Читать книгу 1, 2 Peter and Jude Through the Centuries - Rebecca Skaggs - Страница 16

Scholarship on Jude and 2 Peter mirrors that of general biblical studies: from the mid‐nineteenth century through the twentieth century, the dominant method was the historical‐critical approach. The last quarter of the twentieth century, however, sparked new perspectives in which scholars began to develop methodologies which build upon and go beyond this to cross disciplines. An impressive example of this is rhetorical criticism presented by Watson (1988). Jerome Neyrey is one of the first to apply social‐scientific method in his commentary on Jude and 2 Peter (1993). These new approaches continued to combine in unusual ways, perhaps culminating in the socio‐rhetorical interpretation developed by Robbins (1996). Further, linguistic and literary methods have also added their insights, illuminating the nature of the reading and writing process itself. In the twenty‐first century, these advances led further to a refocus on these little neglected texts by the development of a special consultation by a group of scholars at the SBL Annual Meeting in 2007. The results of these meetings have been published in several volumes, the Reading with New Eyes series. The volume on Jude (2008) is edited by Webb and Davids and includes notable essays on new methodologies such as sociological models (e.g. Lockett, “Purity and Polemic”); Jeremy Hultin applies a sociological model which considers language utterance as act; see also Betsy Baumann‐Martin, “Postcolonial Pollution.” One of the most intriguing models is the socio‐rhetorical category (rhetography) developed by Webb, building upon Robbins’ socio‐rhetorical criticism. All of these show the richness in these small texts which continues to enhance new approaches. This present volume (2008) includes references to such studies when appropriate, but to go into more depth is beyond the purpose and scope of the series.

The volume on 2 Peter (2010) includes equally enlightening essays on new approaches to 2 Peter. These highlight perspectives such as socio‐rhetorical interpretation (D. Watson); rhetography and rhetology (T. Callan, D. Sylva); and the sociological category of “Collective Identity” (J. Miller).

Although reception history indicates that all three of our epistles have had significant effects through the centuries (see Appendix 3 for timeline), it is important to consider their use in liturgy and worship. Their use in church creeds, constitutions, and confessions is included in the commentary itself but it is appropriate to address here their use in the Lectionary of church worship. The Revised Common Lectionary shows a clear picture.

The Revised Common Lectionary, developed in 1992, having been derived from the 1983 version, is based on the Ordo Lectionem Missae (1969). This is a post‐Vatican II revision of the Roman Lectionary (Vanderbilt Divinity School Library website). It is used by many churches all over the world (see website for list). In terms of our three epistles, the picture is disappointing: 1 Peter is used eight times: once on Holy Saturday, once in Lent of Year B, and six times during the Easter season of year A; 2 Peter appears only twice and Jude is absent altogether. The Roman Catholic Lectionary is very similar, except for a few cases in regard to feast days specific to the Roman Catholic Church. Nonetheless, the use of our three epistles is similar: seven readings from 1 Peter; 1 from 2 Peter, and none from Jude (Vanderbilt Div. School Library online).