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

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

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
TGC Australia recently published an analysis by Dr Sarah Quicke of whether we are experiencing a 'quiet revival' of interest in and/or conversion to Christianity  here in Australia. It does it a good job of describing the difficulties involved in both gathering and interpreting data about religious beliefs and behaviours, e.g. the difference between the 44% who (still) call themselves Christian and the 8% of people aged 18-35 who actually "believed and lived out the gospel."  Quicke refers to the very insightful McCrindle report An Undercurrent Of Faith , released in March 2025, which uses an analytical method called cohort analysis to try and work out how a particular group of people tend to behave over time. The purpose of this post is to draw attention to one element of that report which agrees with Quicke's analysis but also adds some detail to it.  Here is what the cohort analysis showed about different age groups' identification with Christianity:  As y...
Post a Comment
Read more