The Two Kinds of Commentaries….

I, like many other NT researchers, have spent much time (and perhaps too much time) in commentaries.  I own probably 200 of them.  Some are great, many are mediocre, and some are almost worthless.  I have noticed that there are two kinds of commentaries (and perhaps more).  There are commentaries that comment and there are commentaries that construct.

The first kind of commentary is, perhaps, the traditional kind – verse-by-verse, the author looks at exegetical issues and gives notes on background, possible meaning, textual issues, history of interpretation.  These commentaries tend to be bitty and disjointed.  They are best used as reference resources for a quick check when dealing with a self-enclosed issue.  You often learn from comparisons to other ancient texts.  These commentaries are necessary, though they tend to be mind-numbingly boring.

The second kind of commentary attempts to find big-picture issues – narratively, theologically, ideologically, thematically – that can help to understand the text as a whole.  The author hypothesizes how the text should be read and goes on to ‘read’ in that manner throughout the commentary.  These commentaries tend to be gripping and even entertaining.  The challenge is that exegetical problems are either hastily domesticated to fit into the theological or literary scheme, or simply ignored.

In the first kind of commentary, you may compare it to someone who is trying to restore an old dusty paining.  She dusts it off and tries to shine light on it in the right way that brings the viewer as closely as possible to the original way the art piece was viewed.  She does not dare to alter or touch the art lest the original be marred.  Her ability to restore the painting is limited, due to the natural problem of age.  She does the best she can using modern means, and is content to allow some spots to remain faded, dark, smeared, or even missing.

The second kind of commentary approaches the painting differently.  While restoration is worthwhile and this person will dust off the painting.  He is not content to stop there.  He wishes to draw in the attention of on-lookers who would not come closer because the painting looked old, frail, and frankly not worth the effort.  He endeavors to pull out his pallette and retrace faded lines.  He is not trying to add anything to the picture.  There are no new objects, shapes or people.  He is trying to restore by bringing out what is already there.  The challenge is, he does not have the exact same colors as the original artist.  He must choose an approximation – sometimes it can be nearly identicial, sometimes it is just close.  Sometimes he must fill in broken lines.  Does this second artist become a co-creator of the work?  It has certainly attracted the attention of many on-lookers who step closer and chatter about the details.

I make no argument that one is better than the other.  It does bring to light how various commentaries ‘interact’ with the material and the implicit attitudes about the text and purposes of the ‘comments’.

Any thoughts?