Abstract
The ‘study guide’ on the two neglegted letters takes an uncommon critical perspective, hinted at by the mention of ‘paranoia’ in the subtitle. The author writes from a deliberate ideological distance. In the preface, drawing on Roland Barthes, he describes this as a reading by a ‘Martian’, i.e., a foreigner who understands the language but does not share the world or ideology of the text. Exegetically, he is dependent on other interpreters’, in particular an article by Michael Desjardins from 1987 reading the letters’ polemic as an indication of the ideological structure of the authors or their communities.
In accord with current critical scholarship, Aichele presents introductory matters: Both letters are pseudonymous, with 2 Peter drawing on Jude. But in reconstructing the ideology of the respective communities and the profile of the opponents, Aichele is far too uncritical: The differences between both letters and the precise points of dissent between the respective authors and their opponents are not uncovered. According to Aichele, the debate in both letters is primarily about ‘moral’ issues (with a morality considered with Nietzsche as ‘slave morality’). Both communities are considered proto-orthodox, the ‘bad guys’ polemicized against are considered Gnostics—a view that is outdated in current research. Thus the image of early Christian history of theology remains too unprecise, and this enables Aichele to his ‘negative’ reading.
In his reading of Jude, Aichele juxtaposes Jude to the movie ‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers’. In Jude, he finds a similar paranoia in the idea that there is a difference within the community between good guys and bad guys which the author wants to make aware of. For Aichele, the letter is an exercise of ‘pastoral power’ as part of a ‘paranoid despotic regime’ (p. 35). Thereby, he is well aware that he himself might be considered an infiltrator among the godly ones (p. 38) when reading those letters as a ‘Martian’. 2 Peter is, then, read as a correction and ‘regularization of Jude, with regard to language and content’ (p. 61), but again the intention of 2 Peter and the real profile of the opponents are left unclear. The book ends with the thought experiment that the authors of the letters themselves might be ‘heretics’.
The introduction is thought-provoking in its critical distance from the texts. It expresses many of the uncomfortable feelings readers have when reading those letters. But as a ‘guide for the perplexed’ the book is not really commendable, not only because of its sometimes hyper-critical stance but even more so because the lack of really critical historical work.