|
|
With so many commentaries out in the market, quite a few people really don’t know where to start. So if you are either (especially) interested in building a library or something just for your individual study. Here are some recommendations.
One-volume multiauthor commentary
One-volume commentaries are too brief to be useful in the detailed exegesis amd exposition, but they have the advantage of providing at least something on every book of the Bible – an advantage when the student or minister is young or able to maintain only a small library. The New Bible Commentary(IVP) is condensed, evangelical, and brief. It is primarily exegetical, but a little space is devoted to discussing critical theories and occasionally to ongoing application of the text. In its various editions, it has become something of a standard around the English-speaking world among evangelical readers of single-volume commentaries.
Someone asked me about the Women’s Bible Commentary, edited by Carol A. Newsome and Sharon H. Ringe. It is not a commentary on the whole Bible, but on passages and themes that either mention women or are judged by the authors to be of special relevance to women. An example, on John they cover 2:1-11; 4:4-42; 7:53-8:11; 11:1-14; 12:1-9; 19:25-27; 20:1-18 (so far, Mary Magdalene is the focus of interest), and offers comments on, for example, the use of “Father” for addressing God. Despite some excellent insights here and there, the work as a whole is far less interested in hearing what Scripture says than in using it to bless the controlling axioms of the more radical edge of the feminist movement.
Matthew
For advanced students nothing can compare to W.D. Davies & D.C. Allison (ICC). The three volume commentary that is moderately critical, and leaves few stones unturned. Its attention to detail sometimes means the flow of Matthew’s argument is less than clear, and its high price will put it out of the range of many buyers.
Craig Keener (Eerdmans) has written a massive commentary that in some respects sets new standards. It is engagingly written, and always with the preacher and teacher in mind. Its primary strengths are two fold: first, its unpacking of the socio-historical context of the ancient Mediterranean world, including Jewish-Christian relations; second, focus on moral lessons. But these very strengths sometimes raise questions for example, here and there one could argue strenuously against the reconstructions Keener adopts. More important, while admitting that no one commentary can cover everything, Keener’s focus on the socio-historical context comes at the expense of penetrating comment on structure, grammar, and sometimes theology. Please do not confuse this book with his shorter IVP volume on Matthew.
Another commentary that should not be missed is Craig Blomberg’s in the NAC series: it is at a middle level, and good in detail and in the flow of the argument.
Someone asked me about John MacArthur’s four volume series on Matthew. These series are difficult to analyze because it’s not just a commentary, it’s also part expositionary sermon. The books are wordy and often betray too little time and care with the text, so that they cannot be read as reliable commentary; but the amount of information goes beyond that of most expositions. Doubtless they will well serve the well-read layperson and the poorly trained preacher.
Mark
The best three all-purpose commentaries are by C.E.B. Cranfield; William Lane; Morna Hooker are of the highest academic standard; the first two add an attractive warmth. C.E. B. Cranfield (CUP) commentary is on the Greek text; Lanes’s (NIC) demands that the reader know Greek only while reading the footnotes. Of these two Lane is slightly more conservative. Both of the works are some what dated, especially the former, which was first published before the impact of redaction-critical studies on Mark, let alone the new literary criticism . Hooker (BNTC/HNTC) focus on words and structure, though sometimes she is more skeptical than she needs to be about the authenticity of Jesus’ words and deeds, and she maintains her increasingly improbable reading of Mark 10:45.
The prize for the most detailed English-language commentary and for advanced students goes to two authors. Robert Guelich who wrote the first volume in the WBC series. It is extraordinarily detailed, though sometimes incautiously speculative in its re-creation of the church circumstances that Mark allegedly addresses. Guelich’s untimely death meant the second volume was passed on to Craig Evans. It is stronger on the technical issues than on the theology of the book.
Luke
This Gospel is now well served by several major commentaries. Pride of place goes to two volumes of Darrell L. Bock (BECNT). It is recent comprehensive, well written and intelligent. If you get this one by Bock, you do not need the other two commentaries that he was written. This is one of the two recommended for advanced students.
The other recommended for advanced students and almost as good but now more dated, is the commentary by Joseph A. Fitzmyer (AB). The work is a masterpiece of learning, and written with clarity and verve. Not all will be persuaded by the author’s positions on dating, sources, and details of historicity, but there are a few questions Fitzmyer has not thought deeply about, and his competence in the Semitic parallels informs his work throughout.
Robert H. Stein (NAC) is a good value for the money.
Walter L. Liefield (EBC) packs a great deal of astute comment into a relatively small compass.
John
Among the major works, the best one-volume treatment of the Greek is still that of C. K. Barrett in the revised edition (SPCK). Although Barrett stands needlessly free from John’s historical claims, especially in the passion narrarative, this work nevertheless is not only elegantly and lucidly written, it is usually profound in his grasp of John’s theological message, and rightly skeptical about man modern literary and historical reconstructions.
Leon Morris (NIC) is an encyclopedic treatment from the strictly “earth historical” view of Jesus ministry. This is one of the major conservative commentaries, and its footnotes are a mine of quotable material. Sometimes the style is choppy, and some theological and historical questions are not probed very deeply.
Hermn Ridderbos (Eerdmans), originally in Dutch has now been translated to English. This is a major contribution, primarily because it is theologically much rich than most commentaries. Ridderbos interacts with major theological themes from across the history of the church. Although he is obviously conversant with critical issues, and on some points expresses his opinions (often in notes or excursuses), his focus is on the theological reflection called forth by John’s Gospel.
Acts
Ben Witherington III (Eerdmans) is very good indeed: his “socio-rhetorical” approach, which tends to mean no more than that the author is sensitive both to the world of the first century and to the structure of the text, particularly sited to this sort of book.
Another very useful book is the TNTC contribution by I. Howard Marshall, who has apparently given more space than the constraints of that series normally allow.
Romans
Probably the best Romans commentary at the present is the work of D.J. Moo in NIC. Its introduction is thin, but Moo exhibits extraordinary good sense in exegesis. No less important, is his is the first commentary to cull what is useful from the “new perspective” on Paul while nevertheless criticizing many of the perspective’s exegetical and theological stances. The combination of the strong exegesis and the rigorous interaction makes the work superior to another recent commentary of similar length (which I also recommend), that of T. Schreiner (BECNT). (Please do not confuse Moo’s NIV with his NIC, only the most poorly trained pastor would prefer Moo’s NIV Application commentary to his NIC volume).
For advanced students I would recommend C. E. B. Cransfield (ICC), even though it is slightly dated but still very important. Occasionally Cranfield seems more influenced by Barth than by Paul, but for thoughtful exegesis of the Greek text, with a careful weighing of the alternative positions, there is nothing quite like it.
One of the best for the theological flow of thought is the work of Anders Nygren (Fortress). Everyone who can do so should grasp his general introductory remarks on pages 16-26. Unfortunately, however, the book is inadequate as a verse-by-verse commentary.
Some denominations may push Robert H. Mounce (NAC) which is a sensible and workmanlike, but not exciting.
Someone asked me about John MacArthur’s two volume commentaries of Romans. It’s sometimes closer to exposition than to commentary.
1 Corinthians
The best commentary on 1 Corinthians is that of Anthony C. Thisleton (NIGTC) Very impressive, a ponderous work of massive learning and impenetrable prose. He’s out done himself with this one. Well, written, accessible (for readers of this sort of series!), penetrating. It promises not only exegesis but to trace main issues of interpretation from the church fathers to the present. The work will be too difficult for poorly trained pastors, but for those with the requisite skills this commentary is a valuable resource.
The best general commentary on this epistle is doubtless that of Gordon D. Fee (NIC). Despite one or two extraordinary lapses (e.g., his treatment of 1 Cor. 14:33b-35 as an interpolation), the commentary is lucid, informed, and written with great verve. Occasionally the passion that marks his commentary is grating – especially when Fee is passionate about a position which one disagrees!
Scarcely less important is C. K. Barrett (BNTC), there is a wealth of useful material, and those with no Greek can follow the argument. This commentary is less descriptive and more theological.
2 Corinthians
Probably the best single-volume commentary on this epistle is still that of C. K. Barrett (BNTC). It is quite outstanding. One may disagree with Barrett’s breakdown of opponents in Chapters 10-13, and with other minor points, but this commentary is one of the “standard” works.
The commentary by David E. Garland (NAC) is one of the best in the series. It is less technical than Barrett’s work, but just as probing in the theological arena.
Paul Barnett (NIC) has produced a major commentary that is a joy to read. It is extraordinarily rich on the historical and social circumstances that surround this complicated book. Moreover, it is rich in its biblical-theological reflection (i.e. the author takes pains to tie the theology of this epistle to the theology of the Pauline corpus, and sometimes to the entire Bible). But it is some what less telling in its interaction with current literature, and it is not always rigorous in its treatment of exegetical fine points. (The volume on 1 Corinthians in the same series, for instance, is almost three times the length.) Still for his biblical theology this is an excellent book.
Galatians
The problem with this book seems to be understandings Paul’s relationship between law and grace. F. F. Bruce (NIGTC) evenhandedly weighs virtually all of the relevant literature and presents the flow of argument with a deft touch and readable prose. Occasionally the reader will want more theological punch – for example, on the law/grace, old covenant/new covenant fronts, and in more detailed dialogue with E. P. Sanders and his followers. Criticisms aside, this commentary is very important, if the student or preacher can work with the Greek text. Not surprisingly, homiletical hints are few and far between.
Based on the Greek text, but accessible to the reader without much skill in Greek is Richard N. Longnecker (WBC). It is especially strong on the Jewish roots of the debate, but perhaps weaker on Spirit passages.
Ephesians
The best English-language commentary is that of Peter T. O’Brien (Pillar). He has thoughtfully absorbed and filtered the best material from earlier commentaries, but he has made his own contributions by sticking close to the text, tracing the theological arguments with care and precision. He is able to deploy the various tools in the arsenal of New Testament exegetes without giving too much weigh to any of them; he is able to reflect on historical and social circumstances without swallowing the theology implicit in much social science.
Andrew T. Lincoln (WBC) is excellent on many points. But on grounds that strike me as entirely unconvincing (and which O’Brien takes on), Lincoln argues that Paul himself did not write Ephesians, and occasionally this stance effects his exegesis (e.g., on 4:7ff.). On the whole, however, it does not, and the commentary on most passages is superb, both in dealing faithfully with the text and in theological reflection. Lincoln’s grasp of the eschatology of the epistle is profound.
Philippians
The best commentary on the Greek text is the magisterial work by Peter T. O’Brien (NIGTC). O’Brien has read and thought through everything of importance with the result that he gives reasons for his exegetical decisions. At the same time, this commentary is theologically rich, even if its prose is sometimes pedestrian. The treatment of the so-called Christ-hymn (2:5-11) is superb.
Virutally as good (though with slightly different strengths), and more accessible, is the NIC volume by Gordon D. Fee. The zest of Fee’s prose makes him exciting to read, and his scholarship is always rigorous. Occasionally the dogmatism of his style and passion for the truth, which makes him so enjoyable to read, makes his work slightly irritating, because he is casually dismissive of points of views not easily written off.
Moises Silva (BECNT) is excellent for its relative brevity, and is especially strong in tracing the flow of the argument, but it is rather brief, interacts with little of the literature, and is in any case outstripped by O’Brien.
The recent BNTC commentary by Markus Bockmuehl is very good. Bockmuehl has read everything relevant, and is as comfortable in the Greco-Roman background as in the Jewish background. He is able to wrestle with historical issues as well as with theological matters.
|
Colossians/Philemon
The best is still that of Peter T. O’Brien (WBC). Based on an exact exegesis of the Greek text, the commentary is nevertheless presented with sufficient clarity to satisfy most readers who do not know the language. It is a mine of useful bibliography and helpful interaction with secondary literature, and wends its way through voluminous material without losing its theological moorings.
A little more up-to-date is the NIGTC volume by James D. G. Dunn – very useful, but not as theologically nuanced as O’Brien
Thessalonians
The best all-around commentary on the Greek text, is now that of Charles A. Wanamaker (NIGTC). Wanamaker is thorough and usually sensitive to both literary and theological flow. For students and pastors who can handle Greek, this commentary falls into the “must” column. His handling of the epistle’s rhetorical elements is sometimes overdone.
A little more accessible is the WBC volume by F. F. Bruce. Characterized by Bruce’s thoroughness and care for detail, the work is especially valuable in it introductory remarks, in its careful delineation of the background, and in its useful excursus on “The Antichrist.”
Pastorals
The NIGTC commentary by George W. Knight lies in the "must" column. It is cautious, conservative, and thoughtful.
More than 850 pages in length, the new ICC commentary by I. Howard Marshall is packed with thoughtful, well-written reflection on every issue of importance, but many readers will think that some of the interpretations are skewed by Marshall’s view that these epistles are not Pauline.
J. D. Quinn and William C. Wacker, on 1 and 2 Timothy, continue the tradition of meticulous mainstream scholarship in their very recent ECC volume, with full consideration of the historical, literary, and social contexts (which are, inevitably, tied to judgments about authorship and date).
Hebrews
A magnificent commentary is that of Paul Ellingsworth (NIGTC) it is strong in analyzing the subtleties of the Greek text. (If you buy this commentary, you do not need his handbook in the UBS series, unless you are a Bible translator.)
The commentary by William Lane (WBC), is a little more accessible to students and pastors whose Greek is weak than the (1) volume. Moreover, Lane often provides a better mix of technical comment and thoughtful theology.
The commentary by Philip E. Hughes (Eerdmans) focuses less attention on lexical matters and on contemporary secondary literature, but it is better than most modern commentaries at surveying the entire history of interpretation, not just the last decades or centuries. Hughes’s book wrestles also with theological questions, but it’s main impressiveness is its historical perspective.
James
There are three large-scale English commentaries which are recommended.
The first is by Peter H. Davids (NIGTC)or (NIBC), Davids (NIGTC) treats the Greek text in Greek font; the latter (NIBC) can be read more easily by a wider audience. It is a slimmer and less technical commentary than the one he prepared for NIGTC. Davids places James in a setting of Jewish messianists in the 50s and 60s. Those who can work with Greek should buy his NIGTC; those who cannot should buy his NIBC. There is no need to buy both.
The second, by Luke Timothy Johnson (AB) is superb on introductory matters, including an excellent forty-page survey of the history of the interpretation and thought-provoking assessment of the relationships James properly has with the rest of New Testment thought, including Paul. (Johnson thinks that neither Paul nor James was using or confronting the other, and that both have much more in common than is usually recognized, once we free James to be “read in terms of 108 verses rather than 12 verses.”) Johnson is always incisive, though I am less persuaded by some of his exegetical decisions than by those in Moo’s commentary.
The third, by Douglas J. Moo (Pillar) work (not to be confused with his TNTC contribution), though not as long as the other two, is a lovely blend of good judgment, good writing, good theology, and sometimes good application.
1 Peter
The fullest commentary in English at the exegetical level is that of Paul J. Achtemeier (Hermeneia). It is a masterpiece of careful scholarship. The parallels are full but not intrusive. Achtemeier has a knack for getting to the heart of an issue quickly, while his footnotes allow more-advanced readers to pursue fine points. The writing is clear, and much of the exegesis admirable. Nevertheless, he tentatively holds that the epistle is pseudonymous, opting for a date in the 80s or 90s. His exegesis at a few critical points (e.g., 2:13) strikes me as being far more controlled by contemporary agendas than accurate handling of the text would warrant. (With some discretion.)
J. Ramsey Michaels (WBC) is scarcely less important, Michaels tentatively dates this epistle to the last quarter of the first century; occasionally this dating affects his exegesis, but not often.
Peter H. Davids (NIC) is competent and clear.
I.H. Marshall (IVPNTC) to bad there are limitations in this series, because this one is superb.
2 Peter and Jude
By far the best work on 2 Peter and Jude is the exhaustive commentary by Richard J. Bauckham (WBC). There is no relevant literature up to this time that Bauckham has not considered, and he puts to good use his knowledge of Second Temple Judaism, as well as some of the more recent Gnostic finds. Why he concluded that 2 Peter is pseudonymous is still not clear to me: his evidence does not strike me as very convincing. But this point should not put anyone off using what will be the standard in the field for decades to come.
Johannine Epistles
For advanced students R. Schnackenburg (Crossroad), a moderately conservative Catholic scholar of the first rank. The reasoning is constantly exegetical, historical and theological.
One of the most useful conservative commentaries, so far as the preacher is concerned, is still that of J. R. W. Stott (TNTC). It is packed with both exegetical comments and thoughtful application, and was the best in the old TNTC series. It is good to see it revised and holding its own in the new TNTC.
Another book of value to preachers is I.H. Marshall (NIC). The book is simply written and ably brings together a good deal of previous scholarship without getting bogged down in minutiae. A very good commentary.
Revelation
Historically the number of books on Revelation appears endless. For example the Puritans, produced far more commentaries on this book than on any other book, most of them eminently forgettable and mercifully forgotten, and that tradition (of commentaries on Revelation [both good and bad]) has continued to this day.
For those with adequate training, the commentary that best combines comprehensiveness with biblical fidelity is that of G. K. Beale (NIGTC). The prose is sometimes dense, and, inevitably, the readers will want to disagree with him from time to time – but there are a few significant things that B has not thought deeply about. He is especially good in untangling how the Apocalypse incorporates Old Testament passages and themes.
Even more massive than Beale’s work is the three-volume set of David E. Aune (WBC). The handling of the Greek text, at the level of grammar, is often superb. The prose is accessible, the arguments often elegant. Aune frequently insists that more attention must be paid to the Greco-Roman parallels than those who fasten on Jewish parallels and sources do, and sometimes he makes a convincing case. He is very good at locating this book within the political and cultural matrix of its day. He is not as good as Beale at coming to terms with the book’s message with categories and priorities that the author himself would have recognized. Rather astonishing, he opts for a complex source-critical approach to the Apocalypse. Surrounding questions are given such weight that the space devoted to thought-provoking exegesis of the document itself, in its own terms, is much less than the bulk of the commentary might lead one to expect. For a background in the Greco-Roman world, no commentary compares to this one.
Perhaps the best signal volume at a highly accessible level is that of Robert H. Mounce (NIC) – a learned but well-written work that not only, in most instances, explains the text satisfactorily, but also introduces the student to the best of secondary literature.
|
|
|
|
|
|