Living Wittily

Category: Bible Commentaries

  • Speaking truth to power – But what happens if power isn’t listening, or says “Get stuffed!!”

    Yul-brynnerI am reading a commmentary on Exodus by Peter Enns. What makes it interesting is the way he takes this ancient text and allows it to speak, rather than telling us, and the text, what it does mean, or should mean. The story of Israel in bondage to Pharaoh is a story of slavery and sovereignty, of disempowerment for the purposes of State and economy. People become resources, humans become labour units, value is located in productivity not dignity, and freedom a threat to the constraints of the product and the power of the Pharaoh – and Pharaoh is a concept familiar to all people at all times whose freedom is held by the hands of unregulated power.

    Chapter 1 of Exodus is about a people at risk of oppression and life threatening policies. In this chapter God is incidental, all but absent. God neither speaks nor acts, but is referred to obliquely as at best marginal to the main action. The focus is a people ground down into lives of toil and productivity for the empire, their future threatened and their status as the people of God a claim rendered ludicrous by their powerless ,ness and humiliation.

    But even in this first chapter, God is the Creator who saves; and it is indeed, God who will deliver. Pharaoh thinks he is domesticating slaves; actually he is on a collision course with God. The God of Exodus is the same God of Genesis – who creates, calls and judges. The God of Creation is the God of Salvation. The present experience of slavery is connected in the purpose of God to creation, call and judgment. God is therefore in the wings, not absent from the theatre. By late in chapter 2 God will begin to move centre stage, where Pharaoh has already staked his claim as the star of the cosmic show.

    I'm reading this commentary in the midst and mess of the EU Referendum, all the little would be pharaoh's squabbling over the centre stage. I find it reassuring, though no less disturbing, that all those claimants are at best penultimates and secondary movers; God is the ultimate and prime mover in human history. Which doesn't mean an irresponsible shoulder shrugging que sera, sera, but an inner call to align with those whom God privileges. And from Exodus to Exile to Bethlehem, Calvary and beyond an empty tomb, that has been with the powerless, oppressed, poor and voiceless people.

  • The Best Commentary on Isaiah for Exegesis Leading to Preaching – Biblical Scholarship Rooted in a Faith Still Learning.

    TullThe industry that has grown up around biblical commentary is now getting out of hand. One major bookseller in the United States lists over 150 different commentary series currently in print or production. One of the difficulties for those who are biblical scholars, ministers, preachers, teachers and those who simply want to have some guidance in interpreting a biblical text is knowing which commentary to buy. Many of them are expensive, they range from elementary and introductory, to undergraduate, graduate and post-graduate level, to highly technical exegetical tools intended for the academy and its peer groups.

    One such series is published by Smyth and Helwys. Each volume is expensive; but they are beautifully produced, accompanied by a searchable C D Rom of the complete text with additional study materials, and the layout includes sidebars, illustrations, maps and charts. Like every series it is a mixture. When a series is farmed out to writers there are those who write because they’ve been asked, while others are asked because they are known experts in the text. That is the case with Patricia Tull’s volume on Isaiah 1.39 in this series. This volume is a rich, textured, exploration of Isaiah, a fine gift to the Church. It is written by a scholar for whom scholarship is rooted in an obviously deep and still learning faith.

    Isaiah+sistineI wanted a commentary written by someone conversant with the text, able to open up the critical and historical issues, but without allowing these to obscure or even displace the theological reflection and alertness to the enduring Word woven throughout the words of the prophet. This book is such a text opener.

    Tull holds to a mainstream critical position; Isaiah is a composite work which “grew over the course of several centuries, two temples and three great empires.” Isiah is one of the alpine peaks of the Old Testament, formed by those prophets called to the “creative labour of interpreting the divine purposes” for Israel and the nations, in the wielding of political power and confronting social injustice. While not holding to the documentary unity of Isaiah, Tull is, however, persuaded that the book in its final canonical form has an overall integrity, coherence and unity, rather like the finished orchestral score for a symphony, being given its premiere, and available for performance by later generations of musicians.

    One common way of checking the usefulness of a commentary for our own purposes is to review how it treats favourite or difficult passages. Does it do justice to the depth, richness or even sheer cussedness of the text? Are the hard questions considered, and the most significant information and evidence presented clearly and fairly? Are alternative interpretations allowed to be heard? Yes to all of these in the case of this commentary. The treatment of Isaiah 6, 9, and 35 are replete with theological insight, informed by judicious scholarship that knows the options, and presents the biblical text in all its specificity, context and uncompromising demand.

    As a preacher I have used a number of commentaries over near 40 years of ministry. Oswalt’s two volumes in the NICOT are based on the unity of the book, and its pre-exilic completion in its canonical form. This is an unashamed conservative commentary, presented with great learning, and a support for predictive prophecy as an assumed feature of the prophetic role. The New Interpreter’s Bible coverage by Tucker and Seitz reflects the threefold division of Isaiah. The treatment of the text is, like Tull, aimed more at the preacher and teacher than the academic community, but it does not short-change the scholarship and connection of text to contemporary reader. The Interpretation volumes by Seitz and Hanson are much less detailed but good running theological commentaries.

    Compared with these, I have found Tull’s commentary satisfyingly full, theologically attuned to the complexities of a multi-layered text, and written with the kind of lucidity and breadth of sympathy that is a breath of fresh air. The only drawback is the price. But in my view, what you get is a commentary of exegetical skill, theological exposition, homiletic guidance and a rich tapestry of information, all of these the consequence of long reflection and crafted writing. This is a five star commentary, that should sit with comfortable confidence alongside several others in this series; Brueggemann on Kings, Balentine on Job, Fretheim on Jeremiah and Odell on Ezekiel.

  • The Exegetical Captivity of the Book of Ruth

     

    Ruth
    This is an interesting list of names.

    Athalya Brenner

    Kathryn Pfister Darr

    Tamara Eskenazi

    Kathleen Farmer

    Marjo Korpel

    Kirsten Nielsen

    Katherine Sakenfeld

    Karin M Saxegaard

    This is another interesting and longer list of names

    David Atkinson

    Daniel Block

    Frederic Bush

    Edward Campbell

    Robert Chisholm

    Iain Duguid

    Daniel Hawk

    Robert D Holmstead

    Robert Hubbard

    Andre Lacoque

    Tod Linafelt

    James McKeown

    Leon Morris

    Roland Murphy

    Jack M Sasson

    K Lawson Younger

    The first list comprises women biblical scholars who have written a commentary or monograph on the biblical book of Ruth. The second list comprises men who have written a commentary on Ruth – the number of monographs by men would lengthen the list considerably. And my point is? Well I have several points.

    1. Around half of the women writing on Ruth write from within the Jewish tradition, and all of them, Jewish and Christian, take cognisance of feminist and womanist perspectives. Question: Can a man write an adequate commentary on a book in which women's experience is definitive and central in the story? Is gender irrelevant to how a person approaches a narrative text like Ruth?

    2. The list of men commentators covers almost all the mainstream series of Old Testament Commentaries in English. The exceptions are Nielsen in the Old Testament Library, Farmer in the New Interpreter's Bible and Sakenfeld in Interpretation Commentary. Question: when editors commission scholars to write commentaries on biblical books, do they consider the advantages of having a woman write a commentary on a book so replete with women's experience in a patriarchal society?

    3. Is gender relevant when choosing someone to write on a biblical text? Like Ruth, or Esther, or Song of Songs? What would a woman bring as scholar, and as woman, and therefore as woman scholar, to the approach and interpretation of any biblical text; but especially a text telling a complex narrative of women's life experience?

    4. I have looked at the most recent commentaries and those forthcoming – they are still predominantly commissioned to men. James McKeown, Robert Chisholm, Lawson Younger and in a month's time Daniel Hawk in the Apollos series; these are all recent, and written by men and they are all appearing in series within the evangelical tradition.

    5. Of those forthcoming there is Marjo Korpel in the highly academic HCOT series and Kandy Queen-Sutherland in the more accessible Smyth and Helwys volume. All else is commissioned to men.

    I know – books like Ruth and Esther were most likely written by men, and reflect the social structures and mores of their time. But surely in trying to explore and expound the meaning of such texts for the original readers, and in seeking the contemporary appropriation of these texts as part of the Church's Bible, it would make sense to value and actively seek those whose own life experience gives access to the complexities and anomalies in a book such as Ruth? Or is that unreasonable, special pleading, patronising, or what? 

  • Review of a New Psalms Commentary – Another Good One.

    PsalmsThe Book of Psalms. Nancy deClaisse-Walford, Rolf A. Jacobson, Beth LaNeel Tanner. (Grand rapids: Eerdmans, 2014) 1051 pages ($60)

    This book has xxii pages of preliminaries, 1010 pages of text and 41 pages of indices. It is written by three authors each of whom is a significant player in a vibrant and energetic generation of Psalms scholars working new seams of scholarship and bringing out of the riches of the Psalms treasures old and new. Psalms commentaries compete in a crowded field and their usefulness will depend on (i) whether the authors bring something new into the discussion; (ii) who is consulting and reading it and for what purpose; (iii) how it compares to viable alternatives.

    So far as (iii) above is concerned, its closest rival in the field of Evangelical scholarship is the work of VanGemeren, published by Zondervan and recently revised in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary and running to over 1000 pages. It too deals with exegetical analysis and textual probing, historical and contextual details and theological reflection. Another rival is the three volumes of John Goldingay, published by Baker, which likewise brings traditional disciplines to bear on these rich and robust texts, but in the hands of an innovative and independent thinker with a firm commitment to the Old Testament as Christian Scripture, and as a confessed Evangelical. Allen Ross has already published two of a projected three volume exposition published by Kregel and also seeking to fit that perhaps too ambitious defined market of scholar, student and preacher. Given the Evangelical commitments of the New International Commentary on the Old Testament (NICOT), this volume on the Psalms inevitably has a number of similar commitments and scholarly presuppositions to these three substantial presences in the field. So what does the NICOT bring that the others have missed? How does the approach of the three authors differ from VanGemeren, Ross and Goldingay?

    Having used all these commentaries now, it becomes clear that this NICOT volume pays more particular attention to the canonical shape of the Psalter and recent study of how and why it is edited and formed in its canonical order. This has significant implications for how texts are read and understood in their internal relations within the Psalter, and also for the intra-textual possibilities within the wider canon. Given there are three authors of this commentary, and they have split the Psalms between them, there are three different styles and approaches to the Psalms each has been allocated, raising the issue of comparison in the quality and depth of treatment. This also makes for a diversity of voices and this is no bad thing for a book itself diverse and complex. Jacobson in my view offers most help to those who want to see the connections between exegesis, hermeneutics and exposition. His Reflections section is thoughtful, avoids moralising and superficial homiletic hints, and is theologically alert and informed. He is the only one of the three who has such a section. The other two embed their theological reflection in the flow of their exegetical treatment, and the result too often is a token sentence or two of application or suggested theme. The editor should have encouraged a more consistent approach.

    Decisions about detail of treatment sometimes appear arbitrary, especially since the following page allocation includes the translated text. Psalm 23 has just under 9 pages, Psalm 51 just over 5, Psalm 103 has 9, Psalm 119 has 7 pages of comment, excluding the translated text, Psalm 121 has 3, and the entire Psalms of Ascent, 120-134 a mere 54 pages averaging 3.5 pages each including the text. Jacobson and Tanner are typically fuller, Walford nearly always the most economical. This gives the commentary an unevenness of attention. Psalm 119 is a problem for commentators because of its length, construction, complexity, repetitiveness and subject matter. By far the most satisfying treatment is the 70 pages in Goldingay, while Brueggemann manages 3 pages! But in this level of commentary more is needed than is given on Psalm 119. Each Psalm is signed by the one who wrote the exegesis. An annoying consequence is that each Psalm begins on a new page, even if the previous page only has a few lines printed on it. This means the book has the equivalent of approximately 80 blank pages – could these not have been used to advantage in a more substantial exposition of Psalm 119? If that adds a few dollars to the price it would be worth it.

    Alternatively, since almost every Psalm has a blank space after its entry, could there not have been some attempt to include a conversation with the tradition of Psalms reception in the Church? The index has Gunkel, Mowinckel, Westermann and Gerstenberger so the form critical tradition is well represented. But no single reference to Augustine, Aquinas, or Calvin, (though Luther is cited 16 times) or to the wider Patristic, Monastic and Reformation traditions comes close to what C S Lewis called chronological snobbery”. 

    One particularly strong feature is a fresh translation supported by copious textual notes; all three writers are deeply schooled in the text, and have enjoyed the collaborative enrichment of working together for years on this commentary. Given that each section has been considered by three closely allied scholars, there is a sense that the final product has been carefully sifted and crafted. It is free of technical jargon and exegetical in-speak and is readable, accessible and carries an overall authority that comes from the authors’ familiarity with the texts and the conversations they inspire. There is little doubt in my own mind that this is a significant addition to the field of Psalm studies, not because it supersedes Goldingay or VanGemeren, but because it supplements them. Yes there will be duplication if you have all three and use them together, but there are significant differences of emphasis and exegetical style. These are rich, deeply dyed and thickly textured, sometimes unruly, often obstinate texts, in addition to which they are a treasure of the church and a deep abyss of possibility and demand. My own inclination is to read widely and deeply, comparing and questioning.

    For example this NICOT volume read alongside Brueggemann’s recent one volume commentary, and Clinton McCann’s excellent contribution in the New Interpreter’s Bible would make for a fairly engaged three-way conversation. But I wouldn’t want to be without J L Mays, Artur Weiser, Robert Davidson and John Eaton and one or two of the older still experts on the theology and text of the Psalms. I intend to read my way through this commentary; it is as readable as that. For now my rating is a comfortable 4 stars. If you have VanGemeren and or Goldingay do you need this volume? That depends on who you are and what you use commentaries for, point (ii) raised earlier. Preachers will be glad of a substantial one volume commentary, up to date, alert to the relation of the Psalms to the life of the Church, and written by three scholars who clearly love and live in these texts. Scholars will want to consult the translation, notes and supporting exegesis which I found full of surprises and insights. Those who love commentaries, and I am one of them, will be glad of another addition to a commentary series that has established a reputation for faithful scholarship exercised within a faith commitment to the inspiration of Scripture.

  • Second Corinthians, where Paul is neither neurotic misogynist nor can do no wrong Apostle….

    CollinsI guess most readers of this blog now know my enthusiasm for biblical exegetical commentaries. Eugene Peterson describes a commentary as a narrative about the text, and though he doesn't say so I'd go further and say that a well written and well read commentary tells the story of the text into our own story. In his days as a Bishop in the Church of South India Lesslie Newbigin urged pastor preachers to "always have some bible study going, working through the text with commentaries and lexicon and grammar." This he saw as an essential discipline which built towards a familiarity with the text while at the same time subverting a careless or complacent taking of the Bible for granted.

    Right now I'm reading Raymond Collins, new commentary on Second Corinthians. In the next few months Mark Siefrid's volume in the Pillar series will be published, and so will George Guthrie's Baker Exegetical Commentary, both of them substantial scholarly contributions to our understanding of Paul's premier pastoral text. Allowing for the fact that Murray Harris, Frank Matera, Paul Barnett, Ralph Martin, Margaret Thrall and Victor Furnish have already published equally substantial treatments in the last 15 years or so, Paul's epistle is in danger of sinking under the weight of excessive exegesis.

    True enough. So it's good to have an economically produced commentary of under 300 pages which gathers great learning into a treatment that is lucidly written, pastorally alert and theologically sensitive. Second Corinthians 5 is one of those passages that is definitive in much of my own theology with its emphasis on new creation, reconciliation and the cross of Christ. Passages like this need the tools to dig deeply and scan widely. But Collins is an experienced and informed guide through the argument, and a sharply sympathetic student of Paul. Collins understands Paul, his hang ups and insecurities, his gifts and weaknesses, he knows the cost of a pastoral heart hurt by rejection, and the inner trumoil of misunderstanding and relationships under strain. That's one of the strengths of the commentary – Collins cuts Paul enough slack to let Paul be Paul, which allows the voice of a passionate pastor to be heard more clearly, less  muffled by reader expectations of Paul as either neurotic misogynist or can do no wrong Apostle. 

    Not many who come here will be commentary readers – those who are, this is a good one!

  • First Corinthians is Hard Going; It Can Be Explained for a Fee.

    51UMdCAB7uL__

    In 1987 Gordon Fee's commentary on Paul's first letter to the Corinthians was published. For near 30 years Fee on Corinthians has been the benchmark commentary for scholars and preachers. More recent commentaries bring the discussions up to date, build on contemporary hermeneutical models, reflect recent interests in socio-rhetorical and political readings of Pauline letters, and in the case of Thiselton's monumental commentary on the Greek Text, open up multiple doors in reception history, history of interpretation and hermeneutic horizons.

    But Fee remains a favourite for many, and for a variety of reasons. He is one of the finest exegetes of the last 50 years, an Evangelical serving within the academy with a passion for excellence in scholarship and integrity in dealing with historical material. He is a Pentecostal theologian whose work on pneumatology and christology in Paul is exhibited in two volumes of erudition harnessed to spiritual purpose, and scholarly activity in the service of the church. As if that isn't enough he is a trusted guide in the disciplines of exegesis as these underlie preaching that takes seriously the integrity of the text and the spirituality of communities committed to reading, learning and living Scripture.

    So it was with great sadness that we learned Professor Fee has retired from formal academic appointments, due to the onset of alzheimer's disease. Sadness because I have for 30 years sat at the feet of this Gamaliel, and learned from such a wise and penetrating mind, deeply and gladly how to handle sacred texts responsibly, and responsively. But I feel great gratitude too, for a life of such dedicated joy, positively revelling in New Testament textual criticism and exegesis. His commentaries on First Corinthians, Philippians and Thessalonians, his books God's Empowering Presence, and Pauline Christology, his several volumes of occasional essays, are exemplary works of scholarship, and his commentaries especially are like Emmaus walks for preachers and students and scholars – using them, the heart burns within as he opens the scriptures. Does that sound overstated? Maybe, but just a little. His co-authored book with Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth, could easily describe the gift he has given to generations of students, and sum up his own life's work. It is all a first year text book should be - accessible, enthusiastic, affordable, readable, instructive and sensible.

    Eerdmans have just announced a revised edition of Fee on First Corinthians, the revisions carried out latterly by Professor Fee before his illness and subsequent retirement. Whether it will be a significant revision interacting with the vast cataract of Pauline studies in the past quarter century, remains to be seen. But in affection, gratitude and because I love the NICNT commentaries, I will use a recent book token to replace my old Fee, which was bought all these years ago and is so split it is more like a pile of pamphlets in a board folder – my edition was one of the first to be glued rather than stitched – sign of a decadent culture, glued books!!

  • The Gospel According to John and the Fathomless Depths of Grace upon Grace……

    Petworth House © NTPL
    The portrait of St John the Evangelist, is by Adam Elsheimer, and provides the front cover for F D Bruner's commentary on John. I hadn't heard of Elsheimer till I read the small attribution at the back of Bruner's book. I like this painting – which is hardly the last word in art criticism! But it's just the truth. I suppose it can be analysed and compared with other contemporary artists, influences traced and duly noted, ethos and provenance established. Then it can be examined for symbolism and the whole painting subjected to hermenecutical scrutiny. Maybe some other time. I just like it – simplicity with enough of mystery, a serpent lifted up and a chalice held for blessing, and the background of a world both vague and detailed.

    As to Bruner's commentary, near 1300 pages of commentary on a gospel would once have been considered definitive. But Bruner has aimed at something more realistic, and satisfying. This commentary is a receptacle for the gathered fruit of decades of study and teaching, and at least a third of its length is given over to sections on the history of interpretation of the text. These read like catenas of wisdom from Chrysostom, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Henry, Bengel, Godet, Meyer, Westcott, and then we come to the 20th century with Bultmann, Dodd, Brown, Schnacknburg and beyond. It is a vade mecum on John, and for me at least, is a feast of fun to read.

    No it won't displace Raymond Brown as my most loved and used commentary on John; and I still persist with Barrett as the commentary that taught me how to actually enjoy NT Greek and its fruits; and yes there is an embarrassment of riches on John's Gospel from Ashton, Dodd, Carson, Moloney, Michaels, O'Day, Keener, Morris, Beasley Murray, Lincoln, Witherington, Ridderbos to the too easily overlooked John Marsh in the Pelican Commentary Series which manages to combine common sense with spiritual acumen in exploring a complex text. And then there's Richard Bauckham's long promised commentary on the Greek Text, still to appear and looked forward to But John's Gospel is an embarrassingly rich text, and coming back to Bruner, his is a commentary that any preacher worth her salt will value and enjoy!

    Here are the words of Rabbi Johannan ben Zakkai about Torah, with pardonable exaggeration enthusing about the value of our greatest teachers:

    "If all heaven were a parchment, and all the trees produced pens, and all the oceans were ink, they would not suffice to inscribe the wisdom I have received from my teachers of Torah; and yet from the wisdom of the wise I have enjoyed only so much as the water that a fly who plunges into the sea can remove".

    In much less hyperbolic terms, James Denney could refer to Johannine and Pauline theology as waters in which we " hear the plunge of lead into fathomless depths…"

  • White Water Discipleship

    One of the great blessings of reading is knowing where to find those writers who speak to our condition. And within the work of a favourite writer one or two lines which say more in few words than we could say in an entire volume. Mary Oliver is a good companion just now. And the poem below speaks of many things, but particularly the risk and cost of love; the temptation to play safe; the fear of commitment; and then the reckless rushing towards joy that may only come once in your life.

    And the command, for that's what it is, to row towards the waterfall, is one of the most telling metaphors I know for the precarious risks of life's ultimate commitments. Risk aversion is the way to loneliness and diminishment in human relationships; even risk assessment betrays a caution that avoids the white water rapids in favour of drifting with the safer currents. When it comes to following Jesus, I could well hear him say, when you hear the roar and rumble and taste the mist, "Row, row for your life towards it!"

    West Wind #2

    You are young.  So you know everything.  You leap

    into the boat and begin rowing.  But listen to me.

    Without fanfare, without embarrassment, without

    any doubt, I talk directly to your soul.  Listen to me.

    Lift the oars from the water, let your arms rest, and

    your heart, and heart’s little intelligence, and listen to

    me.  There is life without love.  It is not worth a bent

    penny, or a scuffed shoe.  It is not worth the body of a

    dead dog nine days unburied.  When you hear, a mile

    away and still out of sight, the churn of the water

    as it begins to swirl and roil, fretting around the

    sharp rocks – when you hear that unmistakable

    pounding – when you feel the mist on your mouth

    and sense ahead the embattlement, the long falls

    plunging and steaming – then row, row for your life

    toward it.

    ~ Mary Oliver ~

  • Lost in Translation: Ephesians 1.11

    Language is a funny thing – and a very serious thing. Words never convey exactly 'the thing in itself'. But then if two people use the same word, it will resonate with different tones and notes depending on experience, personal usage, accepted meaning and much else. It gets more complex translating words into another language where none of the foregoing can be assumed, and where questions of accuracy oscillate between literal and dynamic equivalents. Add to that a gap of two thousand years and a cultural gulf between Greco-Roman and Postmodern Western civilisations and ways of life, and translation becomes pure dead complicated. (Pure dead is a compound adjective used in the West of Scotland for 'very', as in its phonetic use puredeadbrilliant) Oh, and by the way, I have a friend who also uses the term 'pure disgrace' as his ultimate term of moral opprobrium by oxymoron.


    31YiBq1GHaL._Anyway, I was reading Stephen Fowl's commentary on Ephesians, and his translation of verse 11a. I'm used to the phrase, 'In Christ we have an inheritance….' Fowl translates 'In Christ we have an allottment…'. a long footnote justifies this choice of word because 'it does not invoke the image of passing on property through death.' The commentary explains this further, quite persuasively. However. Language is a funny thing. The word 'allottment' may not invoke the inheritance theme, but to one brought up in the West of Scotland it certainly evokes the image of a fertile vegetable allottment. Those collective squares of quilted horticulture, 10 metres square or so, have been so important in staving off starvation, and then during the two World Wars providing fresh produce, and now husbanded by many an amateur gardener. You can read the history of the British Allottment movement here. Of course land development has bulldozed over many of them, to build yet more business opportunities. But the word allottment is still a powerfully evocative word for soil cultivation, food production and many a productive hour of gentle labour.

    I will forego the children's talk formula, "That's a bit like Jesus…. In Jesus we have an allottment." But I think I'll have to retrain my mind if I'm to manage to read this verse in Fowl's translation without the extraneous connotations of something entirely different. Which of course is one of the major headaches for a translator – what seems fitting and appropriate to one mind, seems strange to another, because, well, words do not contain all the resonances and associations from one mind to another. Stephen Fowl in Baltimore, Maryland, cannot possibly be expected to know that his chosen word when heard by Scottish ears evokes very different images.

    That aside, I think Fowl's commentary is puredeadbrilliant. :))

    The photo of allottments is by Kate Davies whose own blog you can find here. I hope you don't mind its reproduction here Kate.

  • “Dogma clarifies rather than obscures” biblical interpretation…

    Now here's a no nonsense statement on intent from the publishers of a theological commentary series.


    JohnThis series of biblical commentaries was born out of the conviction that dogma clarifies rather than obscures. The Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible advances upon the assumption that the Nicene tradition, in all its diversity and controversy, provides the proper basis for the interpretation of the Bible as Christian Scripture. God the Father Almighty, who sends his only begotten Son Son to die for us and for our salvation and who raises the crucified Son in the power of the Holy Spirit so that the baptized may be joined in one Body – faith in this God with this vocation of love for the world is the lens through which toi view the heterogeneity and particularity of the biblical texts. Doctrine, then, is not a moldering scrim of antique prejudice obscuring the meaning of the Bible. It is a crucial aspect of the divine pedagogy, a clarifying agent for our minds fogged by self deception, a challenge to our languid intellectual apathy that will too often rest in false truisms and the easy spiritual nostrums of the present age rather than search more deeply and widely for the dispersed keys of the many doors of Scripture.    (Brazos Theological Commentary, Series Preface, Matthew, Stanley Hauwerwas, page 12).

    I've only used the Brazos commentary on Matthew by Stanley Hauerwas. It was definitely Matthew through the lens of Hauerwas, and none the worse for that. The truth is the Hermeneia Commentary is Matthew through the lens of Luz. Every commentator brings their self to the text, and the text is explored, exegeted, expounded, explained so that every commentary is treasure in an earthen vessel.

    Has anyone who reads this blog, and reads commentaries, used any of the other commentaries in this series with the magnificent Series Preface as quoted above?