Abstract
This study undertakes a comparative examination of the diaspora theme and its impact on social identity, with a particular focus on 1 Peter. Avoiding prescriptive analysis which tends to assess diaspora discourses through levels of commonality, the work seeks to ‘appreciate’ the diverse conceptualizations of this topic in the New Testament and other Second Temple Jewish literature. With a view toward the variegated nature of the concept, the goal is to shed light on the fact that ‘diaspora is not just a historical phenomenon but also a literary trope that signifies cultural ideals, conjures specific social relationships, and positionalities, and represents constructive dialogues on difference, deviance, and assimilation’ (p. 12).
Four different texts (or groups of texts) are examined in an effort to understand ‘how the writings imagine and shape diaspora into a livable situation’ (p. 13). These include the court tales of Daniel, the Letter of Aristeas, the works of Philo of Alexandria, and 1 Peter. The latter is the focus of the first three chapters, wherein the author explores the nature of diaspora as constructed by the Petrine author (ch. 1) and the expectations of those living in the conditions of diaspora—both in terms of their cultic practices (ch. 2) and their social relationships (ch. 3). This discussion is followed by individual chapters which treat the theme of diaspora in each of the other texts listed above (chs. 4–6), along with a conclusion which reviews the distinct contribution of 1 Peter toward diaspora thinking and its application for modern readers.
Overall, this book is extremely well-written, and filled with many valuable insights. Especially illuminating is the way that 1 Peter’s vision of diaspora is set in contrast to that of other Second Temple authors, thereby emphasizing the letter’s unique perspective. But for all the positive contributions, there are a few limitations. Notably, the author’s use of secondary sources—which is limited primarily to English language materials—omits a great deal of relevant literature on 1 Peter, and the sources which are cited are not always engaged as thoroughly as one might hope. Related to this, the study often fails to venture below the exegetical surface into the minutiae where interpretive debate lies; thus, it tends to stay removed from much of the standard discussions which have come to define Petrine studies. This is refreshing, but at the same time, it tends to take away from the force of the overall argument.