I recently read a pastor who said part of his reading is twenty commentaries as he prepares for preaching. That’s a lot.
It raises the question, how much is enough? My answer: It depends. It depends on your congregation, on your study habits, and on your choice of commentaries. I will address only the last in this post.
I think if you choose commentaries wisely, you will not need nearly twenty for normal weekly preaching. (And I mean no reflection the pastor who made the above comment.) In my experience, commentaries tend to become fairly repetitive. Usually by the third or fourth technical commentary (see below), there is little if any new ground being broken. The arguments may be worded slightly differently, but the content is basically the same, with the author advocating for his particular position.
I think if you choose from among recent commentaries, you will likely gain the best of all the older commentaries, sifted down and condensed.
I generally divide my commentary use into three sections.
The first category is what I call “simple basic commentaries.” This includes commentaries like the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, the Bible Knowledge Commentary, and the New Bible Commentary. These are brief, but give enough information to get started.* Using these first, you are not spending hours in your first commentary. You can breeze through it fairly quickly and get a grasp on a few things. They typically will not bring a lot of credibility to academic papers, but they are not intended to.
The second category is what I call “technical commentaries.” These are commentaries like the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the NT, the New International Commentary on the New Testament, The New International Greek Testament Commentary, the New American Commentary, the Pillar Commentary, or the Word Biblical Commentary. These typically deal with more technical matters (such as original language issues, complex arguments about exegetical choices, historical theology, etc.). In these volumes, you will see frequent references to each other, and frequent references to older works. If you are confused about what someone is saying in their commentary, you can often be helped by how the others talk about that commentary.
(A series like the Tyndale Series (TNTC/TOTC) seems to fit right in between simple and technical. They are more exegetically oriented than Expositor’s or the Bible Knowledge Commentary, but not nearly as complete as commentaries such as the Baker Exegetical or the New International Commentaries.)
The third category is what I call “homiletical/applicational commentaries.” These include commentaries such as the New International Version Application Commentary, the Preach the Word Commentary, Wiersbe’s “Be” Series, and the Holman Commentary Series. In these volumes you will not glean as much technical data about exegesis, but you will find some helpful insights for making the text understood and applied to life.
In any given week in 1 Peter, I consult seven or eight commentaries, and some articles if there are more difficult exegetical issues. I usually start with the Bible Knowledge Commentary and Blum in the Expositor’s. I then use Jobes (BEGNT), Davids (NICNT), Schreiner (NAC), and Michaels (WBC, to look for clarity on technical matters), and Grudem (TNTC). I then finish off with McKnight (NIVAC).
Of course there are other good ones. As Solomon said, “the writing of many books is endless” (Ecc 12:12). But these are the ones that I find helpful.
*By “started,” I don’t mean started in the study process. You should have a lot of work done long before you pick up a commentary.
3 comments:
Larry,
Your divisions of commentaries is right, but a comment on the "more recent" commentaries:
I find most of them very very dry. Some of them toy with unbelief, if not outright embrace it. Schreiner on Romans, for example, doesn't think it matters if David wrote Ps 51 or not. So while these types of commentaries often have excellent help for technical language issues, beware the unbelief. In Romans I have Moo and Schreiner in this category. I have given up on Schreiner.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
As for being dry, I suppose it depends on what you are looking for.
As for Schreiner, he actually says, "Whether the psalm is actually by David is irrelevant for our purposes since Paul presumably believed it was Davidic" (p. 152, n. 8).
I think his point is that while there are those who would deny Davidic authorship of Psalm 51, such questions are irrelevant for the point of Romans 3, and for the point that Schreiner is bringing out, and therefore, he doesn't intend to deal with them. He is quite correct on that.
That doesn't mean he denies Davidic authorship or demonstrates unbelief.
Schreiner and Moo are two excellent commentaries on Romans.
I don't like the format of the BECNT that much. It seems hard to follow because the verse breakdowns aren't clear and I don't think the text is laid out as well as it could be. And the parenthetical references are obnoxious to say the least as are the transliterations ... IMO, if you can't read Greek, the transliterations won't help you).
Overall, on Romans Schreiner in excellent. He doesn't reflect unbelief so far as I can tell anywhere. His volume on 1 Peter in the NAC is also helpful.
Some technical commentaries, on the other hand, do have problems probably due to their critical nature (using "critical" in the sense of "critical commentary").
Just to clarify, I don't mean "unbelief" strictly speaking, but I mean that too much of a concession is given to unbelief. Why write, "Whether the psalm is actually by David is irrelevant for our purposes since Paul presumably believed it was Davidic" if you stoutly believe David wrote Ps 51? And if you truly think the speculations of critics is irrelevant, why mention it? Why give any concession to unbelief?
It is a mistake, and is perhaps the most grievous error of "scholarship" that makes these concessions. The writer himself may be orthodox, but he appears to want to let us know he is with it enough to know what critics say about Ps 51, so he makes a statement that allows for the possibility the critics are right.
This kind of scholarship needs to be rebuked!
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Post a Comment