Comments on: What Is An Exegetical Commentary?

By: Gerry

Gerry — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:55:03 +0000

Andreas

I have just read the review in JETS on your John Commentary.
I have to say that apart from the mild “post-modern” rhetoric, the review was almost all positive.
Of course this assumes I have discerned the reviewers intention correctly.
I do assume he wanted me to understand him?

To be perfectly honest, I feel your commentary is a model of brevity in this day of multi vol commentaries, see for e.g. Keener’s two bloated volumes on John.
I for one am glad that you have taken the road you did and not succumbed to this post modern “all things to all men” which cuts the text lose from any anchor it has.

“More power to your elbow” to state a colloquiallism.

best Wishes
Gerry Todd

By: Michael Bird

Michael Bird — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 21:38:03 +0000

Andreas,

1. It was good to see you at IBR. Good luck with anything on the “Gospel Genre” category.

2. You should take a look at Dale Martin’s recent book, “Sex and the Single Saviour” which eschews authorial intent, and yet at SBL there was a whole session dedicated to examining what Martin had said in his book (assuming his intent was lucid and available in his book). Someone ought to do an article review of this book as an example of the inherent contradiction within postmodern approaches to Scripture.

By: PJ Tibayan

PJ Tibayan — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 03:54:46 +0000

Well said brother. Thanks for exegeting what is there and helping us understand it. I appreciated your defining exegesis and distinguishing it from hermeneutics. It seems that some are mixing up the two in illegitimate or confusing ways in evangelicalism. May God not be silenced when he speaks in the Scriptures, and may we be humble and striving to understand accurately what he says.

By: Jeremy Pierce

Jeremy Pierce — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 03:11:41 +0000

I’m not sure if this is what you’re saying, but I’m a little hesitant to discourage imagination in general in commentary writing. I think imagination is a faculty that’s too often lacking in commentary writers. I don’t think imagination should just run free. It needs to be disciplined. But imagination is sometimes required to see how two seemingly contradictory statements might fit together, to conceive of explanations why characters in a biblical narrative might act in a ways that make little sense to us, to make inner-biblical connections that not all will see, and so on. But it does need to be a disciplined imagination. What is imagined must be subjected to the text so that it does not go against it. It should also not involve too much certainty when it doesn’t come out of the text itself, particularly if it seems to go against what the text suggests. But sometimes imagination does serve a purpose. That’s consistent with everything you said, but I thought it was worth pointing out.

By: Andy Naselli

Andy Naselli — Fri, 24 Nov 2006 22:00:36 +0000

Follow up: I’m finishing up “Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament.” (My HTML coding didn’t come through on that last post.)

By: Andy Naselli

Andy Naselli — Fri, 24 Nov 2006 21:58:25 +0000

I’m currently working on a Ph.D. in NT at TEDS, and I’ve been thinking a lot about these issues this semester because I’m taking “The Use of the OT in the NT” with Dr. Carson and “Advanced Theological Prolegomena” with Dr. Vanhoozer. For what it’s worth, I am firmly in agreement with you, Dr. Kostenberger. You’re definitely no Grinch!

BTW, this evening I’m finishing up ed. Stanley Porter, and I’ve found your concluding chapter that responds to each essay to be fair, gracious, and insightful.