Guy Ritchie has a certain style of putting a script and movie together (see e.g. his Sherlock Holmes). And when it comes to something like a film about ‘bad boys’ posing as English Gentlemen of a sort, he is in his element. The new movie, ‘The Gentlemen’ of the same sort of ilk as The Kingsmen, presents us with an all star cast of rogues who are in top form, including Matthew McConaughey, Henry Golding (of Rich Young Asians fame),... Read more

BEN: I do very much appreciate your bringing Peter back into the foreground of our theological discussions as he has indeed been sadly neglected especially by those of us who are Protestants. And you are right that Peter was apparently the first one to receive the divine kick in the pants to go and make a disciple of a Gentile and his household— Cornelius. But I really don’t see Peter as inaugurating a Gentile mission by this one off kind... Read more

BEN: Another question about 1 Peter. What do you think Peter was doing after he disappears from the accounts in Acts at Acts 12 and ‘went to another place’ only making a cameo appearance back in Jerusalem at Acts 15, at which point James, and not Peter is in charge and concludes matters (and Gal. 1-2 also suggests James is the head of that church)? For my money I think he was going to those various provinces listed in 1... Read more

BEN: Let’s talk about 1 Peter for a bit. I entirely agree with you that it reflects the apostle Peter’s thought, though he had the help of Silas to express himself in pretty good Greek. I am wondering however about the audience of this document. I think Eusebius is clear enough that Peter was writing to Jews in the Diaspora in Asia Minor, and I agree with him. When he critiques the audience’s idolatry and immorality, it is the very... Read more

BEN: I think you make a good case for the speeches in Acts reflecting early Christian Christology and even Peter’s take on that. The Semitisms and distinct ways of labeling Jesus seem to reflect something primitive. Do you think there was a general apostolic outline that Peter and others followed when preaching, as C.H. Dodd long ago suggested, or would you see Peter as the innovator or first representative promulgating these ideas? GENE: There’s the chicken and egg question, right?... Read more

BEN: From a methodological point of view, I am wondering if Peter were here today and we asked him about Mark’s Gospel would he say ‘yes that’s my take on Jesus he is reporting here’ or would he say ‘texts like Mark 10.45 reflect Jesus’ own theology, not mine. I did not create this theology, I just passed it along.’ I suspect Mark would say the same thing— it was generated by Jesus, not Mark or Peter. GENE: As we... Read more

BEN: Gene, one of your major emphases when it comes to Peter’s theology is the theme of the New Exodus which you find not only in Mark, but also in Petrine speeches in Acts and in 1 Peter. Explain or clarify for the readers of this blog what you mean by that concept. To me, on the surface of things reading Mark, ‘EISODOS’ might be a better word since he is talking about God’s divine saving activity breaking into the... Read more

BEN: You’ve also chosen to not really deal with the references to Peter in Paul’s letters, particularly Galatians and 1 Corinthians. How come? GENE: I wanted to focus on those parts of the New Testament where Peter is the one who is speaking, the one who bears witness. Paul talks about Peter in Galatians and 1 Corinthians, and we may add his words about Peter as an additional witness to what Peter thought. My concern in Vox Petri was to... Read more

BEN: It appears one of your main goals in this book is not to settle for just recovering ‘the Peter of early Christian memory’, but to actually close the gap between that and the actual historical Simon? You are not arguing for ‘Simon unfiltered’ but, I take it, simply for an authentic presentation of the actual voice and views of Simon, not just how later Christians remembered him. Right? GENE: Spot on, Ben. There are rather substantive sections in the... Read more

BEN: You spend a good deal of time setting up the discussion based on a distinction between the ‘actual words of Peter’ and the ‘voice of Peter’ heard through some secondary, as well as perhaps one primary source. This is coupled with the stress on the difference between testimony and an unvarnished report of bare facts. Explain why these distinctions are important as one tries to hear the voice of the real or historical Peter? GENE: Most, though by no... Read more