Jump to content


Photo

How good is Kistemaker on 2 Cor 1-9 in Baker NT Commentary (1997)?


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Unix

Unix

    Silver

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 22 September 2013 - 12:15 PM

I'm intending to discuss that part of the Bible with a friend. I already have other commentaries: ICC on chapters 1-7 and Hermeneia on 8-9. What I'm contemplating is to complement those. I don't need a whole lot of exegetics + Baker Exegetical Commentary New Testament doesn't cover 2 Cor so BECNT is not a good alternative + much more expensive and probably not enough devotional.

What I would do would be to write summaries from the commentaries in order to save the friend's expenses and effort and engage him/her more easily in discussion.

Link: Baker’s Hendriksen-Kistemaker NT Commentary (12 volumes).

What do You think of the exposition?

What is it like when it handles controversial passages?

 

EDIT: correction: the author of the volume is Kistemaker, not Hendrickson.

A little bit about the set: http://www.accordanc...ic=9544&p=43702

http://community.log...915.aspx#238915
 


Edited by Unix, 22 September 2013 - 04:03 PM.


#2 Unix

Unix

    Silver

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 24 September 2013 - 08:45 AM

More about the set

""[3] If I bite the bullet and go on up to platinum what’s your thoughts on those commentaries?"

There are many good ones, but it all depends on what is helpful to you.  If you can, look them up on Amazon (but don't buy! lol) or Google read them a bit to see if they are helpful to you.  also go to bestcommentaries dot com for user reviews.  hopefully Logos will introduce this capability on their website.  Here are some of my thoughts on those specifically new to Platinum commentaries:

  • Baker New Testament.  Written by Howard Hendricks and Simon Kistemaker.  Not as much variety of thought, and pretty verbose, but easier to digest and pretty helpful in many ways."

Source: http://community.log...379.aspx#187379

 

"(Hendricks is dispensational)"

Source: http://community.log...421.aspx#187421

 

"Simple clear and helpful"
Source: http://community.log...507.aspx#391507

 

"The Baker NT Commentary is a true verse by verse commentary. It is solid, Reformed in its outlook, but I find it a bit tedious at times."

Source: http://community.log...831.aspx#181831

 

"Baker New Testament is also pretty good, though sometimes it rambles on about some obvious point, while missing what I'm interested in. And in the case of John 21:15,ff, (e.g.) Hendriksen just plain gets it wrong about agapao and phileo. But other places the commentaries can be quite helpful."

Source: http://community.log...403.aspx#448403
Note: I don't read/utilize Jn 21 at all.

 

"Baker's NT Commentary - from Hendrikson and Kistemaker. Solid, reformed, but sometimes uninspiring."

Source: http://community.log...593.aspx#315593



#3 Unix

Unix

    Silver

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 25 September 2013 - 01:27 PM

A little bit about the authors of the set:
Simon J. Kistemaker he was also in the NIV translation team.

William Hendriksen

 

The set ...
... doesn't seem to be classified as expository: http://community.log...061.aspx#303061
... but the publisher's description says: "A thorough, balanced, and eminently useful exposition. Includes introduction, outline, translation, and notes on the Greek text."
Source: http://www.christian...CG&view=details
... from that page You can also see a preview of the 2 Cor -volume!

 

"contains some extremely useful exposition"
Source: http://community.log...065.aspx#181065


Explanation about expositional/homiletic: http://community.log...924.aspx#310924

 

"Sure glad I pulled the lever on purchasing this last week -- I would have really been unhappy if I had lost out on the Baker commentaries by just a few days."
Source: http://community.log...071.aspx#209071

"Hendriksen and Kistemaker for the New Testament is pretty solid"
Source: http://community.log...3336.aspx#73336

 

"Setup for Reformed Theology:

  • Baker New Testament Commentary (Hendricksen/Kistemaker)"

Source: http://community.log...915.aspx#418915
"Coming from a tradition that would consider a Reformed Baptist to be an oxymoron emotion-5.gif, I'd suggest Calvin (if you don't have him). He doesn't cover everything, but he's a model exegete and, though dated and imperfect, his commentaries are still very, very good. I'd also recommend the Baker New Testament Commentary series (Kistemaker and Hendriksen). It's not perfect either, but it's usually worth looking at - obviously for NT studies). I've probably overlooked something.

There are other Reformed theologians who contribute to other sets, but few that are exclusively Reformed."

Source: http://community.log...638.aspx#473638

"Hendrikson is more reformed than both, but stodgier too."
Source: http://community.log...754.aspx#473754



#4 Unix

Unix

    Silver

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 29 September 2013 - 12:53 PM

So ... is there anyone here at Accordance forums who has an opinion about the set or this specific part, or any of the volumes from the '80s or the Mt-Mk -volumes?



#5 Unix

Unix

    Silver

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 30 September 2013 - 03:36 PM

See this post that I wrote now: http://www.christian...7/#post64225637. The NTL (New Testament Library) offers several volumes from a Reformed viewpoint, but I haven't found any popular ones in that series that I'd want, for example PNTC (Pillar) is better on Jude (one of the very few books altogether that I'm positive I want to add) than the corresponding volume in NTL. Perhaps this about the NTL has something to do with that I don't need more technical commentaries on Mk and Lk since I have almost all volumes of the Hermeneia set (of course Mk + all Lk volumes).



#6 Unix

Unix

    Silver

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 02 October 2013 - 12:59 AM

Testing Readability Score for this text from Baker NT Commentary 2 Cor, (footnotes 86, 87, 88 were not tested for but were pasted here):

Doctrinal Considerations in 5:17–19
Reconciliation takes place when two parties, estranged from each other, are brought back into a harmonious relationship through the efforts of a mediator. For us, that mediator is Jesus Christ, God’s Son. We readily admit that estrangement from God was our fault, for our sins grieved him and our animosity toward him aroused his anger.
Now notice all the things that God has done for us: He did not abandon us; instead, he took the initiative to restore the relationship. He gave his one and only Son to die on the cross for the remission of our sins. He permitted us entrance into his presence, and he granted us everlasting life. He made all things new by restoring them to their original design, glory, and purpose. He reconciled us to himself by
having Christ pay the penalty for sin,
appeasing God’s wrath and removing our enmity,
and demonstrating his divine love and grace to us.
Because of all these gifts, God empowered us to tell his message of reconciliation to our fellow human beings.
We are accountable to God for our sins, yet through Christ he has forgiven us. We had alienated ourselves from God, yet God through Christ reinstated us as his sons and daughters and welcomed us into his family. We were isolated without fellowship, but he invited us to joyful communion with both the Father and the Son (I John 1:3). With respect to reconciliation, God inaugurated it in the coming of his Son. He continues it by daily forgiving sin, and he will complete it at the consummation. To him be eternal praise, honor, glory, and power (Rev. 5:13).

 

Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 5:16–19
Verse 16
εἰ καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν—as a concessive clause, the protasis conveys reality, not necessarily something that is “hypothetically real.”86 The two particles εἰ καί mean “even though.” The perfect tense relates to a past event that has significance for the present. To say that Paul uses the perfect tense of γινώσκω because οἶδα does not have this tense is true.87 But this observation must respond to two queries: Why does Paul write the present tense γινώσκομεν instead of οἴδαμεν in verse 16c? And why does Paul need the perfect tense in verse 16b if the sentence is an unreal condition? Paul’s intent is to use these two Greek verbs as synonyms in this verse.
Verse 17
παρῆλθεν—the aorist tense (“passed away”) points to the past event of conversion, and the perfect tense γέγονεν (has come) refers to something that happened in the past but has lasting significance for the present and future.
καινά—“new things.” Two variants add the words τὰ πάντα either preceding or following the adjective. They are the first words in verse 18 and thus may have influenced copyists to include them in this verse.88 The shorter text is preferred.
Verses 18–19
τὰ πάντα—the definite article preceding the adjective signifies that the concept all things is all inclusive.
ἡμᾶς—the context (see ἡμῖν, vv. 18b, 19b) appears to allude to Paul and his associates but does not exclude the readers of this epistle.
τὴν διακονίαν τῆς καταλλαγῆς—“the ministry of reconciliation.” Notice the definite articles before each noun, a usage that indicates that both the ministry and the reconciliation originate with God. Paul repeats the phrase with a slight change (τὸν λόγον τῆς καταλλαγῆς) to convey the idea of good news. Indeed, P46 and the Western text (D*, F, G, [a]) feature the reading the gospel.
αὐτοῖς—the pronoun in the plural points to all those individuals in the world who are and will become the beneficiaries of Christ’s atonement. Hence, the word world in the singular is interpreted with plural connotation.
86 Rudolf Bultmann, The Second Letter to the Corinthians, trans. Roy A. Harrisville (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985), p. 157; Georgi, Opponents of Paul, pp. 256 n. 5 and 257; Lietzmann, Korinther, p. 125.
87 Rudolf Bultmann, TDNT, 1:703. See the commentaries of Barrett (p. 17), and Plummer (pp. 176–77).
88 Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. (Stuttgart and New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), p. 511.
 
Kistemaker, Simon J. ; Hendriksen, William: New Testament Commentary : Exposition of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids : Baker Book House, 1953-2001 (New Testament Commentary 19), S. 197

 

Readability Formula Grade Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 8.6 Gunning-Fog Score 10.9 Coleman-Liau Index 10.3 SMOG Index 8.8 Automated Readability Index 7.2 Average Grade Level 9.2 Text Statistics Character Count 3,029 Syllable Count 1,048 Word Count 683 Sentence Count 44 Characters per Word 4.4 Syllables per Word 1.5 Words per Sentence 15.5

 

Results from other commentaries: http://community.log...ms/t/75942.aspx



#7 Unix

Unix

    Silver

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 08 October 2013 - 03:04 AM

More really helpful information about the set can be found in the post by Mark Barnes: http://community.log...681.aspx#532681
... below it are my questions.
And also this post by Mark Barnes with even more: http://community.log...699.aspx#532699 (that's answers to most of my questions).

 

Anyone with opinions about the Baker NT Commentary set by Hendriksen and Kistemaker, is welcome to post here! I would very much like to know, not just for my own use, but because I was thinking friends using it too.



#8 Unix

Unix

    Silver

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 13 October 2013 - 06:24 AM

This proves that this particular volume by Hendriksen is liberal-traditional:

Jn 7:53-8:11:

Also, regardless of whether John himself wrote it, does it belong in the Bible, or should it be removed from Scripture? [...] it is our conviction that these same facts indicate that no attempt should be made to remove this portion from Holy Writ.

The facts, then, are as follows:
1. The story contains several words which do not occur elsewhere in any of John’s writings. This, however, is not entirely decisive.
2. The oldest and best manuscripts (Aleph, A, B, L, N, W) do not have this story. It makes its first appearance in Codex Bezae. It is found in the later uncials (the so-called Koine text) and the cursives based upon them. Thus it found its way into the A.V. The A.R.V. has the story, but places it between brackets, and states in the margin: “Most of the ancient authorities omit John 7:53–8:11. Those which contain it vary much from each other.” Some manuscripts place it at the close of the Fourth Gospel and some (the Ferrar cursives) after Luke 21:38.
3. Some of the old Latin witnesses (a, f, g) and also the Syriac sin., Syriac cur., Peshito, as well as the Sahidic (Upper Egypt), Armenian, and Gothic translations omit this portion. Moreover, the Greek expositors Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Nonnus, and Theophylact fail to comment on it. It is found here (i.e., between 7:52 and 8:12) in some Old Latin witnesses (b, c, e, ff, j), in the Vulgate, and in the Palestinian Syriac translation.
Now, if there were no additional information with respect to this paragraph, the evidence in its favor would be very weak, indeed. We are not at all surprised that A. T. Robertson regards it as a marginal gloss which through a scribal error crept into the text.17 Lenski expresses himself in no uncertain language, regards it as spurious, and omits it completely from his exposition. E. J. Goodspeed considers it an anecdote which should be omitted.
4. However, the matter is not simple by any means. There are facts which point in the opposite direction:
The story fits very well into the present context. It can be viewed as serving to prepare for and to elucidate the discourse of the Lord in 8:12 ff. Let it be borne in mind that this woman had been walking in moral darkness. It is probable that Jesus dispelled her darkness. So, we are not surprised to read in verse 12: “I am the light of the world.”
5. The Christ as pictured here (7:53–8:11) is entirely “in character”: as he is described here so he is also pictured elsewhere. Here is the Savior who came not to condemn but to save, and who actually did save such persons as the woman of Lk. 7, the Samaritan woman, publicans, sinners. Here the One who told the touching parable of “the prodigal son” is shown in the act of revealing his tender mercy to a prodigal daughter. And the scribes and Pharisees, too, are “in character.” These men who had shown very clearly that they cared more for their own sabbath-regulations than for the total recovery of the paralytic at the pool (ch. 5) reveal their utter lack of human consideration in the case of this woman.
6. Papias, a disciple of the apostle John, seems to have known this story and to have expounded it. Says Eusebius: “The same writer (Papias) has expounded another story about a woman who was accused before the Lord of many sins, which the Gospel according to the Hebrews contains” (Ecclesiastical History III, xxxix, 17). It would seem, therefore, that Papias already knew this story, that he regarded it of sufficient importance for exposition, but that he did not find it in John’s Gospel. Was it never there, or had it been removed for certain reasons?
7. Augustine has stated definitely that certain individuals had removed from their codices the section regarding the adulteress, because they feared that women would appeal to this story as an excuse for their infidelity (De adulterinis conjugiis II, vii). Closely connected with this is the fact that asceticism played an important role in the sub-apostolic age. Hence, the suggestion that the section (7:53–8:11) was at one time actually part of John’s Gospel but had been removed from it cannot be entirely dismissed.
Our final conclusion, then, is this: though it cannot now be proved that this story formed an integral part of the Fourth Gospel, neither is it possible to establish the opposite with any degree of finality. We believe, moreover, that what is here recorded really took place, [...] Hence, instead of removing this section from the Bible it should be retained and used for our benefit.18 Ministers should not be afraid to base sermons upon it! On the other hand, all the facts concerning the textual evidence should be made known!
 
A.V. Authorized Version (King James)
A.R.V. American Standard Revised Version
17 A. T. Robertson, Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, New York, 1925, p. 154.
18 Cf. John Calvin, op. cit., p. 156; Satis constat historiam hanc olim Graecis fuisse ignotam. Itaque nonnulli coniiciunt aliunde assutam esse. Sed quia semper a Latinis Ecclesiis recepta fuit et in plurimis vetustis Graecorum codicibus reperitur, et nihil Apostolico Spiritu indignum continet, non est cur in usum nostrum accommodare recusemus. — The opposite view is defended by E. J. Goodspeed in Problems of New Testament Translation, Chicago, 1945, pp. 105–109.
 
 
Hendriksen, William ; Kistemaker, Simon J.: New Testament Commentary : Exposition of the Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids : Baker Book House, 1953-2001 (New Testament Commentary 1-2), S. 2:33-35

What is it like when it handles controversial passages?



#9 Unix

Unix

    Silver

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 15 October 2013 - 06:26 AM

On the 1 Cor volume: "Kistemaker [...] ha[s] provided some superb insights" Source: http://www.christian...7/#post62331637
See also this for several details about various volumes: http://www.christian...8/#post64308948



#10 Unix

Unix

    Silver

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 16 October 2013 - 02:26 PM

For those that didn't understand: the 1946 Revised Standard Version New Testament - the best Bible version at that time, didn't include Jn 7:53-8:11! But in 1966 the Catholic Edition of it, first Edition, included it, and in 1971 the RSV second Edition ("Protestant") included it - but those were after the time this commentary volume on Jn was written:

This proves that this particular volume by Hendriksen is liberal-traditional:

Jn 7:53-8:11:



#11 Dan Francis

Dan Francis

    Platinum

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 725 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alberta, Canada
  • Accordance Version:11.x

Posted 16 October 2013 - 03:45 PM

Even catholics scholars and the church by it;s decrees state John 7:53-8:11 does not belong to John's gospel, what the Church has affirmed is it is an authentic story of Jesus, although it fits in better to Luke where other ancient manuscripts place it, but that said I don't see it as a liberal thing just a plain statement of facts. Although if he refuses to label it as an authentic Jesus tradition I suppose that might be seen as liberal.

 

-Dan



#12 Unix

Unix

    Silver

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 17 October 2013 - 12:51 AM

But the main translation of the time, the 1946 RSV did exclude the passage, not placing it in some other Gospel or affirming it as authentic. http://www.bible-res...er.com/rsv.html says that is "the only" thing that is better about the 1946 RSV compared to other versions. I don't understand why Hendriksen deviated from the standard of the time? It's unclear what Bible version he used? What did those who read this commentary volume in the '50s and first half of '60s and had the RSV, think? I think they must have thought that he took liberties thinking he was a better Bible translator at that time:

what the Church has affirmed is it is an authentic story of Jesus, although it fits in better to Luke where other ancient manuscripts place it, but that said I don't see it as a liberal thing just a plain statement of facts. Although if he refuses to label it as an authentic Jesus tradition I suppose that might be seen as liberal.



#13 Dan Francis

Dan Francis

    Platinum

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 725 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alberta, Canada
  • Accordance Version:11.x

Posted 17 October 2013 - 04:06 PM

 It's unclear what Bible version he used? What did those who read this commentary volume in the '50s and first half of '60s and had the RSV, think? I think they must have thought that he took liberties thinking he was a better Bible translator at that time:

 

I am unsure, I am not overly comfortable with any one who ignores the text… yes leaving it in place may well seen to do textual violence to John's gospel but to not address it would seem to do more harm to scholarship.. I do not know how he handled it… Those who feel it very out of place, and have handled in an appendix may well be the ones with the best solution but for those who deal with it in it's traditional place I understand too...

 

-Dan



#14 Unix

Unix

    Silver

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 20 October 2013 - 06:44 AM

More reasons why BECNT is not a good option: http://community.log...371.aspx#536371:

I don't need a whole lot of exegetics + Baker Exegetical Commentary New Testament doesn't cover 2 Cor so BECNT is not a good alternative + much more expensive and probably not enough devotional.



#15 Unix

Unix

    Silver

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 20 October 2013 - 06:49 AM

Another opinion about Baker New Testament Commentary. This is by someone whom I have a bit of contact with, but he has made his choice independently of me: http://community.log...373.aspx#536373



#16 Unix

Unix

    Silver

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 22 October 2013 - 09:34 PM

bump! Last chance to give me advice on it!






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users