I may have mentioned here before that one of my college professors once said that there are two kinds of people: those who read commentaries and those who write commentaries. I don’t remember what my response was, but I wouldn’t be surprised if in my pride I thought that I would be one of the writers.
I’m over that.
One (but not the only) reason concerns the number of commentaries already written. To take but one example, here is a list of commentaries I own on Isaiah.
- Oswalt, 2 vols (NICOT)
- Smith, 2 vols (NAC)
- Watts, 2 vols (WBC)
- Motyer (Tyndale)
- Grogan (EBC)
- Oswalt (NIVAC)
- Wildberger, 3 vols, 1-39
- Young, 3 vols
- McKinion, 1-39 (ACCS)
- Elliot, 40-66 (ACCS)
- Buksbazen
- Webb (Message)
- Delitzsch
- Beyer (Encountering)
That doesn’t count all of the other sources I have on Isaiah: study Bible notes, survey books, one-volume commentaries.
And it doesn’t count all of the many commentaries on Isaiah that I don’t own. To mention just a few: Williamson, Goldingay, Westermann, Sweeney, Childs, Blenkinsopp, Seitz. You can see a fuller list here. (And as an aside, I ‘ll note that the rankings there agree remarkably with my own impressions: I would agree with the top 5, in the order given, though Webb for a different readership.)
But even this is not sufficient deterrent to prevent me from writing a commentary (assuming there were no other reasons). But this is: A list of forthcoming commentaries on Isaiah.
- Chris Franke in BO
- Gregory J. Polan in BO
- John F.A. Sawyer in BBC
- J.J.M. Roberts in HERM
- H.G.M. Williamson in ICC
- John A. Emerton in ICC
- Patricia K. Tull in SH
- Hendrik Leene in HCOT
- Willem A.M. Beuken in HCOT
- David Baer in NCBC
- J. Ross Wagner in LXX
- Ephrem the Syrian in ACT
- Eusebius of Caesarea in ACT
- Paul R. House in MOT
- Dwight Swanson in NBBC
- Steven A. McKinion in RCS
- David McKenna in TPC
- Andrew Bartelt and Paul R. Raabe in ECC
- Shalom M. Paul in ECC
- Richard Schultz in AOT
- Roy F. Melugin in FOTL
- William Stacy Johnson in Belief
- Carol Dempsey in BO ~2008
- Todd S. Beall in EEC ~2016
What percentage, do you suppose, of any given commentary will say something that hasn’t already been said at least ten times? I don’t believe that there’s not anything new to say, but I can’t say I’m real optimistic that much of this work will be a real contribution.
I think I ‘ll spend more time playing with my kids.
Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body (Eccl 12:12).
I really like this post Todd. What you said is true. One benefit of writing your own commentary is having all your thoughts organized, and in the way you like. Playing with your kids is a great idea, I wish I could come over and play with them too.
If Ross is writing a commentary on Isaiah, I’ll be one of the first to line up to get it!
Yuliya – I certainly agree on the personal value of writing a commentary. However, I think that one could get a large amount of the value without doing a lot of extra work that is considered “required” in order to publish (including repeating much of what has already been said).
Chris – I don’t know of Ross, but I’m most interested in the works by House and Schultz.
I am impressed with the amount of commentary you have acquired on Isaiah. I am thinking they must represent diverse or other looks at that same material? Why else would more than two or three be necessary? BTW..I for one would purchase a Bolen commentary on Isaiah. But I’d rather have “Bolens best places to see in Israel, from a Biblical/Historical context”
Many years ago, I recall hearing someone reference a scholarly Isaiah commentary that “devastated” the notion that Isaiah was written by multiple pseudepigraphers. A nice addition to this post would be placing an asterisk (or whatever) by each of the authors who believe one way or the other. (The BestCommentaries site doesn’t have such a tag either.)
Dan – yes, they represent different approaches, are geared to different audiences, etc. But they still often mention many of the same things (though repetition is often good for me). The less serious student could do with two or three, but they’d need to pick the right ones for their needs. You make a good point too with regard to the personal connection. Some books are written (and valued) because the reader has a personal relationship with the author. I know that I read books differently when I know the person who wrote them.
G.M. – I think that every commentary in the list of the ones I own hold to a single Isaiah, except for Watts and Wildberger. As for a work that “devastated” the division of Isaiah, it’s safe to say that the liberal world would not agree. In fact, there are many who would call themselves conservatives and evangelicals who hold to a Second Isaiah. Possibly the work you heard about was Allis, The Unity of Isaiah (1950).
If you want Williamson, Emerton, or Goldingay to have the final word/be the authority on the book of Isaiah, then yes, there is no need to write any more commentaries.
I remember you said that you know of no “dispensational” commentaries on Isaiah. Some may think that we don’t need any such commentaries. If one thinks otherwise, however, then perhaps another Isaiah commentary should be written.
Benj – you’re of course right*. I’m not sure how I forgot that. I don’t know that any on the forthcoming list are from dispensational writers.
*Buksbazen is dispensational, but it is very brief.