|
| Christian news worldwide |
 Home |
 Archives |
 Subscriptions |
 Adverts |
 Find a church |
 About us |
 Contact us |
 Site Map |
 PrintableVersion Letters and homilies for Hellenized ChristiansUndermining ScriptureLETTERS AND HOMILIES FOR HELLENIZED CHRISTIANS, Vol. II Ben Witherington III’s trademark contribution to the world of NT studies is that of the Socio-Rhetorical commentary. That is, by focusing on the life-situation into which gospels or letters were written, along with their rhetorical style and structure, he provides his readers with helpful keys with which to unlock the biblical message. So, when it comes to this volume, he is looking in particular at the social and religious milieu of the congregations addressed by 1 & 2 Peter. The commentary falls into two parts dealing with 1 and 2 Peter separately. Each part in turn falls into two further subsections: the first dealing with introduction (from the perspective already noted) and the second providing the commentary proper (again controlled by the stated perspective of the author). There are valuable ‘Closer Look’ sections expanding points of interest and select bibliographies provided for both letters which outline recommended reading for each. In his remarks about 1 Peter, Witherington argues that this letter is ‘an ad hoc pastoral document’ reflecting an ongoing relationship between Peter and a string of congregations in the regions listed in its introduction. These congregations were made up of Hellenized Jewish Christians (as opposed to those who were merely converts from Judaism) and they existed alongside other churches that had been planted by Paul in some of those regions. He acknowledges that he is taking a different view than that expressed in most contemporary commentaries. When it comes to 2 Peter, he argues strongly against Petrine authorship, but does not wish this to be taken to mean that the author(s) was/were deliberately trying to mislead their readership by invoking the apostle’s name in the opening line. Rather he sees this as reflecting a genuine desire to uphold the apostolic tradition. He sees what follows as being not so much a letter, but ‘the first Christian attempt at “mass communication”... to all Christians in the empire’ — a kind of ‘encyclical’. He draws these conclusions largely from linguistic and rhetorical analysis and they are reflected in the more detailed comment on the text that follows. There is undoubtedly a place for so-called critical commentaries like this one and there is no question but that they shed very helpful light on nuances of context and style that provide a clearer grasp of the message. At the same time, it is a useful maxim to remember that critical commentaries are only helpful insofar as they are used critically. The question of Petrine authorship of the second epistle is not as easily resolved as is being suggested here, and — given the overt self-references to the apostle it contains — its implications ought not to be minimised if it is to retain its place in the canon of Scripture. ‘Socio-Rhetorical’ commentaries are helpful, but they need to be read within the context of the wider range of commentaries available! Mark G. Johnston, © Evangelicals Now - August 2008 |
|
