Bible Commentary

August 7, 2013 by kevinstilley

Commenting on Commentaries on the Book of John

Many years ago I worked for John A. Burns in the Wallace Library. I was always impressed by the breadth of his knowledge of theological literature. Twenty-five years ago the Criswell Theological Journal included an article by Burns entitled Commenting On Commentaries on the Book of John. That has been quite awhile ago, but a survey of his recommendations reveals that most of his suggestions have stood the test of time. Below are some of his recommendations that are still in print.

Books that will assist in the literary study of the Fourth Gospel:

A study aid for the student that does not require facility of New Testament Greek:

More resources for the study of key words:

Resources for background information on John:

Seminal studies in the Gospel According to John:

Devotional studies in this gospel:

For those who can find their way through theological divergences:

Study guides reinforcing the unity of the book:

And, four commentaries that are “usable by everyone, their cost is not prohibitive, they have verse-by-verse, exposition of the Greek text, and they are not conditioned by severe and unsympathetic methodologies that are destructive to confidence in the Bible”:

April 23, 2007 by kevinstilley

Recommendations for Proverbs Commentaries

Daniel J. Phillips, who blogs at Pyromaniacs, Biblical Christianity, and Hellenisti Ginoskeis, has been studying from the Proverbs.

He has recently reviewed some modern commentaries on Proverbs. He regards as indispensable the two volume New International Commentary on Proverbs written by Bruce Waltke and and the Tyndale Old Testament commentary on Proverbs written by Derek Kidner. He also recommends, but much less enthusiastically, Tremper Longman’s commentary on Proverbs in the Baker series and Duane Garrett’s New American Commentary on Proverbs. But, for devotional or preaching purposes he writes that Charles Bridges’ commentary on Proverbs is “hard to beat.”

He is presently working through John Kitchen’s Mentor Commentary on Proverbs so be sure to keep an eye on his blogs as I am sure he will be reviewing it on one of them.

* * * * *

Here is audio from a sermon Dan preached out of Proverbs at his church.

And here are some of his blog posts:

March 30, 2007 by kevinstilley

Nijay K. Gupta’s bibliography on the Old Testament in the New

Nijay K. Gupta has published a helpful bibliography on the use of the Old Testament in the New Testament. I copy below the portion of his bibliography on Paul’s use of the Old Testament. You can find the complete bibliography and additional resources on his website by CLICKING HERE.

Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament (Background, Hermeneutics, etc…)

Aageson, J.W. Written Also for Our Sake: Paul and the Art of Biblical Interpretation. Louisville: JK, 1993.

Ellis, E.E. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981 [original printing 1957].

Evans, C.A. and J.A. Sanders, Paul and the Scriptures of Israel. Sheffield: JSOT, 1994.

Hanson, A.T. Studies on Paul’s Technique and Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

Hays, R.B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale UP, 1989.

_______. Conversion of the Imagination. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

Koch, D.A. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeloums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verstandnis der Schrift bei Paulus. Tuebingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986.

Silva, M. ‘Old Testament in Paul’. In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by G.F. Hawthorne, R.P. Martin and D.G. Reid, 630-42. Downer’s Grove, Ill.: IVP, 1993.

Stanley, C.D. Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature. Cambridge: UP, 1993.

Watson, F. Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. London: T & T Clark, 2004.

March 22, 2007 by kevinstilley

Commentary recommendations from Jeremy Pierce

Jeremy Pierce has put together several comprehensive, thoughtful, and helpful posts regarding exegetical commentaries. Links to his posts follow:

Commentary Reviews – Series
Commentary Suggestions
NAC Commentary Series

March 20, 2007 by kevinstilley

New American Commentary on 1, 2 Kings — Paul House

William Barrick, Professor of Old Testament at The Master’s Theological Seminary, has recommended Paul House’s commentary on 1 & 2 Kings from the New American Commentary Series.

“Are you looking for a simple commentary on 1st and 2nd Kings that isn’t too shallow and doesn’t ignore problems? This is the commentary you have been looking for. Paul House provides lucid comments on the text of these two biblical books in their historical and cultural setting. He doesn’t stop there, however. At the conclusion of major sections of the Books of Kings, House describes the significance of the passage to the biblical canon and to pertinent subjects in Old Testament theology. Once the full meaning of the text has been presented, the author proceeds to suggest how the teachings apply to the lives of today’s Christians.”

Go HERE for the full review.

March 15, 2007 by kevinstilley

Confucianism and Commentarial Traditions

Kelly James Clark, professor of philosophy at Calvin College, has written a review of three books on Confucianism that is well worth the read for all academic theologians, even if not particularly interested in Confucianism.

The title of his review is Confucian Hermeneutics: Why commentaries are never definitive. He draws parallels between Confucian commentarial traditions and those of Christianity. His thoughts are well worth the trip over to Books & Culture to check it out.

I offer a sampling here:

“By this point, Christian readers might feel the hermeneutical shoe fitting rather too snugly. The parallels between the Confucian and Christian traditions are strikingly obvious. The Classic of History resembles the historical books of the Pentateuch, the Poetry resembles the Psalms and the Song of Solomon, and the Rites are like Leviticus (there is no obvious biblical analogue to the divinatory and metaphysical Changes); the Analects bears some similarity in genre and authority to the Gospels, and the Mencius, the Great Learning, and the Mean are like Pauline epistles (Mencius’ systematic rendering of Confucianism would have as much or more influence on the Confucian tradition as did the Analects, just as some have alleged that Paul’s epistles informed Christianity more than the Gospels). And like the Confucian canon, the Bible is a book of many genres, tremendously variegated, spanning vast periods of time with portions lost to pre-history; it is multi-authored, compiled and/or edited; yet its interpreters come armed with pretensions to harmony and sufficiency. Debate over the Christian canon both assumed and precipitated difference in doctrine. Some have sought to rise above the need for interpretation with appeals to the perspicacity of Scripture (which clear view of the truth is denied to those who disagree with them).”

The three texts which Clark is reviewing can be found in the descriptive paragraph below along with his thoughts considering their value:

“These topics are dealt with in the three masterly books under review, which represent the recent explosion of excellent work in Sinological studies led especially by historians but followed by philosophers and religionists. John Makeham and Daniel Gardner are historians. Makeham’s monumental work, Transmitters and Creators: Chinese Commentators and Commentaries on the Analects, is the most impressive of the three, insightfully digging through millennia of ancient commentaries. Gardner’s invaluable contribution with Zhu Xi’s Reading of the Analects lies in helping us understand the relationship of Zhu Xi, perhaps China’s greatest and most systematic philosopher, to his master, Confucius. And Bryan Van Norden’s edited volume, Confucius and the Analects, is a fine collection of essays by prominent contemporary philosophers (that is, commentators) attempting to understand Confucius; their essays divide, not very neatly, into two groups: the more traditional and the more revisionist understandings of Confucius.”