The Expositor's Greek New Testament

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

A PC(USA) Pastor friend of mine is retiring and he gave me his 5 volume set of the Expositor's Greek New Testament edited by W. Robertson Nicoll published in 1956 by Eerdman's.

My question is for those more knowledgeable than me. Is this something I should keep handy that I will actually find helpful or is it something I should put near the top of my bookshelf that looks impressive that is really of not much value?

Some of the contributors include:

Alexander Bruce of Free Church College, Glasgow on the Synoptics
Marcus Dods of New College, Edinburgh on John
R.J. Knowling of King's College, London on Acts
James Denney of Free Church College, Glasgow on Romans
G.G. Findlay of Headingley College on 1 Corinthians
J.H. Bernard of Saint Patrick's, Dublin on 2 Corinthians
Frederic Rendall of United Free Church College, Aberdeen on Galatians
S.D.F. Salmond of United Free Church College, Aberdeen on Ephesians
H.A.A Kennedy of Knox College, Toronto on Philippians
A.S. Peake of University of Manchester, on Colossians

 

[Marrow Man]

I have the set, Benjamin (I purchased it a long time ago as a used set from a retired pastor), and I have found it helpful from time to time in looking up various Greek words/phrases and seeing how they are used throughout Scripture. It is useful for those purposes (i.e., when you run across something difficult), but it is not at the top of my list, so to speak.

 

[Wayne]

Tim:

Is that set primarily diachronic or synchronic in its treatment of the Greek words?

 

[Marrow Man]

Wayne, the set does go through the development of Greek words through LXX and contemporary secular usage in pre-first century and first century Greek. Because it explores the usage outside of koine Greek, you would probably have to classify it as the former, if I am understanding your question.

 

[Wayne]

Thanks, Tim.

The classic Kittel set, Theo. Dictionary of the NT, often takes a diachronic approach to the meaning of words, looking at the meaning across the span of time and then importing perhaps what the word meant in 1000 BC into usage in 100 AD. That creates real problems because in any living language, words can change in meaning. In English one of the best examples is "conversation", which in the KJV means "behavior". A synchronic approach is more contextually based and in my meager estimation, superior.

 

[py3ak]

There were times when I found the set very helpful, though I no longer own it. Part of its value is in the clear statement of the wrong position. For instance, if you look up Denney's comments on Romans 9:5, you will find him arguing that Christ is not called God in that verse, but his explanation makes it invincibly clear that deity is attributed to Christ, and sets out pretty fully that it is only dogmatic prejudice which would prevent the expositor from seeing that.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Are these men generally neo-Orthodox/Barthian?

 

[py3ak]

They are pre-Barth, but tend towards the liberalism of the day, though it's pretty mild compared to what we got after them. Dods, Denney and Bruce are the only ones I really know anything about.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

I'm traveling right now, but if memory serves correctly, the authors take a critical view of the text as well, siding often with W-H. (Not my view) I too have found some profitable comments in that set--I have it on the shelf. As Pastor Tim said, it's not one of my favorites, but from time to time I'll find some good things there as well.