I have already shared Bowman’s bibliographies for James and Hebrews with you all, so this post we will complete the General Epistles with the two epistles of Peter, Jude, and the three epistles of John. Enjoy!

 

General Epistles: A Very Short Bibliography

Robert M. Bowman, Jr.

1 Peter

Achtemeier, Paul J. 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996. Well-done but now somewhat dated commentary reflecting standard mainline/liberal approach to the epistle.

*Elliott, John H. 1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries 37B. New York: Doubleday–Anchor Bible, 2000. Nearly a thousand pages long commentary by the premiere modern Petrine scholar, a Lutheran who taught for decades at the Jesuit-run University of San Francisco. Even though it is older than the excellent commentaries by Forbes and Jobes, this one remains an absolute must for serious exegetical study of…

A favorite argument against the existence of Q is simply that no manuscripts of Q have ever been discovered. No more than this bare assertion is usually made. But a little probing shows that this argument has some serious weaknesses to it. In particular, three come to mind: (1) If Matthew and Luke swallowed up Q in their writings, why would we expect to find any copies of Q? Or to put this another way, Luke says that he used more than one source, presumably more than one written source. If so, why haven’t we found it/them? The fact that we haven’t surely doesn’t mean that Luke was not shooting straight with us, does it? (2) Even the Gospel of Mark has few copies in the early centuries, yet it was endorsed as an official Gospel by Ireneaus. Yet this is a canonical Gospel, which apparently was regarded in some…