nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Lenski - whatdya wreckon

Is Mebin

From the threads re:Black Friday specials, I have surmised that this is the best value offered. However, even though I have heard of his commentaries, I know nothing about them. Any comments from anyone familiar with this set, especially as to the value of his Greek/linguistic ability, will be appreciated. I can overlook his denominational bias (esp. Rom 9 - according to a blog I just read), if the nuggets are worth the fossicking.

http://www.logos.com/product/3911/lenskis-commentary-on-the-new-testament?utm_source=logos&utm_medium=blackfriday&utm_content=textlink&utm_campaign=blackfriday2011

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

DAL

From the threads re:Black Friday specials, I have surmised that this is the best value offered. However, even though I have heard of his commentaries, I know nothing about them. Any comments from anyone familiar with this set, especially as to the value of his Greek/linguistic ability, will be appreciated. I can overlook his denominational bias (esp. Rom 9 - according to a blog I just read), if the nuggets are worth the fossicking.

http://www.logos.com/product/3911/lenskis-commentary-on-the-new-testament?utm_source=logos&utm_medium=blackfriday&utm_content=textlink&utm_campaign=blackfriday2011

D.A. Carson has nothing good to say about Lenski. I can't remember the exact quote, but Carson says Lenski is amaturish in his handling of the Greek Text. I used to own the print volumes, but ended up selling them because I hardly ever used them. I used Matthew a lot, I like his handling of Matthew 20 the parable of the Laborers in the Vinyard. He does an excellent job there. I also used the epistles of John a lot and his commentary on Revelation. Other than that, I could not get myself to consult Lenski that much, I always went to other commentaries. I hope my comments help. I don't have anything against Lenski, personally, but the only way I'd own that set in Logos is if it was given to me. I'd rather buy other commentaries (which I will, hopefully, when they're on sale WBC and Exegetical Commentary Bundle). Alright, that's all!

Blessings!

Douglas

Is Mebin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/308285#Comment_308285

Thank you for your honest input DA...I'm probably not going to get them at this stage...but if people were to say it's a must have...I would re-evaluate...again, thanks

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/308300#Comment_308300

Is ... you should read the Amazon opinions: http://www.amazon.com/Commentary-New-Testament-12-Volumes/product-reviews/156563408X/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt/177-0231481-9947915?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

What's so obvious is that over a fairly lengthy period the reviewers carefully kept the reviews as high as possible. And (this is really unusual), they were able to not let anyone put in less than '5' ratings. I don't know how they were able to do it.

Even worse, Amazon's used Lenski's are priced higher than the Logos BF price. Clearly the market is badly missing the boat here, being willing to pay a premium for old worn out copies.

Before deciding, I dumped out all the page copies from Logos site (Opera lets you unload the links at once).

Appears to me, he writes along the lines of the more classic commentaries, which I thoroughly enjoy. I guess my Dad did too.

And even more important to me, I really like the shade of green on the paper covers. It was popular back in the late 50s. (true!) What pretty commentaries!

Sorry ... I enjoy 'style'!

Dean J

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/308319#Comment_308319

I'm in two minds too - the introductions seem pretty unimaginative, and just trots out the usual on times, dates, authors (and I'm big in these things - I buy commentaries often as much for the intros). But a few things he says in the actual commentaries grabbed my eye as I reviewed on Google. I'm going to give it a try. I have thirty days to change my mind.

Is Mebin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/308319#Comment_308319

Appears to me, he writes along the lines of the more classic commentaries, which I thoroughly enjoy.

Yes, me too.

I guess my Dad did too.

You mentioned this on another thread...which is why I was considering the purchase [;)]

Thanks Denise...if only our exchange rate didn't just plummet!!!

Is Mebin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/308321#Comment_308321

I'm in two minds

Me too...lol! I mean, I enjoy these type of commentaries more than anything else I read...but I have so many I am working through already...lol! Should I, or shouldn't I...still not sure!

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/308327#Comment_308327

Alright Mebin, here are some reviews I took from another Forum Discussion (Logos Forum of course). Included are Carson's review and other scholar's review about Lenski:

D. A. Carson:

"R. C. H. Lenski’s twelve-volume The Interpretation of the New Testament (/Augsburg Fortress, $29.99 per vol.—but most of the volumes are op [out of print]) aims to force the student to think through the Greek text and stimulate exegetical rigor, but his grasp of Greek is mechanical, amateurish, and without respect for the fluidity of Greek in the Hellenistic period."

D. A. Carson, New Testament Commentary Survey (6th ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 33.

"R. C. H. Lenski is notoriously unreliable in his treatment of the Greek article, frequently making appeal either to the presence (or absence) of the article in Greek to establish the corresponding pattern in English, or aligning the articular noun with a specific meaning"

D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (2nd ed.; Carlisle, U.K.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Paternoster; Baker Books, 1996), 80.

Richard A. Young:

Lenski often interprets the aorist as a point action, as in Romans 6:2, where the believer’s death to sin was one punctiliar act; and Romans 7:3, where the death of the husband was a “single brief act” (Lenski 1936:389, 446). Such information cannot be extracted from the aorist form.

Richard A. Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek : A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 121–122.

Daniel Wallace:

As for the participle’s aspect, it still functions for the most part like its indicative counterparts. There are two basic influences that shape the participle’s verbal side, however, which are almost constant factors in its Aktionsart.6 First, because the participle has embodied two natures, neither one acts completely independently of the other. Hence, the verbal nature of participles has a permanent grammatical intrusion from the adjectival nature. This tends to dilute the strength of the aspect. Many nouns in Hellenistic Greek, for instance, in a former life were participles (e.g., ἀρχιτέκτων, ἄρχων, γέρων, ἡγεμών, θεράπων, καύσων, τέκτων, χείμων). The constant pressure from the adjectival side finally caved in any remnants of verbal aspect. This is not to say that no participles in the NT are aspectually robust-many of them are! But one must not assume this to be the case in every instance. In particular when a participle is substantival, its aspectual force is more susceptible to reduction in force.
Secondly, many substantival participles in the NT are used in generic utterances. The πᾶς ὁ ἀκούων (or ἀγαπῶν, ποιῶν, etc.) formula is always or almost always generic. As such it is expected to involve a gnomic idea.7 Most of these instances involve the present participle.8 But if they are already gnomic, we would be hard-pressed to make something more out of them—such as a progressive idea.9 Thus, for example, in Matt 5:28, “everyone who looks at a woman” (πᾶς ὁ βλέπων γυναῖκα) with lust in his heart does not mean “continually looking” or “habitually looking,” any more than four verses later “everyone who divorces his wife” (πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ) means “repeatedly divorces”! This is not to deny a habitual Aktionsart in such gnomic statements. But it is to say that caution must be exercised. In the least, we should be careful not to make statements such as, “The present participle βλέπων [in Matt 5:28] characterizes the man by his act of continued looking.”10 This may well be the meaning of the evangelist, but the present participle, by itself, can hardly be forced into this mold.11

Note 10: Lenski, St. Matthew’s Gospel, 226.

Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Zondervan, 1999), 615–616; my emphasis.

Dean J

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/308330#Comment_308330

I'm not sure about all this. Verbal aspect is a major area of debate and discussion among scholars these days, and it's not an area I know much about, having learned Greek in Classics departments seemingly more at home in the nineteenth century.

Where do scholars like Wallace stand with respect to the work of Porter, or Black?

If participles are not about aspect, what are they about? I don't find the reference to gerwn - old man - very persuasive either, since it speaks of a continuous state and therefore transfers from participle to noun without any loss of meaning.

But I'm willing to reconsider the whole matter of aspect. If anyone can point me in the direction of some good discussions, for and against, I would be interested. I am currently reading Porter.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/308330#Comment_308330

D. A. Carson, New Testament Commentary Survey (6th ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 33.

"R. C. H. Lenski is notoriously unreliable in his treatment of the Greek article, frequently making appeal either to the presence (or absence) of the article in Greek to establish the corresponding pattern in English, or aligning the articular noun with a specific meaning"

Okay, that takes my view of D.A. Carson down a notch, makes be curious re: Lenski, but not quite curious enough to read him, pushes the need to read Fanning on Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek, and makes me ultimately decide that looking for something on nanosyntax in Biblical Hebrew would be lots more fun.[:P]

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/308336#Comment_308336

So, Dean, what is your take on Acts 1:4 and the first verb?

Earlier today, I was miffed at another writer who launched into the 'early church' by beginning at Pentecost. So trying out my new Lenski, I decided to see how he handled early Acts.

Well, I didn't get far! That's when I noticed one interpretation works off of the classic greek, but an even more intriguing one connects to Igantius to the Magnesians 10.2. Lenski took the more classic approach, but did include a margin note on 'salted'.

The Syriac went with the salted/eating angle as did the coptics and the latin. And so also the gloss in the NA27 interlinear.

But apparently most of the english translations stuck with the more classical 'assemble'. The salt connection I've seen elsewhere and that's my guess, but Lightfoot pans it.

With your classical background, how say you?

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/308355#Comment_308355

Lenski took the more classic approach, but did include a margin note on 'salted'.

Denise

I read Lenski differently here. To me, he seems to accept the "salted" meaning, but comments that there are no classic examples of this meaning

[quote]In συναλιζόμενος we have a crux interpretum. If the root is ἁλής, the adjective meaning “crowded,” “in a mass,” we have the translation of our versions: “being assembled together”; but if the root is ἅλς, “salt,” we have the marginal translation of our versions: “eating together,” or more precisely: “while partaking together of salt.” Rather decisive against the former meaning is the fact that the singular fits only a collective noun, like a multitude, and never only a single person. Then, too, the tense should be the aorist, for the assembling must precede the commanding. Sense and tense are correct if we accept the other derivation, “eating with them,” and we have in our favor all the ancient versions and the fathers plus also Luke 24:41–43, where Jesus did eat. Still we lack classical examples for this meaning. See B.-P. 1257.

One is surprised at M.-M. 601 who advocate a difference in spelling so that we have a verb that means “to spend the night with.” We may take it that Luke refers to his own Gospel, 24:41–43, 49, where he reports both that Jesus ate broiled (and thus salted) fish and ordered the disciples to remain in the city until they received the promise of the Father. Luke recalls this order because he is now about to report the descent of the Spirit. He even uses the same expression: “the promise of the Father” (Luke 24:49), and adds that they had heard this from him before (the aorist where we prefer the perfect).

Emphasis mine. This is from his discussion on Acts 1:4.

Dean J

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/308355#Comment_308355

So, Dean, what is your take on Acts 1:4 and the first verb?

Earlier today, I was miffed at another writer who launched into the 'early church' by beginning at Pentecost. So trying out my new Lenski, I decided to see how he handled early Acts.

Well, I didn't get far! That's when I noticed one interpretation works off of the classic greek, but an even more intriguing one connects to Igantius to the Magnesians 10.2. Lenski took the more classic approach, but did include a margin note on 'salted'.

The Syriac went with the salted/eating angle as did the coptics and the latin. And so also the gloss in the NA27 interlinear.

But apparently most of the english translations stuck with the more classical 'assemble'. The salt connection I've seen elsewhere and that's my guess, but Lightfoot pans it.

With your classical background, how say you?

You got me going on quite a search this morning.

Without any attested singular use of the long alpha word in the middle/passive (assembling), I would have to be at least cautious before accepting that as its meaning here. But if the short alpha verb (eating) is attested otherwise from the second century, I think it more likely the NT was using the later meaning. The papyri would settle the matter for me, if a similar example could be found, in lieu of that I would probably just go with the versions. That's the problem with prose - you can't scan it to know the length of the vowels.

Metzger mentions another alternative:

[quote]it has been proposed to regard συναλιζόμενος as an orthographic variant for συναυλιζόμενος. This theory, which Cadbury supported with many examples of similar exchange of -α- and -αυ-, 11 was adopted by the RSV and the NRSV (“while staying with them”).

I think eating is probably right, but Cadbury's theory is interesting and supported by the Greek cursive tradition. I might try to find that article.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/308416#Comment_308416

Thank you Dean for your reply; sorry to interrupt your weekend morning! Not being the expert as you, I'm always curious with an odd construction and the 'instantaneous' interpretation of the readers at the time.

And Jack ... you're correct ... I got caught on Lenski's 'marginal translation of our other versions'. Obviously I need a refresher course in english.

Going back to Is's question, my impression of Lenski so far is his mind is down the road ... he sees no need to 'sweat the details' until he sees the issue as important. And so he unloads his thoughts along the way ... thoughts which themselves have considerable disagreement. In that way (and I'm probably going to get trouble here), he's a lot like Spicq / TLNT where he's not really interested in the whole waterfront.

Dean J

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/308419#Comment_308419

Well I have just gone to the introduction to the Gospel of John in Lenski and have already found some observations that have been useful. The chances are looking good that I'm going to keep this set.

NB.Mick

From the threads re:Black Friday specials, I have surmised that this is the best value offered.

This could very well be true.

even though I have heard of his commentaries, I know nothing about them.

DominicM had the same situation some time ago and asked the same question here: http://community.logos.com/forums/t/37805.aspx .

Any comments from anyone familiar with this set, especially as to the value of his Greek/linguistic ability, will be appreciated

The comments vary depending on whom you ask. I don't think that the SIL Exegetical Summaries would look to Lenski in every NT issue (which they do not for even very prestigious commentary sets) if his linguistic abilities were really as bad as his critics claim them to be. The not-so favorable evaluations mostly seem to go back to one book by David deSilva.

I can overlook his denominational bias (esp. Rom 9 - according to a blog I just read), if the nuggets are worth the fossicking.

that's something you may have to find out by yourself. On the other hand: That he is referenced in a recent blog (as well as in recent books), reprinted in paperback 2008, his old hardbacks still sell expensively etc seems to speak for some "nuggets". You could as well ask the Amazon reviewers http://www.amazon.com/Commentary-New-Testament-12-Volumes/product-reviews/156563408X/ref=sr_1_1_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Dean J

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/308422#Comment_308422

I'm surprised at how dogmatic Lensky is, presenting conjectures as fact, such as when he states that John settled in Ephesus between 66-69, without so much as a note to the reader that this is at best an educated guess.

I'm also surprised to see him claim that Papias referred to only one John, when even scholars who reject the existence of a separate 'elder John' have conceded that Papias can only be understood that way and have expressed the need for some textual emendation (Beckwith), or have at least accused him of writing in a clumsy manner (Plummer).

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/308462#Comment_308462

Yep ... if he's made up his mind, he's moved on. In the Acts 1 account the disciples were referred to as 'Galileans', which Lenski points out was true except for Judas. I guess he's working off of 'Iscariot'.

But in the same section, I cracked up several times, because most commentaries just 'don't want to go there' in many places. Lenski digs his heals in. He's going to deal with the implications of the text no matter what happens to the impact on theology.

Ward Walker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/308442#Comment_308442

... if the nuggets are worth the fossicking.

Well, I've just learned a new word... [;)]

I bought the Lenski set, prompted by the separate thread recommending it but also in order to complete the partial set that I already owned in Logos--perhaps from last year's Christmas Sale.

Is Mebin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/308442#Comment_308442

I don't think that the SIL Exegetical Summaries would look to Lenski in every NT issue (which they do not for even very prestigious commentary sets) if his linguistic abilities were really as bad as his critics claim them to be.

Great point Newbie Mick...I have the SIL volumes and that is where I heard of the name Lenski...thus, my interest. I think I want to at least get this set on trial, and see for myself. Thank you to all.

Is Mebin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/308468#Comment_308468

Well, I've just learned a new word...

lol...you've got me thinking now...what I meant was using a pan to sift through rocks and earth you have just scooped from the river's bottom, in order to find gold...hope I used the right word...maybe just Aussie slang or my usual state of confusion...[8-)]

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/308419#Comment_308419

Going back to Is's question, my impression of Lenski so far is his mind is down the road ... he sees no need to 'sweat the details' until he sees the issue as important. And so he unloads his thoughts along the way ... thoughts which themselves have considerable disagreement. In that way (and I'm probably going to get trouble here), he's a lot like Spicq / TLNT where he's not really interested in the whole waterfront.

Well stated. (highlighting of quote is mine) But Lenski's work is a commentary and not a systematic theology. It's parts do not have to be in agreement with the whole of the work. My main use of a commentary is to expose my mind to the nuggets and background I may never have discovered on my own. If the concept seems extreme I do deeper digging to ascertain the factual and discernible reliability of his claim. I use Word Biblical Commentary for exegetical focus. Most commentaries are more useful for discovery of other's perspectives, especially those I am likely to disagree with. I enjoy Lenski because he makes a lot of sense in the minutia.

Next time you go to the beach focus a ten foot radius of where you are sitting. There may not be a lot to see at first but after one hour you will have noticed things everybody else walks past unawares. You will probably miss the beached jellyfish one-hundred feet away.