Darrell L. Bock - Luke 1:1-9:50

The chief concern of the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the NewTestament (to be known as BECNT) is to provide, within the framework of informedevangelical thought, commentaries that blend scholarly depth with readability,exegetical detail with sensitivity to the whole, attention to critical problemswith theological awareness. We hope thereby to attract the interest of a fairlywide audience, from the scholar who is looking for a thoughtful and independentexamination of the text to the motivated lay Christian who craves solid butaccessible exposition.

Nevertheless, a majorpurpose is to address the needs of pastors and others who are involved in thepreaching and exposition of the Scriptures as the uniquely inspired Word ofGod. This consideration affects directly the parameters of the series. Forexample, serious biblical expositors cannot afford to depend on a superficialtreatment that avoids the difficult questions, but neither are they interestedin encyclopedic commentaries that seek to cover every conceivable issue thatmay arise. Our aim, therefore, is to focus on those problems that have a directbearing on the meaning of the text (although selected technical details aretreated in the additional notes).

Similarly, a special effort is made to avoid treating exegeticalquestions for their own sake, that is, in relative isolation from the thrust ofthe argument as a whole. This effort may involve (at the discretion of theindividual contributors) abandoning the verse-by-verse approach in favor of anexposition that focuses on the paragraph as the main unit of thought. In allcases, however, the commentaries will stress the development of the argumentand explicitly relate each passage to what precedes and follows it so as toidentify its function in context as clearly as possible.

We believe, moreover,that a responsible exegetical commentary must take fully into account thelatest scholarly research, regardless of its source. The attempt to do this inthe context of a conservative theological tradition presents certainchallenges, and in the past the results have not always been commendable. Insome cases, evangelicals appear to make use of critical scholarship not for thepurpose of genuine interaction but only to dismiss it. In other cases, theinteraction glides over into assimilation, theological distinctives are ignoredor suppressed, and the end product cannot be differentiated from works that arise from afundamentally different starting point.

The contributors to this series attempt to avoid these two pitfalls.They do not consider traditional opinions to be sacrosanct, and they arecertainly committed to do justice to the biblical text whether or not itsupports such opinions. On the other hand, they will not quickly abandon along-standing view, if there is persuasive evidence in its favor, for the sakeof fashionable theories. What is more important, the contributors share a beliefin the trustworthiness and essential unity of Scripture. They also considerthat the historic formulations of Christian doctrine, such as the ecumenicalcreeds and many of the documents originating in the sixteenth-centuryReformation, arose from a legitimate reading of Scripture, thus providing aproper framework for its further interpretation. No doubt, the use of such astarting point sometimes results in the imposition of a foreign construct onthe text, but we deny that it must necessarily do so or that the writers whoclaim to approach the text without prejudices are invulnerable to the samedanger.

Accordingly, we do not consider theological assumptionsfrom which, inany case, no commentator is freeto be obstacles to biblical interpretation. Onthe contrary, an exegete who hopes to understand the apostle Paul in atheological vacuum might just as easily try to interpret Aristotle withoutregard for the philosophical framework of his whole work or without havingrecourse to those subsequent philosophical categories that make possible ameaningful contextualization of his thought. It must be emphasized, however,that the contributors to the present series come from a variety of theologicaltraditions and that they do not all have identical views with regard to theproper implementation of these general principles. In the end, all that reallymatters is whether the series succeeds in representing the original textaccurately, clearly, and meaningfully to the contemporary reader.