Here’s a massive two-volume commentary in a series in its infancy. Though I take exception to some of the thrusts of this commentary, I must give Mr. Carter his props on writing. He reads so easily. I do enjoy scholarly writing that flows.

In the Introduction he says that this commentary is built around seven propositions that he has on Matthew’s Gospel. I’ll be honest and admit those propositions don’t exactly jump off the page for me (though I love focus). These propositions are quite dependent on a later date for Mathew, which I don’t agree with and I wasn’t persuaded by the case he presented. The logic is too tenuous. Matthew, he says, had to come after Mark and he dates Mark just after the fall of Jerusalem (70 A.D.). If we believe that predictive prophecy is possible, then both could have been before that date. That’s like a house of cards that fell with the gentlest of breezes.

His discussion of genre is interesting, but I just don’t know. I find help in the general categories of genre, but scholars keep adding new ones regularly. I think I’ve seen 30 or so in recent years (I didn’t actually count). So they see this new genre in a biblical book, define it, and read its rules back to the text. Isn’t that a bit circular?

The section on “telling the story of Jesus” is where he discusses structure. I could get on with section relativity more. I was surprised, too, to find him a bit skeptical about the thread worn “Q” theory. For sure, he focuses on the “finished form” of Matthew. His discussion of who Matthew is or authorship is highjacked by “reader-response criticism”. How could that even be a thing?

The rest of his proposals center in the Roman Empire. His fixation on the Syrian Antioch depends completely on his dating discussed earlier. I already told you what I think of that. Additionally, isn’t the story of Jesus even more fascinating because of how He almost ignores Rome even though it dominated the world scene? Squeeze Matthew as hard as you like and I think you’ll be hard pressed yourself to see an organizing feature in the “socioeconomic realities of daily urban and rural life in the ancient Roman world of Syrian Antioch”.

I even have something to say on the bibliography. It stands out by what is not there. Notice how few conservative writers are mentioned. I’ve always felt that conservative writers read more liberal works while the favor is rarely returned. The danger of an echo chamber is real. Notice also the relative lack of commentaries in the bibliography. I will only say that that is surprising.

Though the theological approach is in a different lane than I travel, I liked the commentary proper much better. Not really for the big picture obviously, but for all the fascinating details. At 1800 pages between the two volumes there are plenty of them.

A conservative reader like me is going to like a volume like this for its nuggets not found in other works, its unique biblical theology, and its interesting connections to other texts. In that regard, it delivered.

I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255.