Matthew
Carson, Don A., Matthew, Expositor’s Bible Commentary
8, 1984.
2 Thumbs up.
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, International
Critical Commentary, 3 vols, 1988/1991/1997.
2 Thumbs up.
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, Tyndale New Testament Commentary,
1985.
2 Thumbs up.
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, Word Biblical Commentary
33 A-B, 2 vols, 1993/1995.
1 Thumb up.
This is a solid volume, and Hagner shows careful scholarship
throughout. My one problem is the lack of focus on pulling together different
units into a coherent theology for the entire book.
Mark
Evans, Craig, Mark 8:27-16:20, Word Biblical Commentary
34B, 2000.
2 Thumbs up.
A good commentary on the second half of Mark, closely
following on the work of Guelich, who died while starting this volume. While
technical in nature, it has something for everyone.
France, R.T., The Gospel of Mark New International Greek Text Commentary,
2002.
3 Thumbs up.
Another stellar work by France, though his eschatological speculation can be a
bit bewildering since he seems to have no constant stance. This is a very
intensive look at the Greek text of Mark. The commentary is useful for all
serious students of the gospel of Mark, but for those looking to begin their
study of Mark, look elsewhere.
Guelich, Robert A., Mark 1:1-8:26, Word Biblical Commentary
34A, 1989.
2 Thumbs up.
While technically proficient, Guelich does not forget the
beginner as he moves through Mark’s gospel. Well-written and thoroughly
researched, this is a solid book.
Gundry, Robert H., Mark, Eerdmans Critical Commentary, 1993.
1 Thumb up.
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, New International Commentary
on the New Testament, 1978.
2 Thumbs up.
A wonderful piece of scholarship which is readily usable by any level of
Bible-reader. Lane pulls together strong exegesis with solid, though not
spectacular, theology.
Luke
Bock, Darrell L., Luke, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New
Testament, 2 vols, 1995/1996.
3 Thumbs up.
Bock's work is exceptional. 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, New International Bible Commentary, 1990.
2 Thumbs up.
A good introduction 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, New International Greek Text
Commentary, 1978.
2 Thumbs up.
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, Word Biblical Commentary, 35
A-C, 1989/1993/1993.
1 Thumb up.
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, Anchor Bible
Commentary, 29, 2 vols, 1966/1970.
2 Thumbs up.
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,
as he tends to posit community authorship when there is no evidence for such a
community.
Carson, Don A., The Gospel According to John, Pillar New
Testament Commentary, 1991.
3 Thumbs up.
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!
Acts
Barrett, C.K., The Acts of the Apostles, International Critical
Commentary, 2 vols, 1994/1998.
2 Thumbs up.
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, New International Commentary
on the New Testament, 1988 (2nd edition).
3 Thumbs up.
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, Anchor Bible
Commentary, 1998.
2 Thumbs up.
Fitzmyer's commentary is very solid, and, unlike some others in the Anchor
Bible Commentary 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, Tyndale New
Testament Commentary, 1980.
2 Thumbs up.
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, especially considering the cost.
Witherington, Ben, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary,
1997.
3 Thumbs up.
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, International
Critical Commentary, 2 vols, 1975/1979.
3 Thumbs up.
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, and therefore pricey, but
it is a phenomenal tool for understanding the book of Romans.
Dunn, James D.G., Romans, Word Biblical Commentary, 2
vols, 1988/1988.
2 Thumbs up.
Dunn gives the New Perspective on Paul a leg up with this wonderful commentary.
His exegesis is generally sound, with a few scattered
exceptions. Other than his tendency 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, Anchor Bible Commentary,
33, 1993.
2 Thumbs up.
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, New International Commentary
on the New Testament, 1996.
2 Thumbs up.
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, New International Commentary
on the New Testament, 2 vols, 1959/1965 (reissued after Moo's volume replaced
it in New International Commentary on the New Testament, 1
vol, 1997).
1 Thumb up.
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, IVP New Testament Commentary Series,
2004.
1 Thumb up.
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.
Schreiner, Thomas, Romans, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the
New Testament, 1998.
3 Thumbs up.
This is the best of the best. Schreiner 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, New
International Commentary on the New Testament, 1987.
2 Thumbs up.
A strong volume, but Fee is looking to push his more charismatic viewpoint from the outset. Still, he has wonderful discussions of the various problem passages.
Hays, Richard B., First Corinthians, Interpretation,
1997.
1 Thumb up.
A lighter-weight commentary, this is a good book for those looking to apply the various commands of Paul in the Christian life. More practical than most of the others in this list, this book is not particularly helpful for those trying to sort out the various problems of the Corinthian church.
Thiselton, Anthony, First Corinthians, New International Greek Text
Commentary, 2000.
2 thumbs up.
A very strong exegetical work, this is easily the best commentary on I Corinthians. Thiselton is both scholarly and pastoral in the way he approaches and handles the text. Though one will not agree with everything he says, he usually presents every option, thus allowing the reader to be very informed even about positions which the author does not advocate.
Witherington, Ben, Conflict and Community in Corinth, Eerdman's, 1995.
*this covers both I and II Corinthians*
2 Thumbs up.
A strong study of the social background of the Corinthian
church, this is a must-have for any Christian serious about studying the Bible.
While not the most technically proficient, this commentary covers all of the
essential issues for both I and II Corinthians.
I and II Thessalonians
Bruce, F.F., 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Word Biblical Commentary, 45, 1982.
2 Thumbs up.
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.
Wanamaker, C.A., The Epistles to the Thessalonians, New International
Greek Text Commentary, 1990.
2 Thumbs up.
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, New International Bible Commentary,
1995.
2 Thumbs up.
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, New International Greek Text
Commentary, 1992.
3 Thumbs up.
An exceptional 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, International Critical
Commentary, 1999.
2 Thumbs up.
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, which makes this a commentary
not intended for the typical lay person but 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, Word Biblical Commentary, 1999.
2 Thumbs up.
I am in the midst of looking at this one, but from 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, New International Commentary on
the New Testament, 1990.
1 Thumb up.
This is a standard for anyone who is working in Hebrews, as 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 aberrations.
deSilva, David A., Perserverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary
on the Epistle "to the Hebrews", Eerdmans, 2000.
2 Thumbs up.
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, New International Greek
Text Commentary, 1993.
2 Thumbs up.
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, New International Bible Commentary, 1993.
2 Thumbs up.
This is a well thought out commentary with a lot of helpful things to say.
Highly recommended for its price, ease of use and understanding, 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, Anchor Bible Commentary, 2001.
1 Thumb up.
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 Anchor
Bible Commentary series.
Lane, William L., Hebrews, Word Biblical Commentary, 2 vols, 1991/1991.
3 Thumbs up.
Lane's work is phenomenal 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.
I Peter
Achtemeier, P.J., I Peter, Hermeneia, 1996.
1 Thumb up.
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, New International Greek
Text Commentary, 1990.
2 Thumbs up.
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, Tyndale New Testament
Commentary, 1988.
2 Thumbs up.
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. 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, Word Biblical Commentary, 1988.
2 Thumbs up.
A commentary which is very strong on grammar and very strange on theology, this
volume feels more like an Anchor Bible Commentary edition than a Word Biblical
Commentary. 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, Word Biblical Commentary, 1983.
3 Thumbs up.
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, Tyndale New Testament Commentary,
1987.
1 Thumb up.
A very good commentary for the beginner, Green covers the major issues well and
thoroughly. However, this volume often passes too quickly over certain key
passages and can leave one feeling a bit out of breath and under nourished in
terms of exposition.
Neyrey, J.H., 2 Peter, Jude, Anchor Bible Commentary, 1993.
2 Thumbs up.
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, Anchor Bible Commentary, 1982.
1 Thumb up.
Easily the best commentary dealing with the grammar of the Johannine Epistles,
Brown's introduction leaves much to be desired. His own arguments seem to push
a position 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, New International Commentary
on the New Testament, 1978.
1 Thumb up.
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 leaves quite a bit to be
desired.
Stott, John, The Letters of John, Tyndale New Testament Commentary,
1988.
2 Thumbs up.
A very strong commentary, and that means something since I am generally not
much of a Stott fan. This commentary is easily accessible 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 (though forthcoming commentaries from D.A. Carson, New
International Greek Text Commentary, and Robert W. Yarbrough, Baker Exegetical
Commentary on the New Testament, are likely to outstrip this volume).
Revelation
Aune, David E., Revelation, Word Biblical Commentary 52A-C,
1997/1998/1998.
2 Thumbs up.
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 knowledgeable pastor due to the wonderful array of secondary
literature and the handling of background information, but it does little toward
forming a theological viewpoint of the text.
Beale, Gregory, The Book of Revelation, New International Greek Text
Commentary, 1999.
2 Thumbs up.
While well written and very scholarly, Beale's commentary has two major flaws.
1. Beale is very obviously amillennial 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 amillennial leanings. This
means portions of Revelation are overlooked or distorted even when they are not
particularly helpful to any millenarian view, and as long as they do not help
Beale push his agenda, they get short shrift.
Mounce, Robert H., The Book of Revelation, New International Commentary
on the New Testament, 1998.
2 Thumbs up.
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 (premillennial) 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, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New
Testament, 2002.
3 Thumbs up.
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 premillennial 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 understanding
of the OT background, something which can be made up for by owning Beale.