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
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten