Book Reviews -- By: Anonymous

Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 129:516 (Oct 1972)
Article: Book Reviews
Author: Anonymous


Book Reviews

The New Bible Commentary: Revised. Edited by D. Guthrie and J. A. Motyer; consulting editors, A. M. Stibbs and D. Wiseman. Third edition. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970. 1310 pp. $12.95.

An impressive array of scholars have made a valiant effort to present a useful, up-to-date evangelical commentary on the whole Bible. Unfortunately the effort is blemished by a serious weakness in the interpretation of prophecy. The need for such commentaries goes without saying and this one is at least marked by a generally good fidelity to evangelical truth coupled with an impressive awareness of contemporary scholarly discussion.

A galaxy of names prominent in conservative scholarship—with British scholars predominating—is associated with this heavily revised edition of Inter-Varsity Fellowship’s one-volume New Bible Commentary (previous edition, 1954). In addition to the editors, who themselves have written portions of the commentary proper, contributors include F. F. Bruce (Acts, 1 and 2 Thessalonians), the late Howard J. Young (Daniel), Leon Morris (Johannine Epistles), I. Howard Marshall (Luke), G. R. Beasley-Murray (Ezekiel and Revelation), William Sanford LaSor (1 and 2 Kings), Meredith Kline (Genesis), and many more. A series of introductory articles, both theological and historical, precede the commentary, while each book has its own special introduction, followed by a brief outline, before its text is discussed. (The RSV has replaced the AV as the text commented on.) Only the book of Romans is provided with a brief bibliography of commentaries and this might have been helpful to students elsewhere as well. These might also be annotated for theological perspective which in Romans they are not.

It is clear that not all the contributors would see eye to eye on the critical questions discussed, nor was this necessarily to be expected.

Nonetheless, at times individual writers make questionable concessions to the prevailing rationalism of modern scholarship. For example, on Ecclesiastes 1:1, G. S. Hendry denies that the author claims to be Solomon, refers to the widespread practice of “ascribing written works to famous historical personages,” then adds: “It was not intended to deceive anyone, and none of its original readers would in fact have been deceived.” This, however, politely places Ecclesiastes among the pseudepigrapha in language wholly reminiscent of liberal criticism. The article by F. F. Bruce on “Apocryphal and Apocalyptic Literature” also raises certain questions which require an answer. How, for example, can the assertion that “the great difference between the eschatolo...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()