view are colored by their respective social locations, political privilege (or lack thereof), and freedom (political, social, economic, etc.) that they have available.
This commentary series (NCCS), with its deliberate international, multicultural, multiracial representation of scholars has sought to correct that omission, albeit in its limited way. However small that gesture is, it is a significant recognition of the shifting composition of the community of biblical scholarship from the previous dominance of Euro-American white males, to one where there is an increasing significant presence of women, and of Latino/a, African-American, African, Asian, and Chinese biblical scholars. Each of these groups brings different questions to the text that previous commentaries, written largely by Euro-American white biblical scholars may have completely failed to address or may have done so from a biased (mostly privileged) position that did not cater to the needs of those in very different socio-cultural-politico-economic positions.
In a sense, one can speak of the Euro-America readings of the Bible as top-down readings (reading from positions of privilege, power, influence, etc.) versus the more recent crop of scholars from the Global South who represent a more bottom-up (reading from the position of the poor, colonized, enslaved, subjugated, etc.). Inevitably, the latter scholars also emanate from regions formally colonized or otherwise occupied, by western nations and are invariably shaped by that encounter. Much as the Enlightenment shaped the western civilization, colonialism and slavery shaped the lives of the communities over which these exercises of domination and subjugation were implemented. For this reason, the tendency to apply forms of reading that reflect a postcolonial vantage for the latter scholars seems inevitable for the non-western scholar.4
Another important factor is that there are constant advances in knowledge that may necessitate the revisiting of issues in the Bible thus justifying the need for new or updated commentaries. For example, the last ten years or so have seen the development of a robust discussion in historical studies about first century Greco-Roman associations (and small groups) within the Empire, which I have argued in this commentary can enhance our understanding of the communities of Jude and 2 Peter within their first century setting, for they seem to fit quite well into the category of these associations. Comparisons of structure, language, and practices between associations and Jude and 2 Peter imply a world where borrowing was common and puts in new relief certain features of these New Testament writings.
That is why the editors of this New Covenant Commentary Series have sought to put together a commentary series that is as internationally representative as it is possible, in order to allow different voices, from different parts of the world to air their thought about how they read and understand the New Testament.
Communities Of Jude And 2 Peter As Greco-Roman Associations
Beyond family gatherings, associations were the most common unofficial community gatherings in antiquity.5 They formed around common interests such as funeral guilds, labor groups, etc., and most involved regular informal gatherings that included meals, fraternizing and drinking. Philip Harland defines associations thus:
In broad terms, associations, synagogues, and congregations were small, non-compulsory groups that could draw their membership from several possible social network connections within civic settings. All could be either relatively homogeneous or heterogeneous with regard to social and gender composition; all engaged in regular meetings that involved a variety of interconnected social, ritual, and other purposes, one group differing from the next in the specifics of activities; all depended in various ways upon commonly accepted social conventions such as benefaction for financial support (e.g., a meeting-place) and the development of leadership structures; and all could engage in at least some degree of external contacts, both positive and negative, with other individuals, benefactors, groups or institutions in the civic context.6
In a subsequent study, Harland points out that these gathering were as much about socializing as they were about honoring benefactors, both human and divine. As such, the modern distinction made between social and religious aspects of associations is patently mistaken, and that “all associations were in some sense religious. . .”7 Reading the letters of Jude and 2 Peter as products of similar small groups will hopefully allow us to see them in a light that they have not quite been seen before. Since these letters reflect the writings of social groups that were part of the minority groups within the Greco-Roman empire, I have sought to read them in the context of Greco-Roman associations to highlight aspects they commonly share and how these in turn provide a window of understanding the rhetoric of these Christian letters.8
Both Jude and 2 Peter mention their communities’ regular meal gatherings or “love feasts” as the prime target of the infiltrators to propagate their untoward teachings (Jude 12; 2 Peter 2:13). Meal gatherings were a shared commonality with other Greco-Roman small groups, and played a key role in the structuring of associations and so it mattered who controlled them.9 These meal gatherings served as social institutions that functioned as both social and religious assemblies with the religious entwined with the communal, making the occasions without question both civic and religious.10 It is in this context that one must read both Jude and 2 Peter allowing for the general analysis of Greco-Roman associations to inform our interpretive process of the letters.11 Indeed, it is not a novel claim on my part since indications are that contemporaries viewed and understood early Christian gatherings in terms of associations, while some of the early Christians communities also viewed themselves in such terms.12 We shall examine especially the tendency in associations to use stereotyping as a form of self defense against perceived enemies and also the importance for associations to maintain what was considered acceptable “banquet decorum.”
Stereotyping in Associations, and in Jude and 2 Peter
According to Harland, language common to many of the Greco-Roman associations and groups typically stereotypes and vilifies perceived opponents as sexual perverts, cannibals/barbaric, and murderers, all with the aim of shoring up internal self definition and social identity at the expense of an opponent’s.13 These stereotypes therefore, had no intention of reflecting any actual historical practices.14 In Jude and 2 Peter, the opponents are characterized using similar categories of sexual perversion (Jude 4, 18; 2 Pet 1:4, etc.), “wild brutes” (Jude 10, 19; 2 Pet 1:9; 2:10, etc.), and “blasphemy/ungodly” (Jude 8–10; 2 Pet 3–4) resulting in death (2 Pet 1:10, 2:2, 10, etc.). Also, the focus on value in 2 Peter retains parallels with the purity focus of the Greco-Roman stereotype.15 Drawing from Harland’s conclusion about certain characteristics of the stereotyping language evident in the Greco-Roman group dynamics, “novels, histories and ancient ethnographic material,” the characterization of the opponents in Jude and 2 Peter therefore closely parallels that which is found in the Greco-Roman discourses on identity formation and boundary structuring.16
Placed in the wider Greco-Roman association context, an analysis of the group dynamics in Jude and 2 Peter would hopefully put in new light, and further clarify, the harsh tone that the letters reflect, and which remains a disquieting aspect of the letters for most readers. Following Duane F. Watson, the authors of Jude and 2 Peter were using ancient rhetoric, that involved “artificial proof” (entechnoi), in which case, “the rhetor seeks to show his
