New Testament Commentary List

[Jaltus]

This is a list of the New Testament commentaries recommended by TWeb, volume by volume. They are listed according to the book of the Bible about which they are written. There are a few that are currently Out Of Print. The links take you directly to CBD in order to buy them or to just look at them. Every time you buy from one of these links, TWeb also receives a portion of the money, even though it costs you nothing extra.

The commentaries are in canonical order first, with alphabetical order according to the author's last name.

When multivolumes are sold separately only, the links are in the date.

I am adding comments to the various commentaries. I will also star the one commentary per book I have found to be the best overall, though I may not do this for every single canonical book.

Matthew
Carson, Don A., Matthew, EBC 8, 1984.
Carson's work is quite solid, but it is a bit dated. He has changed some of his positions since then. However, it is a good introductory commentary to Matthew.

Davies, W.D. & Allison, D.C., Matthew, ICC, 3 vols, 1988/1991/1997.
This is going to be the standard commentary for years to come. The cost is prohibitive, but the research and comments are excellent. This is, however, a very high end series and will be only for those willing to work through the text carefully.

* France, R.T., Matthew, TNTC, 1985.
France is a masterful commentator on the synoptic gospels. He knows them very well and understands the theology of each such that he can clearly communicate it. This is a must-have.

Hagner, Donald A., Matthew, WBC 33 A-B, 2 vols, 1993/1995.

Mark
Evans, Craig, Mark 8:27-16:20, WBC 34B, 2000.

France, R.T., The Gospel of Mark NIGTC, 2002.
Another stellar work by France. This is a very intensive look at the Greek text of Mark. However, the commentary is useful for all serious students of the gospel of Mark. For those looking to begin their study of Mark, look elsewhere.

Guelich, Robert A., Mark 1:1-8:26, WBC 34A, 1989.
Gundry, Robert H., Mark,

ECC, 1993.
Gundry does some fine work in here, especially looking at the use of the OT in Mark. However, his theology is a bit slipshod and his presuppositions tend to come through.

Lane, William L., The Gospel of Mark, NICNT, 1978.
A wonderful peice of scholarship which is readily usable by any level of Bible-reader.

Luke
* Bock, Darrell L., Luke, BEC, 2 vols, 1995/1996.
Bock's work is phenominal. He understands the theology of each section and of the whole, integrating them seamlessly so that the reader truly understands what is going on in Luke.

Evans, Craig A., Luke, NIBC, 1990.
A good intro to the book of Luke. For those who are just getting into the study of Luke, this is a good little commentary to have handy. Evans really knows his stuff.

Marshall, I Howard, The Gospel of Luke, NIGTC, 1978.
Marshall just happens to be one of the leading exegetes of the past century. His work on Luke is wonderfully crafted. Again, this series is only for those who know their Greek and are willing to work.

Nolland, John, Luke, WBC, 35 A-C, 1989/1993/1993.
Nolland knows his stuff and deals with the text quite well. However, he does not spend enough time pulling the theology from the text, nor is he always spot on with his analysis. A good textual commentary, but not necessarily theological.

John
Brown, Raymond, The Gospel According to John, AB, 29, 2 vols, 1966/1970.
Brown is a leading Catholic scholar. His textual work is perhaps the best of any on this list. However, his grasp of John's theology and his introduction to John in general leave a bit to be desired, especially by the more conservative.

Carson, Don A., The Gospel According to John, PNTC, 1991.
This is the best commentary on John for tracing the use of the OT throughout the book, and John is perhaps one of the 2-3 most OT laden books in the NT. Highly recommended!

* Schnackenburg, Rudolf, The Gospel According to St. John, Crossroad, 3 vols, 1982 (English Translation).
This just happens to be the best commentary on John in any language (it was originally written in German). Schnackenburg is one of the foremost exegetes in the world, and this is his best work by far. This commentary set is impossible to find and very expensive, but this is perhaps the best commentary on any biblical book ever written.

Acts
Barrett, C.K., The Acts of the Apostles, ICC, 2 vols, 1994/1998.
Barrett is a master of NT issues, and he shows it very well in his critical commentary. While spending a lot of time on Text Critical issue (as per the norm in this series), Barrett is not afraid to move into theology as well. His insight into the grammar is solid, though not spectacular.

Bruce, F.F., The Book of Acts, NICNT, 1988 (2nd edition).
The conservative standard, Bruce's commentary is well written and is based on his Greek text commentary that was a stand alone. His delving into the background and historical issues is wonderful, but his grasp of exegetical nuance leaves a bit to be desired.

Fitzmyer, Joseph, The Acts of the Apostles, AB, 1998.
Fitzmyer's commentary is very solid, and unlike some others in the AB series the theology tends to be directly from the text. He deals with the grammar quite well, though not as nuanced and careful as Barrett.

Marshall, I. Howard, The Acts of the Apostles, TNTC, 1980.
Marshall's is the great intro to Acts, along with Bruce. This wonderfully handy volume is a simplified theological treatise which enables the beginner to get a handle on the text while pushing the more advanced to dig deeper into what Luke is saying. Truly a wonderful work.

Witherington, Ben, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 1997.
The most influential and perhaps most important of the commentaries written by Witherington in the socio-rhetorical model, this book was created in order to give a lot of background as to what is going on in the book of Acts. While it could deal with the text more closely and pay more attention to the flow of the narrative, Witherington does a solid job of looking at the bigger picture and tying together the various larger units into a cohesive whole.

Romans
Cranfield, C.E.B., The Epistle to the Romans, ICC, 2 vols, 1980/1979.
Cranfield's commentary is the one which all others for the next 50 years will be measured by. It is very technical and quite dense, but it is a phenomenal tool for understanding the book of Romans.

Dunn, James D.G., Romans, WBC, 2 vols, 1988/1988.
Dunn gives the New Perspective on Paul a leg up with this wonderful commentary. His exegesis is generally sound, with a few exceptions. Other than his tendancy to see Adam-Christology everywhere and to rely too much on the New Perspective in certain places, he brings through the meaning of the text quite well.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A., Romans, AB, 33, 1993.
Fitzmyer is, other than Cranfield, the most responsible with the text itself. However, he tends to breeze by certain passages that contain a lot of theology, not putting forth much effort to deal with what is being said in the text. His textwork is solid, but his theology leaves one wanting more explanation.

Moo, Douglas, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT, 1996.
A solid commentary, one of the best to have come out in English. I would rank this one third behind Cranfield and my top choice for Romans, Schreiner. He comprehensively covers all of the major textual decisions one must make and he delves strongly into the theology (with a few notable lapses). A very strong commentary over all.

Murray, John, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT, 2 vols, 1959/1965 (reissued after Moo's volume replaced it in NICNT, 1 vol, 1997).
Murray's commentary is much more practical than perhaps any of the other's on this list. His heart as a pastor comes through very clearly by the way he applies what is in the text to every day life. While not as scholarly as some on this list, it is a commentary no pastor should be without.

Osborne, Grant, Romans, IVPNTCS, 2003. Just released!
Osborne's commentary tends to be very pastoral. He deals with the text relatively well, but most of his time is spent on bridging the gap between theoretical understandings of the text and pastoral concerns. My review will lengthen as I spend more time in this commentary.

* Schriener, Thomas, Romans, BEC, 1998.
This is the best of the best. Shreiner has done a lot of solid work on the book of Romans, and it shows. He thoroughly covers every passage including the possible OT backgrounds in places other scholars tend to overlook (with the possible exception of Dunn). This commentary is scholarly yet practical, dealing with how one should apply the text.

I Corinthians
Fee, Gordon, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT, 1987.
Hays, Richard B., First Corinthians, Int, 1997.
Thiselton, Anthony, First Corinthians, NIGTC, 2000.
Witherington, Ben,Conflict and Community in Corinth, Eerdman's, 1995. *this covers both I and II Corinthians*

II Corinthians
Barnet, Paul, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT, 1997.
Barrett, C.K., II Corinthians, BNTC, 1993.
Furnish, Victor P., II Corinthians, AB, 1984.
Hafemann, Scott, 2 Corinthians, NIVApp, 2000.
Martin, R. P., 2 Corinthians, WBC, 1986.
Thrall, Margaret, II Corinthians, ICC, 1994.

Galatians
Bruce, F.F., The Epistle to the Galatians, NIGTC, 1982.
George, Timothy, Galatians, NAC, 1994.
Longenecker, R.N., Galatians, WBC, 31, 1990.

Ephesians
Barth, Markus, Ephesians 1-3, AB, 1974.
O'Brien, Peter T., The Letter to the Ephesians, PNTC, 1999.
Schnackenburg, Rudolf, Ephesians, Continuum, 1991. (English Translation)
see also: Colossians

[Jaltus]

Philippians
Bruce, F.F., Philippians, NIBC, 1989.
Fee, Gordon, Paul's Letter to the Philippians, NICNT, 1995.
Hawthorne, Gerald F., Philippians, WBC, 1983.
O'Brien, Peter T., Philippians, NIGTC, 1991.

Colossians and Philemon
Bruce, F.F., Commentary on the Epistle to the Colossians, Ephesians, and Philemon, NICNT, 1977.
Dunn, James D.G., The Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon, NIGTC, 1996.
O'Brien, Peter T., Colossians, Philemon, WBC, 44, 1982.

I and II Thessalonians
Bruce, F.F., 1 and 2 Thessalonians, WBC, 45, 1982.
A solid commentary, and for once Bruce has some good exegetical insights as well. Nothing spectacular, but it is a solid all around work. The best part of this commentary is probably the introduction.

Marshall, I. Howard, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, NCBC, 1983.
A very strong commentary, but I am having problems finding it availible to buy other than used. It is a bit less technical than many on tis list, and it tends to move quickly through many of the passages when a more detailed look at the text would help. However, it is a solid commentary in terms of exposition of the books as a whole.

Wanamaker, C.A., The Epistles to the Thessalonians, NIGTC, 1990.
A wonderful commentary which covers both the particulars of specific passages and the arguments of larger units (though not always).

I and II Timothy and Titus
Fee, Gordon, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, NIBC, 1995.
A good compact commentary, I highly recommend this one to anyone who is preaching or teaching through the Pastoral Epistles. Fee has a lot of good insight and rarely strays from the text.

* Knight, W. G., The Pastoral Epistles, NIGTC, 1992.
A phenominal commentary on the Pastorals, Knight combines solid exegesis with a pastoral touch. While not afraid to tackle the difficult issues, this commentary still deals with practical matters and lends itself well to exposition, which is not something that can be said about the series as a whole.

Marshall, I. Howard, The Pastoral Epistles, ICC, 1999.
A solid commentary dealing with the Greek intensively, Marshall's commentary is very detailed and well thought out. There are very few poor arguments and each position is carefully articulated and defended. this is not a commentary for the typical lay person but is intended for the more scholarly. Unfortunately, Marshall does not deal with text critical questions to the extent that one would expect from this series.

Mounce, William, Pastoral Epistles, WB, 1999.
I am in the midst of looking at this one, but fr4om what I have read, it is very solid. I will comment more when I have read more.

Hebrews
Bruce, F.F., The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT, 1990.
This is a standard for anyone who is working in Hebrews. One does not need to be a scholar in order to read and use this commentary. Bruce spends a lot of time dealing with the background information which is really integral to understanding this biblical book. However, Bruce takes a few positions that are at best of secondary status in the scholarly world and at worse are aberations.

deSilva, David A., Perserverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle "to the Hebrews", Eerdman's, 2000.
This is a commentary which will supplement the others since it is based on larger units instead of detailed exegesis. It is very helpful for understanding the rhetorical flow and cultural backdrop of the book, but some of the positions which deSilva takes seem to be arbitrary since he rarely argues at any length for them. However, it is a must have for someone preaching or teaching through Hebrews, just read this commentary with a grain of salt.

Ellingworth, Paul, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NIGTC, 1993.
A very strong entrant into the realm of commentaries on Hebrews. This is perhaps the most detailed in argumentation and often covers issues that Lane overlooks. However, this commentary also tends to overlook connections within the book of Hebrews, something which detracts from recognizing the structure of the book.

* Hagner, Donald A., Hebrews, NIBC, 1993.
This is a well thought out commentary with a lot of helpful things to say. Highly recommended for its price, ease of use and understandings, and comprehensiveness. This book (and series) is not written for the scholar but for the educated lay person and the pastor.

Koester, C. R., Hebrews, AB, 2001.
Well written and interesting, this commentary is worthwhile for those who already own Lane and Ellingworth. I would not put Koester in the front ranks of exegetes as he tends to make decisions without saying why and often skips important issues. However, he does deal with a lot of the grammar and works on the flow of the book much better than most of the other entries in the AB series.

Lane, William L., Hebrews, WBC, 2 vols, 1991/1991.
This would be the highest recommended of the Hebrews commentaries if not for the price and being two volumes. Lane's work is phenominal and very careful. His exegesis is both detailed and well articulated so that even when one disagrees with him, one still must respect his position. His covering of secondary literature is amazing and his grasp of the finer points of this book is astounding.

James
Davids, Peter H. The Epistle of James, NIGTC, 1982.
Martin, Ralph, James, WBC, 1988.
Moo, Douglas, The Letter of James, TNTC, 1985.
Moo, Douglas, The Letter of James, PNTC, 2000.

I Peter
Achtemeier, P.J., I Peter, H, 1996.
Very strong on grammatical analysis and secondary literature, Achtemeier tends to blend his exegesis quite well into the various sections. His theology, however, is often poor and some of his conclusions tend to run counter to the detailed exegesis he gives. Still, this is a solid work.

Davids, Peter H., The First Epistle of Peter, NICNT, 1990.
A very strong commentary, well written and argued, Davids knows how to handle I Peter with care. His attention to detail and regard for Peter's arguments are very helpful in working through this book.

* Grudem, Wayne, The First Epistle of Peter, TNTC, 1988.
Another one of those great commentaries for very little money. Grudem takes his time dealing with each passage, never rushing through one section to get to another. His excurses throughout the book are very focused and scholarly, though written without any jargon so the lay person can easily follow his line of reasoning. Grudem even offers a fair portrayal of the arguments he disagrees with. While I do not agree with certain things Grudem says, this is the best commentary for the money on I Peter.

Michaels, J. Ramsey, 1 Peter, WBC, 1988.
A commentary which is very strong on grammar and very strange on theology, this volume feels more like an AB edition than a WBC. Michaels covers all of the positions, then inadequately tries to explain why he chooses the option he did when often the arguments he discards are better than the ones he agrees with. However, it is a very good commentary just because of how comprehensive and fair the entire work is.

II Peter and Jude
* Bauckham, Richard, Jude, II Peter, WBC, 1983.
Easily the best commentary written on II Peter and Jude to date, this one is not even close. Bauckham handles the details of the text very carefully and sensitively, making sure he leaves nothing out. He deals with the various disputes with grace and poise, making his choice clear without building any strawmen. His clear exposition of the text is a breath of fresh air compared to many technical commentaries.

Green, Michael, 2 Peter and Jude, TNTC, 1987.
A very good commentary for the beginner, Green covers the major issues well and thoroughly. How ever, this volume often passes too quickly over certain key passages and can leave on feeling a bit out of breath and under nourished in terms of exposition.

Neyrey, J.H., 2 Peter, Jude, AB, 1993.
This is the perfect compliment to Bauckham's edition, since Neyrey deals nearly exclusively with the background issues and almost abandons exposition of the text. While he does deal with grammatical questions, he generally uses those to highlight non-textual issues pointing toward cultural implications of the day rather than practical implications for this day.

I, II, and III John
Brown, Raymond, The Epistles of John, AB, 1982.
Easily the best commentary dealing with the grammar of the Johannine Epistles, Brown's introduction leaves much to be desired. His own arguments seem tp push a postion which he himself does not take, making one wonder why he argued it so carefully and well when it disagrees with his own conclusions, conclusions he never builds a strong case for. Brown is frustrating in many ways for he will go from brilliant insight to obvious gaff within a page or so.

Marshall, I. Howard, The Epistles of John, NICNT, 1978.
While very good on theology, Marshall also makes a lot of bizarre decisions in his introduction and structuring of the epistles. Well written and very good for the discerning pastor, this commentary still elaves quite a bit to be desired.

Schnackenburg, Rudolf, The Johannine Epistles, Crossroad, 1992 (English Translation).
Another hard to find volume by Schnackenburg, this commentary tends to have the least amount of meat of any put out by the exegete. He deals with every passage clearly, but often he is much too concise and one is unable to follow why a specific choice was made.

* Stott, John, The Letters of John, TNTC, 1988.
A very strong commentary, and that means something since I am generally not much of a Stott fan. This commentary is easily accessable for the lay person and very much a necessity for any pastor working in the Johannine Epistles. Stott deals well with the grammar and most of the theology (though he does make some major missteps in various places). Overall this is easily the best on the Johannine Epistles.

Revelation
Aune, David E., Revelation, WBC 52A-C, 1997/1998/1998.
A good commentary that deals with a lot of grammatical issues, do not expect much from Aune with respect to exposition or even theology. This is a very good commentary for the knowledgable pastor due to the wonderful array of secondary literature and the handling of background information, but it does little toward forming a theological view point of the text.

Beale, Gregory, The Book of Revelation, NIGTC, 1999.
While well written and very scholarly, Beale's commentary has two major flaws. 1. Beale is very obviously amill which, while not necessarily a bad thing, makes him begin building his argument in the early chapters of Revelation even though there is no need for it. This leads to 2. Beale tends to move quickly past things which do not advance his amill leanings. This means portions of Revelation are overlooked or distorted even when they are not particularly helpful to any millenarian view, as long as they do not help Beale push his agenda they get short shrift.

Mounce, Robert H., The Book of Revelation, NICNT, 1998.
A strong commentary in terms of exposition of the text, nevertheless I hold the lack of theological insight against Mounce. He is also more worried about proving his eschatological position (premill) than he is about dealing with the text as a whole. However, this, like all of the other commentaries listed here, is still a very strong and well written commentary.

* Osborne, Grant, Revelation, BEC, 2002.
Easily the best of the bunch, Osborne is strong in grammar, backgrounds, exposition, and even application of the text. He deftly weaves all of the various viewpoints throughout his commentary and picks different ones as being most likely correct based upon the various strengths or weaknesses he sees for each section of scripture rather than for the book as a whole. While landing as a premill for chapter 20, Osborne does not adhere rigidly nor blindly to any one position. He also does not allow his eschatological stance to blind him from faithfully explaining the meaning of the text. Osborne is also an expert at making the apparently useless background information come to life as meaningful in understanding some of the idioms, though he can overdo it in certain passages. The one weakness of this commentary is a lack of understading of the OT background, something which can be made up for by owning Beale.

[Solly]

What a great idea!!
*fumbles for credit card*

[Theo Books]

Hmmm... I would recommend Cranfield, C.E.B. for Mark, and definitely Isaiah's New Exodus in Mark by Ricki Watts, first and foremost. Also, J.A. Alexander isn't remember much, but I enjoy his insights on the gospel.

I agree Brown's is the best commentary on John, but I would sell Beasley-Murray (Word Commentary), Ridderbos, or Pink short. Often one overlooked is that of Godet.

Cranfield and Murray are the best on Romans. I always judge Romans commentaries by their exegetical work with Romans 10:14. I think Moo's may be overrated, though it does supply a wonderful bibliography. Anyone ever get the feeling Morris is a bit "wishy-washy" in coming to a decision? I also appreciate W.G.T. Shedd's commentary on Romans, as well as Lloyd-Jones (thought it ain't exegetical at all, but more "pastoral") and Hodge.

My favorite commentary on Acts is a tough one... much like commentaries on the gospel of Luke, I haven't found one that "stands out," or one with which I like to work too much. I settle for Bruce and Alexander (J.A.), but would really like one by... what's his name... Gloab??? Klock & Klock has a reprint of it.

My favorite commentary on Ephesians is Charles Hodge, especially his work with Ephesians 4:10ff. I agree with his exegetical stance, or have been convinced by it. Also, Goodwin and Baine provide a good look at Ephesians.

A great book on Colossians is by Clinton Arnold, the Colossian Syncretism. I found it very helpful at times. However, I haven't been happy with many others on a consistent basis.

Now, on the pastoral epistles, you can't beat Mounce (Word) or Fairbairn (Banner), but there's a little gem on Titus by Thomas Taylor.

I must say I am dissappointed by the Hebrew selection of commentaries. I agree Lane's commentary (Word) is well worth mentioning, but you can never leave out (1) John Owen (Banner--7 volume), (2) William Gouge, or (3) Philip Hughes (NICNT). A very interesting commentary, and one worth having, is that by Delitzch, of Keil and Delitzch. The Hebrew scholar commented on the epistle to the Hebrews. It's quite intriguing to hear an OT scholar's view on it.

Regarding the book of James, I haven't found a better commentary that Luke Timothy Johnson's (Anchor), and I'm a staunch Protestant! His work, even on James 2, is amazing and beautiful. Great exegesis.

Yeah, Heremeneia is the best on Peter. Peter lacks so much in regard to commentaries. I can't stand hardly any, but I do enjoy Luther's view of Petrine theology.

G.K. Beale is the be all, end all to all Revelation commentaries. I appreciate More than Conquerors and Triumph of the Lamb, and Kistemaker's isn't bad, either.

[Theo Books]

Hmmm... I would recommend Cranfield, C.E.B. for Mark, and definitely Isaiah's New Exodus in Mark by Ricki Watts, first and foremost. Also, J.A. Alexander isn't remember much, but I enjoy his insights on the gospel.

I agree Brown's is the best commentary on John, but I wouldn't sell Beasley-Murray (Word Commentary), Ridderbos, or Pink short. Often one overlooked is that of Godet.

Cranfield and Murray are the best on Romans. I always judge Romans commentaries by their exegetical work with Romans 10:14. I think Moo's may be overrated, though it does supply a wonderful bibliography. Anyone ever get the feeling Moo is a bit "wishy-washy" in coming to a decision? I also appreciate W.G.T. Shedd's commentary on Romans, as well as Lloyd-Jones (thought it ain't exegetical at all, but more "pastoral") and Hodge.

My favorite commentary on Acts is a tough one... much like commentaries on the gospel of Luke, I haven't found one that "stands out," or one with which I like to work too much. I settle for Bruce and Alexander (J.A.), but would really like one by... what's his name... Gloab??? Klock & Klock has a reprint of it.

My favorite commentary on Ephesians is Charles Hodge, especially his work with Ephesians 4:10ff. I agree with his exegetical stance, or have been convinced by it. Also, Goodwin and Baine provide a good look at Ephesians.

A great book on Colossians is by Clinton Arnold, the Colossian Syncretism. I found it very helpful at times. However, I haven't been happy with many others on a consistent basis.

Now, on the pastoral epistles, you can't beat Mounce (Word) or Fairbairn (Banner), but there's a little gem on Titus by Thomas Taylor.

I must say I am dissappointed by the Hebrew selection of commentaries. I agree Lane's commentary (Word) is well worth mentioning, but you can never leave out (1) John Owen (Banner--7 volume), (2) William Gouge, or (3) Philip Hughes (NICNT). A very interesting commentary, and one worth having, is that by Delitzch, of Keil and Delitzch. The Hebrew scholar commented on the epistle to the Hebrews. It's quite intriguing to hear an OT scholar's view on it.

Regarding the book of James, I haven't found a better commentary that Luke Timothy Johnson's (Anchor), and I'm a staunch Protestant! His work, even on James 2, is amazing and beautiful. Great exegesis.

Yeah, Heremeneia is the best on Peter. Peter lacks so much in regard to commentaries. I can't stand hardly any, but I do enjoy Luther's view of Petrine theology.

G.K. Beale is the be all, end all to all Revelation commentaries. I appreciate More than Conquerors and Triumph of the Lamb, and Kistemaker's isn't bad, either.

Then, of course, there are series and sets, which I think should be ranked and judged accordingly.

Calvin, of course, is the best foundational commentary set (for a good price) that I can recommend without worries. It's a great set for the whole bible (minus two books). Next, I would reccomend Keil and Delitzch for the OT and Hendriksen and Kistemaker for the New Testament. Both of those are responsible. For those who have the luxury, buy the (1) Anchor (be careful with it) Series, (2) International Critical Commentary Series (be careful with it and get ready to pay a LOT), (3) Word Commentary Series, (4) Lenski, (5) Hermeneia, (6) NICOT, NICNT, and NIGTC (group those Eerdmans ones together).

[Jaltus]

Today @ 09:59 PM post located here
Theo Books:

Hmmm... I would recommend Cranfield, C.E.B. for Mark, and definitely Isaiah's New Exodus in Mark by Ricki Watts, first and foremost. Also, J.A. Alexander isn't remember much, but I enjoy his insights on the gospel.

Ricki Watts is more of a dissertation than a commentary. After all, you might as well say Pao's Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus for Acts.

I agree Brown's is the best commentary on John, but I wouldn't sell Beasley-Murray (Word Commentary), Ridderbos, or Pink short. Often one overlooked is that of Godet.

In no sense of the word is Brown's the best on John. I'd rank him third at best, behind Schnackenburg and Carson, in that order. In fact, I'd argue that Schnackenburg's John is perhaps the best commentary ever written. Unfortunately, it is prohibative in cost ($110 per volume, 3 volumes). You are obviously slanted in your theological approach, and I am looking at exegetical quality, not theological predisposition. That tends to run one into an eisegete instead of an exegete.

Cranfield and Murray are the best on Romans. I always judge Romans commentaries by their exegetical work with Romans 10:14. I think Moo's may be overrated, though it does supply a wonderful bibliography. Anyone ever get the feeling Moo is a bit "wishy-washy" in coming to a decision? I also appreciate W.G.T. Shedd's commentary on Romans, as well as Lloyd-Jones (thought it ain't exegetical at all, but more "pastoral") and Hodge.

I think Moo is wonderful since he does lay out all the options. I do not want someone to tell me just what they think, but what all my options are (I do tend to disagree with Moo a bit too). Murray is too pastoral for me and not exegetically based enough. I like Schreiner's a bit, but I'll let you know more about that as I work on my current research.

My favorite commentary on Acts is a tough one... much like commentaries on the gospel of Luke, I haven't found one that "stands out," or one with which I like to work too much. I settle for Bruce and Alexander (J.A.), but would really like one by... what's his name... Gloab??? Klock & Klock has a reprint of it.

You might want to try Witherington as well. While I am in general not a big fan of Socio-Rhetorical strategies, I think it works in this book. Frankly, I would love to see a commentary on Luke-Acts, treating it as one work.

My favorite commentary on Ephesians is Charles Hodge, especially his work with Ephesians 4:10ff. I agree with his exegetical stance, or have been convinced by it. Also, Goodwin and Baine provide a good look at Ephesians.

I'll look into those.

A great book on Colossians is by Clinton Arnold, the Colossian Syncretism. I found it very helpful at times. However, I haven't been happy with many others on a consistent basis.

Try O'Brien. He is a wonderful exegete, and his accent rules. However, I am not a big fan of Arnold, since I think he tends to go too far in his arguments and posit things the text does not warrant (mind you, I am going from memory having not worked in Colossians for 5 years).

Now, on the pastoral epistles, you can't beat Mounce (Word) or Fairbairn (Banner), but there's a little gem on Titus by Thomas Taylor.

Mounce is wonderful, but the NIGTC is the best, far and away on the Pastorals.

I must say I am dissappointed by the Hebrew selection of commentaries. I agree Lane's commentary (Word) is well worth mentioning, but you can never leave out (1) John Owen (Banner--7 volume), (2) William Gouge, or (3) Philip Hughes (NICNT). A very interesting commentary, and one worth having, is that by Delitzch, of Keil and Delitzch. The Hebrew scholar commented on the epistle to the Hebrews. It's quite intriguing to hear an OT scholar's view on it.

Phillip Hughes is too dated at this point in time. I am trying to list ones that are truly obtainable. If you have not used deSilva's, you are missing out.

Regarding the book of James, I haven't found a better commentary that Luke Timothy Johnson's (Anchor), and I'm a staunch Protestant! His work, even on James 2, is amazing and beautiful. Great exegesis.

Having not worked in James very much, I'll believe you. However, I plan to try to rectify that this coming year.

Yeah, Heremeneia is the best on Peter. Peter lacks so much in regard to commentaries. I can't stand hardly any, but I do enjoy Luther's view of Petrine theology.

It is the best grammatically (surprise surprise) but the theology leaves a bit to be desired.

G.K. Beale is the be all, end all to all Revelation commentaries. I appreciate More than Conquerors and Triumph of the Lamb, and Kistemaker's isn't bad, either.

Beale's entire commentary is an apologetic for Amill. I'd rather have a commentator who is more worried about what the text says than what the text says in a later chapter. His bias shows through from the early pages. Osborne's is much more fair (if a bit more strange) in his eclectic approach. Mounce is okay as well, but I'd put Beale on par with Mounce.

[/quote]Then, of course, there are series and sets, which I think should be ranked and judged accordingly.

Calvin, of course, is the best foundational commentary set (for a good price) that I can recommend without worries. It's a great set for the whole bible (minus two books). Next, I would reccomend Keil and Delitzch for the OT and Hendriksen and Kistemaker for the New Testament. Both of those are responsible. For those who have the luxury, buy the (1) Anchor (be careful with it) Series, (2) International Critical Commentary Series (be careful with it and get ready to pay a LOT), (3) Word Commentary Series, (4) Lenski, (5) Hermeneia, (6) NICOT, NICNT, and NIGTC (group those Eerdmans ones together). [/QUOTE]

I would put NIGTC to the front of the list. It is the only series where I recommend every single one (with the exception of BECNT, but there are only 3 NT books covered so far). ICC is way too expensive to uncritically offer support to the entire series, especially with some of the losers in the series. Anchor would be better if it were written by more than just Fitzmyer and Brown (obvious exaggeration, but you get my point).

[Theo Books]

I'll definitely look into Scnackenburg. I do like Carson in the PNTC, but... I dunno... I like working with Brown better, but I still rely on Carson, too.

And, yes, my taste in commentaries is bias, because I believe the best exegesis produces a consistent, historically reformed faith. Any one bias can lead to eisegesis, but that is presupposing the commentators wrote the book with an intention of eisegeting regardless of what the text says. I see this with Hendriksen and Kistemaker in more areas than I have consistenly with others. It's also evident in commentators such as J.C. Ryle and Martyn Lloyd-Jones. It is obvious their hermeneutic is the sole driving force in understanding the text, rather than the exegetical nuances of the text defining their hermeneutic. I still respect those men, but I see those flaws you have rightfully pointed out.

No one person is completely honest with the text, and I believe those that I recommend are the most conservative and responsible, where there is a bias present imposing an understanding or a bias unfolding and being vindicated by exegesis..

Many liberals work with the text, but their conclusions will be contrary to the Christian faith. They do try and take a "face value" of the Greek, in spite of whether or not they agree with it. For that I take my hat off. (This brings up an interesting question: If one needs the Spirit of God to dicern these truths, why do we rely on those who are not true Christians, which is evidenced by the defintion of their faith?) From those one could just as well learn that good work with the languages necessarily and logically leads to liberalism. I agree that many of the ICC liberals do wonderul things with the languages, and their conclusions drawn from higher-textual criticism are quite excessive and, in one way, humorous, but I'd rather work with the Greek and/or Hebrew myself and verify the theology deduced with a commentary that does not necessarily show its work with the languages. I always assume the work with the languages, especially with the men listed above. Maybe I am too assuming and take too much for granted?

[Jaltus]

Not really. Some of the lower end commentaries (Tyndale and some of the NICNT/OT) do not require a working knowledge of the languages, but I myself highly recommend taking them. I am going to see if I can teach Greek at my church this coming summer (I am an NT student and have taught Greek before).

[charis humin]

my $.02:


Aune's commentary on Revelation is like an encyclopedia, Thistleton's 1 Corinthians commentary and I. Howard Marshall's Luke commentary in the NIGTC series are excellent, tho knowledge of Greek is a must (and even a little Hebrew and Aramaic helps), Fitzmyer's Luke commentary for Anchor is second to none as is his Romans for the same series.

I've also used Andrew Lincoln's Ephesians commentary for Word. some may be put off by his stance on pseudo-Pauline authorship of that epistle. Also don't be so quick to dismiss ICC--Davies and Allison's Matthew commentary is, on balance, thorough, fair, and insightful. At least with all these commentaries you get a wealth of bibliographical data (as with any good commentary series I suppose).

[Jaltus]

You'll notice that every one of the commentaries (exception noted below) you mentioned made the list. Like I said, ICC is a craps-shoot, since some are wonderful and some are horrific (the ICC on Acts is great for text criticism only, the historical and exegetical "insights" are laughable).

Lincoln (which is the only one not on the list yet) I will look at in the future. I am weak in Ephesians since I have not done any work there since my undergrad days (in the Greek, that is) and thus do not know the good commentaries.

[Sheepdog]

Has anyone else picked up the 4 vol. set, Zondervan's Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary? It covers the NT.

I've read much of it, and from what i have got out of it, i think it is an excellent Commentary. They tend to deal with more of the socio-historical background and Jewish tradition (i think Holding would love it). My only gripe so far is a lot of the illustrations are downright superfluous-- although I really love the diagrams of the Temple.

[charis humin]

10-22-2003 @ 04:44 PM post located here
Jaltus:

You'll notice that every one of the commentaries (exception noted below) you mentioned made the list. Like I said, ICC is a craps-shoot, since some are wonderful and some are horrific (the ICC on Acts is great for text criticism only, the historical and exegetical "insights" are laughable).

Lincoln (which is the only one not on the list yet) I will look at in the future. I am weak in Ephesians since I have not done any work there since my undergrad days (in the Greek, that is) and thus do not know the good commentaries.

whoa I'd forgot that I responded to this post!



If you do get around to Lincoln, I'd be curious to get your opinion on his treatment of 5:22ff.

[EdJones]

Dr. Peter S. Ruckman has an excellent commentary now available The Book of Romans, based upon his classroom teaching at PBI. 632 pages.

[Jaltus]

Updated some of the stuff and began including comments.

[djconklin]

On Romans I'd suggest (in addition to what you had):

Peter Stuhlmacher Paul's Leter to the Romans (Westminster, 1994)

Anders Nygren Commentary on Romans (Fortress Press, 1949)

Charles Hodge Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Eerdmans, 1994 reprint)

Donald Grey Barnhouse Romans 4 volumes (Eerdmans, 1989 reprint)

Paul Achtemeier Romans ( John Knox, 1985)

W. H. Griffith Thomas St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans (Eerdmans, 1972 reprint?)