Old FF Bruce Commentary on Ephesians & Colossians?
My question is: How good is this old commentary on Ephesians & Colossians by FF Bruce? I know he's not the only author of it, but since it's on sale to celebrate his birthday, I was wondering if it was worth buying it.
DAL
PS. Yes, I know, it's F.F. Bruce, but since it's a little outdated I just wanted to see if someone had some sort of reviews for it.
Comments
-
From D. A. Carson's N.T. Commentary Survey: E.K. Simpson (on Ephesians) "provides some helpful comments on individual words, but on the whole the work is an erudite disappointment. His vocabulary is impressive, but not much else." Bruce on Colossians is good, but other commentaries are certainly better.
Windows 8.1 64-bit, Core i5-3330, 8GB RAM
0 -
Bruce wrote a newer version (1984) of this commentary which also included Philemon. He was the sole author of the revised work. Unfortunately, it does not appear to be available separately from the set.
Personally, believe the email is somewhat misleading as Bruce did not write the commentary on Colossians in the advertised set (I could be incorrect on this, but I do not think so).
0 -
Jack Caviness said:
Personally, believe the email is somewhat misleading as Bruce did not write the commentary on Colossians in the advertised set (I could be incorrect on this, but I do not think so).
Actually according to the resource itself it says that F. F. Bruce did write this commentary on Colossians while E. K. Simpson wrote the commentary on Ephesians. In this series both books are combined into one book.
Using adventure and community to challenge young people to continually say "yes" to God
0 -
Timothy Brown said:
From D. A. Carson's N.T. Commentary Survey: E.K. Simpson (on Ephesians) "provides some helpful comments on individual words, but on the whole the work is an erudite disappointment. His vocabulary is impressive, but not much else." Bruce on Colossians is good, but other commentaries are certainly better.
Well, enough said then. I won't buy it, not that Carson is the final authority, but then again, there are plenty of up-to-date commentaries and that should be enough.
Thanks!
DAL
0 -
Bruce Dunning said:Jack Caviness said:
Personally, believe the email is somewhat misleading as Bruce did not write the commentary on Colossians in the advertised set (I could be incorrect on this, but I do not think so).
Actually according to the resource itself it says that F. F. Bruce did write this commentary on Colossians while E. K. Simpson wrote the commentary on Ephesians. In this series both books are combined into one book.
Thanks for the correction. Did not investigate thoroughly enough [:$]
0 -
Timothy Brown said:
From D. A. Carson's N.T. Commentary Survey: E.K. Simpson (on Ephesians) "provides some helpful comments on individual words, but on the whole the work is an erudite disappointment. His vocabulary is impressive, but not much else." Bruce on Colossians is good, but other commentaries are certainly better.
It's hard to trust D.A. Carson on some of his suggestions. While I don't have experience with this particular commentary, there are plenty of times where I have to wonder what he was thinking. For instance, Carson slams John MacArthur on his Matthew commentaries: "A hybrid difficult to classify—part commentary, part expository sermon—is the work of John MacArthur in 4 vols. These books are wordy and often betray too little time and care taken with the text, so that they cannot be read as reliable commentary; but the amount of information goes beyond that of most expositions. Doubtless they will well serve the well-read layperson and the poorly trained preacher." In fact, he doesn't say anything really positive about any of John's other commentaries either. But to say that MacArthur's work often betrays "too little time and care" with the text! What?!
As such, I always make sure to check other "commentary surveys" along with Carson's.
0 -
Josh said:
Carson slams John MacArthur on his Matthew commentaries
I have to agree. MacArthur is great for background information, and thats about all.[:(]
0 -
Josh said:Timothy Brown said:
From D. A. Carson's N.T. Commentary Survey: E.K. Simpson (on Ephesians) "provides some helpful comments on individual words, but on the whole the work is an erudite disappointment. His vocabulary is impressive, but not much else." Bruce on Colossians is good, but other commentaries are certainly better.
It's hard to trust D.A. Carson on some of his suggestions. While I don't have experience with this particular commentary, there are plenty of times where I have to wonder what he was thinking. For instance, Carson slams John MacArthur on his Matthew commentaries: "A hybrid difficult to classify—part commentary, part expository sermon—is the work of John MacArthur in 4 vols. These books are wordy and often betray too little time and care taken with the text, so that they cannot be read as reliable commentary; but the amount of information goes beyond that of most expositions. Doubtless they will well serve the well-read layperson and the poorly trained preacher." In fact, he doesn't say anything really positive about any of John's other commentaries either. But to say that MacArthur's work often betrays "too little time and care" with the text! What?!
As such, I always make sure to check other "commentary surveys" along with Carson's.
I think Carson's less than enthusiastic review of John MacArthur's Commentaries is largely just a result of the fact that MacArthur is an expository preacher, not a Biblical scholar. That is not a put down of MacArthur. And expository commentaries are very useful, but they are not critical scholarly works. I have a number of expository commentaries, including John MacArthur's, and James M. Boice's, and several by Martyn Lloyd-Jones. But the scholarship in them is in a sense "dumbed down" to a lay person's level. (That is not a put down of lay people, but they generally haven't had opportunity to study biblical language, etc.)
While I reject the dispensational elements of John MacArthur's theology, I have great respect for his exposition of the Word. But I respect him for what he does, not for something he is not even trying to do. He is not trying to write a scholarly commentary. Carson is right: MacArthur's commentaries are "A hybrid difficult to classify—part commentary, part expository sermon—is the work of John MacArthur in 4 vols. They are pretty good for that purpose. They are not intended to be more.
Any expository commentary will betray "too little time and care" with the text. That is because they are largely sermons written from the theological perspective of the pastor. Nobody's sermon will give as much critical and scholarly time and care to text as a scholarly commentary should. MacArthur's commentaries present MacArthur's theology, as intended.
And, by the way, I do like MacArthur's New Testament Commentaries. I am glad I got them when they were available in Logos, and hope that they soon will be available again.
I also have great respect for Don Carson.
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
One also needs to keep in mind that older commentaries aren't likely to impress someone who lives and works on the cutting edge of recent scholarship.
The reason for the older work is primarily now scholarly. If you were writing a commentary, you'd most certainly want to read and include references to this volume where appropriate.
The mind of man is the mill of God, not to grind chaff, but wheat. Thomas Manton | Study hard, for the well is deep, and our brains are shallow. Richard Baxter
0 -
Evan Boardman said:Josh said:
Carson slams John MacArthur on his Matthew commentaries
I have to agree. MacArthur is great for background information, and thats about all.
Do you also agree that MacArthur's work "cannot be read as reliable commentary" and is best used by the "poorly trained preacher"? Give me a break! Carson went over board...
0 -
I realized that I had this volume because it was in the Classic Commentary collection if I am not mistaken.
Carson wrote his commentary survey primarily with an eye towards students who need to use resources that are geared towards exegesis not exposition. Exegesis comes first and it remains the primary task for the expositor along with not a little prayer otherwise the whole affair would be completely wasted.
Most first year seminary students will find that the use of expository or devotional commentaries are unacceptable references for their papers. Carson is hardly overboard. He has saved a whole lot of students a pile of money that is needed for directly useful references.
FWIW, MacArthur is my personal favorite preacher. It was a Logos MacArthur disc set that got me started with Logos.
The mind of man is the mill of God, not to grind chaff, but wheat. Thomas Manton | Study hard, for the well is deep, and our brains are shallow. Richard Baxter
0 -
mab said:
Carson wrote his commentary survey primarily with an eye towards students who need to use resources that are geared towards exegesis not exposition. Exegesis comes first and it remains the primary task for the expositor along with not a little prayer otherwise the whole affair would be completely wasted.
This is not completely true. The preface states: The purpose of this short book is to provide theological students and ministers with a handy survey of the resources, especially commentaries, that are available in English to facilitate an understanding of the NT. The mature scholar is not in view.
Not only are students in view, but also your everyday minister. The overarching purpose is to help both of these groups select resources for their respective NT study by surveying certain commentaries and telling them which are worth a perusal. As such, I don't agree with your comment.
[quote]
Most first year seminary students will find that the use of expository or devotional commentaries are unacceptable references for their papers.
This is true for students, but not true for all minsters. In fact, an expository preacher would find MacArthur's work quite useful. Carson was, indeed, over board.
0 -
What does everyone think about Baker's New Testament Commentary (HK): Matthew by William Hendriksen, 1973? To answer that, go to: Logos box products reviewed ... also follow the links!
Josh said:Carson slams John MacArthur on his Matthew commentaries:
How does E. K. Simpson compare to W. Hendriksen, 1968? Follow the above link to the other thread to answer!There may be newer commentaries, but aren't they much more expensive? I'm thinking about using Hendriksen as a temporary sollution for Eph for years, and sometime in the future buy a recent (not yet published) commentary on Eph.:
DAL said:Well, enough said then. I won't buy it, not that Carson is the final authority, but then again, there are plenty of up-to-date commentaries and that should be enough.:
Timothy Brown said:From D. A. Carson's N.T. Commentary Survey: E.K. Simpson (on Ephesians) "provides some helpful comments on individual words, but on the whole the work is an erudite disappointment. His vocabulary is impressive, but not much else."
Bruce Dunning said:E. K. Simpson wrote the commentary on Ephesians. In this series both books are combined into one book.
Disclosure!
trulyergonomic.com
48G AMD octacore V9.2 Acc 120 -
To geth somewhat back on the thread topic:
Jack Caviness said:Bruce wrote a newer version (1984) of this commentary which also included Philemon.
Yes, and this one gets rather a lot of praise (many points at bestcommentaries.com etc), whereas the older one was in pre-internet times and thus not many reviews are to be found. But buying the current NIC series is out of the range for me now.
I think that former NIC volumes may still be very worthwile (seems they built the eminence of the series) and a commentary from 1957 may still shed a lot of light on scripture. From a scholar's perspective, one wouldn't use such a commentary as an only source (it will lack interaction with other current literature and developmenst such as NPP), however, it may still be a good commentary in its own right and in some areas have the place to discuss aspects that may be cut short due to 'more recent problems'.
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
I've decided almost a year ago that I don't want the NPP in any of the commentaries I buy! There must be something else?:
NB.Mick said:a commentary from 1957 may still shed a lot of light on scripture. From a scholar's perspective, one wouldn't use such a commentary as an only source (it will lack interaction with other current literature and developmenst such as NPP), however, it may still be a good commentary in its own right and in some areas have the place to discuss aspects that may be cut short due to 'more recent problems'.
I have a correction about the 1 Cor volume in Baker's New Testament Commentary (HK): it's not from 1953, it's from 1993! See also these posts/reviews for more about the volume: Re: How good is Kistemaker on 2 Cor 1-9 in Baker NT Commentary (1997)?
www.amazon.com/1-Corinthians-New-Testament-Commentary/product-reviews/0801052602/ref=cm_cr_dp_see_all_btm?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending
... don't make links to amazon clickable in order for people not to find books via google on amazon first!See at the bottom of this post for more about the Mt -volume: Are commentaries from 1953-1988 that are traditional, bad? Exposition, devotional:
Unix said:What does everyone think about Baker's New Testament Commentary (HK): Matthew by William Hendriksen, 1973? To answer that, go to: Logos box products reviewed ... also follow the links!
Disclosure!
trulyergonomic.com
48G AMD octacore V9.2 Acc 120 -
Since we're talking about F. F. Bruce I thought I would share a quick story how a friend of mine was impacted by this man in a personal way. As a younger woman she remembered Bruce traveling across London to speak at her small church of only a dozen people. Even though he was such a learned man she was more impressed with his humility.
Using adventure and community to challenge young people to continually say "yes" to God
0 -
Unix said:
I've decided almost a year ago that I don't want the NPP in any of the commentaries I buy!
Not all commentaries that discuss NPP do so with favor. Cranfield, Moo, and several others clearly outline the shortcomings of this theory.
0 -
Bruce Dunning said:
Since we're talking about F. F. Bruce I thought I would share a quick story how a friend of mine was impacted by this man in a personal way. As a younger woman she remembered Bruce traveling across London to speak at her small church of only a dozen people. Even though he was such a learned man she was more impressed with his humility.
It isn't uncommon for big named people to visit small town churches, especially if they are visiting someone they know.
0 -
Josh said:
This is not completely true. The preface states: The purpose of this short book is to provide theological students and ministers with a handy survey of the resources, especially commentaries, that are available in English to facilitate an understanding of the NT. The mature scholar is not in view.
Not only are students in view, but also your everyday minister. The overarching purpose is to help both of these groups select resources for their respective NT study by surveying certain commentaries and telling them which are worth a perusal. As such, I don't agree with your comment.
Josh
Your defense misses what I stated, which is that exegesis is the primary work for which a commentary is employed, and that it is to be used after the reader has done their due diligence with the original text or at least a literal translation. A minister is first, and foremost, a student. See Luke regarding the Bereans in Acts, and Paul, in the Pastorals to Timothy. Note especially the use of present imperatives to Timothy. A minister is always to be busy studying.
Carson frequently ministers and MacArthur has taught seminary students. FWIW, Dr. MacArthur's commentary on Timothy agrees with my understanding of a minister.
Since Carson has no way to distinguish between knowing each and every minister and theological student who reads his book, saying he is overboard is entirely tilting at windmills.
The mind of man is the mill of God, not to grind chaff, but wheat. Thomas Manton | Study hard, for the well is deep, and our brains are shallow. Richard Baxter
0 -
mab said:
Your defense misses what I stated, which is that exegesis is the primary work for which a commentary is employed, and that it is to be used after the reader has done their due diligence with the original text or at least a literal translation.
Once again I disagree with you. And at this point, I don't even know why I'm responding. This is way off topic. But I'd say the primary purpose of a commentary is whatever the author of the commentary wants it to be. John MacArthur states quite clearly in his preface that: "This New Testament commentary series reflects this objective of explaining and applying Scripture. Some commentaries are primarily linguistic, others are mostly theological, and some are mainly homiletical. This one is basically explanatory, or expository."
It is unfair to judge his commentary series against standards he never purposed his work to be! The proper way to evaluate a commentary is to first understand what it seeks to do and then determine if it did it well. As such, I personally think his commentaries are excellent at doing what they were intended to do.
[quote]
Since Carson has no way to distinguish between knowing each and every minister and theological student who reads his book, saying he is overboard is entirely tilting at windmills.
To each his own, I guess.
0 -
(My emphasis)Josh said:Once again I disagree with you. This is way off topic. But I'd say the primary purpose of a commentary is whatever the author of the commentary wants it to be.
Way off topic? On commentaries? But the following line about purpose is precisely where we differ. If one's purpose is to write whatever they want maybe the term should be novel instead of commentary.
For everyone here, if you want a better idea of MacArthur's library, most of the 850 volumes his seminary has on the published PDF list through TMS for expositors are all standard exegetical works. Sure his commentaries are on the list, but they are dwarfed by the others. Draw your own conclusions.
The mind of man is the mill of God, not to grind chaff, but wheat. Thomas Manton | Study hard, for the well is deep, and our brains are shallow. Richard Baxter
0 -
mab said:
Way off topic? On commentaries? But the following line about purpose is precisely where we differ. If one's purpose is to write whatever they want maybe the term should be novel instead of commentary.
I was making the point that there are several legitimate approaches taken by authors and editors of Bible commentaries for a wide range of purposes. There exists devotional commentaries, pastoral commentaries, Bible background commentaries, etc. What it sounds like you are saying is that if a "Bible commentary" does not take an "exegetical approach" it shouldn't be labeled as a proper commentary. I'm not sure many people would agree with you on this. Not even Logos.
0
