John: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)

Rating:
Summary: Outstanding New Commentary
Review: Andreas Kostenberger has provided us with a genuine treat in his new commentary on the Gospel of John. This commentary is in the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament series, which is developing into one of the most useful series of commentaries for those who love God's word.

Like all of the commentaries in this series, Kostenberger's volumn is written from an evangelical standpoint that embraces the Gospel of John as being the authoritative word of God. This work consistently interacts with the Greek text and the majority of major contemporary commentaries on John.

Highlights of this volumn include:

1. It is extremely well written. Even in a series known for its readabilty, Kostenberger stands out as a model of clarity. Rather than simply checking selections, I have read this commentary from cover to cover - and it is a great joy to read.
2. Kostenberger makes outstanding use of footnotes. This feature makes it particularly easy to find both the support for his interpretations as well as dissenting voices. I suspect this feature alone will make Kostenberger's commentary the first one to be pulled off of the shelf.
3. Unlike many commentaries that answer all the questions except the one you are actually asking; this volumn shows exceptional judgment in selecting and addressing questions. Preachers will find this commentary a particulary rich and helpful resource in sermon preparation.

Are there reservations in recommending this commentary? Yes. First, while anyone could benefit from Kostenberger's excellent work - it will be best used by those who have at least one year of Koine Greek. Second, I wish that Kostenberger had been a little more painstaking in making and commenting on his (generally excellent) translation. Two illustrations of this should suffice:

1. Kostenberger translates John 3:19 "This is the verdict: light has come into the world, but people preferred darkness to light; for their deeds were evil." The words translated "preferred" are almost universally translated "loved" and "more than" (i.e. "loved darkness more than light"). The word "loved" is identical to the word "loved" in John 3:16 just 3 verses earlier ("God so loved the world"). It is difficult to see why Kostenberger would lessen the force of this statement from "loved darkness" to "preferred darkness" and he offers no explanation in his text.
2. Kostenberger translates John 3:9 "Nicodemus answered and said to him, 'how can these things happen?'" The commentary points out that nearly all translations of this verse (NIV, NASB, NRSV, NKJV, NLT, ESV, TNIV, et. al.) render this verse "How can these things be?" Kostenberger then writes: "However, the translation 'How can these things happen?' is preferrable" without offering any explanation at all as to why it is preferrable or what difference it makes. Perhaps he thinks it is simply obvious, but the fact that it wasn't obvious to any of the translation committees of all the major English translations of the Bible cries out for an explanation/argument.

These are obviously very minor criticisms. This is a wonderful commentary and belongs on the shelf of every student of John's Gospel.

Rating:
Summary: Author's Response
Review: I appreciate David's positive review. The purpose of this brief note is to respond to the second of his two criticisms, which is that I do not justify my translation of 3:9 as "How can these things happen?" rather than the more conventional rendering, "How can these things be?"

In short, David's criticism is not valid. It is true that I do not include an explicit rationale. I do, however, refer the reader to the commentaries by Barrett and Carson, implying that I concur with their rationale. All the reader has to do, therefore, is to go to one of these commentaries to find out why I favor this particular rendering.

I realize that sending the reader to another commentary is not ideal, but at times it was necessary to use this kind of shorthand in light of space constraints. In any case, the reader who wants to know why I chose this particular rendering can find out why by consulting Barrett and/or Carson. I hope this helps.