The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude

I enjoyed Davids' commentary! It was mostly helpful. Can be helpful for preachers but seemingly more suited for academic circles in my eyes.

Davids’ volume proves slightly more scholarly than other entries in the PNTC series yet remains accessible and useful to readers with a background in Greek. The commentary consistently couples the author’s expertise in exegeting the text with deep and insightful theological reflection. [Full Review]

As with Peter Davids' other well known commentaries on the catholic epistles (James in NIGTC, and 1 Peter in NICNT) he is able to balance critical scholarship with pastoral relevance and clear exposition. A great choice for pastors and students. Less technical than Bauckham, so more widely readable.

I just received this commentary and although I have not read all of the commentary as of yet, I wanted to state clearly that Davids supports traditional authorship of both books, ultimately concluding that there is not enough evidence to overturn Petrine authorship of 2 Peter.

Perhaps the most popular academic commentary on the epistles; recommended by Clint Arnold, Jerome Neyrey, Seyoon Kim, and Ralph P. Martin. [Full Review]

Those who do not pick up either Bauckham or Green as their first choice for 1 Peter and Jude will doubtless turn to Davids and his contribution to the PNTC. It is held up as slightly simpler than Bauckham’s but still in-depth enough that it may prove tough-going for the untrained pastor or poorly-trained pastor. Carson says, “the combination of rich exegesis and thoughtful theological reflection … makes it a first choice.” [Full Review]

This commentary begins with Jude (despite the title!), a letter which may have been written by Jesus’ brother, but Davids does not find compelling evidence for this. It is the opponents which the letter deal with which are determinative for Davids. Jude certainly comes from Palestine, but the opponents reflect a libertine attitude toward the Law which implies Paul’s law-free gospel is being misunderstood. But there is no way to be sure, so any date afer 50-55 could be defended (23). His conclusions on 2 Peter are similar, there is not enough evidence to state with certainty that the book is pseudepigraphic or not. I would recommend reading this commentary along side Bauckham, Davids interacts with Bauckham’s arguments. The commentary proper is rich with allusions to the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Period literature, treating the English text with all references to Greek in transliteration [Full Review]

This commentary begins with Jude (despite the title!), a letter which may have been written by Jesus’ brother, but Davids does not find compelling evidence for this. It is the opponents which the letter deal with which are determinative for Davids. Jude certainly comes from Palestine, but the opponents reflect a libertine attitude toward the Law which implies Paul’s law-free gospel is being misunderstood. But there is no way to be sure, so any date afer 50-55 could be defended (23). His conclusions on 2 Peter are similar, there is not enough evidence to state with certainty that the book is pseudepigraphic or not. I would recommend reading this commentary along side Bauckham, Davids interacts with Bauckham’s arguments. The commentary proper is rich with allusions to the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Period literature, treating the English text with all references to Greek in transliteration. [Full Review]

This is a solid commentary. Like most Pillar commentaries, application and theological reflection is light but not completely absent. The emphasis is on giving historical background and interpretive options. In this way it is like Green's commentary, but Davids is much more readable. The pastor or lay person will be better served by Davids while scholars will perhaps find the investment in Green worthwhile.

It was a tough call, but Peter David's commentary on Jude was my personal favorite. This was the first time I've extensively used one of his commentaries, and in many ways it reminded me of Peter T. O'Brein's Ephesians commentary in the same series, which is very high praise coming from me. He substantiated his claims without weighing the reader down with extensive detail. I never felt like I lost the larger point while examining the finer details, which is a complaint I sometimes have with detailed commentaries. Davids blends different approaches well. It was clear that he had an in depth understanding of the text and of Mediterranean culture. I previously highlighted his comments on the doxology. They added depth to my understanding of the doxology by showing how it functioned in an honor-shame society. I also appreciated how he preserved the tension that is present in the text between keeping oneself in the love of God and being kept by God. He doesn't settle for easy answers. I highly recommend this commentary, especially for pastors it should be the first one off the shelf. 5 stars out of 5. [Full Review]

Until the publication of Gene Green's commentary, this volume by Peter Davids was the best commentary on these two neglected books. Like all of the other volumes in the Pillar series, it is accessible and insightful. [Full Review]

[Full Review]

Peter H. Davids, Professor of Biblical Theology at St. Stephens’s University, New Brunswick, has previously contributed commentaries on both James (NIGTC, 1982) and 1 Peter (NICNT, 1990). As Davids notes in the preface (x), he had earlier given away to Robert L. Webb the assignment of writing on 2 Peter–Jude for the NICNT series, only later to have been invited to contribute the present volume to the Pillar series. D. A. Carson, the series editor, describes the objective of the Pillar series as seeking “above all to make clear the text of Scripture as we have it” (viii). Davids’s contribution follows the general format of other volumes in the Pillar series. Following a series preface, it opens with an author’s preface, tables of abbreviations, and a select bibliography. Following a general introduction to both letters (1–4), Davids turns initially to the letter of Jude (introduction [7–32] followed by commentary [33–117]) and then to 2 Peter (introduction [121–58] followed by commentary [159–318]). Appended are four indices: modern authors, subjects, Scripture references, and extrabiblical literature. Davids begins with Jude, owing to his conviction that 2 Peter uses Jude (3, 23 and more fully on 136–43). He observes that Jude has often been treated with “benign neglect” (7 and n. 1, drawing on an observation by John H. [Full Review]

Peter Davids, Professor of Biblical Theology at St. Stephen’s University, St. Stephen, New Brunswick, is well known to students of the Catholic Letters. Davids was originally asked to complete the 2 Peter–Jude commentary for the NIGTC series, yielding that assignment to Robert Webb. He was later grateful to have another shot at such a commentary. The present tome took more than ten years to finish. This volume thus completes his trilogy on James (NIGTC), 1 Peter (NICNT), and 2 Peter and Jude (PNTCS). In keeping with the Pillar series, Davids does not get bogged down in detailed exegesis but maintains a lively pace through the treacherous waters of the two New Testament letters that border on the imprecatory. Although the series is not conducive to micro-exegesis, the author is able to offer up quite an exegetical feast. One senses that he has taken pains to summarize his vast learning of the general letters. His argumentation is admirably clear and succinct, although on occasion the discussions trail off, leaving the reader wondering what view Davids actually holds. The form of the commentary is traditional: introductory matters related to authorship, date, addressees, language, theology; and translation of text (the NIV) followed by a commentary that traces the author’s argument and interacts with major exegetical issues. The commentary is also dotted with points of relevance for today’s Christian reader. [Full Review]