What do you think?
Rate this book
Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture
First and Second Peter, Jude (Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture):
In this addition to the Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture (CCSS), Daniel Keating interprets First and Second Peter and Jude for pastoral ministers and lay readers alike. The seventeen-volume CCSS series, which will cover the entire New Testament, relates Scripture to life, is faithfully Catholic, and is supplemented by features designed to help readers understand the Bible more deeply and use it more effectively.
- GenresCatholic
236 pages, Kindle Edition
First published November 1, 2011
31 people are currently reading
56 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
May 25, 2024
A clear and simple exposition of three New Testament books.
1 Peter, 2 Peter and Jude add up to just nine chapters of content. This is significantly shorter than other New Testament books, so they are often overlooked. They don’t have the theological significance of Paul’s letters to the Romans, Corinthians or Galatians, as they have not had disputed readings which have contributed to schisms and heresies.
Yet, the letters still contain some very important themes about the nature of Jesus and his saving work. They are particularly important witnesses to the problem of divisions among early Christians, as they portray a kind of gnostic licentiousness being proposed to Christians.
The commentary works its way through the texts, clarifying meanings and providing clear and thoughtful summaries of disputed readings. This is particularly significant in 1 Peter where there has been more than a thousand years of disagreement about what it meant for Christ to preach to spirits. The commentary identifies three possible, but divergent readings. It explains each clearly so that the reader can make an informed decision about which reading to prefer.
In one or two places I think the commentary could have been a little more nuanced. This was particularly so with the section about wifely subordination. The text explains how slaves must obey masters, even if they are evil; and the commentary notes that obviously that text is now obsolete as slavery itself has been abolished. Yet it then moves on to wifely obedience and explains it as still applicable albeit in a ‘mutual subordination of the wife and husband to each other’ (29%).
Yes that is one way of reading the text. But there is another completely different way of reading this text. That different approach would note that in the same way that slaves had to obey evil masters, until slavery itself was abolished; perhaps wives only had to obey husbands under a specific monarchical model of marriage. And while Christianity has assumed that model of marriage for millennia (in just the same way that it assumed the institution of slavery for a similar timeframe), perhaps Christians are now free to explore a different model of marriage, in which the idea of subordination is thereby rendered obsolete or irrelevant?
That is a possible reading of the texts, and so I would have expected the commentary to explore the idea, even if it was just to reject it (with appropriate reasons for doing so).
One of the commendable features of the commentary was including sections from ancient commentaries, such as early Church fathers and figures like St Bede. The text has been read for two thousand years so its good to get a sense of how the text has been read and commented upon, in that time frame.
A minor irritation was that there didn’t seem to be a consistent policy with regard to when and where the text referred to the Greek words underneath the translation. Sometimes a Greek word would be cited as the basis for an explanation, but at other times it would just be variant English readings of the text.
Overall, this was a helpful commentary which successfully avoids the dangers of over-complicating the text. This means that it is accessible to readers of any background, regardless of whether they have studied theology before. However it was disappointing to see a very limited reading of what it an otherwise controversial text about wifely subordination.
(These are comments on the Baker Academic 2011 version of the text).
1 Peter, 2 Peter and Jude add up to just nine chapters of content. This is significantly shorter than other New Testament books, so they are often overlooked. They don’t have the theological significance of Paul’s letters to the Romans, Corinthians or Galatians, as they have not had disputed readings which have contributed to schisms and heresies.
Yet, the letters still contain some very important themes about the nature of Jesus and his saving work. They are particularly important witnesses to the problem of divisions among early Christians, as they portray a kind of gnostic licentiousness being proposed to Christians.
The commentary works its way through the texts, clarifying meanings and providing clear and thoughtful summaries of disputed readings. This is particularly significant in 1 Peter where there has been more than a thousand years of disagreement about what it meant for Christ to preach to spirits. The commentary identifies three possible, but divergent readings. It explains each clearly so that the reader can make an informed decision about which reading to prefer.
In one or two places I think the commentary could have been a little more nuanced. This was particularly so with the section about wifely subordination. The text explains how slaves must obey masters, even if they are evil; and the commentary notes that obviously that text is now obsolete as slavery itself has been abolished. Yet it then moves on to wifely obedience and explains it as still applicable albeit in a ‘mutual subordination of the wife and husband to each other’ (29%).
Yes that is one way of reading the text. But there is another completely different way of reading this text. That different approach would note that in the same way that slaves had to obey evil masters, until slavery itself was abolished; perhaps wives only had to obey husbands under a specific monarchical model of marriage. And while Christianity has assumed that model of marriage for millennia (in just the same way that it assumed the institution of slavery for a similar timeframe), perhaps Christians are now free to explore a different model of marriage, in which the idea of subordination is thereby rendered obsolete or irrelevant?
That is a possible reading of the texts, and so I would have expected the commentary to explore the idea, even if it was just to reject it (with appropriate reasons for doing so).
One of the commendable features of the commentary was including sections from ancient commentaries, such as early Church fathers and figures like St Bede. The text has been read for two thousand years so its good to get a sense of how the text has been read and commented upon, in that time frame.
A minor irritation was that there didn’t seem to be a consistent policy with regard to when and where the text referred to the Greek words underneath the translation. Sometimes a Greek word would be cited as the basis for an explanation, but at other times it would just be variant English readings of the text.
Overall, this was a helpful commentary which successfully avoids the dangers of over-complicating the text. This means that it is accessible to readers of any background, regardless of whether they have studied theology before. However it was disappointing to see a very limited reading of what it an otherwise controversial text about wifely subordination.
(These are comments on the Baker Academic 2011 version of the text).
February 2, 2019
Very good
I found the commentary very informative and learned a lot. It is written so that it is easily understood. Well worth it.
I found the commentary very informative and learned a lot. It is written so that it is easily understood. Well worth it.
February 3, 2021
Lots of explanation for three small chapters in the Bible, but enlightening.
July 29, 2023
Helpful insights.
November 7, 2019
I thought this was good, but not quite as strong as the others I have read in this series. In particular, Keating could sometimes be clearer in explaining which of various competing interpretations is preferred by the Church. In one instance, he expressly dissents from the Church's interpretation, which seems odd in an explicitly Catholic commentary.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews