PDA

View Full Version : best and favorite commentary set



alan1979
08-15-2005, 09:08 PM
What is everyone's favorite commentary set, whether Word Biblical, Anchor, NICOT/NICNT, NIGNTC, Pillars, etc... and why?


alan

Dale A. Brueggemann
08-16-2005, 09:56 AM
It depends on how you use commentaries: for preparing sermons, for personal study, for preparing college lectures, etc. In any case, I wouldn't recommend buying a set, unless you pick it up at a great used price. Instead, pick the best work on each book. A couple tools that are helpful for doing that are the following:

Tremper Longman, Old Testament Commentary Survey, Baker, 1995, 2003.
D. A. Carson, New Testament Commentary Survey, Baker, 2001.

MGVH
08-16-2005, 10:19 AM
I've collected some lists and links of recommended commentaries here (http://www.gettysburgsem.org/mhoffman/other/bibresources.htm).

NeroDog
08-16-2005, 12:51 PM
Fee & Stuart include a list of good comentaries in How to read the Bible for all its worth.

cmyktaylor
08-19-2005, 03:43 PM
Dale's right, don't waste your money on a complete set, unless of course you are purchasing Baker's NTC ($200.00 for all twelve volumes). Individual recommendations: Romans - Baker's ECNT vol. 6 by Schreiner; 2 Corinthians - Zondervans NIVAC by Hafemann; Ephesians - Baker's green volume by Hoehner; Pastorals - WBC vol. (?) by Mounce; Revelation - (?'s) NIGTC by Beale.

Gontroppo
08-19-2005, 11:35 PM
I find that the Word Biblical Commentary offers value for money, but do look for the best deal. In Australia it can be as high as $550 or as low as $349.

Word has some excellent commentators, though some are only loosely evangelical.

The Expositors Bible Commentary 5.1 version [Pradis] is well worth buying and has many excellent commentaries, and a few that are less than excellent.

The IVP Essential Reference Collection has some terrific resources for the teacher and preacher.

David McKay
www.davidmckay.info (http://www.davidmckay.info)

ugotdave
08-26-2005, 08:07 PM
Ah, the joy of reading someone else’s comments on scripture. I truly enjoy reading commentaries for several reasons.




It allows you to see where the commentator stands on scripture. For example, I like to pick a passage in scripture that I have studied out, one that I have applied good sound biblical hermeneutics to, and then read the commentary of that particular person and see if they have done the same. I normally use Matthew 5:17, if available. Matthew 5:17 is an excellent scripture to use, because unlearned commentators, that is, one’s who are unfamiliar with Hebraic styles, such as ramez and literary genre, usually misinterpret the word “fulfill”
Secondly, good commentators fuel the spiritual fire that sometimes grows dim, due to lack of scripture study, or just plain ignorance, in other words, were I lack in understanding they don’t. But it’s a very good practice, even with sound commentators, to use good old fashion biblical hermeneutics to exegete the passage. And with good commentators, the sometimes rough edges of the Original Language, Culture, History, Etc, are smoothed over.


My Favorite,

Jewish New Testament Commentary
by David H. Stern

ISBN: 9653590111

Gontroppo
08-26-2005, 10:12 PM
Hi Dave
Can you tell us how you think fulfill should be interpreted in Matthew 5:17. You got me intrigued!

And ... forgive me, but some folk evaluate bible versions by seeing how they render their favourite verses, or verses they have a particular interest in, and then say a version is lacking, or even worthless, if it doesn't translate the way they favour.

That could be a danger with your method of evaluating commentaries, I think.

David McKay
www.davidmckay.info (http://www.davidmckay.info)

ugotdave
08-27-2005, 01:37 PM
David,



Sure, I will be glad to share.



You are correct; my method employed by seeing if a commentator is “kosher” or not has its issues, I know that one data point analysis is not the best practice. In this case though, I have never seen it fail, you can really see what school of thought a scholar has adopted by using this method.



Lets take Matthew Henry’s Commentary on Matt 5:17 for example.

He had four points on the passage, I took just one of them.



[4.] To fill up the defects of it, and so to complete and perfect it. Thus the word plerosai (NT:4137) properly signifies. If we consider the law as a vessel that had some water in it before, he did not come to pour out the water, but to fill the vessel up to the brim; or, as a picture that is first rough-drawn, displays some outlines only of the piece intended, which are afterwards filled up; so Christ made an improvement of the law and the prophets by his additions and explications

(from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1991 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.)



Matthew Henry makes a bad mistake here, he says, “To fill up the defects of it” and “so Christ made an improvement of the law and the prophets”. If the Law, or better rendered in this context as Torah, has need of improvements or worse has defects, we have some serious scripture reconciling to think about. Psalms 19 comes to mind, as several other scriptures.



Could you imagine, me standing up and teaching that the Word of God has defects and needs improvements. I would be labeled a heretic! :)



The word “fulfill” in Greek is used in the active voice in Mat 5:17, not in the passive. There are 16 occurrences in Matthew for this verb, 13 of which were in the passive and 3 in the active. 12 of the passive occurrences are of Prophecy being “fulfilled”, and the other passive occurrence is in Mat 13:48, where an analogy is made of what the “Kingdom of Heaven” is like, the nets were “filled” with every kind, they gathered the good but threw away the bad (I paraphrased here). If Mat 5:17 were in the passive, it could be rendered this way, 1 “… I did not come to abolish, but that the Law and Prophets might be fulfilled”.



Another worthy search is seeing how the Lxx uses the word "fulfill". In this instance it only leaves one searching harder for the proper interpretation. More on this if needed.





Barnes’ Notes is headed in the right direction, but still if found lacking.



Matt 5:17 (Barnes’ Notes)



[But to fulfil] To complete the design; to fill up what was predicted; to accomplish what was intended in them. The word "fulfill" also means sometimes "to teach" or "to inculcate," Col 1:25. The law of Moses contained many sacrifices and rites which were designed to shadow forth the Messiah.

(from Barnes' Notes, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft)



I see this post is getting lengthy.

David, if I still have your interest and your still intrigued let me know and I will continue on.





P.S. If you find any errors on my part, please be kind, I have a very open heart to correction.

Also, I am not saying that the commentators I have quoted are not men of God, all I am doing is being a Bereian.

If I offended anyone, by using their favorite commentator or the like, please be sure, this is not my heart.

End Notes:

1. Taken from Tim Hegg's "Yeshuah view on the Torah" paper. Pg 6

Gontroppo
08-28-2005, 01:11 AM
Hi Dave
Interesting thoughts.
What do you think of Carson's take on "fulfill" in Matthew 5:17?

Are you familiar with New Covenant Theology? I think what he says is quite close to the NCT geezers.


Thanks for your reply.
David McKay
www.davidmckay.info (http://www.davidmckay.info)

ugotdave
08-28-2005, 10:14 AM
David

I do not have Carson's commentary, do you have it?
If so, what does it say?


I was not very familiar with NCT until you asked the question, so I googled it and read some.



So, correct me if I am wrong, but in short this is what I learned.



New Covenant Theology: New Covenant Theology believes that the New Covenant law of Christ replaces the Old Covenant law of Moses.



I believe the exact opposite; I believe that there in continuity throughout the entire scriptures. Gen – Rev, one big book, progressively revealing itself and building precept on precept.



I would have to say, that if NCT says that the New Covenant, being Jer 31, replaces the Old Covenant, we have again, some scriptures to reconcile.

Mat 5:17

Gal 3:17



I would submit this, that Jesus had a perfect opportunity in Mat 5:17-20 to expound on and promote NCT, but he says the exact opposite.



Jesus says, I am paraphrasing - Don't think that I am here to destroy the Scriptures, I did not come to destroy them, but to confirm or establish them.



Thank you David for giving me the opportunity to share.

I hope we can continue our dialog. I have learned a lot, thus far.

Gontroppo
08-28-2005, 10:07 PM
Hi Dave.
Thanks for your thoughts.
A good book on the relationship of the Old and New Testaments is Continuity and Discontinuity, edited by John Feinberg. It has articles by those who are from the Continiuty camp [Covenant theology] and those who are from the Discontinuity camp [Dispensationalists] and those who like to have a bit both ways, but are more in the Discontinuity camp [New Covenant Theology folk].

One thing the book reveals is that all camps share some common ground and that all believe in elements of continuity and discontinuity.

I still haven't finished the whole book, but enjoy it every time I read bits of it!

I'm more or less NCT and feel that CT overemphasises the continuity at the expense of the obvious discontinuity between the testaments.

ugotdave
08-28-2005, 10:59 PM
David, Have you ever sat back and wondered why we call it the "Old Teatament & New Testament"?
I think I'll do some research on this.
I'll let you know what I find out.

Have a great week my friend!! :)

Gontroppo
08-29-2005, 12:57 AM
Sure have, Dave.
I think the language comes from the bible itself, especially the King James Version:

Jesus talks about a new testament in his giving otu the wine at the passover meal with the disciples:

Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

and Paul uses this language in 2 Corinthians:
2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

2 Corinthians 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

David McKay
www.davidmckay.info (http://www.davidmckay.info)

ugotdave
08-30-2005, 01:15 AM
David,

Check this out, I looked up the scriptures you found for me.

I found that in the original language the word "New" was not used in Matthew 26:28. I guess it was added by the translators.

Also, when I read 2 Corinthians 3:14 in context, it has a different meaning as well, the word "Old" means "To be in existence for a long time; of long ago". When we hear the word old we possibly think of something that is, obsolete or inferior because of its age, but not the case here, in fact the word “ancient” would have been a better choice for 2 Cor 3:14.

2 Cor 3:6 does use the word "New". It appears that Paul is quoting Jer 31:31 here. I have to read all of 2 Cor and Jeremiah to get the context of this passage and better understand it. It's late here, so I will have to read it tomorrow.

I'll keep you posted David on what I find.

vr8ce
09-08-2005, 04:27 PM
][/color]Check this out, I looked up the scriptures you found for me.
Wherever you looked them up, they either didn't have notes or you ignored them. Next time, look them up in BW. :)


I found that in the original language the word "New" was not used in Matthew 26:28. I guess it was added by the translators.
See the BW NIV notes, or the NET notes, or the NAU notes, or...


Also, when I read 2 Corinthians 3:14 in context, it has a different meaning as well, the word "Old" means "To be in existence for a long time; of long ago". When we hear the word old we possibly think of something that is, obsolete or inferior because of its age, but not the case here, in fact the word “ancient” would have been a better choice for 2 Cor 3:14.
That's not what I think of when I hear "old", so there's no "we" there, only "you". :) Old conveys perfectly what Paul was saying, especially since it's contrast to the "new" covenant.

Good luck on your investigation, and my compliments on your enthusiasm.

Vince

ugotdave
09-09-2005, 01:25 AM
Vince,
Hello!


My findings of Mat 26:28 was that the word “New” was not in the original manuscripts.
I said “I found that in the original language the word "New" was not used in Matthew 26:28. I guess it was added by the translators.” Meaning that the Greek word for "New" was not found in the Greek manuscripts and that“King Jimmy’s” translators added the word “New” to the English translation. I might be wrong in assuming the King Jimmy’s translator added the word “New”, but the word "New" does not appear in any original Greek manuscripts.

I also looked at the NET, and the KJV notes. The NET claims that this is a “homoioteleuton”, scribal error. That’s possible. The parallel verses agree, Luke 22:20
1Cor 11:25, etc have the word “New” there in English and Greek. Vince, don’t misunderstand me, I agree that the Messiah shed His Blood to establish a covenant, Jer 31 say that The Almighty will make a New Covenant with the house.

But, there are no original Greek manuscripts, at least the ones we have to date, that have the word “New” in the text for Mat 26:28. If you have one please share it. And that was my whole point for Mat 26:28, and still is.


Lets solve this issue before we move on to the next. :)

vr8ce
09-09-2005, 06:27 PM
My findings of Mat 26:28 was that the word “New” was not in the original manuscripts.
Your findings were wrong, which was my point, and why I pointed you to the notes so you wouldn't have to take my word for it. :)


Meaning that the Greek word for "New" was not found in the Greek manuscripts... but the word "New" does not appear in any original Greek manuscripts.
Again, incorrect. In fact, just the opposite.


But, there are no original Greek manuscripts, at least the ones we have to date, that have the word “New” in the text for Mat 26:28.
Again... well, you get the idea. Read *all* of the NET notes, or the NIV notes. They both explicitly contradict what you have repeated three times now. Repeating yourself will not make it so. :)

Vince

Michael Hanel
09-09-2005, 09:51 PM
I think Dave *is* saying what he wants to, it just may not be coming out right. This is the NET Note in full


Although most witnesses read kainh/j (kaineŇs, "new") here, this is evidently motivated by the parallel in Luke 22:20. Apart from the possibility of homoioteleuton, there is no good reason for the shorter reading to have arisen later on. But since it is found in such good and diverse witnesses (e.g., î37, 45vid Ą B L Z Q 0298vid 33 pc mae), the likelihood of homoioteleuton becomes rather remote.

Thus the note itself contradicts Dave's final sentence "But, there are no original Greek manuscripts, at least the ones we have to date, that have the word “New” in the text for Mat 26:28. If you have one please share it. And that was my whole point for Mat 26:28, and still is." because as it says MOST witnesses do have "new" in the text. So your point falls there. However, if you want to be sneaky on what you mean by "original Greek manuscripts" please be my guest, just be aware that you are confusing to others....

ugotdave
09-09-2005, 10:58 PM
Vince,

Using BW, what Greek Translation do you see the word "kainh/j" in for Matthew 26:28 GNT, BNT, BNM, etc?

I want to say something about the notes, but we need to clear this up first.

ugotdave
09-09-2005, 11:09 PM
Michael,
I truly am not trying to be sneaky or confuse anyone, I just wanted to know what Greek Manuscript was used to say that the word "kainh/j" is used in Mat 26:28. Because I looked , and did not find the word "kainh/j" in any Greek Manuscript.

Michael Hanel
09-09-2005, 11:17 PM
Vince,

Using BW, what Greek Translation do you see the word "kainh/j" in for Matthew 26:28 GNT, BNT, BNM, etc?

I want to say something about the notes, but we need to clear this up first.



I am sure he will grant you that the word "kainh/j" is not in GNT. However the GNT is not a Greek manuscript, it's a collection of readings selected from many manuscripts, Greek and otherwise. However if you had in front of you the Nestle-Aland with a textual critical apparatus you would see that there are various readings for this verse. and in these various readings some manuscripts DO have the word "kainh/j" in them. If you need a version within BibleWorks that shows that look up Scrivener.

Anyway you still need to clarify your argument.
1. That kainh/j shows up in NO Greek manuscript is patently FALSE
2. That kainh/j should be the original reading surely is a topic open for debate

Michael Hanel
09-09-2005, 11:20 PM
Michael,
I truly am not trying to be sneaky or confuse anyone, I just wanted to know what Greek Manuscript was used to say that the word "kainh/j" is used in Mat 26:28. Because I looked , and did not find the word "kainh/j" in any Greek Manuscript.

then maybe this is the problem. how do you define Greek manuscript? GNT, BNT, etc. all those things in Bibleworks are not Greek manuscripts, but versions of the NT that are taken FROM readings of various Greek manuscripts. Thus GNT is not the same as any Greek manuscript extant, but is a variety of readings chosen by the editorial board of the Nestle-Aland group. In any case, what Vince and I are trying to say is that you can't look at BibleWorks alone unless you open Tischendorf's Critical Apparatus.

Sorry I feel like we're like ships passing in the night here, i'm trying to clarify it by saying that you can't see textual evidence merely by looking at BibleWorks....

ugotdave
09-09-2005, 11:34 PM
Michael,
Thank you for clarifying that with me.
I stand corrected! :o
But, it's dialog like this that will help me understand the scriptures better.
Now I can move on with Vince.

Thank you again Michael

Gontroppo
09-10-2005, 03:26 AM
G'day Dave.
You will find kainh/j in these versions in Matthew 26:28
BYZ, STR, STE

But I'm still not clear on your point in all this. Are you saying we should not call the Christian Greek Scriptures The New Testament?

I was merely pointing out that this terminology comes from older Englsih versions of the New Testament. [Whoops! Said it again!]

David McKay
www.davidmckay.info (http://www.davidmckay.info)
Yesterday our grandson, Jerome, visited us in our home for the first time. He is 4 months old now.

vr8ce
09-10-2005, 09:39 AM
I think Dave *is* saying what he wants to, it just may not be coming out right...Thus the note itself contradicts Dave's final sentence...
Exactly, which was my point all along. He says three times what is directly contradicted in the notes I pointed him to.

For the record, note that I'm not saying the "new" *should* be there, merely that it is. :) And it is definitely in Luke, so it's something of a non-issue for the original discussion anyway.

ugotdave
09-10-2005, 10:39 AM
David,

The errors of my ways:

I failed to look at all Greek Translations for the word "kainh/j" and I also failed to take into consideration that the Greek Translations were made up of many Greek manuscripts, hence the word "kainh/j" being in some translations/manuscripts and not the others.

When I read the NET notes, and it said "Although most witnesses read kainh/j (kaineŇs, "new") here, this is evidently motivated by the parallel in Luke 22:20. ..." I also thought that the "witnesses" were the other parallel texts in scripture. i.e. Luke 22:20, 1 Cor 11:25, not other manuscripts.

Bad mistakes on my part.

To answer your questions, "But I'm still not clear on your point in all this. Are you saying we should not call the Christian Greek Scriptures The New Testament"?

I was pointing out that I found some issues with the text in Mat 26:28, I was wrong in that! :o
No, I am not saying that we should call the Christian Greek Scriptures "The New Testament".

I gathered that since you swayed towards the NCT camp, and if so, you would have a dispensational thinking towards the scriptures, to some degree. So, when you presented the scriptures Mat 26:28, 2 Cor 3:6, and 2 Cor 3:14, I started to take a closer look at them to see if they carried along the theme of dispensationalism. i.e. New doing away with the Old.

But I still wonder who coined the phrasres "Old Testament & New Testament", it surly looks like a NCT understanding of the scriptures. As an attempt to seperate the scriptures.

ugotdave
09-10-2005, 05:25 PM
Vince,
You said, "That's not what I think of when I hear "old", so there's no "we" there, only "you". :) Old conveys perfectly what Paul was saying, especially since it's contrast to the "new" covenant."

Just curious, what is your interpretation of the word "Old" here?

vr8ce
09-10-2005, 05:47 PM
Vince,
You said, "That's not what I think of when I hear "old", so there's no "we" there, only "you". :) Old conveys perfectly what Paul was saying, especially since it's contrast to the "new" covenant."
Just curious, what is your interpretation of the word "Old" here?
I pretty much answered that with "since it's contrast to the 'new' covenant."

Gontroppo
09-10-2005, 06:18 PM
Hi Dave
I don't think I am a dispie, but NCT is intended to be a middle road between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology.

But, as I said before, all Christians see elements of continuity and discontinuity in the relationship of the Christian message to the message revealed to the Old Testament folk.

The NCT message is quite similar to what John Bunyan thought and taught.

David McKay
www.davidmckay.info (http://www.davidmckay.info)