vrijdag 25 januari 2013

Review of Jerome H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 37C), Doubleday, 1993

Jerome H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 37C), Doubleday, 1993.

Review in: JBL
Gevonden op: http://www.academicroom.com/bookreview/2-peter-jude-new-translation-introduction-and-commentary

2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, by Jerome H. Neyrey. AB 37C. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Pp. xii + 287. $28.00 ($35.00 Canada).

This commentary on Jude and 2 Peter replaces the earlier commentary in the same series by Bo Reicke (which also included 1 Peter), published in 1964. It need hardly be said that much has been done in NT research in the last 30 years, even on these two traditionally neglected epistles. New methods, such as rhetorical criticism and the application of social theory, have revolutionized our understanding of the NT. Indeed, Jerome Neyrey is probably the first scholar to utilize research in cultural anthropology in the writing of a NT commentary. For that reason alone, his new commentary on Jude and 2 Peter will be recognized as a ground-breaking work.

In his general introduction Neyrey sets forth his new perspective by sketching five "cultural perspectives" needed for understanding the symbolic and social world of people separated from us not only in time but by "a radically different culture" (p. 3). These are: (1) the "pivotal values" of honor and shame, (2) patron and client relationships, (3) purity and pollution, (4) the physical body as a social model, and (5) group-orientation rather than individualism. Neyrey applies these five cultural perspectives to Jude and 2 Peter and other NT writings, and, for each of the five sketches, a brief bibliography is provided at the end.

The commentary itself consists, first, of a translation and an outline for the Epistle of Jude, an introduction, with bibliography, and an exposition of the eight sections into which the book is divided, with bibliography for each section and for the book as a whole (pp. 21-105). The same procedure is followed for 2 Peter (pp. 106-260), which is divided into thirteen sections. At the end of the book there are indices of biblical texts, ancient authors and works, and topics.

In his introduction to Jude, Neyrey lays out first its literary structure, here relying on, but modifying, Duane F. Watson's rhetorical analysis (in Incention, Arrangement, and Style: Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and 2 Peter [SBLDS 104; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 19881);then its vocabulary and style; its place, date, and author; the question of Jude's opponents; and the "social location" of the author. Neyrey leans toward early second-century Alexandria for the epistle's time and place of origin. He views the opponents as persons who presumably regarded bodily functions as indifferent and denied future judgment on the basis that "the resurrection has already occurred (p. 3; cf. 2 Tim 2:17-18), an interpretation that is not supported in the commentary itself. Elsewhere (p. 120) he cites Clement of Alexandria's view that Jude was arguing against Carpocrates (Strom 3.2.197-200), but he omits any reference to Clement's ??? Theodore discussing the Carpocratians and their use of the Secret Gospel of Mark, a letter in which Jude 13 is quoted.

The implied author's social location is determined by the application of a model developed for Luke-Acts by Vernon Robbins, based on a close socio-rhetorical reading of the text as to (1) previous events, (2) natural environment, (3) population structure, (4) technology, (5) socialization and personality, (6) culture, (7) foreign affairs, and (8)belief systems and ideology. The putative author is seen as a trained scribe, an "urban retainer," i.e., "non-elite," and "definitely Jewish," on the basis of his reliance on Jewish traditions and literature (including 1 Enoch). He also enjoyed high status within his community on the basis of blood ties to James and Jesus, a point that is really only applicable if Jude is the real author of the epistle.

One of the dominant themes of Jude, as interpreted by Neyrey, is the defense of honor: of the putative author (v. l ) , of Jesus as "Master and L o r d (v. 4), of God and his sovereignty (w.5-7 et passim). The opponents are judged in terms of pollution; the author's own community in terms of purity. In general, it can be said that Neyrey's socio-anthropological approach provides new insights into the meaning and situation of the text, and the rhetorical strategy of its author.

In contrast to most commentators, Neyrey devotes comparatively little attention to issues of textual criticism, especially in the case of 2 Peter. For Jude he defends the reading "Jesus" in v. 5 because it is "the more difficult reading" (pp. 61-62) vs. ??? (Nestle-Aland"). (Sinaiticus, followed by Nestle-Aland") or [o] ~Gploq Neyrey's preferred reading here is probably too difficult to be correct. On the other hand, his preference for P72's reading of the notorious crux in 22-23 has much to commend it.

In his introduction to 2 Peter, Neyrey discusses first its formal and literary structure, its rhetorical structure, its vocabulary and style, its literary relationship to Jude, the question of the opponents of 2 Peter, and the author's social location. 2 Peter contains a number of forms, including a "solemn decree" (1:3-11) and a "farewell address" (1:12-15). Its overall form as a "letter" is "the literary fiction in which the author's remarks are cast" (p. 111). 2 Peter used Jude as a literary source. The opponents of 2 Peter were either Epicureans or "scoffers" (npikoros) who denied theodicy. A socio-rhetorical analysis of 2 Peter reveals its author to be a highly trained scribe, formally educated in both Jewish and Christian traditions and familiar with Greek culture, familiar with Petrine traditions and at least some of Paul's letters. He probably wrote from a city in Asia Minor, rather than from Rome, Egypt, or Palestine.

Neyrey analyzes the body of the letter in terms of five "slanders" mounted by opponents against God and his providence: (1) against the specific prophecy of the parousia (1:16-18); (2) against prophecy as such (1:19-21); (3) against the Master (Christ, 2 : 1 3 a ) and divine judgment ( 2 : 3 b l l ) ; (4) against divine pronouncements of future judgment (3:l-7); (5) and against the "delay" of divine judgment (34-13). Within this framework denunciations of the opponents are liberally inserted, calling attention to their "shame." Mention of Paul's letters in the final exhortation and letter closing (3:1418) does not imply either that the opponents claimed Paul as their authority or rejected Paul; rather, according to Neyrey, 3:15-16 reflects a "harmonizing tendency" that includes Paul's letters in the "fixed tradition" of early Christian theology (p. 150).

One of the most interesting features of Neyrey's interpretation of 2 Peter is his views concerning the identity of the letter's opponents. He mounts some impressive arguments (based on his Yale dissertation, 1977) that the opponents should be viewed as Epicureans or, at least, "scoffers" such as are denounced in rabbinic literature with the term epikoros (e.g., Cain as depicted in the targums to Gen 43-16). The key here is the opponents' apparent denial of divine providence and judgment. But can that be correct? The text of 2 Peter clearly implies that the opponents are insiders, i.e., deviant Christians, but we have no external knowledge of any "Epicureans" among the varieties of early Christian groups known to us. Tllus, the "Epicureans" of 2 Peter are the product of a purely socio-rhetorical extrapolation that is not subject to any historical control. That the author of 2 Peter adopts anti-Epicurean arguments is not to be doubted, but this tells us more about his rhetorical strategy than about the real people denounced by him. Plotinus, for example, in his treatise against the Gnostics, lumped the Gnostics with Epicurus and his denial of divine providence (Enn.2.9.15).

This, of course, raises the question too readily dismissed by Neyrey: Could the opponents of 2 Peter be seen as Gnostics, as so many commentators have argued before? Or, perhaps more intriguing, in view of Joseph Hoffmann's recent work on Marcion, could they be viewed as Marcionites? A. E. Bamett suggested as much in the introduction to his commentary, published in 1957 (IB 12:164), but he never developed that theory in the actual commentary itself. I would argue that every one of the five "slanders" treated by Neyrey can be interpreted in terms of Marcionite doctrine. I would argue, further, that 2 Peter's appropriation of the letters of Paul, as well as its defense of the "honor" of Peter, can be viewed as a response to Marcionite notions of apostolic authority. This view of the opponents, at least, coheres with what is known from our sources about the varieties of second-century Christianity.

Neyrey's new commentary is an exciting event in NT studies. It provides us not only with grist for further study of the epistles of Jude and 2 Peter but also with a model for future NT commentaries.

Birger A. Pearson
University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106

Geen opmerkingen:

Een reactie posten