Skip to main content

A great doorstop

One of the books I purchased with my $1,000 Geneva bursary was the huge volume by Greg Beale and Don Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Baker, 2007). A comprehensive commentary on every quotation, allusion, and echo of the Old Testament that appears in Matthew through Revelation. 1152 pages. How do people write that much?!? Amazing!
I was gleefully looking forward to plumbing the depths of its scholarship. Then a couple of days ago, I heard Professor Carson himself, speaking at Moore College. He made a passing reference to this volume. What's his assessment of his own work? "It's far too long. It'd make a great doorstop".
Oh dear. And an expensive one, too...
I'm sure he's underestimating the quality of his own work. Still, takes the wind out of my sails a bit.
Anyone used this volume yet? Is it any good? Should I keep it, or exchange it for something else...?
Labels:

Comments

jeltzz said…
I don't know, but I'd like a look! If it's within copyright, I'd love a copy of the material on Matthew...

- Seumas
28 March 2008 at 15:18
Anonymous said…
My initial glance was a disappointment. My copy came in the mail this week, and I immediately turned to the passage I'm preaching on this Sunday - Matthew 28:18-20. Incredibly, there was no mention of Genesis 1:26-28.

So maybe the book is too short...
28 March 2008 at 17:55
Anonymous said…
How was Carson? I was unable to make it due to St John's having its' AVM that night. It finished in record time (7:30-8:45) and providing convincing proof of my masochistic tendancies - I'm back on as Synod Rep, Lay Canon & Parish Councillor.
29 March 2008 at 00:25
John McClean said…
Kamal,
I've used it a bit and it seems OK (probably a bit more than OK)! It is a good reminder that OT background is a key factor in NT interpretation at two levels. First in 'grammatico-historical' interpretation the OT determined so much of the thought world and expression of NT writers and second for more explicit Biblical-Theological interpretation. Of course a decent commentary will cover the material in more depth than this can, but it can do two things a commentary can't. It is an easy point of reference for any NT passage when you aren't working through a book in detail. It highlights the OT background immediately and gathers it in one place.

I'm preaching on John 1:1-18 this weekend and I've found it a good summary. See http://ptcsydney.blogspot.com/2008/05/johns-prologue.html for a few of my developing thoughts.
3 May 2008 at 07:33
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The different distractions of secularity and spirituality

There has been a lot of discussion about the recent 'vibe shift' away from radical atheism back towards an openness to the supernatural. I don't think this new spirituality is necessarily an openness to the unique claims of Christ. It will more probably replace one set of commonly-accepted misunderstandings about Jesus with another.  Under radical atheism, people dismissed the Biblical claims about Jesus' resurrection because they 'knew' that it was impossible. Jesus hadn't really died. He just passed out (after being beaten and whipped and crucified) and then woke up in the tomb (and rolled away the stone himself and overcame several guards). Or the disciples hallucinated that they saw him (even though Jewish beliefs of the time didn't expect one person to rise possessing eternal life himself; they expected a general resurrection at the end of time - see John 11:24 ). Or something else.  The so-called 'explanations' of Jesus' non-resurrectio...
Post a Comment
Read more

A better understanding of nonbelief

The Nones Project is an ongoing study into the belief systems of people who call themselves non-religious. A few weeks ago one of the project leaders,  Ryan Burge  of Washington University,  posted some really interesting preliminary results  on his Substack.  1. We've probably heard of people who are spiritual but not religious (SBNRs). SBNRs were "the largest group of nones" in the sample. They believe in the supernatural realm but not necessarily in "a God." They are "deeply skeptical of religion but highly interested in spirituality," therefore individualistic and anti-institutional.  2. But this study differentiated SBNRs from people they called Nones In Name Only, NiNos. They different to SBNRs by being religious about their spiritual. They believe not just in the supernatural but in "God." And they tend to engage in traditional communal religious practices while SBNRs practice individualised eclectic bespoke spiritual practices. The s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Wax and Wright on the definition of "mission"

Trevin Wax has written a clear, simple, and charitable introduction to a debate about the nature and boundaries of the kinds of Christian activities that validly should be called "mission." In brief:  Should we use a broad definition, where "mission" encompasses all the various purposes which God calls Christians and the church in general to perform, e.g. being ethical at work; general acts of care and charity; standing against systematic oppression and working towards justice instead? If so, "evangelism" is only one part of the church's mission - a central, necessary, and irreplaceable part, but only one part nonetheless. The latter kinds of activities don't save anyone for eternity, but they do genuine good in this world which please God. And that kind of good makes a real difference in many parts of the world which have not benefited from the kind of Christian moral transformation which the West benefited from - the kind of moral transformation...
Post a Comment
Read more