Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle Reading App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your email address or mobile phone number.
The commentary on Luke's Gospel by Norval Geldenhuys, one of the volumes in the NICNT series, is a scholarly yet readable treatise on the third Gospel. The writing is clear and concise, while at the same time exhibiting a thoroughness that provides a good deal of depth. Both the scholar and the layperson can profit from its contents.
More technical matters, such as comments on the Greek text, have been placed in the footnotes that may be found after each section of the text. This has the advantage of permitting the main body of the text to speak to the issues that will be of relevance to all readers while at the same time providing those readers who have a working knowledge of Greek with the opportunity to delve into these other issues.
In addition to the commentary on the Gospel text itself, Geldenhuys provides a significant amount of introductory material dealing with the author, the sources, the date of writing, the style, and the aim of the Gospel. Particularly interesting is Geldenhuys's discussion of the date of Luke's Gospel. He makes a strong case for the early dating of Luke, sometime in the 60s A.D. rather than the post-70 A.D. date almost universally assigned by critical scholarship.
The back of the commentary contains an "excursus" of some 22 pages on the day and date of the crucifixion. This contains a number of interesting and insightful comments and is worth the time it takes to read.
Was this review helpful to you?
J. Norval Geldenhuys was a minister in the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa, who also served as Dierctor of Publications of the Reformed Church of South Africa.
He wrote in the first chapter of the 1951 book, "[Henry Joel] Cadbury is right... that the language of Luke and Acts does not OF ITSELF PROVE that the author was a physician. Nevertheless the fact remains that the language and terminology of Luke and Acts are of such a nature that they CORROBORATE in a striking manner the tradition that the author was Luke the physician. The following may be cited as ... examples of medically tinted language and terminology from Luke: Luke iv.38 describes the disease of Peter's mother-in-law as a `great fever,' while Mark merely describes it as a `fever.' ... Luke v.12 describes the leper as `a man full of leprosy,' while Mark and Matthew merely say `a leprous man.' ... the precise manner in which Luke describes different cases of disease ... fits in with the fact that he was a physician. Taking all the data into consideration, one cannot but come to the conclusion that, although the language and style do not per se prove that the author of the books was a physician, the statement of Paul in Colossians iv.14, and the unanimous assertions of the ancient church fathers that Luke was a physician, are clearly corroborated by the nature of the contents of the books." (Pg. 20-21)
He observes, "In his preface to the Gospel (i.1-4) it appears, moreover, that, apart from the data which he had received verbally from `eyewitnesses and ministers of the word,' he also had at his disposal written accounts of the history of the Lord. He does not inform us who committed these accounts to writing.Read more ›
Was this review helpful to you?