Ship of Fools: Essential commentaries

Thread: Essential commentaries Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028280

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

I'm going to give you a difficult choice. Your bookshelf of biblical commentaries needs a thorough spring clean, and you're going to start with the New Testament.

So here's the choice: you're allowed only one commentary for each of the gospels, one or two to cover all of Paul's letters, and one or two for everything else.

The commentaries you choose have to be clear and readable. They're not much use if all they do is re-tell the text in slightly different words, but on the other hand they shouldn't be obscurely scholarly. They needn't be bang up to date on all the latest theories, but they should have current relevance. They should have a certain degree of style*. You should, now and then, want to read them, and not merely use them for reference. They should help your prayer and worship as well as your understanding.

So ... which commentaries do you choose?

(* Excessive footnotes are poor style**.)
(** Seriously.)

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

Raymond Brown's two volumes on John.

Joseph Fitzmyer's two volumes on Luke. His volume on Acts; or, perhaps, CK Barrett's.

Francis J. Moloney for Mark.

Of course it is foolish to restrict one's shelf to one volume to cover all Paul.

So, Joseph Fitzmyer, again, for Romans.

If things have to be more recent and if footnotes are really a problem, then anything by Daniel Harrington or from the Sacra Pagina series.

If multiple books are really a problem, then the New Jerome Bible Commentary covers the entire canon.

quote:
(* Excessive footnotes are poor style**.)
(** Seriously.)

This is errant nonsense.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

Whatever you choose, I'd recomend something different from the tradition in which you worship. So if you worship in a conservative evangelical place ry getting your commentaries from open evo, liberal and catholic perspectives.

A mixture — if they contradict it doesn't matter. It gives you something to think about.

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

I'm curious, based upon the conditions you laid out, how you would treat a textual commentary. What I specifically have in mind is Bruce Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament.

Aside from that I'll give a hearty amen to The Silent Acolyte's comment about footnotes.

Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :

RT France (NIGTC) on Mark
D Bock (Baker) on Luke

both miles better than anything else I've found on those books.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
Aside from that I'll give a hearty amen to The Silent Acolyte's comment about footnotes.

See P.G.Wodehouse's Foreword to his book Over Seventy. He hated footnotes, and was second to no-one as a master of English style.

(In fact, while we're on the subject, if anybody can recommend me a Bible that isn't plagued with the damn' things, I'd be grateful.)

[ 04. August 2013, 21:47: Message edited by: Adeodatus ]

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
I'm curious, based upon the conditions you laid out, how you would treat a textual commentary. What I specifically have in mind is Bruce Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament.

Aside from that I'll give a hearty amen to The Silent Acolyte's comment about footnotes.

Prester John, you win my quarterly emoticon: [Killing me]

Metzger's little volume is one massive footnote. Or rather, each article in it is a footnote to a footnote. And sometimes a footnote to a footnote somebody didn't think was worth writing.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

Difficult question!

I'd start by investing in a very good one-volume commentary for the whole Bible. It would be very hard for me to pick between the New Jerome and the Harper Collins. If readability is a big concern, probably the latter; while I'd go for the former for utility as a reference work.

It seems to be somewhat cheating to go for a two-volume commentary!

For each of the synoptics, I would probably pick the Sacra Pagina commentary. Although, I'd be pretty temped to get Volume VIII of the New Interpreter's Bible in order to get Pheme Perkins' Mark commentary (which would get me an extra Matthew commentary for free, as there's no way I'm giving up my Harrington).

For John, I'm yet to settle on one I'm really keen on. But, as we're looking for something that nourishes faith directly as well as through the ascesis of scholarship, I might go for Ben Witherington's John's Wisdom.

For Paul, I'll admit that I'm not terribly familiar with the two New Interpreter's Bible volumes that cover his oeuvre, but if I only get two books for all of Paul, that's what I'd risk. Given that usefulness for preaching is a priority for me, I'd pick up Frank Matera's slim volume Strategies for Preaching Paul, which works through all the second reading in the Ordinary Time (Roman) Sunday lectionary cycle.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
I'm curious, based upon the conditions you laid out, how you would treat a textual commentary. What I specifically have in mind is Bruce Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament.

Aside from that I'll give a hearty amen to The Silent Acolyte's comment about footnotes.

Ah, but would you feel as warm and fuzzy about Nestle-Aland's inscrutable critical apparatus?

--Tom Clune

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
Aside from that I'll give a hearty amen to The Silent Acolyte's comment about footnotes.
See P.G.Wodehouse's Foreword to his book Over Seventy. He hated footnotes, and was second to no-one as a master of English style.

So? The point of footnotes is that it should be easy to look up references, claims, etc. If we were to remove the footnotes, we would either have to put everything in the main text (à la the Harvard citation style, which I cannot stand), or leave out references in the text.

[ 05. August 2013, 04:57: Message edited by: k-mann ]

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
... or leave out references in the text.

Yes. This. I'd like a commentary that's sufficiently lucid, simple to follow, and not full of tedious academic nitpicking that it doesn't need footnotes. I'm not saying none at all - but if you read my OP you'll see the word "excessive", and also:

quote:
You should, now and then, want to read them, and not merely use them for reference.

A book that I want to read is likely to be a book where I won't spend half my time flipping between the main text and the notes pages.

I should say this isn't an academic exercise for me - it's something I'm aiming for. I've spent thirty years with a shelf full of commentaries of varying degrees of uselessness, and I'm feeling a bit like Ecclesiastes 12.12:

quote:
Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body.

As an example, let me say that one of my favourite books of any kind is William Temple's Readings in St John's Gospel - a thoughtful, prayerful (if rather old) text in clear, elegant English.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

I like Word Biblical Commentaries for hardcore exegesis/language/academic stuff. Very good, very detailed.

Sacra Pagina is my other fave but it's lighter and often provides contemporary commentary (i.e. relevance for today)

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

I'm still very fond of Stephen Smalley's John: Evangelist and Interpreter. Very readable indeed.

I hadn't realised it was so old, though. (1983, apparently.)

Thurible

Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on :

Firstly, can I also affirm Raymond Brown on John - whilst his Birth of the Messiah and Death of the Messiah aren't specifically on one Gospel, I think they are utterly invaluable texts. I've been using them all since 2004, I think.

CF Evans on Luke (1990) is dated, but I find very readable. It's on my shelf, and well-thumbed, at least!

However, my most recent find is Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis on Matthew - 3 of 4 volumes as yet published, entitled Fire of Mercy, Heart of the Word. I do not have words for how brilliant I find this series. It's worth every penny.

Whilst slightly outside the purview of this post I find St Augustine on the Psalms to be invaluable - indeed, whilst the old 19th century summary is available online, I cashed out on the recent New City Press 6 volume translation.

A series I think everyone should have is the Catena Aurea, the Fathers on the Gospels, compiled by Aquinas and translated by Newman. (Seriously, who could beat that?)

For those who like an expanded version of the Catena, with coverage of the OT, and have deeper pockets, there's the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture.

x

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
See P.G.Wodehouse's Foreword to his book Over Seventy. He hated footnotes, and was second to no-one as a master of English style.

But Terry Pratchett, who has often been called a contemporary equivalent of Wodehouse throws footnotes aroudn by the dozen ;-)

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Prester John, you win my quarterly emoticon:

This is going on my resume.

quote:
Ah, but would you feel as warm and fuzzy about Nestle-Aland's inscrutable critical apparatus?

Perhaps. I once lusted after a commentary on an obscure 3rd century Roman history so I am a very odd duck.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

In terms of accessibility and scholarship, I think the Pelican Commentaries are hard to beat: Fenton on Matthew, Nineham on Mark, Caird on Luke and Marsh on John. However, they are a little dated now (I think they came out in the 60s). I wish there were modern equivalents, but I've not found any.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I very much second that.

I got the Pelican commentaries when i was in the 6th form and still refer to them some 44 years later.

I've stopped buying commentaries as there is so much on the net nowadays.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
In terms of accessibility and scholarship, I think the Pelican Commentaries are hard to beat: Fenton on Matthew, Nineham on Mark, Caird on Luke and Marsh on John. However, they are a little dated now (I think they came out in the 60s). I wish there were modern equivalents, but I've not found any.

And I'll third that. I've never much liked the Nineham, but the others are good. (There should be a drinking game based on how often Nineham says "this is probably a later addition".) They're just the sort of thing I'm really looking for - perhaps a bit light on the devotional angle - but like you, I haven't come across any good contemporary equivalents.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

About 15 years ago, IIRC, Pelican announced they were going to extend the series to other NT books, which got me excited. I picked up the one on Romans, which I think was by Dunn; although it was good (as Dunn always is) it was far more academic than the original series, and rather heavy going.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
About 15 years ago, IIRC, Pelican announced they were going to extend the series to other NT books, which got me excited. I picked up the one on Romans, which I think was by Dunn; although it was good (as Dunn always is) it was far more academic than the original series, and rather heavy going.

Something similar happened, I think, with the Sacra Pagina series. I'm not quite sure how to label it, but the commentaries on the synoptics at least feel more readable, less technical, more pastoral, than those on the epistles. I at first thought that that was because the series editors were more involved in them, but maybe it's just a general pattern in commentary series. Maybe it's just easier to write engagingly about narrative than about letters.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Setting myself up here, but William Barclay. Not academically acceptable, I know, but very good, loads of background, good explanations of Greek for a language virgin like me and some good spiritual and practical application.

Suits me anyway.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I love Barclay's books.

Lots of good stories and vivid background.

Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :

I agree: despite having the usual range of academic commentaries, there is still a place for Barclay in his own right.

When I was training in Wales for ordination, Barclay was relatively modern. Apparently there was a saying among Free Church preachers locally something along the lines of 'Bankrupt of ideas for next Sunday's sermon? Don't worry, Barclay's Bank is always open late on Saturdays!' [Big Grin]

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

In my college days Barclay was the "form man" for preachers if not for academics. I used him ( and still do,) for devotional purposes.

I still consult him.

But I have reservations.

The gospels were written in Greek and Barclay offers much background info.

But Jesus spoke Aramaic. How far does the Aramaic > Greek transference remain accurate?

For the OT I use von Rad and Eichrodt Plus Interpreters Bible.

For the NT I use Barrett, Dodd and Du7nn amongst others. Thhese include Penguins and Interpreters Bible.

Barclay for illustrations!

Hopelessly dated?

[ 10. August 2013, 19:13: Message edited by: shamwari ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

FF Bruce on Acts - masterful scholarship and devotional too. Alec Motyer stuff on the NT: NIV Application Commentaries as fire starters.

But, not Barclay. Some good ideas especially explanations of the Greek but real care needed over some dud stuff about everyday life and illustrations. Always read other things alongside him.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Alec Motyer on NT? Thought he was an OT specialist.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Alec Motyer on NT? Thought he was an OT specialist.

1 Timothy

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

Tiny bit of a tangent (but only a bit), I wonder if any of you are familiar with these texts, and what your opinions might be:

A Short Introduction to the Hebrew Bible by John J. Collins and Introducing the New Testament by Mark Allan Powell.

I'm curious because EfM (Education for Ministry, a distance education program from the Theology School of the University of the South, popular in Episcopal parishes as well as worldwide) has finally discontinued their old texts and replaced them with these two for years one (OT) and two (NT). I think it's a good move, in principle, but wondered if these texts are a good choice.

Posted by Michael Snow (# 16363) on :

Matthew: W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann (AB)
Mark: Thomas C. Oden
Luke: I. Howard Marshall (NIGTC)
John: Paul Anderson (The Riddles of the Fourth Gospel:...)

For 2 vols on Paul

Romans: C.E.B. Cranfield (ICC)
Thessalonians: F. F. Bruce (WBC)

2 for the rest
1 John: F.F. Bruce
Revelation: G.K. Beale (NIGTC)

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

My own favorites are Garry Wills's trilogy, What Jesus Meant, What Paul Meant, and What the Gospels Meant. Wills writes from a dissident Catholic perspective (some might call it liberal, but I think he'd object to that characterization).

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0