This commentary on Jude and the letters of Peter is written with scholarly and technical expertise by Richard Bauckham. The work includes an introduction to each book, discussing the origin, authorship, and linguistics. The commentary then outlines each letter. This work goes on to analyze the epistles verse by verse, drawing out the theological themes and statements. This is a good text for any scholar interested in these epistles.
Average Customer Rating:
(2 Reviews) 2
Rating Snapshot(2 reviews)
1 out of 1100%customers would recommend this product to a friend.
Customer Reviews for 2 Peter & Jude: Word Biblical Commentary [WBC]
Review 1 for 2 Peter & Jude: Word Biblical Commentary [WBC]
Most reviewers of this commentary (both here and elsewhere) agree that Bauckham's exegesis of the text of both Jude and II Peter is meticulous and well-worth study. I believe they are right.
However, most reviewers also express dissatisfaction with Bauckham's conclusion regarding the authorship of II Peter. I don't share that dissatisfaction. First of all, Bauckham's approach is extremely charitable to others. He avoids sounding overly dogmatic, but doesn't surrender his own confidence. Secondly, his view is consistent with a high view of scripture, though admittedly at odds with the majority evangelical opinion; I quote: "The pseudopigraphal device is therefore not a fraudulent means of claiming apostolic authority, but embodies a claim to be a faithful mediator of the apostolic message.” Bauckham frames his argument in light of the "testament genre" of II Peter, thus avoiding the accusation of "forgery" (as one other reviewer has put it). Thirdly, Bauckham's case is concise, but forceful. We can disagree, but we would be naive to overlook his argument.
Overall, this is a superb commentary, and I recommend it to both my more liberal and more conservative friends.
Share this review:
1of1voted this as helpful.
Review 2 for 2 Peter & Jude: Word Biblical Commentary [WBC]
Date:March 6, 2008
For Jude it is a very outstanding commentary!2Petr was a bit disappointing. He makes everyeffort to prove the "forgery" but it is notconvincing.