Thursday, 4 September 2008

A free commentary on Matthew/Mark!

Honestly, I couldn't believe this when I read it. I figured there's got to be snag. But no, Logos are in the process of preparing a new commentary series, the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary (9 vols). In order to get publicity they are simply offering the commentary of Matthew/Mark for free. Go here for the details. I've downloaded it and it looks like it'll be a useful supplement to my growing digital library. One of the authors is the blogosphere's very own Darell Bock (who also edits the whole). I'm not much a New Testament person, but I've been told by Chris Tilling that he's a highly respected scholar. I look forward to reading what he has to say about prophecy and fulfilment in Matthew!

By the way, I really am trying not to sound like a salesman here. It just goes to show that the difference between form and content is not something that can be identified by genre alone.

9 comments:

steph said...

Darrell Bock - yeah he's a bit like N.T. Wright only worse. Much worse. I don't need to read any more by him or even just wrapped up by him. Sweet man though.

Emergent Pilgrim said...

Steph, I see your chastisement of Wright knows no bounds! Are you related to Jim?

Phil, I downloaded these last week - FANTASTIC!

I must concur about Logos. The more I use the more impressed I become. I received the IVP Reference collection (including most of the Dictionary of...series) and am awaiting my Ben Witherington and Desilva Social Rhetorical comms.

I am currently using Bock's Acts commentary. It isn't bad but it really repeats a lot of stuff that Witherington discusses. However, it is a little easier/accessible for Pastors.

steph said...

I might be - and you must be related to Chris :-)

Emergent Pilgrim said...

:-) HEY! I think you may have the better end of the deal!

All I will say about Chris and myself is, we are both of British stock and devilishly handsome!

steph said...

You might be if you both stop eating fish n chips! :-)
I look like a brown feathered kiwi. Nothing like cousin Jim.

Phil Sumpter said...

Steph, I'd be happy to hear your criticisms of Wright, if you care to share them.

steph said...

It's to do with his work as an historian not his theology. I'll start a blog one day devoted to Wright crit. Have you read Maurice Casey's article "Why Wright is Wrong"?

Phil Sumpter said...

Interesting. I would critique him - possibly - for his understanding of the relationship between Bible and theology. I thought his historical work was very good. But then I'm not an expert and due to the constraints of time I haven't been able to read his critics. I look forward to reading whatever you have to say about the issue.

steph said...

I have problems with his methodology and approach. I've read his major books NTPG, JVG, and the Resurrection. Another good article to read is James Crossley's response to Wright in JSHJ 3.2 2005 "Against the Historical Plausibility of the Empty Tomb and the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus : A Response..." I used him in my Honours thesis but luckily I don't deal with him in my PhD (much).