Advice sought please: Lenski..

Dont laugh but until yesterday I have never heard of him, was reading a commentary that refers in a lot of places "see Lenski"..

I quess my questions are:

Would this set: http://www.logos.com/product/3911/lenskis-commentary-on-the-new-testament be money well spent in your opinion?
Would I benefit as I already have the following sets?:

- Baker NT Com
- Barclay DSB
- Believers Church Bible Com
- Calvin
- Clarkes
- College Press NIV
- Gaebelein Annotated Bible (9Vol)
- Holman NT Com
- IVP-NT Comm
- Lange Comeerntary
- Macarthur NT Com
- New American Comm
- NIGTC
- Pillar NT Com
- Preachers Com
- Pulpit Com
- WBC

Thanks, and if you have a snippet/quote you have found really helpful maybe you could post it.. thx

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

David McClister

Lenski is sort of famous for making points based on Greek tenses, and I personally beleive he was mistaken about most of them. He was a conservative Lutheran, so I guess you need to ask yourself if you want or need that perspective in your collection. I do not know when he passed away, but I am sure it was before the recent scholarly discussion of the New Perspective, the pistis christou debate, etc. I would suggest that you look at some of the volumes on Google Books before you decide.

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/283117#Comment_283117

Lenski is sort of famous for making points based on Greek tenses, and I personally beleive he was mistaken about most of them. He was a conservative Lutheran, so I guess you need to ask yourself if you want or need that perspective in your collection. I do not know when he passed away, but I am sure it was before the recent scholarly discussion of the New Perspective, the pistis christou debate, etc. I would suggest that you look at some of the volumes on Google Books before you decide.

Peace to you, David! *smile* and!

Always Joy in the Lord!

I am a big Lenski fan, having referred to the Lenski Commentaries for over 50 years now! Also, I have over 1,000 "type:commentary" resources in my Logos 4 Library, so I have plenty of really good commentaries with which to compare.

Lenski, to me, stands with the best of them!

Lenski's perspective, IMHO, was the Greek Language -- not conservative Lutheranism, even though that he was. I think he was truly a great scholar; although I have indeed have found a number of instances where I think he could have done better. But, he is "basic"............

However, you said "he was mistaken about most of them"!!! That, David, is quite a generalisation indeed!

Perhaps you'd like to modify that slightly? *smile*

BTW, do you have Lenski in Logos 4 format?

NB.Mick

Would this set: http://www.logos.com/product/3911/lenskis-commentary-on-the-new-testament be money well spent in your opinion?

Well, I think it is - bought it at a discount during the forum sales week. Lenski is one of the small number of commentaries that are used regularily in the SIL exegetical summaries - with your library of commentaries, you should find a lot of hits by searching his name.

Of course, Lenski is not recent, doesn't deal with NPP and is not a reformed baptist evangelical - which may make him to a welcome addition to your library. Someone over at bestcommenatries.com (where Lenskis works are mostly unrated, probably for the reasons I just gave) issued a five out of five stars rating for his Acts and Matthews commentaries in 2009 and wrote"

Lenski is almost impossible to beat. This commentary by a conservative Lutheran is basically over sixty years old but (like all of his works) it is still a "must have." His knowledge, translation, and "contemporary" use of Greek is second to none. He is very thorough and very technical. This is a perfect set for any evangelical pastor or educator. One of Lenski's books stands out as his best though - and that would be John..... As I mentioned in my review of Lenski's commentary on Acts, his works are "must have's." Matthew is his second best work (behind John). His exposition of Greek is one of the most practical of which I am aware. I cannot imagine a serious preacher who wouldn't deeply appreciate this work in sermon preparation or consider purchasing it to be disappointing

Hope this helps

Mick

Paul N

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/283159#Comment_283159

nearly 4,600 pages on the Gospels alone; Lenski certainly has alot to say!

NB.Mick

Thanks, and if you have a snippet/quote you have found really helpful maybe you could post it.. thx

I understand that to be about Lenski's Commentaries - or did you mean from them (such as concerning a particular relevant passage you arre studying - by the way: did you see that Logos not only offers the set, but also individual works from it?)

Robert Rosin writes in http://www.logos.com/product/3622/bible-interpreters-of-the-20th-century:

During the 1920s, while busy on other titles, Lenski did the spadework on what would become his New Testament commentaries. Released between 1931 and 1938, the eleven volumes were grouped in a series as The Interpretation of the New Testament. Though many other commentaries have come in the decades since, Lenski’s remain on the worktables of many Evangelical Lutheran pastors.
Lenski’s commentaries evoke interesting reactions. He made much of language and vocabulary. Rather than speculate about what passages might mean, he focused on grammar and particular words in a pericope. His tendency was to argue for an interpretation on the basis of a particular word or grammatical construction. ....(T)he undertaking was titanic and succeeded admirably at understanding the New Testament in an evangelical way. Lenski clearly thought in terms of law and gospel; thus a doctrinal coherence shines through as he explains the varied New Testament texts. His results, his conclusions are solidly Lutheran. (A colleague sums up Lenski’s achievements this way: Seminary professors would like all students to be linguistic geniuses, but many will struggle with exegesis. Then they ought to have Lenski, for he will keep them focused and help them think through the text in evangelical terms.)

Rosin also refers to some instances where Lenski goes to far or might argue in circles. These critical passages are all footnoted to a work by Moises Silva, which seems to be http://www.logos.com/product/5338/interpreting-galatians-explorations-in-exegetical-method-2nd-ed ( or the first edition of it)

If the from Lenski might be of interest to you, here the first three (of approx. a dozen) paragraphs from his commentray on John 3:16 :

16) Why a new paragraph should begin at this verse is hard to see since the connection with γάρ both here and in v. 17 is close. The fact that the dialog stops, also all forms of personal address such as “thou” to Nicodemus, is naturally due to the simple didactic nature of what Jesus says and begins already at v. 13, where, if for such a reason a paragraph is to be made, it might be made. The idea that a new paragraph starts with v. 16 because Jesus’ words stop here and John’s own reflections are now added, is contradicted by the two γάρ, by the close connection of the thought, which runs through to v. 21, and by the absence of even a remote analogy for a conversation or a discourse that goes over, without a word to indicate this, into the writer’s own reflection.

Jesus tells Nicodemus that the Son of man must be lifted up for the purpose indicated. This δεῖ is elucidated in v. 16, hence γάρ which so often offers no proof but only further explanation. For thus did God love the world, that he gave his Son the Only-begotten, in order that everyone believing in him should not perish but have life eternal. The “must,” the compulsion, lies in the wonder of God’s love and purpose. By telling Nicodemus this in such lucid, simple language Jesus sums up the entire gospel in one lovely sentence, so rich in content that, if a man had only these words and nothing of the rest of the Bible, he could by truly apprehending them be saved. They flow like milk and honey says Luther, “words which are able to make the sad happy, the dead alive, if only the heart believes them firmly.” What a revelation for this old Pharisee Nicodemus who all his lifelong had relied on his own works! And this testimony concerning what was in the heart of God comes from him who came down from heaven, came down so that he still is in heaven, from the Son of man and Son of God himself, the only ἐπουράνιος, who alone can declare the ἐπουράνια at firsthand, 1:18 and 3:12, who thus in the very highest degree deserves faith.

The word οὕτως, “thus,” denotes manner and degree, “in this way” and “to such an astounding degree” did God love the world. No human mind would have thought it, could have conceived it—God had to reveal it, the Son had to attest it. The verb ἠγάπησεν is placed ahead of the subject and is thus made emphatic, not: God loved the world; but: God loved the world. The verb ἀγαπάω denotes the highest type and form of loving, as distinct from φιλέω, the love of mere affection, friendship, and ordinary human relation; compare the distinction made between the verbs in 21:15, etc. In ἀγάπη lies full understanding and true comprehension, coupled with a corresponding blessed purpose. How could God like the sinful, foul, stinking world? How could he embrace and kiss it? He would have to turn from it in revulsion. But he could and he did love it, comprehending all its sin and foulness, purposing to cleanse it and, thus cleansed, to take it to his bosom. We see this force of ἀγαπάω whenever it is used, for instance in the command to love our enemies. We cannot embrace and kiss an enemy, for he would smite, revile, thrust us away, as the Sanhedrists did with Jesus at last; but we can see the baseness and wickedness of his action and by the grace of God we can do all that is possible to overcome this enmity. We may fail in this purpose, as Jesus did in the case of the Sanhedrists, but to have it and to adhere to it constitutes “love” in the sense of ἀγάπη.

Mick

Martin Horn

Just a comment:

I've used lenski for 30 years and have found him to be extremely valuable in grammatical study. One interesting side-note: Lenski seems to be Hendrickson's go-to interpreter in his commentary series.

Martin Horn

DominicM

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/283175#Comment_283175

Thanks all, thats a lot to think about..