Near Emmaus

Category Archives: Commentaries


by 5 Comments

Craig A. Evans on the use of Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23

51gGvxpd36L._SL500_AA300_In my recent entry “Three hermeneutical paradigms to use when studying the doctrine of the virgin birth” I referred to the use of Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23 as “awkward”. I was questioned about this, and I tried to provide my rational in response, but I think I may have found a more articulate way of saying what I was aiming to say. In Craig A. Evans’ Matthew (NCBC) he represents the view I hold and he frames things quite well. I have decided to reproduce it here.

As Evans completes his commentary on the infancy narrative he writes:

“At this point, we may inquire more closely into the question of historicity. Some commentators have suggested that the various components of the infancy narrative were produced through theological and typological interpretation of the scriptures of Israel. According to this line of thought, early Christian interpreters and apologist combed through the scriptures looking for clarification of the significance pf the life, ministry, and death of Jesus. Various texts, or ‘prophecies,’ were identified, which in turn created narratives. Understood this way, the infancy stories of the miraculous conception (Matt 1:18-25), the birth in Bethlehem and the inquiry of the magi (Matt 2:1-12), the flight to Egypt (Matt 2:13-15), and the murder of the infant (Matt 2:16-18) are not actual events in history but theological and midrashic creations.”

I should pause here to comment that Evans is not denying that the church studied the Scriptures to understand the meaning of Jesus. What he is denying is that in doing this there were a variety of obscure passages plucked from the text for no apparent reasons and applied to Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. When it comes to these aspects of the infancy narrative of Matthew it seems quite odd that these passages would be chosen. Evans explains:

“All of this is possible, of course, but the evidence for it and the logic behind it are not as compelling as some think. It is not at all clear that the prophecy of Isa 7:14 would have given rise to a story about a virginal conception. There is no history of interpretation that anticipates either a miraculous conception or a messianic identity of the child in Isaiah 7. Neither was there an expectation that the Messiah was to be born of a virgin. Indeed, had the conception and birth of Jesus been conventional, one wonders why anyone would have introduced a story involving a divine conception. Such a story would have created difficulties, for in Jewish circles it could have been viewed in terms of pagan mythology, in which a god produces a child through intercourse with a mortal woman. It is more likely that Mary’s conception was indeed unexpected and unusual, and given the outcome– the amazing power of Jesus demonstrated in his public ministry and his astounding resurrection following his passion– the claim of his conception bu an act of the Holy Spirit of God becomes plausible.”

In other words, there was a tradition about the uniqueness of Jesus’ birth that informed Matthew’s exegesis of Isaiah rather than the text of Isaiah inspiring Matthew’s tradition about the uniqueness of Jesus’ birth. There is no need for a divine messiah, and even if someone thought messiah to be divine, there is no evidence that anyone thought this was possible through a virgin birth alone. Of course, the more skeptical readers of Matthew will not find this argument convincing, but I admit that it is an argument like this one that has caused me to pause when I hear people speak of Matthew creating a virgin birth story. Even if Matthew was being apologetic in defense of Mary’s reputation wasn’t an appeal to Joseph as Jesus’ legitimate father an easier answer than a virgin birth?

Evans concludes his thoughts with the following:

“It is probably better to see the tradition of Mary’s unusual conception and the belief that it was of God’s Spirit as generating an appeal to Scripture, not the Scripture generating the story of Mary’s immaculate conception. In other words, Isa 7:14 was understood to explain the irregularities surrounding the conception and birth of Jesus. The prophecy of Isaiah not only foreshadows the unusual conception of Jesus but places in into the context of Israel’s history, in which God’s saving work is revealed.” (p. 63)

About these ads


by 2 Comments

Sundays in the Fourth Gospel: The Coming of Jesus into the World

The coming of Jesus into the world simply reveals who belongs — and who does not belong — to his Father, the God of Israel. If the Gospel of John reveals who the Son is and who the Father is, it also tells its readers who they are and where they stand with the Father and the Son.

J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2010), p. 42


by 3 Comments

Preview of the Evangelical Exegetical Commentary Series (Ezra-Nehemiah and Philemon).

Logos Bible Software has provided me with the opportunity to explore a few of the earlier releases within the Evangelical Exegetical Commentary Series. First, Israel Lokan on Ezra-Nehemiah. Second, Seth M. Ehorn on Philemon.

In the editor’s preface we find that this series comes from a particular confessional perspective: evangelicals who affirm “historic, orthodox Christianity and then inspiration and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures.” While acknowledging the human authors they remind readers that Scripture comes “from the mouth of God.” The hermeneutical methodology chosen is based on “the interpretive principles of the Reformation, while utilizing historical-grammatical and contextual interpretive methods.”

I will be honest and admit from the beginning that I find it easier to digest the confession of inerrancy with a canonical hermenutic than with a historical-grammatical. It is one thing to say that the Spirit brought Scripture together in such a way that it harmonizes, relays God’s message, and does so without error (adding various caveats regarding rhetoric, genre, and so forth), but quite another to use the historical-grammatical approach which grounds meaning in the original intent of the human author. I imagine the Apostle Paul affirming that Scripture is without error, but we know he has a hermeneutical approach that included a dynamic relationship with the canonical form of the text. That is all I will say on this matter.

I have never heard of Lokan or Ehorn. That doesn’t mean much since I am not the most wide-read person in evangelicalism, but it does seem me that this series has chosen quite a few people who are newer to biblical commentary series. (See the complete list here.) I recognize Eugene Merrill, John Oswalt, Ronald B. Allen, Walter C. Kaiser, Stanley E. Porter, and H. Wayne House–but I did two graduate degrees at a conservative evangelical seminary where both Allen and House used to be professors. So I do wonder how many people will recognize the authors chosen to contribute to the series?

Lokan’s commentary on Ezra-Nehemiah begins like any commentary from a historical-grammatical perspective. It addresses the unity of Ezra-Nehemiah, its relationship to Chronicles, the proposed historical setting of the narrative, important themes, and so forth. There is a brief discussion on its place in the canon and the relationship of Ezra-Nehemiah (one book or two?) before dealing with matters related to composition. Then there is an introduction where Lokan suggest the author (Ezra the Scribe), the dates (the 460s to 450s), the audience, the structure, and an outline.

Once the text is addressed each section is given a short outline, the Hebrew text is available with textual notes, a translation is given, and then commentary is provided on that section of text. In the spirit of a series that addresses Scripture as the living Word of God there is a section at the end for “Biblical Theology Comments” and “Application and Devotional Implications.” If there is a relevant item worth picturing the commentary provides it. This is a screen shot of the introduction to 4.1-5:

The commentary is well-documented with many sources and the authors do a fine job of handling the text, text critical matters, and so forth. Ehorn’s work on Philemon is a bit briefer. It moves quickly into textual issues, authorship, dates, setting, and background before exploring theological and practical matters related to the book. The section intro –> Greek text –> textual notes –> translation –> commentary flow is the same. Ehorn’s section endings also address “Biblical Theology Comments” as well as “Application and Devotional Implications.”

If you have any questions about these two commentaries (like a key section you’d like you know how the author addressed it) leave me a comment! 


by 1 Comment

Commentary Review: Craig A. Evans’ Matthew (NCBC)

Evans, Craig A. Matthew (New Cambridge Bible Commentary). New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Craig A. Evans, ‘Matthew’ in the NCBC series.

I received Craig A. Evans Matthew from the New Cambridge Bible Commentary as a gift for my indexing work on the project. I knew from the digital version I viewed that it was going to be a useful volume. Now that I have spent some time with it in print I can say that it is worth adding to your library.

The New Cambridge Bible Commentary uniquely combined in-depth scholarship with readability and a user friendly structure. There are some commentaries that are so meticulous that they are difficult to read. There are others that are easy to read, but the content is too brief. This series seems to do a fine job at providing a middle ground. I have Bill T. Arnold’s Genesis from the same series.

The series is edited by Ben Witherington III and it appears to span the broad spectrum of New Testament scholarship including people like Arnold, Evans, Witherington, and others like Walter Brueggemann, Craig S. Keener, Amy-Jill Levine, and Duane F. Watson.

The introduction is simple and straightforward. The commentary flows nicely addressing manageable portions of text. There are occasional supplementary sections called “A Closer Look” that appear in gray boxes throughout the commentary providing an aside on subjected like “The Holy Spirit,” “Josephus on John the Baptist,”  ”Demons in the Desert,”  and “The Disciples in the Talmud.”

Evans does interact with other commentaries, but he is intentional about limiting the attention given to secondary literature. He prefaces that his primary conversation partners are the commentaries of John Nolland, R.T. France, Robert Gundry, and Craig S. Keener (p. xv). This doesn’t mean that there is a lack of sources cited (I know, I did the indexing), but that the commentary does a solid job of being selective when mentioning and interacting with secondary literature so that the text itself is primary.

This is the work of a confessional scholar. Evans affirms the historicity of Jesus, the virgin birth, and so forth, but he does serious historical-critical work as well. I don’t think I have to defend his reputation as a serious scholar of Christian origins and literature and Second Temple Judaism.

The commentary is 487 pages of content. If you have any questions about the book feel free to ask in the comments. Here are some pictures to provide a visual (click to enlarge):

Introduction

Text and Commentary

e.g. ‘A Closer Look’


by 9 Comments

In the mail: Matthew (NCBC) by Craig A. Evans.

Craig A. Evans, 'Matthew' in the NCBC series.

I received a copy of Craig A. Evans’ new commentary on the Gospel of Matthew in the mail yesterday. He sent it to me as a gift for doing some indexing for the book before print. It is part of the New Cambridge Bible Commentary series and it goes verse-by-verse through the entire Gospel. I go on vacation starting this Thursday and I intend to bring it along with me.

There are some interesting insights/statements from the very beginning of the commentary. While Evans doesn’t spent a lot of time arguing that the author was the Apostle Matthew he does summarize the discussion and concludes:

“There is nothing in the Gospel of Matthew that rules out the apostle Matthew as its author, and there is nothing in the life of the early church that compelled it to select the apostle Matthew.” (p. 4)

In other words, scholars should pause before quickly dismissing Matthew as the author since it would be odd to chose him randomly if the church was aiming to attribute an anonymous Gospel to one of the Apostles. As Evans writes, “Why not Peter or his brother Andrew, or one of the Zebedee brothers?” (p. 4)

What about the date of authorship? Evans notes that most seem to date it in the 70′s after the fall of the Temple and the city of Jerusalem. He has reservations about this since he notes that the destruction language has biblical precedent (e.g. 2 Kings 25.9; 2 Chronicles 36.19; Nehemiah 1.3; 2.3, 13, 17; 4.2; Isaiah 64.11; Jeremiah 21.10; 34.2). This leads him to mention the work of J.G. Crossley who dates the Gospel of Mark to the 40′s. He proposes that it is possible that the Evangelist used Mark since it may have been in circulation for about twenty years already. As a side note he mentions that the Book of Acts ends rather abruptly with the narrative coming “to an end no later that 62 A.D., before the death of James, the brother of the Lord.” (p. 5) Since Acts follows Luke this leads to the proposal that, “…we see reasonable arguments for the writing and circulation of all three Synoptic Gospels sometime prior to the war of 66-70 A.D.” This is quite the claim!

As I come across more points of interest I will share them. In the meantime, I found the idea that the Gospel of Matthew may be authored by the Apostle Matthew in the 60′s very intriguing. I would like to read Crossley’s work on Mark now.


by 3 Comments

Craig A. Evans’ new commentary on the Gospel of Matthew.

Amazon.com emailed me this morning to inform me that Craig A. Evans commentary on the Gospel of Matthew through the New Cambridge Bible Commentary series is available now.

I had the opportunity to do some indexing for it so I’ve seen it before it went to print and I recommend it. Evans is a proven scholar, a well-informed writer, and a very good communicator. You’ll want to add his work to your library.

Access it on Amazon.com here or Cambridge’s website here.