First and Second Thessalonians

Bibliographic Data

ID21637751
AuthorsMatthew D Jensen (The University of Sydney, corresponding author)
Year2021
Volume31
Issue1
Pages121-122
Publication date2021-04-08
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueBulletin for Biblical Research (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1065-223X • E-ISSN: 2576-0998
PublisherThe Pennsylvania State University Press (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.5325/bullbiblrese.31.1.0121
OpenAlexW4210471785
LanguageEN
Citations received12

Nathan Eubank’s commentary on 1 and 2 Thessalonians is a welcome contribution to the Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture series. It ably meets the series goals of a scholarly work based on a historical literary method that is informed by prayerful theological reflection. Its clarity of expression ensures that its target readership (those engaged in or training for pastoral ministry, and others interested in studying Scripture) will benefit from Eubank’s thoughtful exegesis. It represents a conservative Catholic position that seeks to explain the text 1 and 2 Thessalonians in the context of both the rest of Scripture and also the tradition of the church. In particular, the use of the “Biblical Background” and “Living Tradition” sidebars locates Eubank’s exegetical decision within this wider framework in a way that enables even the lay person to understand his reasoning.The commentary proceeds in the usual manner: an introduction to the letters (pp. 16–28), an outline of the structure (pp. 29–30), and then more detailed exegetical notes on 1 Thessalonians (pp. 31–137) and 2 Thessalonians (pp. 138–94), before ending with a list of suggested resources (pp. 195–96), a glossary (p. 197) and two indexes—pastoral topics (p. 198) and sidebars (p. 199).In the introduction, Eubank outlines the cases for and against Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians before concluding that Pauline authorship is more likely. Further, he favors the traditional ordering of the epistles (1 Thessalonians precedes 2 Thessalonians), briefly explains the genre of first-century letters in order to enable understanding of Paul’s modification of the genre to meet his purposes, and outlines how the letters have been accepted and understood in the history of the church.Eubank’s exegesis is based on the New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE) but he is not afraid to discuss the underlying Greek when necessary. This is done via transliteration so that the reader who has no Greek can still grasp the discussion. The exegesis focuses on units rather than verses (although verses are indicated in the margins), and each exegetical section is followed with comments on how to apply the text. The units under consideration are keyed to significant OT, NT, and Catholic writings so readers can locate the exegesis in the broader themes of the Scriptures and the church. In order best to cater to the intended audience, footnotes and technical discussion are kept to a minimum. This in no way indicates Eubank’s disinterest in the issues but rather demonstrates his ability to make difficult things simple for the reader by cutting to the heart of the matter. In this regard, he understands Paul’s description of himself in 1 Thess 2:1–12 as a moral example to follow rather than a defense of his apostolicity, 1 Thess 2:13–16 as original and not a post-Pauline interpolation, and 1 Thess 4:3–8 to be talking about husbands, wives, and sex within marriage. In 2 Thess 2:6–7, Eubank argues that the restrained is most probably a supernatural power like an angel.The strengths of this commentary are many: it is clearly written so even the engaged layperson could read it while not being so simple that it loses its value for the seminarian or pastor. It represents a conservative Catholic understanding of 1 and 2 Thessalonians, but this does not impede its fair discussion and assessment of others’ views. However, these strengths also form part of its weaknesses. It is not a technical commentary, so researchers will not be drawn to its discussion—they will prefer Malherbe, with whom Eubank sides on most things of note. In particular, its interaction with the Greek text does not venture much beyond semantic choice so there is little discussion of syntactical decisions and their contribution to meaning. While it may be unfair to criticize Eubank on not achieving something that was never his intention, it needs to be observed in order to clarify who will use this commentary.Overall, this commentary is an excellent representation of a conservative Catholic view of 1 and 2 Thessalonians that suits an undergraduate readership. It will not find much reading in postgraduate courses or research

Art · Audience measurement · CLARITY · Exegesis · Literature · Theology · Biblical Studies and Interpretation · Classics · History · Law · Pentecostalism and Christianity Studies · Philosophy · Theology and Canon Law Studies

Tools

Open DOI