Commentary Reviews and Other Links

A few items that may be of interest.


First, the Review of Biblical Literature (RBL) reviews two Pastoral Epistles commentaries:



  • I. Howard Marshall reviews Terrence Keegan’s slim volume on $amz(0814628680 1&2 Timothy, Titus and Philemon). I’m not familiar with this one, so can’t say much about it. This is a part of the “New Collegeville Bible Commentary” series. As I recall, Liturgical Press (the publisher) is geared toward the Catholic audience, so this could be a good little volume to get a glimpse at any uniquely Catholic views on the Pastorals.

  • Raymond F. Collins reviews Phillip Towner’s $amz(0802825133 NICNT volume on the Pastorals). I’ve read the intros and select other parts of this one and highly recommend it. I like Towner’s approach, particularly his emphasis on un-grouping the Pastoral Epistles. The letters should first be read as letters; they should not be read as a three-part corpus. Collins doesn’t quite agree with that, though. I’m not really a fan of $amz(0664222471 Collins’ commentary on the Pastorals), so you can guess I’m not really a fan of his review of Towner either.

Second, Michael Pahl talks about possibilities of Paul citing Luke’s gospel as Scripture. This is interesting because one of the possibilities is 1Ti 5.18. Michael writes



“The scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,’ and, ‘The laborer deserves to be paid.'” The first quotation is from Deuteronomy 25:4, and the second is word for word the same as Luke 10:7 (and not the same as the Matt 10:10 parallel).


This even has the citation formula that many think is a key to scripture citation. But it isn’t so easy, and Michael explains why. He is actually responding to a post from Richard Anderson on the same topic, which is worth checking out.

Comments

  1. Mike Aubrey says:

    Collin’s review seemed pretty good, but the tone of the review seemed to be negative.

    When he wrote,
    "it suffers from occasional repetition prompting an “I have read that
    before” reaction from the reader."

    It seems to me that anyone who has invested himself in the literature enough to write a commentary on the same three letters is pretty much guarrenteed to say, "I have read that before" multiple times. I think its an unfair criticism.

    Mike

  2. Good post Rick. I logged in thinking i might comment on the two RBL reviews myself! 🙂
    I agree with the assessment both of Collins commentary and his review.

Speak Your Mind

*