Dr. Stanley Porter's new commentary on the Pastoral Epistles: A brief description and some positive thoughts

Dr. Stanley E. Porter, of McMaster Divinity College in Hamilton, Ontario, is well-known for his contributions to the study of New Testament Greek and biblical hermeneutics (among other topics). Although I don't always agree with him on Greek grammar and linguistics (though I have become somewhat more sympathetic to his views on Verbal Aspect Theory now than I was 15 years ago), I respect his immense contributions to our study of Scripture. Also, his commentary on Romans (Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015), is quite good, and I would consider it among my "top 5" recommendations for a well-rounded, English-speaking/reading, evangelical pastor's library (along with Moo, Longenecker, Barth, and Cranfield).

Since I co-teach the Pastoral Epistles in our small college with my father (who was for 30+ years a missionary to Japan), I was excited to hear of Porter's new commentary and made sure our library acquired it: The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2023). The price is normally a bit hefty (at $70), but students and impulse-buyers should note that it is only $26.44 on Amazon right now [3:15pm on Wednesday, 11/27]; hurry before the sale ends!!!!!! 

Anyways, the reader should know that this rigorous, 800+ page commentary (not counting the bibliography) is focused specifically on the Greek text. You will find less of background matters here (e.g., Ephesus and Crete), but you will find intense discussions  of virtually every nuance of the Greek words and syntax. Indeed, the commentary's raison d'etre is summed up here by Porter:

"My major criticism against conventional commentary writing is that most of them offer little that is new in interpretation, to a large extent because they have departed from the major purpose of a commentary on an ancient text: to help in understanding the language of the text and thereby its situational context" (p. 1).

As noted above, this commentary is not the sort of commentary you turn to for extensive background information, nor is it the sort of commentary that rigorously discusses the various viewpoints on a particular topic (the very long and rigorous section on "saved through childbearing" was a bit disappointing in that regard). It is, however, the sort of commentary you turn to for an intense analysis of the actual Greek text of the Pastorals, and as such it will prove to be an extremely valuable addition to any library. 

I offer the following as a positive example of this (from page 219, discussing 1 Timothy 2:6, to which he devotes 10 paragraphs):

"The prefixed form ἀντίλυτρον in Paul must be considered with the preposition that is used int he adjunctive prepositional phrase. The Markan context [Mark 10:45] uses the simplex form along with ἀντί (in place of), the clear preposition of substitution; Paul uses the prefixed form indicating ransom in place of along with the preposition ὑπέρ (on behalf of). The first construction is clearly substitutionary, but the second may indicate nothing more than benefit. However, the latter preposition was often used in a substitutionary way in Greek texts contemporary with the NT, as evidenced in numerous documentary papyri (e.g., P.Tebt. 104.39–40; P.Hamb. 4.14–15), where a scribe would write 'on behalf of' (ὑπέρ) one who did not know how to write (S. Porter 1994: 176–77; cf. Radermacher 1925: 139; Robertson 1934: 630–32). There was benefit, to be sure, but there was also substitution of a literate person for someone illiterate. Thus, the general overall sense of both constructions is the same; both indicate substitution, although the Pauline text lacks the elegance of the Markan one" (p. 219).

The above paragraph shows Porter's thoroughness but also warns the reader to be prepared for some very technical terminology. Elsewhere, in what may have set some kind of record, Porter devotes 9 and a half pages to discussing 1 Timothy 2:12 (just that one verse!).

Two other points of appreciation. (1.) The introduction section of the commentary, spanning 88 pages, has one of the most rigorous defenses of Pauline authorship of the PE that you will ever see, including a brilliant discussion on the logical problems of assuming pseudonymity for the PE (specifically, pages 33–35). (2.) Pages 88–93 contain a very detailed overview (complete with comparisons of the Greek text) of "Early Church Attestation" of the PE.

Porter's commentary is not for the faint of heart, and he makes it very clear early on that he holds to both monosemy and verbal aspect theory, which will affect his interpretation to some degree (how much of a difference that makes in contrast to other commentaries remains to be seen). For those looking for a fresh perspective grounded solidly in the original language of the New Testament, however, the commentary has much to commend it.

Whatever you do after the election results, please don't quote Psalm 11:3 ("If the foundations be destroyed . . .")

Just a friendly reminder this presidential election: don’t take it too seriously (as if the future of Christianity in America hinged on politics, instead of humbly seeking God’s face), don’t pretend any of the candidates are righteous people or heaven-ordained saviors, and please, please, don’t quote Psalm 11:3, “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

 

I’ve blogged about this before (here), but in an exercise in ignoring context, too many well-meaning Christians quote Psalm 11:3—"Boy, this country [or church, or society, or local coffee shop] sure is going downhill fast! You know, if the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?"

 

Yet the person speaking Psalm 11:3 is the same person speaking Psalm 11:2 and even the second half of Psalm 11:1, “Flee as a bird . . .” In other words, the person speaking Psalm 11:3 is not David, the author of the psalm, but the people David is rebuking!

 

You see, David’s message in Psalm 11 is not “O boy, what can the righteous do?” It is the total opposite of that: “In YHWH put I my trust . . . YHWH is in his holy temple, . . .” (vv. 1a, 4a).

 

Psalm 11 provides us with two contrasting perspectives. One perspective, that of David’s counsellors in vv. 1b–3, embraces uncertainty and fear (“What will we ever do? The sky is falling!!”). The other perspective, David’s perspective (v. 1a, vv. 4–7), expresses faith in the one true God. How can we ever worry about circumstances, including silly politics determined by silly men and women (none of whom are good role models, at least this year!), when God is on His throne?

 

So, regardless of what happens in a week, which perspective is yours?

Genocide in Esther? My Response in JSOT to a Recent Attempt to Defend Haman (and my first ever tier-1 article!)

The Lord has a sense of humor, or at least irony. I am a New Testament specialist, with multiple academic publications on 1 Peter, yet I have striven in vain to get published in a tier-1 journal! And now, suddenly, I have an article in Journal for the Study of the Old Testament on Esther, which until a few years ago was my least favorite book of the Bible, if having a "least favorite book" is not heretical for somebody committed to the inerrancy of all 66 books! (Click here to see the article and abstract on JSOT's website; email me personally at phimes@gmail.com if you would like a copy).

Here is the abstract:

"A 2021 article in HTS Teologiese Studies advances the thesis that in the book of Esther ‘lawlessness by the Jewish diaspora community triggered genocide in the Persian Empire’ and that ‘Jews provoked the Persian authorities by disobeying the laws of the land’. Much of that article is devoted to a defense of Haman in responding to what the author portrays as the ‘lawlessness’ of the Jewish diaspora community. This article offers a three-fold response: (1) a critical analysis of both Haman and his accusation of ‘lawlessness’ against the Jewish diaspora minority, along with that article’s affirmation of that lawlessness; (2) a critique of that article’s accusation of ‘genocide’ against the Jewish diaspora community along with a discussion of the alleged violent vengeance of that same community vis-à-vis Esther 8–9; (3) a warning that the attempted vindication of Haman is nothing new, but possesses a disturbing Wirkungsgeschichte."

For the record, one of the anonymous peer-reviewers of my article for JSOT spoke of "the almost explicit antisemitism" in the HTS article. It is indeed extremely troubling.

The journey to this, my first and so far only tier-1 publication, is bizarre. In 2021, Temba Rugwiji published "A Critical Evaluation of Causalities of the Genocide in Esther 3:8–15: Lawlessness and Revolt of the Jewish Diaspora Community" in the formerly prestigious HTS Teologiese Studies. The article basically offered a defense of Haman in Esther. Don't take my word for it, you can see for yourself (click here to read this open access article). I was aware of this article by 2022, and was "stirred up," so to speak, but did not at first commit to a course of action until a guest speaker at our college spoke on the plight throughout history of the Jewish people. I wrote the article and initially sent it to a different journal, which was not interested in it (no peer review), and after their response sent it in to JSOT. I received a "heavy revision" decision. Both initial peer-reviewers were overall favorable (though one of them wondered if the article really needed to be written), but both had some good recommendations for revision, which I almost completely implemented. The third reviewer, after revision, was also favorable, and had just a few more suggestions, which I implemented. The process only took 2 months from submission of the paper to the decision to "heavily revise," and then it took 9 months for revision and publication (most of that was the time I needed to revise).

A closing thought: JSOT, of course, does not charge its authors for publication. Almost no respectable journal does this in biblical studies (I can't speak for journals in other disciplines)! I cannot help but wonder if the extremely high price HTS charges its authors (click here to see their "Article Processing Charge"), combined with the fact that they are putting out an extremely high number of digital articles per issue (click here to see the list of 100+ articles they published in the same issue with Rugwiji's article, vol. 77 issue 4), contributes to a lack of quality control. I don't know, it's just a thought.

Would the existence of aliens "discredit" Christianity?

In my last post, I discussed how the existence or non-existence of a so-called "multiverse" does not call into question the existence of the God of the Bible. Today we will look at a bit more complicated topic, extraterrestrial life. 

Full disclosure: I am an independent Baptist who is a young-earth creationist, in the sense of "thousands not millions" but not in the sense of "just barely over 6,000 years," a suggestion that actually cannot be proved by the biblical data, as aptly demonstrated by fellow fundamentalist Mark Snoeberger here. I also reject the so-called "conflict thesis," which cannot stand with an honest reading of the primary sources. The Scientific Method was developed and nurtured by theists, not atheists (for further discussion, see the excellent book Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction, edited by Gary B. Ferngren [John Hopkins University Press, 2002], especially the first chapter by Colin A. Russell; also worth reading is J. Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformation, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery [Princeton University Press, 2003]).

Before we get too far into the discussion, I need to point out an obvious fact that is often neglected in the conversation. Christians, indeed the entire Judeo-Christian tradition (with a few exceptions, like the Sadducees), already believe in extraterrestrial life, if extraterrestrial life is defined as "(a.) sentient beings who (b.) do not live on earth." They're called "angels," duh! And no, they are not properly "supernatural" (and thus irrelevant to the discussion), since, (a.) they are created beings (Psalm 148:5) just a little bit above humans (Psalm 8:5), and (b.) they have limitations (Daniel 10:12–13), implying that they obey some sort of physical, governing laws (I use "physical" in the broad sense, to cover all of matter and energy in the created universe, and the laws that govern them). That they can fly and do other things that humans can't is irrelevant. They are still part of the physical universe. So, in a sense, Christians already believe in intelligent life outside of earth.

Nonetheless, what most people mean by "extra-terrestrial life" is not the sort of life mentioned in the Bible. Sometimes (though not always) agnostics or atheists assume that the discovery of that life (say, intelligent radio signals from a star 50 light years away) would invalidate Christianity because it is incompatible with the Bible. Conversely, sometimes young-earth creationists like myself seem to have a knee-jerk reaction against any suggestion that there might be microbes on Mars (or elsewhere), as if somehow that is synonymous with an evolutionary worldview. Here are a few thoughts in response.

1. I take as the starting point for my very existence and operational worldview that (a.) there is a loving, yet just, triune God who created the universe, and (b.) Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died on the cross for my sins and (physically and literally) was raised again the third day, and that (c.) I have eternal salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Absolutely nothing that can happen in the scientific realm or elsewhere can shake my faith. That is not to say that I can always explain everything, nor that my faith is always perfect; as one preacher years ago articulated, there are times in our lives where we cry out "Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief!" (Mark 9:24). But that is my starting point, the reason for my existence, and I can go nowhere else (John 6:68).

2. Whatever is discovered "out there," God created it. This means, then, that I am free from any "fear" of the discovery of extra-terrestrial life. God is the Creator, period, end of story. If there are living microbes on Mars, or were there in the past, God created them. Which means that I, personally, feel no need to have a knee-jerk negative reaction to the possibility. I will disagree with any "billions of years" description, but simply because a secular scientist discovers something does not necessarily make it a vast, evil conspiracy, nor is he or she necessarily wrong.

3. Christians have, in the past, speculated (either in non-fiction or fiction) about sentient extra-terrestrial life that was not angels. C. S. Lewis' Space Trilogy is the classic example, and, at a minimum, Lewis could be quite critical of evolution (see the discussion by Samuel D. James here). But there are other examples predating him.

4. If, hypothetically (and this is a big "if"), intelligent life were to be discovered on another planet, the standard evangelical Christian reaction would not be "oh no, my faith is shaken!" but rather, "Do they know God? Are they fallen or un-fallen?; Do we need to send missionaries?" In my opinion, the only truly difficult theological question Christians would need to grapple with is whether or not Christ's death on the cross is meant to apply to all non-angelic sentient beings, or whether (if an alien race is fallen), they simply express faith in a Creator for salvation. (Salvation is always by faith, regardless; that's a universal principle). I, for one, have absolutely no problem with the idea of "interstellar evangelism," though atheist sci-fi writers in the past have maligned the idea (I think it was Harry Harrison, though I could be mistaken, that once wrote a short story where a well-intentioned Roman Catholic priest actually causes the aliens' fall from innocence, rather than redemption. Of course, such a short story only "preaches to the [atheistic or agnostic] choir," and hardly contributes to the discussion).

5. Both atheists and Christians would quickly fit the discovery, or non-discovery, of extra-terrestrial life into their paradigm. There are today agnostic and atheist astronomers and physicists who believe that we are alone in the universe (and thus we are really "lucky" to be here), but there are also agnostic and atheist astronomers and physicists who believe that the universe has quite a bit of life, which we just haven't discovered yet. One's presuppositions regarding the likelihood of the existence or non-existence of a Creator really does not matter one way or the other for the possibility of non-angelic life outside of earth. The existence or non-existence of life outside of earth does not "prove" or "disprove" either Christianity or atheism. The point of disagreement between Christians and atheists would not be the existence of extra-terrestrial life, but its origin.

6. Finally, evangelical Christians do not avoid the topic of the possibility of alien life. Its possibility is not an embarrassment. Both scholarly and more accessible discussions of the topic do exist, with C. S. Lewis being a prime example. The interested reader should also note the fascinating article by Rob Cook, "Would the Discovery of Alien Life Prove Theologically Embarrassing? A Response to Paul Davies," Evangelical Quarterly 84, no. 2 (2012): 139–154 (I say that it is worth reading, without endorsing everything in his conclusion).

Would a multiverse "discredit" Christianity?

Despite being very conservative in my theology and approach to Scripture, as well as a firm Creationist, I enjoy reading very broadly and can count within my library volumes by secular scientists Paul Davies, Stephen Hawking, and Brian Greene (in addition to books by scientists more theistically oriented, such as Francis Collins and Keith Ward). Quite a few (though not all) secular physicists of various stripes approve of, or at least are sympathetic to, the idea of a "multiverse," that our universe, consisting of millions of galaxies, is just one of many, perhaps infinite, other universes: As Greene writes, "Imagine that what we call the universe is actually only one tiny part of a vastly larger cosmological expanse, one of an enormous number of island universes scattered across a grand cosmological archipelago" (Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe [New York: Vintage, 2003], 366). 

Now, quite often the idea of a multiverse intrudes from the scientific realm into the philosophical realm as a tool to dispense of the need for God. Indeed, some time ago I read a short story in which the protagonist, as part of theoretical physics research team, assists in the discovery of another universe, and subsequently is "freed" from having to believe in God (as if somehow agnostics and/or atheists lived a more fulfilled life than religious people!). Occasionally the argument is given that a multiverse would once-for-all do away with the need to speculate about why our universe just so happens to be right for life, issues raised by the so-called anthropic principle.

In reality, this perspective is somewhat naive and begs the question. We are still left with the foundational question of why there is something rather than nothing, whether that be one universe or many. To argue that we just happen to be lucky to live in the one universe in a million that could sustain life does not explain how there exists a mechanism for the creation (or self-creation) of universes in the first place (the Big Bang further complicates matters, since with most interpretations it dispenses with the possibility that the universe is eternal).

 If one wishes to argue, as some do, that quantum mechanics via the role of observers allows for the destruction and creation of entire universes out of nothing, we are left with the question of how and why quantum mechanics came to define the universe. If quantum mechanics and the mechanism of observation, as an explanatory framework for the existence of the universe or multiverse, is simply left unquestioned, then quantum mechanics takes the role of God as the object of unquestioning faith. (I have discussed this more technically in my article in the British journal Science and Christian Belief, back in 2012; click here for access).

In other words, though arguably one can create an internally consistent explanation via quantum mechanics and the multiverse as to why we exist today, this comes at the expense of critical reflection on the very existence of those two elements. They replace God, because like God they are taken for granted. Every position, no matter how "scientific," retains some unquestioned presuppositions.

The flip side, of course, is that sometimes Christians assume unfairly that simply because secular science makes a suggestion not mentioned in the Bible, it is automatically suspect. Could God have created a multiverse? Absolutely. Why not? What God wishes to create is His business, and who am I to tell Him "no"? We Christians need to be a bit more careful in our knee-jerk reactions, and also to acknowledge the mystery of all that we do not know. As Augustine once said, "It is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics [i.e., maters about physical creation]; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, . . ." ("The Literal Meaning of Genesis," translated by J. H. Taylor; note to impressionable readers: this does not mean I agree with everything Augustine said in that treatise!).

Now, could the existence of a multiverse raise difficult theological questions? Maybe, maybe not. The very idea is not problematic. If God could create multiple galaxies, why not multiple universes? What would cause some deep theological reflection, though, is the possibility that via quantum mechanics every decision a person made in this universe causes it to split until two universes, with the opposite decision existing in another. We could end up with the bizarre situation of Jesus Christ dying for sinners in millions, perhaps an infinite number, of universes (though perhaps some universes exist where the Fall to sin never happened). At a minimum, that does not cohere well with the emphasis in Scripture on the finality of Christ's once-for-all sacrifice here on earth in AD 33 [or, less likely, AD 30]. Still, that is only one unlikely interpretation out of the unlikely (though not impossible) possibility that the multiverse exists (a situation which would seem to resist tangible proof, anyways).

In the next post we will look at another situation that some atheists and some Christians seem to think is antithetical to the coherence of Christianity, extra-terrestrial life.

A Blog on Biblical Studies Salutes the Best Player in Baseball History (Willie Mays)

This is a blog about the Bible and theology, and I am a professor of Bible and Ancient Languages. However, I am also a die-hard baseball fan, and I wanted to briefly pay tribute to the man who is, in my humble-but-opinionated opinion, the greatest baseball player of all-time, Willie Mays, who just passed away this past Tuesday at age 93.

Any claims that somebody is the "Greatest of All Time" are, of course, fraught with controversy and open to rebuttal. I make no claim to be the final authority on this topic (or, for that matter, to be any authority on baseball matters. I'm a Bible professor, for crying out loud!) Having said that, the case for Mays' supremacy is well-documented (e.g., on mlb.com, Paul Casella, "Willie Mays' Best Stats and Accomplishments"). My own rationale for claiming that Mays is the best ever is simply that he was an extremely great 5-tool player (hitting for contact, hitting for power, speed, defense, and throwing arm), and he reached multiple milestones (e.g., 600 homers, 3,000 hits, 1,909 RBI) where even one would have been a reason for inclusion in the Hall of Fame.

If Babe Ruth had continued pitching at a decent level after his trade to the Yankees, or if Shohei Ohtani is able to pitch and hit at an equally elite level for another 7 years or so without season-ending injury (an unlikely prospect), then either of them could, perhaps, be the GOAT. But for now, I believe Mays stands at the top. (Also, unlike Ruth, Mays pitched in an era and a league where players of all ethnicities competed against each other; i.e., the competition was stiffer).

I'll close out this tribute by quoting the conclusion of Joe Posnanski's excellent book, The Baseball 100: 

"The only thing Willie Mays could not do on a baseball diamond was stay young forever. But even to the end, he sparked joy. What do you love most about baseball? Mays did that. To watch him play, to read the stories about how he played, to look at his glorious statistics, to hear what people say about him is to be reminded why we love this odd and ancient game in the first place. Yes, Willie Mays has always made kids feel like grown-up and grown-ups feel like kids. In the end, isn't that the whole point of baseball?"

Some quick thoughts on a biblical theology of Fatherhood

Having now, at the age of 43, become the first-time father of a baby girl, I have a new perspective on life filled with a whole range of different issues and questions! (Like: What will it take to get her to stop crying at 2am? And: How can I teach her to appreciate baseball and coffee?) Significantly, the fatherhood of God is a major theme in Scripture, peaking in the Gospel of John to such a great degree that Westcott could write in his commentary on John 1:18, 

"τοῦ πατρός] of the Father. The choice of this title in place of God (τοῦ θεοῦ) serves to mark the limits of the revelation made through Jesus Christ. Even this was directed to one aspect (so to speak) of the Godhead. The Son made God known not primarily as God, but as the Father. At the same time this title lays the foundation of revelation in the essential relation of the Persons of the Godhead. Comp. 1 John i.2." (The Gospel According to St. John: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes, reprint of the 1908 edition [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1980) 1:29.

Westcott here is not denying that Jesus revealed God the Father as God (note the word "primarily"), as D. A. Waite infamously accused him of doing (in The Theological Heresies of Westcott and Hort as Seein in Their Own Writings). Westcott is focusing on the theological emphasis of John, which at times seems to emphasize God the Father as father even more so than (though not at the exclusion of) His identify as God. Significantly, the Gospel of John uses the word πάτηρ (patēr, "father") 138 times, one more than all three synoptic Gospels combined (at least in the TR), and patēr occurs more often in John than even Theos ("God")!

Now, John is certainly not unique in emphasizing God's role as our father and our role as his children (see, for example, Heb 12:7; 1 Pet 1:17). Nor is this theme unique to the New Testament. Isaiah 63:16, for example, connects God's fatherhood with his role as provider (v. 15) and redeemer (v. 16b). Isaiah 64:8, on the other hand, links God's fatherhood with his role as Creator. Malachi 2:10 similarly links God's fatherhood to his role as Creator, but also uses this as the grounds for a rebuke of the disunity and sinfulness of the people of Israel.

All of that creates a solid foundation for our current understanding of God as Father. Yet going back to the Gospel of John and remembering Westcott's statement, the revelation of God as Father was not complete until the incarnation of the Son. Consequently, the more we study Jesus and his relationship to the Father, the more we understand our relationship to God.  And the more I understand God, the better I will understand how to raise my new daughter.

A (soon-to-be) commentator's comments on the top commentaries of 2 Peter and Jude.

I am privileged to have written the forthcoming 2 Peter and Jude entries for the Lexham Research Commentary series in Logos (1 Peter has already been published). To date, I only have one peer-reviewed journal article on 2 Peter and one contribution to a Festschrift that deals with 2 Peter, but nothing on Jude, so I most definitely do not qualify as an expert. Nonetheless, my work for Lexham necessitated burying myself in the secondary literature, and consequently I have gotten a feel both for the general quality of the various commentaries as well as how they are perceived by other commentators. So here, for what it's worth, is my opinion (keep in mind this post is written from an evangelical perspective, though I interacted with sources from a wide range of views).

Commentaries on 2 Peter 

(The following is adapted and re-written from my forthcoming LRC. Total commentaries on 2 Peter cited for the LRC: 47, which does not include monographs and theologies. Total sources cited for the 2 Peter LRC: approximately 380).

First of all, Richard Bauckham's Word Biblical Commentary (1983) is still king. This is based not only on the sheer amount of times he is cited by other works, but also the deep respect other commentators hold for him and the influence Bauckham had on them.  Even when a scholar disagrees with Bauckham, they are just as likely to have a word of praise in their disagreement.The takeaway, dear reader, is this: you cannot possibly write a paper on 2 Peter and expect it to be taken seriously if you have not, in fact, checked to see what Dr. Bauckham has to say! It is worth mentioning that a 2nd edition of this commentary in the works, with Darian Lockett as the revisor/editor (last I knew).

Now, after Bauckham, as far as traditional exegetical commentaries, both Peter Davids (PNTC, 2006) and Gene L. Green (BECNT, 2008) offer excellent value, though I believe Davids' 2 Peter commentary is better than his 1 Peter commentary. (Full disclosure: I am a bit biased towards Gene L. Green, because he was the outside reader for my dissertation on 1 Peter). In addition, among non-English scholars, Ceslas Spicq's commentary remains a classic (SB, 1966), in my opinion much better on 2 Peter than 1 Peter! Jörg Frey's contribution is one of the most important German commentaries, at least recently (THZNT, 2015).

Next, I would suggest that Jerome H. Neyrey (AB, 2006), together with G. Green and Davids, offer the best background studies in their commentaries. Neyrey and Andrew M. Mbuvi (NCC, 2015) seem to pay the most attention to ANE social thought, e.g., "honor-and-shame," though Terrance Callan (stand-alone, 2014), Acknowledging the Divine Benefactor: The Second Letter of Peter, is also worth mentioning. Mbuvi's commentary is also one of the most "counter-imperial."

For the layperson wishing for more accessible scholarship, I would highly recommend Michael Green (TNTC, 1987) and D. Edmond Hiebert (stand-alone, 1989). J. Daryl Charles  (2006, EBC 2nd ed.) is also good.

For the sub-genre of "theologically commentary," Catherine Gunsalus González (Belief, 2010) and Ruth Anne Reese (2HC, 2007) are both excellent, with Douglas Harink (BTC, 2009) also worth mentioning. In addition, let the record show that González has written what is in my opinion one of the most quotable commentaries on 2 Peter.

Finally, since a good commentary should also "preach" to the reader some, I would like to mention González, Harink, Douglas J. Moo (NIVApp, 1996), and Dieudonné Tamfu (AfBC, 2018) as being well-suited to practical application. In addition, I commend Moo and Tamfu for both giving a clear evangelistic message to their audiences.

Commentaries on Jude

(Total commentaries on Jude cited for the LRC: 56, which does not include monographs and theologies. Total sources cited for the Jude LRC: approximately 290).

I don't have as much to write regarding commentaries on Jude. Many of the observations made on 2 Peter apply to Jude. For example, Bauckham is still king (WBC, 1983). Again, whether you agree or disagree with him, his opinion is essential to grappling with the text or background of Jude. In addition, his monograph on Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church is a very important work.

I feel both Neyrey and Mbuvi did a much better job with 2 Peter than they did with Jude. I also feel that Watson E. Mills' entry on "Jude" in the Smyth and Helwys series is somewhat better than its 2 Peter counterpart by a different author (SHBC, 2010). As before, Frey remains a key German source. Moo and Tamfu, as with 2 Peter, offer practical commentaries that do not jettison scholarship.

Abbreviations:

2HC: Two Horizons Commentary

AB: Anchor Bible Commentary

AfBC: Africa Bible Commentary 

BECNT: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

BTC: Brazos Theological Commentary

EBC 2nd ed.: Expositor's Bible Commentary, 2nd ed.

LRC: Lexham Research Commentary

NCC: New Covenant Commentary

NIVApp: NIV Application Commentary

PNTC: Pillar New Testament Commentary

SB: Sources Bibliques

SHBC: Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary

THZNT: Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament

TNTC: Tyndale New Testament Commentary

WBC: Word Biblical Commentary

 

LRC 1 Peter now in Chinese!

Some time ago I had the privilege of writing the 1 Peter volume for the Lexham Research Commentary series. The commentary was a privilege to write and pulls together most of the relevant English scholarship (and just a bit of foreign scholarship) on 1 Peter to show the reader the wide range of interpretive options, including the pros and cons of many positions on a particular text. At the same time, it introduces the reader to the most relevant Petrine literature out there. The commentary has been fairly well-received (notwithstanding a solitary one-star review that based its judgment on one small section of my commentary and rather misrepresented me), and since then I have also completed 2 Peter and Jude for the same series (both due out in March).

My local church (Falls Baptist Church in Menomonee Falls, WI), has a very robust Chinese group of believers that has grown significantly over the last few years. Consequently, I was delighted to learn that my LRC on 1 Peter has now been translated into both traditional Chinese and simplified Chinese, and is now available as a digital resource! I believe the rest of the LRC is being translated, as well. I trust this will be a benefit to our Chinese brothers and sisters in Christ (and to the translator[s], whoever you are, thank you for your hard work!).