Item description for Matthew (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament) by David L. Turner...
Overview This new addition to the BECNT series offers a substantive yet accessible commentary that will help students, teachers, and pastors better understand the Gospel of Matthew.
Publishers Description New Testament scholar and professor David L. Turner offers a substantive yet highly accessible commentary on Matthew in this latest addition to the BECNT series. With extensive research and thoughtful chapter-by-chapter exegesis, Turner leads readers through all aspects of the Gospel of Matthew--sociological, historical, and theological--to help them better understand and explain this key New Testament book. He also includes important insights into the Jewish background of this Gospel. As with all BECNT volumes, "Matthew "features the author's detailed interaction with the Greek text. This commentary admirably achieves the dual aims of the series--academic sophistication with pastoral sensitivity and accessibility--making it a useful tool for students, professors, and pastors. The user-friendly design includes shaded-text chapter introductions summarizing the key themes of each thought unit.
Citations And Professional Reviews Matthew (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament) by David L. Turner has been reviewed by professional book reviewers and journalists at the following establishments -
Library Journal Supplements - 11/15/2007 page 24
Promise Angels is dedicated to bringing you great books at great prices. Whether you read for entertainment, to learn, or for literacy - you will find what you want at promiseangels.com!
Studio: Baker Academic
Est. Packaging Dimensions: Length: 9.28" Width: 6.52" Height: 1.89" Weight: 2.75 lbs.
Release Date Apr 15, 2008
Publisher Baker Publishing Group
Series Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
ISBN 0801026849 ISBN13 9780801026843
Availability 0 units.
More About David L. Turner
David L. Turner (PhD, Hebrew Union College) is professor of New Testament and systematic theology at Grand Rapids Theological Seminary. He is the author of the Matthew commentary in "Cornerstone Biblical Commentary."
Reviews - What do customers think about Matthew (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)?
Read it before before buying it Dec 31, 2009
Surely there will be someone else writing about this book, so I'm going try to help you in another way.
When you start reading biblical commentaries you will need to be aware that the thoughts expressed by the author deal with facts and speculations that should of happened. You can NEVER rely on only one commentary to affirm something about the Bible. You need at least three good commentaries.
Try to read biblical commentaries from different confessions of faith (e.g., Calvinism vs. Arminianism; Pentecostal vs. non-Pentecostal; Catholic vs. Protestant; Egalitarian vs. Complementarian; Amillennialism vs. Premillennialism vs. Postmillennialism; etc). Look for their arguments: What do they agree or disagree on? Which of them is closest to the biblical text? It's not a sin to read commentaries written from other points of view. You will notice that what is fact or solid argument will be seen over and over on different commentaries, so you will start learning what is speculation and what is not.
As Haddon W. Robinson said in his book, Biblical Preaching, (second edition, page 22), "In approaching a passage, we must be willing to reexamine our doctrinal convictions and to reject the judgments of our most respected teachers."
Remember, a commentary is not the biblical text. Do not replace the authority of the Bible with a commentary. The same apply for Study Bibles. The study notes there are not written by "apostles and prophets," so never confuse the "gospel" with the teacher or preacher. Learn to separate it.
Commentaries are important because nobody can get a poem from one language and translate it with the same structure to another language. This simply does not exist. Words, phrases, and sentences are rooted in a specific time, culture and custom. About Bibles, the best way is to check different translations, but be cautious about a very loose translation.
For you to appreciate any biblical commentary you need to know what level of reading you are. I'm going call them beginner, intermediate and advanced. I recommend the following biblical commentaries that you can start from. All of them have both Old Testament and New Testament. (If you're thinking of buying the whole set, look for the CD edition; it's cheaper and you can take it with you where you go.)
Beginner - NIV Application Commentary (NIVAC) by Zondervan. (or) The Bible Speaks Today Series (BST) by IVP (This is a growing series and not yet complete.)
Intermediate - New International Commentary on the New Testament (NICNT) and New International Commentary on the Old Testament (NICOT) by Eerdmans
Advanced - Word Biblical Commentary (WBC) by Thomas Nelson
These are basic commentaries on their own level, but there are a lot of commentaries today, so don't forget to look for more information. Maybe you can get information from one of these: (1) Commentary and Reference Survey: A Comprehensive Guide to Biblical and Theological Resources by John Glynn, (2) New Testament Commentary Survey by D. A. Carson, (3) Old Testament Commentary Survey by Tremper Longman.
There are good and expensive commentaries such as the Anchor Bible (AB); International Critical Commentary (ICC) or Hermeneia (HERM). [Do not forget of Calvin and Luther].
I don't know about catholic commentaries, but you can check reviews on "Sacra Pagina" and "Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture."
About Matthew, other than those mentioned above (NIVAC; BST; NICNT; WBC; AB; ICC; HERM) you can also check: Expositor Bible Commentary (EBC); New American Commentary (NAC); Pillar New Testament Commentary (PNTC); New International Greek Testament Commentary (NIGTC); Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (BECNT); and others.
Another thing, it can be a very good commentary, but it does not mean that you will agree with everything in it. Remember, "new" does not mean it's updated, and "updated" does not mean it's better.
Purpose - You can read a book to get information, even if you are not interested in a deep study of the biblical text. In this case it's better to start reading something from your own confession of faith and always on your level of reading. If after some time you become interested in more, go check other commentaries, but please, do not skip "How To Read A Book" by Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren.
Responsibility - It is your responsibility study the biblical text before checking a commentary. Sometimes this is not an easy task so I'm giving you some other references that you can check at the end of this review. If I had read a review like this before, I would know how to prevent some mistakes.
Do not let you knowledge kill your faith! - "For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith." Hebrews 4:2 NIV - (Read also 1 Corinthians 1:21-24; 2:13-14; 3:18-23; Jude 1:3).
I can't leave without suggesting some other tools to help you: (1) How To Read A Book by Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren; (2) Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation by Henry Virkler and Karelynne Ayayo; (3) New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors by Gordon Fee; and (4) Old Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors by Douglas Stuart. [Although book #3 and 4 deals with Biblical languages (Greek and Hebrew), you can learn a lot from them even if you do not know the languages]. (5) "Basics of Biblical Greek" Grammar by William D. Mounce [after you start reading it maybe you can add "Biblical Greek Survival Kit" and "Sing and Learn New Testament Greek" audio CD by Kenneth Berding]; (6) "English Grammar in Use" by Raymond Murphy (Third Edition with Cd-Rom). (7) Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History: Complete and Unabridged. - All of these will help you to understand HOW a good commentary must be written. Good Luck!
Solid well done and balanced semi-technical commentary. Mar 30, 2009
David Turner's commentary on Matthew is a gem. Although as of the writing of this review, I have not read the entire work, I have gone through enough of it already to see that it is a very fine work on Matthew's gospel. This commentary is semi-technical in that the technical aspects that are in it are enough for the more technically inclined interpreters, while still the commentary is well within the reach of the informed layperson, or even just someone willing to put in some effort. Turner's commentary is a well balanced work in so many respects: not too lengthy, not too short, not too technical, not to simplistic. His commentary does a good job of aiming to expound Matthew's gospel from the relevant milieu of its time. (as best as can be known anyhow) Turner also does touch on later issues raised by the text as well in places. As Turner used much of not only the Hebrew scriptures, but also 2 nd temple Judaism in order to shed light on many aspects of Matthew's gospel in part and as a whole. Turner also does a good job of explaining the smaller details, while never loosing the forest for the trees. One will find commentary on smaller units, such as at the sentence (verse) level, as well as at the larger level of paragraph/unit/pericope level. Turner keeps the whole in mind as he delves into the parts. A fine blending of exegetical, theological and applicatory explication of what Jesus meant in and by Matthew's gospel account. At just under 700 pages of commentary in actually decent sized print, (thanks Baker books!), Turner is conservative and well informed. Just a fine fine job of grammatical historical exegesis/exposition, with some good redemptive historical/biblical theological notes sounded as well. For serious and well informed studies on Matthews gospel, I do believe this to be a keeper.
Brevity yet Comprehensive May 26, 2008
The size (692 pages; the bibliography and the indexes are not included) tells us about the terseness of the commentary but not the lack of clarity. Every paragraph is straight to the point without diffusion. Every discussion has significance, not only serving the purpose of delivering information. I enjoyed much of reading this form of presentation: terse yet unambiguous.
This is also not a commentary of commentaries, hence the brevity. However, he does well in quoting others, such that the commentary is neither mostly a pile of arguments about others' opinion nor only a gathering of others' view. The way he summarizes other's argument is well balanced. He is really writing a commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. This work is brief yet comprehensive.
The other concern in writing a commentary of the Gospels is that we have to treat each Gospel in its own right, which means that we are not supposed to do a synoptic comparison in order to gain the whole picture. I believe that the author has done it well. But sometimes such comparison is justified, because the differences will show us the uniqueness of each Gospel. In this point, I found out that the author tends to do only the first part, but offers no explanation of the differences so as to highlight its distinctiveness. (see, for instance, p. 108 about the difference of Matthew 3:3, compared with the other Gospels, in quoting the OT; others like pp.124, 129 etc.)
When commenting on a verb, the author emphasizes the implication of the Greek tense, which makes me a little uneasy about it. (Surprisingly, this is rarely found at the second half or even the last two third of the commentary) For instance, in commenting on 3:5-6 (p. 109) he writes, "The imperfect verbs exeporeueto (were going out) and ebaptizonto (were being baptized) indicate that this response was widespread and regular." (I omit the Greek words) I am wondering, does "imperfect" indicate the widespread and regularity of the verbs or is it the context that requires so? In another sense, I will agree with some of the conclusions, but not the reason. I may have such an understanding due to the fact that I am more influenced by the Aspect Theory rather than traditional grammatical analysis. But for sure, the latter approach is still a common practice. This, however, won't affect me in appreciating this commentary due to many other strengths.