Thread: New Replacement NICNT Volume

This volume looks to be a beauty. It is always a matter of rejoicing when a new NICNT volume is published. This volume replaces Leon Morris’s excellent contribution on those letters.

Ooh! That IS nice! I have his NICNT Philippians commentary... and I actually prefer it to O'Brien (!)... I hope this one is as good!

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

Ooh! That IS nice! I have his NICNT Philippians commentary... and I actually prefer it to O'Brien (!)... I hope this one is as good!

That's interesting. I find Fee pretty useless. I disagree with almost everyone of his exegetical conclusions (as do O'Brien, Bockmuel and Calvin).

I've already preached through 1 and 2 Thessalonians, but I would not buy this in any event.

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

Ooh! That IS nice! I have his NICNT Philippians commentary... and I actually prefer it to O'Brien (!)... I hope this one is as good!

That's interesting. I find Fee pretty useless. I disagree with almost everyone of his exegetical conclusions (as do O'Brien, Bockmuel and Calvin).

I've already preached through 1 and 2 Thessalonians, but I would not buy this in any event.

Ouch!

Please don't get me wrong, I would never use him - or anyone... even Calvin - exclusively. But I do find his take refreshing, and the format/layout/presentation of his Philippians commentary was more helpful/appealing to me than that of O'Brien.

All - one thing to keep in mind about Fee: He's a charismatic.

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

Ooh! That IS nice! I have his NICNT Philippians commentary... and I actually prefer it to O'Brien (!)... I hope this one is as good!

That's interesting. I find Fee pretty useless. I disagree with almost everyone of his exegetical conclusions (as do O'Brien, Bockmuel and Calvin).

I've already preached through 1 and 2 Thessalonians, but I would not buy this in any event.

Ouch!

Please don't get me wrong, I would never use him - or anyone... even Calvin - exclusively. But I do find his take refreshing, and the format/layout/presentation of his Philippians commentary was more helpful/appealing to me than that of O'Brien.

All - one thing to keep in mind about Fee: He's a charismatic.

Speaking as one of his ex-students: no he ain't, he's Pentecostal but questions some key Pentecostal distinctives (that everyone must speak in tongues for example).

Of all the commentatiors I know, Fee is among the ones that I need to take most care when reading. As Ben says his take is refreshing and his format/layout/presentation is easily accessible and helpful, his knowledge of Greek is expert (one may disagree with him on points but one has to get up early to do it) and his exegetical technique is almost exemplary. Yet he has his prejudices and he has been known to miss holes in the logic by which he justifies them. Coming from a very similar background, it was only God's grace that led me to spot a couple of those holes.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Speaking as one of his ex-students: no he ain't, he's Pentecostal but questions some key Pentecostal distinctives (that everyone must speak in tongues for example).

All right, all right...

Fee is a well-educated, sober-minded, cautious, conservative, and mature charismatic... but he's still a charismatic.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

That's interesting. I find Fee pretty useless. I disagree with almost everyone of his exegetical conclusions (as do O'Brien, Bockmuel and Calvin).

I've already preached through 1 and 2 Thessalonians, but I would not buy this in any event.

Ouch!

Please don't get me wrong, I would never use him - or anyone... even Calvin - exclusively. But I do find his take refreshing, and the format/layout/presentation of his Philippians commentary was more helpful/appealing to me than that of O'Brien.

All - one thing to keep in mind about Fee: He's a charismatic.

Speaking as one of his ex-students: no he ain't, he's Pentecostal but questions some key Pentecostal distinctives (that everyone must speak in tongues for example).

Of all the commentatiors I know, Fee is among the ones that I need to take most care when reading. As Ben says his take is refreshing and his format/layout/presentation is easily accessible and helpful, his knowledge of Greek is expert (one may disagree with him on points but one has to get up early to do it) and his exegetical technique is almost exemplary. Yet he has his prejudices and he has been known to miss holes in the logic by which he justifies them. Coming from a very similar background, it was only God's grace that led me to spot a couple of those holes.

I agree. I'm no Greek slouch (an M.A. and 20+ years of it), and I wonder if guys who really know Greek well, like Fee obviously does, think that they can get away with hide-the-ball and fast-and-loose conclusions because the vast majority of pastors have little Greek skill.

For example, Fee's take on Philippians 2:12-13 is just abominable. He takes "salvation" completely out of context (including its Greek use in the NT) to mean something like "healthy Christian society." Ugh. And I'm not having to dredge up dusty Puritan commentaries to criticize him (although that would be fine). Silva just obliterates him, including the fact that Fee completely takes Silva out of context to make it seem like Silva agrees with Fee in large part. (Aside: I found it hilarious that Silva in a revised edition quotes himself and then quotes Fee quoting him, and points out how Fee completely misrepresents Silva.)

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Silva just obliterates him, including the fact that Fee completely takes Silva out of context to make it seem like Silva agrees with Fee in large part. (Aside: I found it hilarious that Silva in a revised edition quotes himself and then quotes Fee quoting him, and points out how Fee completely misrepresents Silva.)

You're right, Silva's commentary (at least the 2nd edition, I haven't seen the 1st) is top notch.

Silva was a wonderful teacher for my wife and me in college. He was passionate, pastoral, humble, brilliant, and sounded like Desi Arnez. (We loved to hear him pronounce "strength" as "strenth"). Since he was her Greek prof, my wife had almost as many units from Moises as I did from Bob Gundry. I love his Philippians commentary and find Fee problematic (cf. Fee's justification for eliminating a prohibition of women speaking in 1 Cor with slender textual justifiction and amazingly tendentious reasoning.

Fee has his problems. His treatment of the passage in 1 Corinthians is horrible, as many have noted. I also do not agree with his openness to the gifts of the Spirit. However, he is a well-known and respected evangelical commentator. I do not think he should be ignored by everyone, even if some can certainly give him a pass. I would not want to ignore what he has to say, even if I wind up disagreeing with him. I dare say that Silva, O'Brien, Bockmuehl, Ferguson are all better than Fee on Philippians. I still wouldn't ignore Fee on Philippians. The field is not exactly crowded when it comes to outstanding modern commentaries on Thessalonians. We've got Bruce, Green, Stott, Morris, and Cara. Wanamaker is a mixed bag. So I welcome Fee. Besides, just because he is bad on one passage doesn't mean he'll be bad somewhere else. I merely point out that this is a noteworthy publication in NT studies, and that people should be aware of it.

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Fee has his problems. His treatment of the passage in 1 Corinthians is horrible, as many have noted. I also do not agree with his openness to the gifts of the Spirit. However, he is a well-known and respected evangelical commentator. I do not think he should be ignored by everyone, even if some can certainly give him a pass. I would not want to ignore what he has to say, even if I wind up disagreeing with him. I dare say that Silva, O'Brien, Bockmuehl, Ferguson are all better than Fee on Philippians. I still wouldn't ignore Fee on Philippians. The field is not exactly crowded when it comes to outstanding modern commentaries on Thessalonians. We've got Bruce, Green, Stott, Morris, and Cara. Wanamaker is a mixed bag. So I welcome Fee. Besides, just because he is bad on one passage doesn't mean he'll be bad somewhere else. I merely point out that this is a noteworthy publication in NT studies, and that people should be aware of it.

I hear what you are saying, and I don't ignore him, even though reading him is a bit like a root canal - necessary, but most unpleasant. I'm just weary of reading commentators who shovel mounds of dung on me for the hope of finding a pony.

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Fee has his problems. His treatment of the passage in 1 Corinthians is horrible, as many have noted. I also do not agree with his openness to the gifts of the Spirit. However, he is a well-known and respected evangelical commentator. I do not think he should be ignored by everyone, even if some can certainly give him a pass. I would not want to ignore what he has to say, even if I wind up disagreeing with him. I dare say that Silva, O'Brien, Bockmuehl, Ferguson are all better than Fee on Philippians. I still wouldn't ignore Fee on Philippians. The field is not exactly crowded when it comes to outstanding modern commentaries on Thessalonians. We've got Bruce, Green, Stott, Morris, and Cara. Wanamaker is a mixed bag. So I welcome Fee. Besides, just because he is bad on one passage doesn't mean he'll be bad somewhere else. I merely point out that this is a noteworthy publication in NT studies, and that people should be aware of it.

I hear what you are saying, and I don't ignore him, even though reading him is a bit like a root canal - necessary, but most unpleasant. I'm just weary of reading commentators who shovel mounds of dung on me for the hope of finding a pony.

And I in turn hear what you're saying. However, I find that almost all commentators are like that at some point or other. 'Tis the very nature of scholarship to be looking for a needle in a haystack (or a dung heap!).

I hate to admit this, but I even find Calvin weary reading sometimes when he is off on his tirades against Rome, where application to Rome is not in the passage. And he is not always that insightful either. There are loads of insights in Calvin, don't get me wrong. But I don't exactly underline every other sentence in my copy of Calvin, either.

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Fee has his problems. His treatment of the passage in 1 Corinthians is horrible, as many have noted. I also do not agree with his openness to the gifts of the Spirit. However, he is a well-known and respected evangelical commentator. I do not think he should be ignored by everyone, even if some can certainly give him a pass. I would not want to ignore what he has to say, even if I wind up disagreeing with him. I dare say that Silva, O'Brien, Bockmuehl, Ferguson are all better than Fee on Philippians. I still wouldn't ignore Fee on Philippians. The field is not exactly crowded when it comes to outstanding modern commentaries on Thessalonians. We've got Bruce, Green, Stott, Morris, and Cara. Wanamaker is a mixed bag. So I welcome Fee. Besides, just because he is bad on one passage doesn't mean he'll be bad somewhere else. I merely point out that this is a noteworthy publication in NT studies, and that people should be aware of it.

I hear what you are saying, and I don't ignore him, even though reading him is a bit like a root canal - necessary, but most unpleasant. I'm just weary of reading commentators who shovel mounds of dung on me for the hope of finding a pony.

And I in turn hear what you're saying. However, I find that almost all commentators are like that at some point or other. 'Tis the very nature of scholarship to be looking for a needle in a haystack (or a dung heap!).

I hate to admit this, but I even find Calvin weary reading sometimes when he is off on his tirades against Rome, where application to Rome is not in the passage. And he is not always that insightful either. There are loads of insights in Calvin, don't get me wrong. But I don't exactly underline every other sentence in my copy of Calvin, either.

Agreed. I see that in Calvin too. Where I see the biggest difference (to be honest) is in reading a bunch of pedantic "I know the Greek (or Hebrew) so well that you would be lost without me" stuff that is chock full of (frankly) stupid and impractical (i.e. not having any application, whether theological or imperatival) comments, as opposed to less "technical" but actually helpful comments. Sorry - I know the Greek pretty well, and I do own Bibleworks. Really, I can do the search and find every instance of that word (or that form).

On Philippians, give me 5 pages of Motyer rather than 100 of Fee. I'll have more to think about, and apply to my people.

Well. I guess we all know what Fred thinks of Fee!

Well, the bottom line is what it always is: all human beings are sinners. All Bible commentators are sinners, having their biases, prejudices, and ego trips that make it into print. So, all commentators - even Calvin - must be read with discretion.

The books are written by sinners, and they are read by sinners. But, God's grace overcomes the sin so we can be edified by the good parts of these commentaries.

(I'm just hoping that, a la Murray on Romans, someone will decide to keep Morris on the Thessalonian letters in print.)