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

 

Douglas Kennard's new Petrine Theology

True Petrine theologies are few and far between, whereas one cannot throw a rock without hitting a dozen Pauline theologies (or Pauline theologians, for that matter!) As somebody who has contributed a little bit to this neglected field, I am excited to have received a copy of Douglas W. Kennard's Petrine Theology (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2022).

Kennard is a professor at the Houston Graduate School of Theology, and in his previous writings he has specialized in biblical theology and hermeneutics. Along with Petrine Theology he has published a companion book entitled Petrine Studies (also with Wipf & Stock).

Kennard's Petrine Theology is about as holistic a "Petrine theology" as one could ask for, and that's a good thing. He utilizes 1 and 2 Peter, along with the Petrine material in Acts and the Gospels, to cover a variety of topics. These include broader theological categories ("God," "Christology") as well as more specific Petrine emphases ("Suffering," "False Teachers"). All of this is developed from the important premise that "The early church considered Peter to be the foundation for apostolic Christian tradition" (p. 1), and thus the modern church should not neglect the Apostle Peter's own specific perspectives.

The book is well-researched and well-thought out, with an excellent level of interaction with both primary and secondary sources. [Allow me, though, to express my irritation at having my own name misspelled as "Hines" in the bibliography; actually, he cites two works of mine, one of them as "Himes" and the other as "Hines." Another top-notch Petrine scholar, Benjamin Sargent, also misspells me as "Hines"; oh well. I'm sure I've done the same to some other author somewhere in my published works--my apologies if that is you, dear reader! And I'm happy that Kennard at least mentions my work. End of rant! ☺]

At times the book reads more like a systematic theology, e.g., chapter 2 on "God," which has a tendency to state a description about God and then bolster it with Petrine material, rather than tracing a Petrine theological theme per se). Even so, it is immensely valuable since it points us to the Apostle Peter's specific perspective while demonstrating how it is congruent with the rest of Scripture. Also, Kennard aptly embraces the important role that Old Testament theology plays in Peter's theology.

Books on the Apostle Peter's theology are rare, and books that take seriously the Petrine material in Acts and the Gospels as part of that theology are extremely rare. I am pleased to announce that Kennard joins the distinguished ranks of Larry Helyer (The Life and Witness of Peter), Pheme Perkins (Peter: Apostle for the Whole Church) and Gene Green (Vox Petri: A Theology of Peter) as an important advocate for the Apostle Peter's theology.

The book some of us have been waiting for: review of The Life and Witness of Peter by Larry R. Helyer.

Throw a rock and you can hit a dozen Pauline theologies. I’m not denigrating the importance of the Apostle Paul’s theology, mind you! The man wrote a significant portion of the New Testament, and his inspired letters deserve the attention they get. Nevertheless, for those of us interested in Peter and his theology, there has been a significant dearth of scholarship. There is, of course, Martin Hengel’s Peter: The Underestimated Apostle as well as Markus Bockmuehl’s Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory: The New Testament Apostle in the Early Church, both significant books. Yet with Larry R. Helyer’s The Life and Witness of Peter (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2012), we have a rare Petrine theology that also gives key consideration to Peter’s life and treatment in the early church. Its significance, in my opinion, can be summed up this way: I desperately wish to teach a class on Petrine theology (at any level!), and without a doubt this is the textbook I would use (and, in my opinion, it’s well-written enough that it could easily be used at the college level as well as in a grad class).

Summary

In the preface, Helyer gives a very brief overview as to his methodology and major focuses (after, of course, the obligatory comments on the relative neglect of Petrine scholarship!) Helyer makes it clear that he will focus on the material from Acts in addition to 1 Peter and 2 Peter (in my opinion one of the major strengths of the book). He will also utilize Mark as a source for a general understanding of Peter’s personal background, and consideration will also be given to some post-NT material, Patristic and otherwise. Especially significant for the content of this book is Helyer’s statement on p. 17 that “The overarching rubric that encapsulates Peter’s theology is the meaning and significance of the cross which shapes Peter’s first pastoral letter.”

Chapter 1 deals with the ‘Background of Simon Peter.” Here Helyer provides a brief discussion of Peter’s name and occupation, providing in the process a beneficial overview of the fishing industry in 1^st century Galilee (complete with his own culinary recommendation footnote 35, namely that visitors to the area try the type of tilapia called “Saint Peter’s Fish,” fresh from the Sea of Galilee!). Helyer takes an unapologetic “harmonistic approach” when recreating Peter’s life and background from the Gospels, though he acknowledges the value of both redaction and narrative approaches (p. 30).

Chapters 2 and 3 deals with Peter’s appearances in the four Gospels. Naturally, Helyer devotes considerable space to Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:13-20 (and the parallels), as well as Jesus’ post-resurrection appearance to Peter. Especially significant is the way in which Helyer ties events in the Gospels to Peter’s later ministry, noting its significance for our spiritual development today. On page 61, for example, he writes (regarding Peter’s three-fold denial), “Peter’s denial can never be taken back. It happened, and he had to live with the painful memory. But rather than letting his failure cripple him spiritually and emotionally, he used it as a means of building up the flock of God. . . . He becomes a living illustration of forgiveness and a second chance. He possesses a degree of compassion and understanding for wavering believers that others, sometimes rather self-righteously, are incapable of showing. We hear a tenderness in Peter’s first epistle that springs out of a bitterly disappointing failure in his own life (1 Peter 5:1-11).”

Chapter 4 deals with “Peter and the early church,” focusing on the book of Acts, while chapter 5 deals with the mention of Peter within Paul’s own epistles. Chapters 6-10 then basically represent a theology of 1 Peter, focusing on that epistle and its key themes. Chapter 6 functions more-or-less as a traditional introduction to the letter, focusing on authorship, genre, recipients, etc. I was especially glad to see Helyer giving due consideration to Karen Jobes’ thesis regarding the recipients, and also that Helyer concludes on p. 116 that the letter uses the concept “stranger” in both a literal and a metaphorical sense (with which I agree, though, like John Elliott, I prefer an initial focus on a literal sense, as I argue in my soon-to-be-published dissertation; it is from the literal that the metaphorical draws its force). Chapters 7-10 then discuss, in order, “Peter’s Christology,” “Christ and the Spirits, Christ and the Holy Spirit,” “Suffering for Jesus,” and “The People of God.”

Chapter 11 functions as an introduction to 2 Peter while chapter 12 deals with its theology. Chapter 13 focuses specifically on 2 Peter’s treatment of false teachers, and chapter 14 focuses specifically on 2 Peter’s eschatology. At this point, I need to mention one statement by Helyer that I greatly appreciated (and one that needs to be preached!): “Many Christians labor under a misunderstanding about their ultimate destiny. They conceive of their eternal state in ethereal (otherworldy0 terms situated in a celestial city ‘up there somewhere.’ The truth is our final destination is on a new earth. In short, ‘heaven’ comes down and does more than ‘fill my soul’; it takes up residence on this planet and fills the whole world with God’s glory” (p. 269).

Finally, Helyer devotes 3 chapters to “The Rest of the Story,” where he focuses on non-canonical treatments of Peter himself, including Patristic accounts of Peter’s life and death, pseudonymous works on Peter, and (in the final chapter), the “legacy” of Peter which concludes with Helyer’s “top ten contributions of the apostle Peter to NT theology.”

Analysis

In my opinion, Helyer’s The Life and Witness of Peter represents both a significant contribution that fills in a gap in scholarship (the relative lack of work on Petrine theology) as well as a very readable and enjoyable treatment of Peter, his life, and his theology. While I will have a couple minor issues, I can definitely recommend this book for anybody interested in either Peter or biblical theology, or both.

First of all, does Helyer make an important contribution to biblical theology? In my opinion, absolutely. Treatments of this scope on Petrine theology are very rare, and Helyer does an excellent job of plugging that hole in scholarship (from an evangelical perspective, as well).

Secondly, Helyer is a good writer; without sacrificing its contribution to scholarship, The Life and Witness of Peter is both an easy and an enjoyable read. It’s worth pointing out that his Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period is a much more enjoyable read than equivalent books at this level of academia (I’m not claiming it’s necessarily better at the scholarly level than equivalent books, simply that it’s more enjoyable).

Thirdly, I like how Helyer does biblical theology. Rather than approaching the texts with set themes and topics, as I’ve seen some works do, Helyer mostly lets the texts themselves determine the themes. This is why, for example, we see an entire chapter on “The People of God” in 1 Peter but not 2 Peter, whereas we see an entire chapter on 2 Peter’s eschatology but not 1 Peter’s eschatology. Not because 1 Peter does not discuss eschatology, nor that 2 Peter does not concern itself at all with the church, but rather because each book of the Bible has its own emphasis and focus. In my opinion, biblical theology is at its best when it lets each distinct book bring out its own theology rather than approaching each book with a “grid” of theological topics. In other words, when doing biblical theology (as opposed to systematic theology), the question is not “What does [insert name of book] say about God, Jesus, the end times, etc.?” but rather, “What themes does this book explore, and how are they developed?” This, in my opinion, is what Helyer does well. Having said that, I do wish Helyer had provided a bit more  interaction between books on certain themes. Chapter 8, for example, could have dealt with the Spirit and the spirits in both 1 Peter and 2 Peter (in light of 2 Peter 1:21 and 2:4, 11), and I would have appreciated it bit more overview of Peter’s theology as a whole (although the final chapter covers that a little). Nevertheless, overall I am in favor of how Helyer handles Peter’s theology. In addition, I greatly appreciate how Helyer covers all the Petrine material in Scripture, not just 1 Peter and 2 Peter. This, in my opinion, is key to developing a true Petrine theology (as opposed to just a theology of 1 Peter or a theology of 2 Peter). Such an approach makes this book extremely valuable.

Fourthly, one of Helyer’s strengths is his knowledge of Second Temple Literature (he wrote an entire book on it) and how this knowledge contributes to The Life and Witness of peter. Numerous examples can be cited, but I’ll point especially to page 44 (what does it mean to “loose” and “bind” in Matthew 16:19? He provides some discussion of close terminology in the Qumran texts and the Mishnah) and p. 251 (2 Pet 2:4’s remarkably close parallel to 1 Enoch).

Fifthly, Helyer does an excellent job at making his work relevant for the Christian community. In other words, The Life and Witness of Peter is meant to be relevant theologically in the everyday life of Christians (e.g., see the quote above from page 61). Having said that, I did scratch my head at his odd sort-of allegorizing of the story of Peter in the boat from Matthew 14 (see p. 39).

A couple mild critiques. First of all, while this book does well to cover introductory matters, students should not rely on it for the best treatment of such topics as authorship, recipients, etc.. For example, although I like what he does with his treatment of the recipients of 1 Peter, he never mentions Moses Chin’s article “A Heavenly Home for the Homeless” in Tyndale Bulletin vol. 42:1 (1991), a significant and influential article (though I disagree with much of it). Similarly, there are some gaps in scholarship; when discussing both the eschatology and the false teachers of 2 Peter, for example, he never mentions two articles that directly deal with these issues: Gene L. Green, “‘As for Prophecies, They Will Come to an End’” in JSNT vol. 8 (2001) and Jerome H. Neyrey, “The Form and Background of the Polemic in 2 Peter,” JBL vol. 99 (September 1980), although he cites other sources by these two scholars. Having said that, I must express my gratefulness that he mentions a little-known article by yours-truly on Peter, an article significantly less important than the contributions by Chin, Green, and Neyrey, so who am I to complain?

Two more points. Even though this book is meant to be accessible to all levels, it still would have greatly benefited from a “survey of scholarship” on Peter and his theology. Secondly, I’m puzzled as to why the relationship between Jude and 2 Peter receives only a two-paragraph treatment (pp. 246-247), especially since this would seem to be relevant to 2 Peter’s theology.

Nevertheless, these moderate critiques should not diminish the value that Helyer’s Life and Witness of Peter provides. This is an essential book for studying both Peter and his theology, and one that I hope to use as a textbook someday.

Three New Articles Especially Worth Reading: Mark Matthews on 2 Peter, Armin Baum on Pseudepigrapha, and John Rhoads on Source Criticism of Josephus

From time to time I hope to alert readers to particularly interesting articles that have recently come out in the mainstream evangelical journals (though I'll probably focus on the NT; sorry!). For interested readers, the Bibliotheca Sacra journal devotes an entire section to "article reviews" (just like book reviews), while the Bird/Willits website also occasionally discusses recent articles. If anybody knows of any other sources that keep up-to-date on recent articles, please let me know in the comments section. Thanks!

I love articles that challange the consensus! In light of that, here are three recent articles that the New Testament student should definitely read: first, in the recent Bulletin for Biblical Research 21 (April 2011), Mark D. Matthews from Durham University writes on "The Genre of 2 Peter: a Comparision with Jewish and Early Christian Testaments" (pp. 51-64). Matthews does not provide a direct defense of Petrinre authorship per se (for that, see Michael Kruger's excellent article in JETS 47 (December 1999) , but what he does is to (respectfully) provide a thorough counter to Richard Bauckham's widely accepted thesis that 2 Peter should be viewed as "testament" literature that would not have been written by Peter himself. To counter Bauckham, Matthews surveys the key characteristics of testament literature (something that has rarely been done) and points out how 2 Peter differs significantly from that genre. Matthrews writes, "Certain key features persist throughout all of the formal testaments and many of the farewell speeches that are absent in 2 Peter . . . more importantly, however, is the author’s communication in the first person. The most consistent feature that is attested in all of the farewell speeches, and formal testaments is the use of the third-person narrative framework. Given the fact that first-person accounts attributed to Paul and Peter were rejected by the early church, it seems unreasonable to assume that (1) this would be an effective medium of expression if one wanted to attribute this teaching to Peter after his death or (2) that the recipients would have viewed it as a fictive, pseudepigraphal testament" (63). Matthews concludes, "as an epistle written in the first person, we can surmise that 2 Peter would have been received as either a genuine letter or a forgery" (64).
      In the same issue of BBR, Armin D. Baum (from the FTH in Giessen) challanges the argument that pseudepigraphal apocalyptic literature would not have been viewed as "deceptive" when claiming to be from a prophet that did not, in fact, write it. Baum's thesis can be summed up as follows: "The admittedly plausible assumption that at least some apocalyptic texts originated from genuine ecstatic experiences does not, however, offer any reason to suppose that thier literary attributions were not measured against the generally accepted ancient standards" (p. 91). Baum concludes by stating what should be an obvious fact that has nevertheless (in my opinion) been ignored in light of theoretical reconstructions of the ANE mind by many critical scholars: "[if an 'early Jewish apocalyptist'] published his book orthonymously under his own name, he did not intend to deceive anybody. But if he ascribed it to one of the biblical prophets, he thereby sought to misinform his audience about the actual historical origin of his apocalyptic texts" (92).
      Next, we have John H. Rhoads' article "Josephus Misdated the Census of Quirinius," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 54 (March 2011): 65-87 [don't you just love it when an author pretty much gives you his thesis in the title? Kudos to Dr. Rhoads for directness]. This whole issue of JETS is, of course, a treasure-trove because you have the articles by T. Schreiner, F. Thielman, and N. T. Wright, essentially the written manifestation of their debate [*cough* excuse me, "dialogue"] from last November's ETS meeting in Atlanta. In addition, Dr. Köstenberger has written an excellent editorial on the pros and cons of social media in the church and acadamia (quote of the month! Dr. Köstenberger regarding Facebook: "Does anybody really care that I had pancakes for breakfast?" [2]). 

       Rhoads' article is definitely worth reading, however, not only because he directly questions why Josephus should necessarily be considered an accurate source regarding the Census of Quirinius that Luke mentions in Luke 2:1-2, but also because he uses source criticism to do so! Rhoads both (1) argues why he believes Josephus was mistaken and (2) provides a rationale as to why Josephus would have dated the census when he did. The irony, of course, is that here we have a scholar utilizing source criticism (a discipline that is frequently used to disparage Scripture's claims of authenticity) to indirectly argue for Luke's credentials as a historian. If Rhoads' thesis stands, then some of the extreme critical scholars are being essentially "hoisted by their own petard."
      All three of the above articles have two things in common (besides the obvious features of being well-written and well-researched): they all find a unique argument to contribute (i.e. they are not just rehashing the debate), and they all demonstrate a good grasp of Second Temple literature. Indeed, I think it's becoming obvious that any serious student of the New Testament must famliarize himself or herself with second temple literature, and I am very grateful that my own degree at SEBTS now requires the class (and thanks to Dr. Köstenberger for teaching it)