Lenski's NT Commentaries
Comments
-
???
2 Peter 3:18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
0 -
For some reason my text didn't show up. I was using IE9 Beta. With Google Chrome, I think it's going to work now.
My original question was: Any opinions on Lenski's NT Commentaries? I see they're 299.95 in the Christmas sale. Do you think they're worth the price?
Thanks!
Danny
0 -
Welcome to the forums, Danny.
I have Lenski's commentaries in print. I have used them for about 20 years. I find them useful exegetically.
I fully intend to buy the Logos versions in the future, but they are not my top priority right now, which is to buy electronic resources which I don't have in print.
Every blessing
Alan
iMac Retina 5K, 27": 3.6GHz 8-Core Intel Core i9; 16GB RAM;MacOS 10.15.5; 1TB SSD; Logos 8
MacBook Air 13.3": 1.8GHz; 4GB RAM; MacOS 10.13.6; 256GB SSD; Logos 8
iPad Pro 32GB WiFi iOS 13.5.1
iPhone 8+ 64GB iOS 13.5.1
0 -
Danny Baskin said:
For some reason my text didn't show up. I was using IE9 Beta.
You have to use compatibility mode in IE9 for this site.
Danny Baskin said:My original question was: Any opinions on Lenski's NT Commentaries? I see they're 299.95 in the Christmas sale. Do you think they're worth the price?
That rather depends on what other commentaries you already have. Lenski is a fairly solid if sometime staid Lutheran expositor. I have the set, and use it from time to time, but there are other better sets in my view.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
I have many of the NICOT/NICNT commentaries in print and all the commentaries that come with the Platinum package: Pillar, Baker Ex., etc. Perhaps my money would be better spent on other Christmas Sale items.
By the way, thanks so much for all the vids. I've learned more from you than any other resource concerning L4.
0 -
Lenski is generally pretty solid. His Romans commentary is a little suspect as he slips into intuitu fidei problems, but otherwise it's a useful set.
0 -
I'm a Baptist, but I use Lenski. He is one of my favorite NT commentators. I used a thought in his commentary on Matthew in a Christmas devotional used to wrap our annual cantata last Sunday:
How is it that these men entered a home of a humble carpenter and fell down and worshipped a baby with great joy? The only answer to that question is found in the fact that "God enabled their hearts to behold what their eyes could not see" (Lenski).
In my opinion, you would profit greatly from consulting with him on a regular basis
Jim
0 -
Jim,
Sounds good. BTW I'm technically still a Baptist but serving in the UMC--an interesting experience!
db
0 -
Lenski is generally a very good commentary. The price, however . . . Call one of the reps and you probably will get it for a lot cheaper.
Michael
0 -
Michael Sullivan said:
Lenski is generally a very good commentary. The price, however . . . Call one of the reps and you probably will get it for a lot cheaper.
Michael
Thanks, Michal. I did wonder about the price.
db
0 -
Danny Baskin said:
I have many of the NICOT/NICNT commentaries in print and all the commentaries that come with the Platinum package: Pillar, Baker Ex., etc. Perhaps my money would be better spent on other Christmas Sale items.
In my opinion NIGTC, Tyndale and BST commentaries would be the next ones to pursue after NICNT, Pillar and BECNT. NIVAC, Expositors, IVPNTC, Blacks AND WBC are also pretty good. Below are Don Carson's comments on those series from his NT Commentary Survey. I've also included his comments on your existing sets, so you can use them to interpret the comments on the sets you don't have!
The Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament is a large-scale project, in some ways rivaling the NIGNT series: both in the degree of interaction with secondary literature and in its reliance on the Greek text, BECNT is a major evangelical contribution. At the same time, because it provides the Greek both in Greek font and in transliteration, translates any foreign-language expression, and is edited for readability, the series aims to draw readers all the way from serious scholars to pastors and students to “the motivated lay Christian who craves a solid but accessible exposition.” Protestations of readability aside, I suspect that most readers will be serious pastors, students, and scholars. More than some series, BECNT tries to integrate exegesis and serious confessional theological reflection.
The series of Black New Testament Commentaries/Harper New Testament Commentaries aims to provide lucid comment on the NT text and a fresh translation without requiring a detailed knowledge of Greek. A few of the volumes in the series are distinguished (e.g., Barrett on 1 and 2 Corinthians). On the American side some of the volumes in the series have been taken over by Hendrickson. New volumes to replace earlier entries are being published on the American side only by Hendrickson, so the “H” in HNTC has changed its referent!
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (/Zondervan) is a twelve-volume work of large pages and small print designed to offer exegetical and expository comment on the entire Bible, using the NIV text as the basis. The NT portion embraces vols. 8–12. The series is committed to evangelicalism but suffers serious unevenness—a flaw made worse by the fact that more than one NT book commentary is bound in each volume (e.g., the synoptics in vol. 8, John and Acts in vol. 9, etc.). It is usually more technical than the old EB (1887–96). In recent printings, individual commentaries have appeared in paperback or bound with others in paperback. The publisher is committed to bringing out a substantially revised edition of the series, and the first of the revised volumes, vol. 13 covering Hebrews–Revelation, has just appeared (so the series will become a thirteen-volume set instead of a twelve-volume set). All the contributors are new, and the typeface is much more pleasing.
The IVP New Testament Commentaries (/IVP) are designed to fit into the fairly narrow slot between the TNTC and the BST—in other words, they are still commentaries, but they are brief, simple, and designed to be immediately nurturing. Quite a few have now appeared, and if several are bland, several others are outstanding (W. Larkin on Acts, I. Howard Marshall on 1 Peter, Linda Belleville on 2 Corinthians, Rodney Whitacre on John).
The New International Commentary on the New Testament (/Eerdmans; sometimes referred to in the UK as the New London Commentary, MMS/) is a still-incomplete series of commentaries that adopts conservative critical views and is concerned to offer an exegesis of the Scriptures themselves. The text of these commentaries demands no special knowledge; the footnotes presuppose some knowledge of Greek and (occasionally) Hebrew and Latin. With the death of F. F. Bruce, its editor for many years, editorial direction passed to Gordon D. Fee, who has commissioned writers not only to complete the series but to prepare new volumes to replace some of the older entries (e.g., Moo on Romans, replacing Murray).
The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Paternoster/Eerdmans) is up-to-date, bibliographically almost exhaustive, exegetical, and within the evangelical tradition, broadly understood. Volumes keep appearing, some of them outstanding. One or two volumes have been criticized, not unfairly, by clergy who find their contents too technical and tightly packed to be useful. For clergy and others well trained in Greek and exegesis, the series is one to watch.
The NIV Application Commentary series (/Zondervan) provides fairly lightweight commentaries, easily accessible, that are then filled out by application of various kinds. At one level this aim is commendable: it works against the view that biblical interpretation has the right to remain p 27 a cool and distanced discipline with the interpreter standing over the text. Yet there are converse dangers. Shallow handling of the Word coupled with immediate application may unwittingly foster the view that Scripture has primarily utilitarian value. The applications themselves may be driven by many different agendas, so that false connections are constructed between text and application. Lazy preachers may so rely on the applications provided by this series that they fail to devote themselves to the hard work of cultural reflection and appropriate application—just as lazy preachers may so rely on the immediate conclusions of commentaries in general that they never really learn how to do exegesis. Once its limitations and dangers are acknowledged, however, this series can be a useful pump-primer in the move from text to application.
The Pillar Commentary Series (/Eerdmans) started life as a non-series. Eerdmans published three independent commentaries (Carson on John, Morris on Romans, Hughes on Revelation) and put them all in the same binding. They then decided it was worth filling out an entire series, and the other NT books have now been commissioned. Several further volumes have appeared, with more on the way.
The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries are designed for the frequently-targeted well-read layperson, but many pastors profit as well. The series is conservative but focuses most attention on explaining the meaning of the text with minimal interaction with the voluminous secondary literature. Originally based on the AV/KJV, with Greek and Hebrew transliterated and explained, the series is being rewritten based on the RSV or NIV (at the individual author’s discretion), and space is being assigned more equitably. Several of the volumes of this new edition are, within the constraints of the series, outstanding (e.g., Marshall on Acts).
The Word Biblical Commentary is a full-scale series that aims to cover every book in the Bible. The series offers fresh translation, an original (and annoyingly repetitive) format, thoughtful interaction with the literature, and a commitment to handle both exegetical and literary/critical concerns. A few of the volumes that have appeared are already standard reference works. Do not let the “evangelical” label fool you: although some of the contributors sit comfortably within that tradition, in other cases the label applies only by the most generous extension.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Mark Barnes said:Danny Baskin said:
I have many of the NICOT/NICNT commentaries in print and all the commentaries that come with the Platinum package: Pillar, Baker Ex., etc. Perhaps my money would be better spent on other Christmas Sale items.
In my opinion NIGTC, Tyndale and BST commentaries would be the next ones to pursue after NICNT, Pillar and BECNT. NIVAC, Expositors, IVPNTC, Blacks AND WBC are also pretty good. Below are Don Carson's comments on those series from his NT Commentary Survey. I've also included his comments on your existing sets, so you can use them to interpret the comments on the sets you don't have!
The Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament is a large-scale project, in some ways rivaling the NIGNT series: both in the degree of interaction with secondary literature and in its reliance on the Greek text, BECNT is a major evangelical contribution. At the same time, because it provides the Greek both in Greek font and in transliteration, translates any foreign-language expression, and is edited for readability, the series aims to draw readers all the way from serious scholars to pastors and students to “the motivated lay Christian who craves a solid but accessible exposition.” Protestations of readability aside, I suspect that most readers will be serious pastors, students, and scholars. More than some series, BECNT tries to integrate exegesis and serious confessional theological reflection.
The series of Black New Testament Commentaries/Harper New Testament Commentaries aims to provide lucid comment on the NT text and a fresh translation without requiring a detailed knowledge of Greek. A few of the volumes in the series are distinguished (e.g., Barrett on 1 and 2 Corinthians). On the American side some of the volumes in the series have been taken over by Hendrickson. New volumes to replace earlier entries are being published on the American side only by Hendrickson, so the “H” in HNTC has changed its referent!
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (/Zondervan) is a twelve-volume work of large pages and small print designed to offer exegetical and expository comment on the entire Bible, using the NIV text as the basis. The NT portion embraces vols. 8–12. The series is committed to evangelicalism but suffers serious unevenness—a flaw made worse by the fact that more than one NT book commentary is bound in each volume (e.g., the synoptics in vol. 8, John and Acts in vol. 9, etc.). It is usually more technical than the old EB (1887–96). In recent printings, individual commentaries have appeared in paperback or bound with others in paperback. The publisher is committed to bringing out a substantially revised edition of the series, and the first of the revised volumes, vol. 13 covering Hebrews–Revelation, has just appeared (so the series will become a thirteen-volume set instead of a twelve-volume set). All the contributors are new, and the typeface is much more pleasing.
The IVP New Testament Commentaries (/IVP) are designed to fit into the fairly narrow slot between the TNTC and the BST—in other words, they are still commentaries, but they are brief, simple, and designed to be immediately nurturing. Quite a few have now appeared, and if several are bland, several others are outstanding (W. Larkin on Acts, I. Howard Marshall on 1 Peter, Linda Belleville on 2 Corinthians, Rodney Whitacre on John).
The New International Commentary on the New Testament (/Eerdmans; sometimes referred to in the UK as the New London Commentary, MMS/) is a still-incomplete series of commentaries that adopts conservative critical views and is concerned to offer an exegesis of the Scriptures themselves. The text of these commentaries demands no special knowledge; the footnotes presuppose some knowledge of Greek and (occasionally) Hebrew and Latin. With the death of F. F. Bruce, its editor for many years, editorial direction passed to Gordon D. Fee, who has commissioned writers not only to complete the series but to prepare new volumes to replace some of the older entries (e.g., Moo on Romans, replacing Murray).
The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Paternoster/Eerdmans) is up-to-date, bibliographically almost exhaustive, exegetical, and within the evangelical tradition, broadly understood. Volumes keep appearing, some of them outstanding. One or two volumes have been criticized, not unfairly, by clergy who find their contents too technical and tightly packed to be useful. For clergy and others well trained in Greek and exegesis, the series is one to watch.
The NIV Application Commentary series (/Zondervan) provides fairly lightweight commentaries, easily accessible, that are then filled out by application of various kinds. At one level this aim is commendable: it works against the view that biblical interpretation has the right to remain p 27 a cool and distanced discipline with the interpreter standing over the text. Yet there are converse dangers. Shallow handling of the Word coupled with immediate application may unwittingly foster the view that Scripture has primarily utilitarian value. The applications themselves may be driven by many different agendas, so that false connections are constructed between text and application. Lazy preachers may so rely on the applications provided by this series that they fail to devote themselves to the hard work of cultural reflection and appropriate application—just as lazy preachers may so rely on the immediate conclusions of commentaries in general that they never really learn how to do exegesis. Once its limitations and dangers are acknowledged, however, this series can be a useful pump-primer in the move from text to application.
The Pillar Commentary Series (/Eerdmans) started life as a non-series. Eerdmans published three independent commentaries (Carson on John, Morris on Romans, Hughes on Revelation) and put them all in the same binding. They then decided it was worth filling out an entire series, and the other NT books have now been commissioned. Several further volumes have appeared, with more on the way.
The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries are designed for the frequently-targeted well-read layperson, but many pastors profit as well. The series is conservative but focuses most attention on explaining the meaning of the text with minimal interaction with the voluminous secondary literature. Originally based on the AV/KJV, with Greek and Hebrew transliterated and explained, the series is being rewritten based on the RSV or NIV (at the individual author’s discretion), and space is being assigned more equitably. Several of the volumes of this new edition are, within the constraints of the series, outstanding (e.g., Marshall on Acts).
The Word Biblical Commentary is a full-scale series that aims to cover every book in the Bible. The series offers fresh translation, an original (and annoyingly repetitive) format, thoughtful interaction with the literature, and a commitment to handle both exegetical and literary/critical concerns. A few of the volumes that have appeared are already standard reference works. Do not let the “evangelical” label fool you: although some of the contributors sit comfortably within that tradition, in other cases the label applies only by the most generous extension.
Many thanks, Mark! The Carson piece will be quite helpful.
db
0 -
I notice that the Lenski NT Commentaries are now available individually through the Christmas 2010 sale. Picked up a couple of the cheaper ones that I can use right now, but several of the Lenski volumes are going for $70.00 apiece. That, to me, seems way overpriced, especially considering the age of these commentaries. (Of course, I recognize that some would consider Lenski at five cents per volume overpriced [;)] ) Still, I'm glad to have Lenski on Matthew and the Revelation.
0 -
Ralph A. Abernethy III said:
Still, I'm glad to have Lenski on Matthew and the Revelation.
What position does he have on Revelation? Amillennial, Pre, futurist, etc. If you don't mind me asking.
"For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power"
Wiki Table of Contents0 -
Amill.
0 -
Lenski is not a good set anymore. You could learn something but not that much. Here's what D.A. Carson has to say about Lenski,
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) 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. The series is marred by a militant or even angry tone in defense of orthodox Lutheranism.
Carson, D. A. (2007). New Testament commentary survey (6th ed.) (33). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
And you know what, I agree with Carson. I used to think Lenski was the best, but not anymore. I'd rather spent $299.95 on another more recent or less outdated work, than spend it on Lenski. There! Spend your money more wisely...hehehe
0 -
He takes the Amillennial but he calls his interpretation "Parallelism" or something like that. I've heard others mention his weird belief on Hades or should I say his non-belief in Hades. He says some other name I can't remember, but is some really weird idea. Read his comments on Luke 16:19-32.
0 -
Here's another comment by Gary Shogren one of the scholars that has contributed with articles for the IVP Dictionaries and AYBD. Of lenski, in this forum, he says,
"Hey Mike, As you might have been able to infer from other posts of mine, Mike, I'm no fan at all of Lenski. "Amateurish" (D. A. Carson's term) is probably the best adjective. Yet, how many preachers are using him week after week? There are certain well-known preachers whom I hear on the radio, and too often I think, Oh boy, he got that from Lenski. In Bible College I was told he was the highest of the high for his study of the Greek.
What's the attraction? "Lenski gives you material you don't find in other commentaries!" That's right and that's the problem in a nutshell. It's not because Lenski had better eyesight, but because he saw stuff that isn't there.
There seems to have been this period of time, (let's say 1945-1970?) when you saw this sort off thing everywhere. You seem to have studied the history of Greek scholarship, if I'm remembering correctly from the other thread, maybe you can give me a sense of where things went awry for a while.
I just did some reading in Ernest Best on 1-2 Thessalonians (Black's), and he too was infected: once for all aorists, presents are always progressive, "they believe THE lie" must mean there is one ultimate lie (going on memory, here, I think that last one was Best....). It never goes away!!"
So those are his comments. I'll post the link on another post.
0 -
Danny, here's the link to Gary Shogren's post in the Logos Forum: http://community.logos.com/forums/p/6204/48789.aspx#48789
0 -
I think Lenski could have used some editing -- he can belabor a point sometimes, but still find value in him. But I guess that's just the Lutheran in me speaking.
0 -
Thanks, Giovanni. Good info. I've always appreciated D.A. Carson's work.
0 -
I am extremely fond of Lenski's Commentaries. Maybe now and again, once in a "blue moon," he does find something that is not there; however, most of the time he stimulates the reader with his love of God's Word and his excitement in sharing the Word with the reader of his commentaries.
Also, I find his skills in the Koine Greek to be superb.
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
I love the works of D. A. Carson, but in this case I think his comments are a little over board. Lenski for the most part is very good, and even where he is off on something in the Greek, that hardly makes him as bad as D.A. Carson says.
However the price listed I believe is not right, I would give a call to a rep about this price, it is the price it was at 2 months ago without being on sale. I was offered the set for 50-70 dollars less than this price. I think that price was still to high because I already have him in another format.
I would rather use some other commentaries than his but I still enjoy checking him out often and learn a great deal from him. He is very Lutheran and I am not, but I get over that part quickly.
In Christ,
Jim VanSchoonhoven
0 -
Giovanni Baggio said:
He takes the Amillennial but he calls his interpretation "Parallelism" or something like that. I've heard others mention his weird belief on Hades or should I say his non-belief in Hades. He says some other name I can't remember, but is some really weird idea. Read his comments on Luke 16:19-32.
Peace to you! And Joy in the Lord! *smile*
I just spent a bit of time studying Lenski's Commentary on Luke 16:19-32. I thought it was quite an excellent presentation -- very much so. He handled the Greek text quite well in my humble opinion. Whatever do you mean by "some really weird idea"??? What a weird thing to say! *smile*
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Milford,
I heard that he doesn't believe in Hades, so I just heard...Anyway, could you do me a favor? Could you please copy and paste his comments on Luke 16:19-32 and email them to me at baggio.giovanni@yahoo.com I would really like to read them to see what my friend is talking about. Peace to you too! :-)
0 -
Giovanni Baggio said:
I heard that he doesn't believe in Hades, so I just heard..
I dare not stray too far down the theological path but there are many who believe Hades was a real place that was emptied out when Christ rose from the dead. So, in effect, Hades no longer exists, if they are indeed correct.
I could embrace the above scenario much easier than William Barclay's dismissal of all things supernatural.
I had Lenski's commentaries in hardback and found him to be, well, rather Lutheran. [;)] And that does not especially bother me.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
I own the Logos set of Lenski's Commentaries.
I am also LCMS Lutheran. Concordia is beginning to create their collection of commentaries, which are available through Logos. The example mentioned was amillenialism, which you would find in Revelation.
http://www.logos.com/product/5870/concordia-commentary-revelation
I like the Concordia Commentaries. They are expertly done, great analysis on the original language as well as commentary and then also "how does this relate to me today".
In the Bible study I prepared on Matthew, I used Concordia and I also used Lenski. I have come to rely on Lenski and would not hesitate to recommend the set to you.
0 -
Giovanni Baggio said:
Milford,
I heard that he doesn't believe in Hades, so I just heard...Anyway, could you do me a favor? Could you please copy and paste his comments on Luke 16:19-32 and email them to me at xxxxxxxx I would really like to read them to see what my friend is talking about. Peace to you too! :-)
Giovanni Baggio said:Giovanni! Peace and Joy to you! And a Blessed New Year.
My sincere apologies that somehow I missed your post to me and your request for Lenski's Luke 16. Am attaching it to this post in Word format and hope you can open it. I think it will dispel some of your concers about Lenski and Hades! *smile*
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Giovanni! *smile*
Kindest personal greetings...
Just noticed that the attachment is right under your name in the post -
8737 Lenski - Luke 16 19-32
Hope this is helpful to you! Lenski is appreciated by me... As is Carson and a few others! *smile*
For me it's not ==== either or ========== but ====== both and ======
I truly relish my Logos Resources!
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
To my "brother" and fellow Canadian, Milford:
Now that you have connected to Giovanni, could you edit your earlier post to take out his email address?
There are "bot" machines out there that "harvest" these so they can distribute spam.
Peace
Regards, SteveF
0 -
SteveF said:
To my "brother" and fellow Canadian, Milford:
Now that you have connected to Giovanni, could you edit your earlier post to take out his email address?
There are "bot" machines out there that "harvest" these so they can distribute spam.
Peace
Yes, Good Brother! Yes! Should have thought of that myself! Thank you for sharing.
Blessings and Peace to you in the New Year, Steve! *smile*
That gigantic snow storm with the army and helicopter rescue must have been just north of you. Sounded dreadful on the news!
Weather is relatively peaceful here in Oshawa. Lake Ontario keeps us a bit warmer than a few miles north of here!
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
him to be, well, rather Lutheran.
As I was taught Lutherans for Bible study, Anglicans for liturgy and Catholics for theology[:D] but I fear I'm moving to the Orthodox for liturgy, and Jewish for Bible Study (Tanakh, of course) ... I hope that's safe[;)]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
I had Lenski's commentaries in hardback and found him to be, well, rather Lutheran.
And that does not especially bother me.(Here I go again, talking to myself in a forum thread. [:)] )
Hey Matthew, You can now add Lenski's Commentary on the New Testament (LCNT) (12 vols.) to your library at a significant savings. I found it on my Logos 4 homepage this morning.
So I went to check out the sample pages to refresh my memory of why I have favorable feelings towards Lenski. (I have parted with a few thousand hardback volumes over the last 10 years due to lack of space and Lenski was one of the casualties.) Imagine my surprise to find this snippet from his volume on Romans:
I find his comments on the genealogies in Matthew interesting and his observations of Paul's status as "slave" very insightful. But I have got to know: WHERE does Lenski get the idea the Apostle Paul was called both "Saul" & "Paul" from birth? Any comments?
This set has been on my want list for a couple years. I'm glad I can save some money on it now.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Hi Matthew
Matthew C Jones said:But I have got to know: WHERE does Lenski get the idea the Apostle Paul was called both "Saul" & "Paul" from birth? Any comments?
It seems to be an idea that others like is fairly likely suggesting that this was common practice for Jews in the diaspora (my underlining below):
1:1 “Paul” The Greek name “Paul” meant “little.” There have been several theories about the origin of his name: (1) a nick name describing his physical height, the second century tradition that Paul was short, fat, bald, bowlegged, bushy eyebrowed and had protruding eyes is a possible physical description of Paul. This came from a second century non-canonical book from Thessalonica called Paul and Thekla ; (2) Paul’s personal spiritual evaluation, passages like I Cor. 15:9; Eph. 3:8; I Tim. 1:15, where he calls himself “the least of the saints” (probably because he persecuted the Church, Acts 9:1–2). Some have seen this sense of “leastness” as the origin of this self-chosen title. However, in a book like Galatians, where he makes a major emphasis on his independence and equality with the Jerusalem Twelve, this option is unlikely (cf. II Cor. 11:5; 12:11; 15:10); or (3) parental, most Jews of the diaspora (Jews living outside Palestine) were given two names at birth. Paul’s Hebrew name was Saul and his Greek name was Paul.
Robert James Dr. Utley, vol. Volume 8, Paul Bound, the Gospel Unbound: Letters from Prison (Colossians, Ephesians and Philemon, Then Later, Philippians), Study Guide Commentary Series, 70 (Marshall, Texas: Bible Lessons International, 1997).
We know from fifteen references in Acts 7–13 that Paul also was called Saul. Saulos was the Hellenized form of the Jewish name Šaʾul. This was the form of his name Jesus used when addressing Paul on the road to Damascus (Acts 26:14). Saul is first called Paul in Acts 13:9 when in the course of the first missionary journey he proclaimed the gospel to the Roman governor of Cyprus, a man named Sergius Paulus. Some scholars have equated this change of names with a major shift in Paul’s preaching career: his transition from a largely Jewish orientation to his new role as Apostle to the Gentiles. It is true that Paul nowhere referred to himself by his Jewish name in his letters. He did speak of the pride he once had taken in stemming from the tribe of Benjamin who had given Israel King Saul, after whom Saul of Tarsus likely was named (Phil 3:5). However, as one whose expressed missionary strategy was to become “a Jew to the Jews” that he might thereby win some to Christ, Paul may very well have continued to introduce himself as Šaʾul when working in a largely Jewish setting. It is even more likely that he carried the double name Saul Paul from birth since this was a common practice among Jews of the diaspora. Paul’s companion Silas also was called Silvanus, just as Barnabas’s nephew John carried a Roman surname, Marcus (cf. Acts 12:25).
Timothy George, vol. 30, Galatians, electronic ed., Logos Library System; The New American Commentary, 77 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001).
Graham
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
WHERE does Lenski get the idea the Apostle Paul was called both "Saul" & "Paul" from birth?
Several sources in my resources say that:
The question of the double name of “Saul” and “Paul” will require our attention hereafter, when we come in the course of our narrative to that interview with Sergius Paulus in Cyprus, coincidently with which, the appellation in the Acts of the Apostles is suddenly changed. Many opinions have been held on this subject, both by ancient and modern theologians.1 At present it will be enough to say, that, though we cannot overlook the coincidence, or believe it accidental, yet it is most probable that both names were borne by him in his childhood, that “Saul” was the name of his Hebrew home, and “Paul” that by which he was known among the Gentiles. It will be observed that “Paulus,” the name by which he is always mentioned after his departure from Cyprus, and by which he always designates himself in his Epistles, is a Roman, not a Greek, word.
Conybeare, W. J., & Howson, J. S. (1893). Vol. 1: The life and epistles of St. Paul. (New ed.) (57). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.-----------------------------------------
"Strongly rooted in the religious tradition of Judaism, he was also broadly receptive to Hellenistic culture and cosmopolitanism (→ Hellenism), as we see from his Hebrew-Greek double name “Saul” (Acts 9:4, 17; 22:7, etc.) and “Paul.” Contrary to traditional beliefs, this name does not derive from his call, for when Acts begins to use it with his first missionary work (13:9), it is simply indicating that he was known by this name in the Greek-speaking churches."
Fahlbusch, E., & Bromiley, G. W. (2005). Vol. 4: The encyclopedia of Christianity (100). Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill.----------------------------------------
"As a Roman citizen Paul had three names — praenomen (first name), nomen gentile (family name), and cognomen (additional name) — but only his cognomen, Paullus, is known. His nomen gentile if known might give some clue to the circumstances of his family’s acquisition of the citizenship (for new citizens commonly assumed their patron’s nomen gentile). His cognomen may have been chosen because of its assonance with his Jewish name Saul — Heb. Šā˒ûl, in the NT sometimes spelled Saoul and more often Saulos, the latter form rhyming with Gk Paulos. Since he belonged to the tribe of Benjamin (Phil. 3:5) his parents may have named him Saul after the most illustrious member of that tribe in their nation’s history, Israel’s first king."
Bromiley, G. W. (1988; 2002). Vol. 3: The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (709). Wm. B. Eerdmans.---------------------------------------
"1. Name. Paul is commonly known by his Greco–Roman cognomen, Paulos, but we know from Acts that he bore the Jewish name Saul as well (Acts 7:58; 8:1, 3; 9:1, 4, etc.). He himself never mentions his Jewish name in his letters, but always identifies himself as Paul (e.g., 1 Thess 1:1; 2:18; Rom 1:1; 1 Cor 1:1, 12–13; etc.)."
Freedman, D. N. (1996). Vol. 5: The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (187). New York: Doubleday.MacBook Pro (2019), ThinkPad E540
0 -
Graham Criddle said:
"most Jews of the diaspora (Jews living outside Palestine) were given two names at birth"
This is, in fact, still the case, I believe. Thus a Jewish-American child may be called Jacob or Susannah in school, but official documents (like a ketubah or a get) will say Ya'akov or Shoshannah. And the same when someone is called to read from the Torah, or is being prayed for. When Gabby Giffords was shot, the internet quickly became abuzz with requests for and postings of her Jewish name, so that she could be mentioned in the synagogue prayers.
And the names are not always as close as Jacob and Ya'akov. I've seen examples where the two names had absolutely nothing in common, except the person who wore them both. Furthermore, the surname used in these circumstances won't be the 'civil' surname but ben/bat something: in most cases the father's name, but the mother's when he/she's being prayed for. Thus most diaspora Jews will be known under two different first names and three surnames (and maybe more still if they live in an environment that still uses Yiddish regularly).
(I just looked up a detail in this, and ironically got another thing confirmed as well: the book was dedicated to "Max Dolnansky (Mordechai ben Moshe Halevy) and Eva Dolnansky (Rivka bat David Tzvi)". Not many letters in common there...)
Mac Pro (late 2013) OS 12.6.2
0 -
Thank you to everyone for all the great posts here.
I'm half a century old and you would think I would have learned by now to look at the Biblical text first to see what it does say and what it does not say. For whatever reason, unbeknownst to me, I had this idea the Apostle got a name change on the road to Damascus. (I know, that is really bad hermeneutics on my part, so please forgive me. [:$]) I could say I made the assumption with subconscious influence from the other Biblical characters who had an imputed change of moniker:
- Abram to Abraham
- Sarai to Sarah
- Jacob to Israel
Or I could try to blame it on poor scholarship of somebody else who taught me it happened thus. [6] It just goes to show we must carefully read the text and not add what is not there. I have done this same faux pas on two other passages in scripture:
- Matthew 24 (Jerusalem 70 AD and/or the end of days)
- Judges 11:31 (Did Jephthah sacrifice his daughter as a burnt offering?)
But to stay somewhat on topic with my Lenski question; Is there a theological significance to the Apostle being called "Saul" by Jesus on the road to Damascus and when Ananias heard from the Lord to heal him versus "Paul" after he was called to go to the Gentiles? (Acts 13:9 calls him both names but occurred well after he took his message to the Gentiles.)
I guess it's time to dig deeper with Logos. [8-|]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0
