What Makes a Good Commentary?

A few different bloggers (see, e.g., Michael Bird's post at Euangelizomai) have mentioned something about Tremper Longman's recent paper on the writing of commentaries.  I didn't hear and haven't read the paper myself, but Bird's post outlines Longman's reasons for biblical scholars to continue the practice of producing commentaries even in the midst of a landscape seemingly saturated with them.  All that to say, this prodded me to ask what qualities make a good commentary good.  I doubt any of us could begin to answer this question in a purely theoretical manner, but, after engaging in exegetical study of different passages with the help of different commentaries, perhaps it's possible for us to extrapolate some rules of thumb.  Here are a few of mine in no particular order:

1) sensitivity to the Bible as literature, as a library of literary works employing literary devices that demand explanation and appreciation

2) recognition of the continuity between the two testaments, OT commentaries unpacking the forward-looking dimension of the OT and NT commentaries honoring the OT backdrop for the NT

3) commitment to the authority of Scripture, even when it challenges modern sensibilities

4) treatment of the grammatico-logical connections between words, phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, and so on

5) specification and fair-minded consideration of interpretive options for difficult passages (both well-worn and newly proposed options)

6) respect for theological integration with a view to shaping the mind of the church

Any you would add?

Between Extremes

Sometimes setting up one's own perspective as the mediating or "holistic" one can be a rather cheap way to win an argument. Two examples. (1) If the options are framed as hardcore fatalism, Calvinism, and the utter loss of divine sovereignty, Calvinism might prematurely appear best (this is not to say that it couldn't appear that way after further thought!). However, Calvinism and Arminianism both are probably somewhere in the middle with hardcore fatalism and open theism on the edges. Let the curious scrupulously explore Holy Scripture and the Christian tradition to weigh Calvinism and Arminianism. (2) If the options are framed as chauvinism, complementarianism, and over-the-top feminism, complementarianism might prematurely appear best (as with Calvinism, this isn't meant to imply that it couldn't appear that way after further thought). However, complementarianism and egalitarianism both are probably somewhere in the middle with chauvinism and over-the-top feminism on the edges.

Having said all of this, as I'm reading through Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics, I pick up that he regularly situates his work between two extremes in such a way that it pushes him to take extra care in his theological formulations. In other words, in his case, a between-extremes approach proves beneficial. On the matter of the authority of Scripture and the relationship between word and Spirit, Bavinck masterfully avoids Rome's desire to ground the authority of Scripture in the authentication of the church and also Radical Reformers' desire to bypass the constraints of the word and view the Spirit's speaking apart from Scripture as the supreme authority for Christian belief and praxis. On the doctrine of God, Bavinck continually presses on between the blunders of deism and pantheism, maintaining God's immanence and independence and transcendence. On the matter of ecclesial power, he again walks the line between Rome and the Radicals and ends up arguing that both in their own way ascribe the state's power to the church!

Thoughts on doing "between-extremes theology" for refinement rather than caricature?

Must-Read Book about The Book

For thoughtful Christians, especially those called upon to preach, teach, and theologize with some facility, Timothy Ward's Words of Life: Scripture as the Living and Active Word of God (IVP) is a must-read book. I try not to tout just any book in this way, but Ward's latest on Scripture is a gem. It endeavors to outline God's relationship to the Bible in a biblical, lucid manner and it opens up exciting windows into the nature of Scripture and the ministry of the word of God.

The book unfolds in four major sections. First, Ward embarks on an exegetical quest to uncover what Scripture says about its own relationship to God. Second, he treats the relationship of Scripture to God in systematic-theological mode, mapping out how each person of the Trinity involves himself with the Holy Writ. Third, Ward carefully sketches the traditional attributes of Scripture: necessity, sufficiency, clarity, and authority. Fourth, and finally, he connects the doctrine to the life of the church, not least to the pulpit.

Here are two highlights:

1) Ward proposes that God invests himself in his word, which is therefore a mode of his presence (what he calls God's "semantic presence"). Does this proposal forge a theological path through the Barthian-Carl Henrian fissure by retaining an emphasis on both revelation as God's own presence toward human beings and the Bible as a locus of revelation? See esp. pp. 66-67, 73.

2) Ward judiciously re-presents the doctrine of inerrancy, locating it under the scriptural attribute of authority. He cannot but call it a "natural implication" of verbal inspiration, but he places it within the context of more central themes, not least because it can pertain to just the Bible's propositions, which constitute just one facet of divine covenantal communication in and through Scripture. In addition, he agrees with John Woodbridge and others who deny that the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture was first cooked up at Old Princeton. On the contrary, says Ward, it has been present materially throughout church history, though the terminology was popularized in the 19th century.

There is a taste. Comments welcome!

John Webster on Holy Scripture

In his 'The Dogmatic Location of the Canon' (published in his Word and Church) and Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch, John Webster unfolds some weighty thoughts on the doctrine of Scripture. Here are only a few of them:

1) The doctrines of God, revelation, and even salvation should inform our understanding of Holy Scripture. In other words, we need to affirm an overtly dogmatic (not merely historical or sociological) location for the Bible.

2) Even situating bibliology within ecclesiology won't get the job done for several reasons. (1) What God, not the church, is doing with the text is the central issue. (2) In ecclesiologically-driven descriptions of Scripture the church is often viewed from too sociological, too immanent an angle.

3) By speaking in Scripture God acts upon the church, making the process of canonization one of submission and recognition, not one of innovation.

4) 'Interpretation' might be a term too loaded down with psychological and philosophical freight to do justice to the activity of Christian reading of Scripture. Webster uses the term 'reading' to insist that, rather than generating meaning by interpreting the Bible, Christians are confronted by the meaning of the text and experience a conversion to its teaching.

Useful and provocative stuff!