Allmänna fakta

Vedertaget namn: Wanamaker, Charles A.
Födelsedag: 1943
Kön: male
Utbildning: University of Durham
Relationer: Helena (wife)
Kristianna (daughter)
Geoffrey (son)
Organisationer: University of Cape Town

Medlemmar

Recensioner

The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on… av Charles Wanamaker

A competent and helpful commentary. It does not stand out in the NIGTC as much as other volumes I have consulted have. I would place Wanamaker together with Bruce but behind Marshall.

Wanamaker thinks that 1Th should actually be 2Th, and that 2Th should actually be 1Th--the order we have it is mixed up. I didn't

Flaggad

matthauck | 3 andra recensioner | Apr 19, 2010 |

The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on… av Charles Wanamaker

Wanamaker offers both a thorough treatment of the text and a rich dialogue with contemporary scholarship. The commentary is strong on grammatical, historical, and cultural insights, although demonstrates little literary awareness. Wanamaker provides a generally conservative perspective. He does, however, argue (compellingly) for the chronological priority of 2nd Thessalonians over first. While some supplementation is necessary, the work – overall – is an invaluable resource. A-

Flaggad

bsanner | 3 andra recensioner | Apr 11, 2009 |

The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on… av Charles Wanamaker, A.

I have a dozen commentaries of 1 Thessalonians and have worked through them all as I have studied the book. This is my least favorite. I find it of almost no value. I have benefitted greatly from other volumes in the NIGTC series (especially the outstanding commentary by Knight on the Pastorals), but this one is obnoxious and unhelpful. His linguistic insights are superficial and almost always in contradiction with ten verses you can think of automatically, that he will never even touch. Every useful exegetical commentary occasionally dips into appreciation, application or even adoration, not this one. It is cold and lifeless. Wanamaker's addiction to the socio-rhetorical grid is interesting at first, annoying at length and illegitimate in several instances. His section on 1 Thess. 5:12-13 is clearly driven by a refusal to acknowledge New Testament congruity and force every available ecclesiastical reference into a patron-patriarchal-Roman-grid. No elders yet? Try the book of Acts. Leaders in the early church were the rich people with social status. Not hard to refute. He rejects any conception of a leadership that is spiritual, qualified, or reflected of Jesus' teaching on the subject. This is not an evangelical commentary.
If you are looking for a commentary to help you understand Paul's message to the Thessalonians, skip this one and get Heibert.… (mer)