribution on the historical Peter which will provoke lively discussion for a long time to come.