Wondering if enyone has insight into the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible beyond what is on the Logos product page. I've visted the publication web site. Still a work in progress it appears. Best Commentaries has them but largely unranked. Perhaps they haven't been around long enough to gain a sufficient input to the enormous corpus of biblical commentaries.
Thoughts?
I was just reading Tremper Longman's new 'Old Testament Commentary Survey' today (The 5th edition was just recently released on the Kindle and I think it is on prepub or is in development on Logos) Longman gives 'Brazos Theological Commentary' three stars and interestingly enough says that 'Two Horizons Commentaries' have the same aim but are better, giving them four and a half stars.
This is only one opinion, but if you are collecting opinions, this is one to throw into the mix. I am not seriously looking to buy either right now, but would be interested in what else you find out in considering Brazos. Hope this helps.
I have Brazos, but haven't been overly impressed. I could post a short extract if you have something in mind. It's hard to compare Brazos and Two Horizons (which I also have) because there's little overlap.
There's also a lot of variety in Brazos. For example, the volumes on Genesis and Acts (which is very disappointing) only comment on two or three verses from each chapter, whereas most of the other volumes comment on ranges of verses. But the disappointment comes largely because most of the Brazos commentators draw out simple theological principles from the passages, and then write about the theology. In other words, they often do theology instead of exegesis, rather than doing theology building on the exegesis. Two Horizons, feels much more of a theological commentary, though it's far from perfect. If Longman gives it four and a half-stars, that shows just how needy we are in this area.
... most of the Brazos commentators draw out simple theological principles from the passages, and then write about the theology. In other words, they often do theology instead of exegesis, rather than doing theology building on the exegesis. Two Horizons, feels much more of a theological commentary, though it's far from perfect. If Longman gives it four and a half-stars, that shows just how needy we are in this area.
Is the commentary described as a theological commentary? rather that an exegetical commentary?
Sure, but it's a theological commentary not a theological monograph. I therefore expected it to stick fairly closely to the text, and discuss theological issues raised in the text. But the level of theological reflection and of intertextuality is weak. Take this example from Numbers 11 (the Spirit coming on the 70 elders, plus the two outside the camp, and Moses' expressed desire that all the Lord's people would be able to prophesy). Here's the full content from Brazos on that subject (minus footnotes):
The division of the spirit on Moses among the seventy elders is a final detail of theological import. In response to Moses’s need for help, God takes “some of the spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy elders” (Num. 11:25). In light of 11:29, this spirit is not Moses’s spirit per se, but rather the spirit of God. While God’s spirit is in all of creation, sustaining it and providing life and power, it works in different ways and to different extents. In the Pentateuch, God’s spirit is closely tied with the idea of anointing, by which certain people are specially endowed for special service. Like the flame on the burning bush or the flame of the menorah, God’s spirit rests on or dwells within Moses. And as a candle’s flame may light other wicks, the seventy others are “lit” by God through Moses. This complex image shows that this distribution of the spirit comes from God directly, but it does not override or ignore the institutional framework and authority of Moses. The elders are inspired by God, but are also subject in part to the authority of Moses.
The pouring out of the spirit on Eldad and Medad, the two who remained in the camp, shows that the regular process of transmission also allows for the working of the spirit outside regular institutional frameworks. Joshua’s response is to stop this unauthorized spreading of the spirit, but Moses’s response is exemplary: “Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the LORD’s people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit on them!” (11:29). Moses is not afraid to share his leadership and is even open to works of God outside his control. It is quite fitting that Moses is recorded as being “very humble, more so than anyone else on the face of the earth” (12:3) in the following episode.
A similar balance between honoring the spirit’s regular movement and being open to the work of the spirit outside standard channels is found in the Gospels. The orderly passing on of the spirit is exemplified in Jesus’s commissioning of the seventy in Luke 10:1–17, where his disciples are given power so that “even the demons submit” to them. The spirit and spiritual power and authority is then passed to subsequent leaders within the church through the laying on of hands at ordination and also to all of God’s people through baptism. But an instance of the spirit’s work outside regular means is also recorded when the disciples report that they “saw someone casting out demons in your name.” Like Joshua, they were suspicious of someone who was not part of their group, but Jesus, like Moses, told them not to stop this activity (9:49–50).
Throughout scripture and Christian history, while the spirit and the word of God are mediated through the regular means of God’s grace for his people, most typically in the various ministries of word and sacrament, it is also common for special works of God to come from the margins. The lives of many prophets, Christ’s being born in a manger and coming from Nazareth, the ministry of Paul the zealous persecutor of the church turned apostle to the Gentiles, and various reform movements in the church—all bear witness to this. Honoring regular institutional patterns while being open to the spirit working and speaking in unexpected places continues to be a difficult task for the church, one that requires humility and discernment.
Now, I appreciate that different Christian traditions differ on some of these points, but to discuss the Spirit in Numbers 11 as if the theological import of that passage is to do with "the working of the spirit [sic] outside regular institutional frameworks" is to miss the point. (Particularly when Eldad and Medad were part of the institutional framework!) And to do so without any discussion (or even mention) of the importance of this passage in linking together Spirit and prophecy is inexcusable in a theological commentary (in my opinion) - as is the failure to mention a possible link between Moses' desire and Joel 2/3 and Acts 2, and promises of the Spirit in the later prophets.
Ordination is a million miles from the text (but it's mentioned). Spirit/Prophecy and the desire for universal prophethood are in the text, and they're not mentioned. That's what I meant when I said it's theology instead of exegesis. I'm not saying that the commentator should discuss all those issues in detail, but not to address them at all....
Thanks for sharing your insights Mark.
Matthew by Hauerwas and Ezekiel by Jenson are both quite good.
I do understand your point but I am happy with the text. Any and every work on the Bible is grossly incomplete (to have a commentary offing every possible scrap of information and every possible viewpoint would mean volumes of volumes for each verse.) But that said every work hopefully, offers us unique insights to our understanding and interaction with Scriptures as people of faith. When I read your example I feel spiritually edified and my soul nourished, so for me it is a successful commentary on the scriptures.
-Dan
