The Family
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 49, No. 1 – Fall 2006
Managing Editor: Malcolm B. Yarnell III
By Karen H. Jobes. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005. xviii + 364 pages. Hardcover, $29.99.
The BECNT is an excellent commentary series, and Karen H. Jobes gives a well-researched, fresh look at 1 Peter in her contribution to this series. Jobes is Associate Professor of New Testament at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California.
Jobes’ expertise in both New Testament and Septuagintal studies clearly shines through in this volume. She emphasizes the LXX origin of the Scripture Peter quoted, a point sometimes missed in other com- mentaries (xi, 55). Yet, her most interesting contribution to 1 Peter studies is the theory that the recipients of this epistle were Jewish converts to Christianity, displaced from Rome to Asia Minor (xi, 23–33, 61), rather than indigenous Gentile converts in Asia Minor. Coupling this idea with the possibility that Peter went to Rome in the A.D. 40s (although not necessarily permanently), and was therefore connected with these converts, Jobes presents an intriguing idea that is worthy of more study (33–41). She rightly presents her ideas simply as possibilities due to the lack of historical background references in 1 Peter (41).
The single excursus is another area in which Jobes successfully chal- lenges a belief found in most studies on 1 Peter (325–38). Her examination of the syntax of 1 Peter lays the groundwork to help dispel the assumption that the Greek in 1 Peter is too good for Peter to have written. Using a quantitative model she developed for her dissertation, Jobes demonstrates at the syntactical level (which is typically subconscious) the writer of 1 Peter shows enough Semitic interference to indicate the writer was not a native Greek speaker (328–29, 337). Rather, the writer was a native Se- mitic speaker—as Peter was. Jobes rightly calls for more objective literary analysis to be done beyond the syntactical level, and her work gives a viable foundation for this process (338). Earlier in the commentary, Jobes does an excellent job in answering objections to Petrine authorship of 1 Peter (6–11), thus allowing it could have been Peter with the possible help of an amanuensis (11).
There are a few minor problems in the commentary. Sometimes Jobes relies simply on secondary sources (1, 15, 22), and there is a missed citation for Calvin (23). Yet, considering her citations easily run into the thou- sands, her accuracy is commendable. This reviewer disagrees with Jobes’ contention that pseudepigraphy can be part of an inerrant writing (14). Misrepresentation is wrong even if it is culturally accepted at the time.
The perceived value in a commentary today is not in dishing out dogma but in describing and critiquing various interpretations while ultimately advocating the position consistent with the beliefs and objective research of the writer. Jobes does this well in a clearly evangelical framework. She handles the difficult-to-interpret 1 Peter 3:18–22 with thorough research and accurate analysis (235–60). However, considering Jobes’ theory that the recipients were converted Jews, it would have helped to tie in the application of 1 Peter 2:4–10 to these Jewish Christian recipients in contrast with non-believing Jews (144–64).
One wishes Jobes had written an excursus analyzing the use of the LXX in 1 Peter, drawing upon her expertise in this area. Textual comments refer to this subject (e.g., 117–18, 137–41, 220), but a summary and separate analysis would strengthen the commentary in the niche Jobes created. Still, this is a fine commentary, with rich exegesis and exposition, good food for thought, and plenty of citations to aid the reader in further study.
