On his blog, Scot McKnight recently surveyed some of the commentaries he consults on Philippians. (For a more thorough list see Kevin Scull’s recent post on the subject.)
What I wanted to draw attention to was McKnight’s remark about Ben Witherington’s commentaries:
Some of Ben’s readers have asked me why I don’t mention Ben Witherington III more often. Well, when someone has written a commentary on every NT book, it is unlikely they can be mentioned with those who have spent a decade or more on a book, but Ben’s stuff is very good and highly useful for pastors.
McKnight is spot on, especially in an age where there is no end to the proliferation of biblical commentaries. Witherington has a lot of devotees and his books will sell whether or not they are up to par with other commentaries. I give him credit for helping to publicize rhetorical criticism, but for the most part his commentaries are not going to be on the short list of any scholar.
That said, I do not think that Witherington should stop writing commentaries. Some scholars are scholars for the people and others are scholars for academia. We need a wide range of scholars to write for different audiences. If it hadn’t been for F. F. Bruce, I wouldn’t have gained an interest in biblical scholarship otherwise. So keep those commentaries coming Benny!
McKnight’s response is spot on in regards to BW3. A few years back I would have been more enthusiastic about his publications, but because he has produced such a high number of commentaries it becomes difficult to find innovative thoughts on the text. They are a solid survey on the biblical books as a whole, but nowhere near the depth of academic inquiry – (at least, not anymore . . . when he first began this socio-rhetorical thingy, he produced his commentary on Acts which is quite well done and often cited).
Yes, I do like his Acts commentary, particularly because some of the questions he asks aren’t interesting to other scholars, so that one I keep on the shelf–along with the Galatians volume.
Well, I do commentary summaries on Sunday School lessons, and I find Witherington very good for that purpose. His strong suits are, as you say, his social and rhetorical focuses and his summaries of previous scholarship. Not what academics necessarily want or need, but again, as you say, but what the doctor orders for the mythical “educated layman”.
Truth be told, in my small collection of Galatians commentaries, Witherington has been the best resource for Sunday School notes. The others are too much Greek or more expository writing than required in combination with Sunday School teachers’ literature.
It’s true that Ben doesn’t devote the years of attention that mark most research commentaries. And I often find his tendency to argue for the historical reliability of pretty much every tradition distracting and unhelpful.
However, his commentaries have one distinctive virtue. They all integrate social, historical, literary-rhetorical, and theological questions. Beyond that, they’re remarkably in touch with the ongoing flow of scholarship. Ben may not be able to sort through every technical problem in terms of the history of scholarship, but his commentaries show an amazing degree of facility with the conversation. I often disagree with him, but I would never claim to compete with his level of erudition.
Thanks for the comments, Greg. Yes, Ben is a good scholar and my post was not meant to detract from that at all.
Your point about integrating social, historical, etc. together is key, which is why I’m a big fan of sociorhetorical interpretation and the work being done through the Rhetoric of Religious Antiquity group. I’m hoping that the RRA commentaries really contribute in this area.
so that one [Acts] I keep on the shelf–along with the Galatians volume.
Those two are the two that I value the highest and probably the only two I’d put on a short list. I read the whole way through Philemon, Colossians, and Ephesians and was rather disappointed.