

Hays, Richard B. First Corinthians.
Interpretation. John Knox, 1997 (299 pp.). It’s been said, “Theologians cite
their friends” (implying, most often or most favorably). People have their
favorites, and the favorites get the highest marks in the reviews of the
people who favor them, compromising, perhaps, the credibility of the review.
We hope our preference here for H—as one of the biggest names in Pauline
study at the moment (keeping company with N. T. Wright)—is not only because
he seems to have everything well-sorted interpretively in his publications,
nor because he seems to overflow with refreshing perspectives on various
theological or ethical or political points (cf. his recent book, The
Moral Vision of the New Testament), but because he has penetrated to
the heart of the NT’s presentation of Paul’s writings, which of course pays
big dividends in this excellent commentary. For example, H explains with
great clarity that while the letter appreciates the significance of the
cross’s atonement, the real juice of the matter is that in it God has
established a new age and a new world order which has massive implications
for our social and political life as the body of Christ. As an
excellent communicator and learned thinker, H is particularly adept at
drawing out the implications of such a worldview running throughout the
letter. A far-reaching (but not over-long) commentary written by a scholar
worthy of great trust when it comes to interpretive loggerheads.
Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians.
NIGTC. Eerdmans, 2000 (1446 pp.). This is easily the most exhaustive reading
of 1 Corinthians reviewed here by perhaps the world’s foremost (living)
scholar of interpretive method. This is not to say that any commentary is
ever self-sufficient or complete (or that being thorough necessarily makes
one commentary better than another), but the strength of T’s contribution is
that it seems to explore as many options as possible for each passage before
offering his own conclusion, so the going is slow, but (endearingly)
careful. Whether T’s theological depth keeps up with his vast
knowledge of interpretive theory is debatable. But at the very least, he
does not rush to conclusions, and one gets the sense that the thinking is
being done within a community of other thinkers, themselves helping to
sharpen T’s own thoughts. The commentary itself is well laid-out; T even
makes use of various fonts, as well as boldface and italics, all helping to
clarify the organization of the material. It is therefore an
invaluable—indeed encyclopedic—resource for reading and teaching the book,
even if it is tedious here and there. A weakness can also be a strength.
[See also Anthony Thiselton, 1 Corinthians: A Shorter Exegetical and
Pastorial Commentary (Eerdmans, 2006).