A Curator’s Guide — An Exploration into the General Epistles

I have already shared Bowman’s bibliographies for James and Hebrews with you all, so this post we will complete the General Epistles with the two epistles of Peter, Jude, and the three epistles of John. Enjoy!

 

General Epistles: A Very Short Bibliography

Robert M. Bowman, Jr.

1 Peter

Achtemeier, Paul J. 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996. Well-done but now somewhat dated commentary reflecting standard mainline/liberal approach to the epistle.

*Elliott, John H. 1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries 37B. New York: Doubleday–Anchor Bible, 2000. Nearly a thousand pages long commentary by the premiere modern Petrine scholar, a Lutheran who taught for decades at the Jesuit-run University of San Francisco. Even though it is older than the excellent commentaries by Forbes and Jobes, this one remains an absolute must for serious exegetical study of the epistle.

Forbes, Greg W. 1 Peter. Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Robert W. Yarbrough, series eds. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2014. Recent commentary by an Australian evangelical scholar focused on the exegesis of the Greek text.

Jobes, Karen H. 1 Peter. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005. Excellent commentary by an evangelical scholar whose work deserves to be better known.

Pierce, Chad T. Spirits and the Proclamation of Christ: 1 Peter 3:18-22 in Light of Sin and Punishment Traditions in Early Jewish and Christian Literature. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. The most thorough recent monograph on what may be the most controversial passage in the New Testament, offering a careful review of the relevant ancient literature.

2 Peter and Jude

Note: Due to the close relationship between 2 Peter and Jude, many if not most commentaries and studies include the two epistles together.

Bauckham, Richard J. Jude, 2 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary 50. Waco: Word Books, 1983. One of the most often-cited commentaries on the epistles, and justly so; worthy of being on this list although it is now somewhat dated.

Bauckham, Richard J. Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1990. Moderately conservative study exploring the connections between the epistle of Jude and the historical Jesus.

Davids, Peter H. The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude. Pillar NT Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. 5.0; 5 reviews; 316K. Perhaps the most popular academic commentary on the epistles; recommended by Clint Arnold, Jerome Neyrey, Seyoon Kim, and Ralph P. Martin.

*Green, Gene. Jude & 2 Peter. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. One of the best recent evangelical commentaries on the epistles; recommended by both Bauckham and Davids.

Neyrey, Jerome H. 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 37C. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Moderately critical Roman Catholic scholar’s commentary on the epistles.

 

Epistles of John

Brown, Raymond E. The Epistles of John: Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary. AB 30. New York: Doubleday, 1982. Massive commentary (over 800 pages) by the most influential Roman Catholic biblical scholar of the twentieth century (taking a moderately critical approach).

Culpepper, R. Alan, and Paul N. Anderson, eds. Communities in Dispute: Current Scholarship on the Johannine Epistles. Early Christianity and Its Literature. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014. Collection of essays representing current mainline/liberal scholarship on the epistles.

*Jobes, Karen H. 1, 2, and 3 John. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the NT. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014. Most up-to-date evangelical commentary on the epistles.

Lieu, Judith M. I, II, and III John: A Commentary. NT Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008. Mainstream scholarly commentary, dissociating the epistles from the Gospel of John.

Yarbrough, Robert W. 1–3 John. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the NT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. Noteworthy in-depth evangelical commentary.

A Curator’s Guide — An Exploration into Hebrews and James

img_9080Today’s post includes a selection of books engaging the world of Hebrews and James. The former will highlight a variety of aspects ranging from the personhood and exaltation of Christ, to stern warnings sprinkled throughout. The latter will no doubt address James’ contention that genuine faith does indeed work.

Hebrews:

Bateman, Herbert W. Charts on the Book of Hebrews. Kregel Charts of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2012. Numerous helpful charts regarding the different views on the authorship of the book, historical and religious backgrounds, various interpretive issues, and the like; evangelical.

JLT: Charts on the Book of Hebrews puts massive information helpful for the reading and understanding of the book of Hebrew into useful format. There are numerous charts divided into four categories: introductory, influences, theology, and exegesis. Also particularly helpful is its presentation on different views on authorship and some interpretive issues in Hebrews.

Bateman, Herbert W., ed. Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2007. “A classical Arminian view” (Grant R. Osborne); “A classical Reformed view” (Buist M. Fanning); “A Wesleyan Arminian view” (Gareth Lee Cockerill); and “A moderate Reformed view” (Randall C. Gleason); conclusion by George H. Guthrie.

Koester, Craig R. Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 36. Garden City, NY: Doubleday–Anchor Books, 2001. Standard academic reference from a liberal/secular perspective.

Schreiner, Thomas R. Commentary on Hebrews. Biblical Theology for Christian Proclamation. T. Desmond Alexander, Andreas J. Köstenberger, and Thomas R. Schreiner, series eds. Nashville: B&H—Holman Reference, 2015.

Following a thorough introduction, noted Southern Baptist NT scholar Schreiner gives a detailed commentary and then concludes with a rich study of the biblical and theological themes in Hebrews. First volume released in a promising new commentary series.

James:

Allison, Dale C. James: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary. ICC. New York: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2013. Allison, a liberal scholar best known for his work on Matthew, interprets James as a second-century pseudepigraphal text that was critical of Paul.

Blomberg, Craig, and Mariam J. Kamell. James. ZECNT 16. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008. Good evangelical commentary; Blomberg has written extensively on New Testament teachings about the rich and the poor, a major theme of the epistle.

Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Letter of James: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 37A. New York: Doubleday, 1995. Commentary by a moderate, independently-minded Roman Catholic scholar. Argues for the unity of the epistle, its early date and authorship by the historical James, and against the claim that James and Paul conflicted over faith and works.

Moo, Douglas J. The Letter of James. Pillar NT Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Probably the most popular commentary on James, by a scholar even better known for his commentary on Romans; solidly evangelical.

Vlachos, Chris A. James. Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament. Murray J. Harris and Andreas J. Köstenberger, gen. eds. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2013. Excellent recent evangelical commentary providing close exegesis of the Greek text.

A Curator’s Guide — An Exploration into 1 and 2 Thessalonians and the Pastoral Epistles

img_9080In continuing the series, here are Bowman’s bibliographies on 1 and 2 Thessalonians and the Pastoral Epistles.

Thessalonians:

Fee, Gordon D. The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Evangelical commentary that is generally strong in exegesis but weak in engaging critical scholarship on the epistles.

Green, Gene L. The Letters to the Thessalonians. Pillar NT Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. One of the best evangelical commentaries on the epistles.

Malherbe, Abraham J. The Letters to the Thessalonians. Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries 32A. New York: Anchor Bible—Doubleday, 2000. Noteworthy commentary by a mainline scholar known for his skill in placing NT writings in the context of classic Greco-Roman literature. This commentary builds on earlier work that Malherbe had done on Thessalonians.

Shogren, Gary. 1 and 2 Thessalonians. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012. Recent, well-done commentary on the epistles by an evangelical scholar teaching in Costa Rica.

Thiselton, Anthony C. 1 & 2 Thessalonians: Through the Centuries. Blackwell Bible Commentaries. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. A “reception history” commentary, exploring how the epistles impacted religion and culture and in turn how such developments affected contemporary interpretation of the epistles. Note: This commentary is simply too expensive!

Weima, Jeffrey A. D. 1-2 Thessalonians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014. Exhaustive, recent evangelical commentary.

The Pastoral Epistles:

Collins, Raymond F. 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus: A Commentary. New Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002. Moderate Roman Catholic scholar expounding the Pastoral Epistles from within the conventional critical view that they were post-Pauline compositions.

Fiore, Benjamin, S.J. The Pastoral Epistles: First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus. Sacra Pagina 12. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007. Jesuit biblical scholar gives a contemporary Roman Catholic scholarly and pastoral perspective on the Pastoral Epistles.

Knight, George W. The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992. Still one of the very best evangelical commentaries on the epistles, by a Reformed scholar. Defends Pauline authorship while arguing that Luke may have been Paul’s amanuensis.

Köstenberger, Andreas J., and Terry L. Wilder, eds. Entrusted with the Gospel: Paul’s Theology in the Pastoral Epistles. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010. Evangelical scholarly essays engaging current issues in the criticism and interpretation of the Pastoral Epistles.

Marshall, I. Howard, with Philip H. Towner. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. ICC. London: T&T Clark International, 2006. Excellent commentary by the moderately evangelical, eminent British NT scholar Marshall, in collaboration with one of the top scholars on the Pastoral Epistles.

Mounce, William D. Pastoral Epistles. WBC 46. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000. One of the best commentaries on the epistles, by a conservative evangelical NT scholar (best known for his work in teaching Greek).

Ngewa, Samuel. 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. Africa Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan/HippoBooks, 2009. Offers a helpful non-Western perspective on the church issues addressed in the Pastoral Epistles.

Schreiner, Thomas R. Interpreting the Pastoral Epistles. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011. Not a commentary, but a kind of handbook on interpretation using the Pastoral Epistles as examples; covers the genre of the letters, textual criticism, translation, historical and critical issues, grammatical and lexical study, analyzing the argument, and interpreting the epistles’ theology.

Towner, Philip H. The Letters to Timothy and Titus. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Towner, an evangelical scholar and leading expert on the Pastoral Epistles, defends Paul’s authorship and exegetes the epistles in detailed engagement with modern scholarship in what may be the longest commentary on the Pastoral Epistles in print.

Μονογενής = ‘only begotten’?

So says Charles Lee Irons, “Let’s Go Back to ‘Only Begotten,’” Gospel Coalition website, 23 Nov 2016: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/lets-go-back-to-only-begotten#_ftn3

Irons begins by noting that in the KJV there are five Johannine passages that speak of the “only begotten” Son of God (John 1.14, 18; 3.16, 18; 1 John 4.9). He then notes that in the modern era there has been a broad scholarly consensus that μονογενής means ‘one of a kind.’ He then accurately represents the rationale for this consensus: “Scholars have argued that the compound Greek adjective is not derived from monos (‘only’) + gennao (‘beget’) but from monos (‘only’) + genos (‘kind’). Thus, they argue, the term shouldn’t be translated ‘only begotten’ but ‘only one of his kind’ or ‘unique.’”

Irons offers as his first argument that μονογενής means ‘only begotten’ in some passages. This presumably means that there is no noun like ‘son’ or ‘daughter’ in the context to already suggest birth, though he does not say this. It is certainly what I expected in order for his argument to make much sense, however. Otherwise, ‘one and only son/daughter’ makes perfectly good sense, which would defeat his point.

Irons begins by citing one reference from Plato—Critias 113d: μονογενῆ θυγατέρα ἐγεννησάσθην. Here not only is ‘daughter’ mentioned explicitly, but also that she had been ‘born.’ If μονογενής here means ‘only begotten’ then an awkward tautology occurs: “They begot an only-begotten daughter.” (The Attic aorist middle dual is here used.)

Further, I was surprised to read his three biblical examples:
Luke 7.12: μονογενὴς υἱός—here ‘son’ is explicit.

Luke 8.42: θυγάτηρ μονογενής—again, explicit.

Luke 9.38: διδάσκαλε, δέομαί σου ἐπιβλέψαι ἐπὶ τὸν υἱόν μου, ὅτι μονογενής μοί ἐστιν. But here ‘son’ is already mentioned, so the ‘one and only’ [son] is simply good economical Greek style.

Thus, Irons’s approach so far is simply question begging.

He follows this up with 1 Clement 25.2 [Irons says it is 25.1], which speaks of the Phoenix as ‘one of a kind’ using μονογενής. He also mentions an unidentified text (‘an ancient treatise’) that speaks of trees as ‘in one kind.’ But he adds, “these are uniformly metaphorical extensions of the basic meaning…” That, too, is begging the question, because he is assuming that the essential idea of μονογενής has to do with birth.

Second, he says that “careful examination of the word list of Thesaurus Linguae Graecae reveals at least 145 other words based on the –genēs stem.” This is a more significant argument, but I would need to see his evidence before recognizing its validity. He also adds that “fewer than a dozen have meanings involving the notion of genus or kind.” To argue from other words that have the –γενής stem as though they must inform the meaning of μονογενής may seem to be imbibing etymological fallacy, especially since there are some –γενής words that have the force of ‘kind’ or ‘genus.’ However, if ‘begotten’ is the routine meaning diachronically, and especially synchronically during the Koine period, Irons may well have a point.

He does seem to engage in etymologizing, however, when he says that γενός and γεννάω “both genos and gennao derive from a common Indo-European root, ǵenh (‘beget, arise’).” He finishes his arguments by again claiming that –γενής essentially has to do with birth. The BDAG lexicon allows for the meaning ‘only begotten’ for μονογενής but seems to view this meaning as secondary. In addition, they note that in the Johannine literature “The renderings only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here.”

 All in all, Irons is right to focus on the data provided in TLG for this certainly expands our knowledge base of the term. But that he seems to have focused on cognates that have the morpheme –γενής rather than the specific usage of μονογενής, both diachronically and synchronically, is a weakness in his argument.

 

A Curator’s Guide — An Exploration into Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon

img_9080The series continues this week with literature recommended by Rob Bowman on Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon.

Ephesians:

Arnold, Clinton E. Ephesians. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. Perhaps the best recent commentary on the epistle, by an evangelical scholar well known for his earlier work on Ephesians and Colossians.

Hoehner, Harold W. Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002. Magnum opus of this influential Dallas Seminary professor; an indispensable reference.

Lincoln, Andrew T. Ephesians. Word Biblical Commentary 42. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014. Brand-new, expanded edition of Lincoln’s standard academic, mainline commentary, first published in 1990 and revised in 2003.

Thielman, Frank. Ephesians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010. Excellent, evangelical commentary.

Philippians:

Cohick, Lynn H. Philippians. Story of God Bible Commentary. Tremper Longman III and Scot McKnight, gen. eds. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013. Evangelical commentary in this relatively new series.

Hellerman, Joseph H. Philippians. Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Robert W. Yarbrough, series eds. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2015. New exegetical commentary by a NT professor at Biola University; presents detailed information about the Greek text alongside important background information.

__________. Reconstructing Honor in Roman Philippi: Carmen Christi as Cursus Pudorum. SNTSMS 132. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Arguably the best academic monograph on Philippians 2:6-11, one of the most debated passages in the Bible.

Reumann, John Henry Paul. Philippians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Yale Anchor Bible 33B. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008. Standard liberal Protestant academic commentary.

Silva, Moisés. Philippians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992; 2nd ed., 2005. Still one of the very best commentaries on Philippians, by a well-known evangelical NT scholar.

Colossians and Philemon:

Barth, Markus. The Letter to Philemon: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary. Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Massive commentary on Paul’s shortest epistle, by Karl Barth’s son.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Letter to Philemon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 34C. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Standard academic commentary by a renowned Roman Catholic NT scholar.

Harris, Murray J. Colossians and Philemon. Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament. Rev. ed. Nashville: B&H, 2010. Strong evangelical commentary, originally published 1991.

Johnson, Matthew V., James A. Noel, and Demetrius K. Williams, eds. Onesimus, Our Brother: Reading Religion, Race, and Culture in Philemon. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012. Essays exploring the epistle from African-American perspectives.

Moo, Douglas J. The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon. Pillar NT Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Standard commentary by preeminent evangelical Pauline scholar.

Pao, David W. Colossians and Philemon. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012. Recent commentary by an evangelical scholar.

Tolmie, D. F., and Alfred Friedl, eds. Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010. Collection of papers from a 2008 conference, examining the epistle using a variety of methods.

Wilson, Robert McL. Colossians and Philemon. International Critical Commentary. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2005; paperback, 2014. An unusually conservative entry in this academically rigorous commentary series.