Dead Sea Scrolls
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 53, No. 1 – Fall 2010
Managing Editor: Malcolm B. Yarnell III
By Gene L. Green. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. 448 pages. Hardcover. $39.99.
The Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (BECNT) is shaping up to be an excellent commentary series, and the Jude and 2 Peter volume continues in the tradition of the volumes already in print. Both Jude and 2 Peter are among the most neglected books of the New Testament both in preaching and teaching, and they were among the group of last books to be canonized. However, starting with Richard Bauckham’s commentary on these books in the Word commentary, there has rightfully been a renewed interest in these books, especially of late with Peter David’s volume in the Pillar commentary.
One expects a thoughtful traditional approach to authorship and related elements of these two New Testament books, and Green does not disappoint. He gives good reasons for accepting Jude, the half brother of Jesus, as the author of Jude (1–9) and the apostle Peter as the author of 2 Peter (139–50). He also effectively deals with the dilemma of how to understand Jude and Peter’s use of 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses. One can (1) discount their canonicity because of their use of noncanonical literature, (2) extend canonicity to the writings from which they quoted, (3) realize Jude and Peter cited them only because their opponents considered them authoritative, or (4) consider the parts they quoted true, but not extend that authority to the rest of the noncanonical works (26–33). This reviewer agrees with Green that the latter option is the only viable one.
As in all of the volumes in the BECNT series, this volume gives Hebrew or Greek references in the original language followed by a transliteration and translation. This helpful feature allows the reader who does not know Greek or Hebrew to follow the discussion, thus helping to reach their goal of a wide audience, from lay person to scholar (ix). However, the other convention from the series of marking questionable words in the translation using the right-angled siglum from the Nestle-Aland text ought to have some explanation for the novice to textual criticism (e.g., 43, 63, 101, 119, 171, 249).
Taking the most likely view that Peter used Jude as a source when writing 2 Peter (159–62), rather than Jude using 2 Peter, Green gives solid exegesis. He provides many relevant extrabiblical examples for both style as well as word meanings, from Josephus and Philo to pseudepigraphal writings to the Apocrypha (e.g., 227–28, 240, 243–45), all of which appear in a very helpful “Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings” (389–420).
Green offers valuable insights, such as the tendency to get caught up in trying to figure out what the “first letter” is that is mentioned in 2 Peter 3:1 that interpreters often miss the importance of that statement. The mentioning of a second letter or second statement not only affirms the importance of the first one, but it also draws attention to the importance and authority of the second, present teaching (310). He stresses the importance of Peter broadening the concept of Scripture to include Paul’s writings in 3:16 (147, 340). Rather than causing doubt about Petrine authorship of 2 Peter (which, unfortunately, is the way most scholars react), this statement sheds light on the process of the canonization of the New Testament. Green wisely cautions that 2 Peter 3:8 is not an interpretive key for one to look for certain “days” in the Scriptures that are actually thousands of years. Rather, God looks at time differently from humans (325–26).
What is the genre of Jude and 2 Peter? There is a tendency today to examine the New Testament through the lens of ancient rhetoric. However, Green gives a good balance between appreciating the rhetorical elements in both epistles while understanding the basic structures of a Greco-Roman letter (33–42, 162–70).
Green gives conscientious conservative interpretation, careful attention to details, extensive extra-biblical examples, and thoughtful interaction with the interpretations of other scholars. Unfortunately, as with other volumes in this series, the “Additional Notes” sections are skimpy or nonexistent (e.g., 50, 111, 177, 268), and this reviewer would like to see them expanded. Nevertheless, this is an excellent volume for the BECNT series.
