New Testament Commentary Survey | D. A. Carson

D. A. Carson. New Testament Commentary Survey. Baker, 2007. 160 pp.

The purpose of this short book is to provide theological students and ministers with a handy survey of the resources, especially commentaries, that are available in English to facilitate an understanding of the NT. The mature scholar is not in view. On the other hand, commentaries that are written at the popular level are generally given less attention than more substantive works. Theologically I am an evangelical, but many of the positive assessments offered in these notes are in connection with books written from the vantage point of some other theological tradition: the usefulness of a commentary sometimes turns on something other than the theological stance of its author—assuming, of course, that commentaries are read critically, as they should be whatever one’s theological heritage.

Conversely, just because a commentary stands within the evangelical tradition does not necessarily mean it is a good book. It may be thoroughly orthodox but poorly written, uninformed, or quick to import from other biblical passages meanings that cannot rightly be found in the texts on which comment is being offered. In other words, this Survey is a guide to commentaries, not orthodoxy. . . .

The need for several types of commentary

For an effective teaching and preaching ministry, commentaries take their place among other essential tools. But since different tasks often require different tools, useful commentaries are of more than one kind. Those listed in this little book may serve in at least three or four distinct ways, which correspond to the following needs.

The dominant need is to understand meanings accurately. Postmodern sensibilities notwithstanding, the issue at stake is that of sheer faithfulness to the biblical message rather than smuggling one’s own ideas into the interpretation under the cover of the authoritative text. Even so, commentaries in this category can be subdivided further. Some commentaries seek to establish the text and provide basic help in translation, choosing among variant readings and offering elementary help at the level of Greek syntax and semantics. Grammatical and linguistic commentaries help to ensure faithfulness to the meanings of words and phrases in their literary setting. Theological commentaries set words and phrases in the wider context of chapters, books, corpora, and even the canon. Of course, these three sub-categories often overlap—indeed, they should do so, for it can be seriously misleading to try to understand a word or concept in isolation from its linguistic and theological context.

To understand a passage (let alone to expound it forcefully) often requires a faithful and imaginative historical reconstruction of events. Actions and sayings cannot accurately be cashed into today’s currency until the preacher (although not necessarily the congregation) has seen what these presuppose and involve in their original setting in the ancient world. The best response to those who argue that history, archaeology, and other related disciplines are irrelevant to the interpretative enterprise is to give them a copy of, say, Colin J. Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches (JSOT 1986/Eisenbrauns 1990) and suggest that they revise their theory. Rightly done, this kind of study contributes toward a vivid, colorful, and honest reconstruction for the congregation or classroom. Admittedly, it is disastrous when historical information becomes an end in itself . . . . But even purely historical commentaries can do a useful job if they project readers faithfully into the ancient world.

Unfortunately, not a few commentaries in this camp attempt historical reconstructions that are long on speculation and short on even-handed weighing of evidence. Some of these historical reconstructions have become so powerful that they serve as a grid to authenticate the primary sources: for example, because a consensus has been reached among some scholars about the flow of early church history, the biblical documents are forcefully squeezed into the theory and counterevidence is dismissed as anachronistic or the like. Moreover, these kinds of reconstructions are probably the most difficult theories to evaluate for those not trained in the primary sources.

Nevertheless, these commentaries often include histories of the text (including form- and redaction-critical analyses), plus information of a geographical, historical, cultic, and socio-cultural nature, that cannot easily be found and weighed elsewhere without doing a lot of work in the primary sources.

Some commentaries offer useful guidance on the legitimate range of practical application. If one danger is to read one’s own applications into the passage, books of the sort already mentioned may serve as the remedy. But equally, most students and pastors must be reminded of the many directions in which practical lessons can be found. Expository lecturing is not the same thing as expository preaching; the Word must not only inform but also wound and heal, sing and sting. Some of the older commentaries are exemplary in their concern to apply the Scriptures to later readers. But these hints and helps must be reviewed in the light of strictly exegetical considerations, for practical concerns can so control the text that no one hears the Word of God. Worse, the search for relevance frequently degenerates into the trite or the trivial.

A few commentaries perform all of these functions, but they are rare and usually dated. . . .

Individual commentaries or series?

Series are almost always uneven, and the temptation to collect uniform sets of volumes should be seen for what it sometimes is. Often an author writes an individual volume because he or she has something to say that is worth saying. By contrast, series are often farmed out by publishers to well-known and therefore very busy scholars for whom the invitation is merely part of a day’s work. This does not call into question the value of any particular series; it is certainly not meant to brand all commentaries that belong to a series with the label of mediocrity. But it does mean that volumes in series should ideally be judged only on individual merit.

Taken from pp. 8-10, 15-18 of New Testament Commentary Survey by D. A. Carson. Used by permission of Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, © 2007. All rights to this material are reserved. Materials are not to be distributed to other web locations for retrieval, published in other media, or mirrored at other sites without written permission from Baker Publishing Group. Visit http://www.BakerPublishingGroup.com

Like this post? Subscribe to our feed .