Ship of Fools: Bible Commentaries and Study Helps

Thread: Bible Commentaries and Study Helps 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=028296

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

I've been looking for some new study helps recently, but the sheer number of offerings and my lack of familiarity with authors leaves my head spinning. I'd like to request some help.

I like things from an Anglican and/or Wesleyan perspective, but others won't be shot down without a look. I've moved up the candle, and then over to the left, over the past few years; I would say I'm a left-leaning MOTR theologically, and high (but not AC) liturgically. I've got the standard Methodist conservative commentaries (Wesley's Notes, Clarke's Commentaries, and so forth), but I'm looking to branch out into something more progressive. Something that gives some historical perspective, along with new scholarship. I'm especially intrigued with form criticism.

So, what do you use, and why do you like it?

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

Barefoot Friar, there was an earlier thread on Essential Commentaries that might be of interest. The criteria in that thread's OP are a little different from yours, so we'll leave this thread open for a while to see if we need them both.

Mamacita, Keryg Host

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

It might be helpful, at least for me, if you narrowed down what books of the Bible you were interested in commentaries on.

Also, what do you mean by 'more progressive'? In my head that could mean (at least!) two things. One is "more progressive than middle of the road," which I would take to mean something written from some kind of liberationist perspective. The second meaning would be "not conservative" which might mean something more like a willingness to engage questions about authorship, dating, etc. in a way some very conservative scholars refuse to (of course more 'critically' minded scholars may well come up with the same conclusions as those 'conservative' scholars, just for different reasons.)

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

Thanks for the link, Mamacita. I hadn't seen that before I posted this. I'll read it and see what I can glean from it.

Hart, I meant the latter of your two options (not conservative). I feel that I have the conservative side rather well covered, and would like to balance it out. Especially as I find myself leaning more and more to the left as I learn.

As for what books, I'm immediately interested in the Gospels (particularly Matthew, since we're headed into year A), followed by the Epistles, and then the Old Testament in last place. I've got a couple sets of whole-Bible commentaries, and then one or two that focus on particular books, and both are helpful for different reasons.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

I can tell you what's on my shelf, and what I think of it.

I've also recently been investing in Matthew commentaries. I already had Dan Harrington's in the Sacra Pagina series which is very fine. The final paragraph of each section of commentary is always a suggestion on how to actualize this passage in preaching. Critically sound without being pedantic, with pastoral needs in full view.

I picked up volume 8 of the New Interpreter's Bible over the summer, for its Mark commentary by Pheme Perkins which is excellent. It also contains a Matthew commentary by Eugene Boring. Similar to Harrington's but much shorter, so much lighter on historical or linguistic detail. Decent, but doesn't hold a candle to Perkins's Mark commentary in the same volume.

I also bought a collection of Ulrich Luz's articles on Matthew. There were some great nuggets of wisdom in there, but also (for my taste) way too much time spent on source critical issues. I don't disagree with him on any of his results, but he simply spends too many pages on questions that don't really effect how we read the text and ends up sounding a little too sure of some 'conclusions' that should really be left speculative.

I then started looking at the major multi-volume commentaries: Luz's three volume commentary, and Davies and Allison's. Because of varying cost, I ended up getting D+A on Matthew 1-7 (with 150 page introduction, that I'm currently working through) and Luz on Matthew 8-20. The last third of Matthew doesn't come up as much in the lectionary, so that'll be a later acquisition if I make it at all. It also means I can road test both D+A's and Luz's commentaries before working out which one of them I want to go with for the final third.

For Mark, I have Dan Harrington's in the SP series, which is solid (similar to his Matthew), but my favorite as I intimated above is Pheme Perkins in the NIB.

For Luke, L.T. Johnson is one of my scholar crushes, and I wouldn't want to be without his two-volume Luke-Acts commentary in the SP series. That said, Joel Green's Luke commentary in the NICONT series is my current favorite. That series allows him more pages and more footnotes than SP allows Johnson, and he makes great use of them. He happens to be a Methodist if that interests you.

I'm still searching for a John commentary I can really feel at home with. I have Francis Moloney's SP commentary and Ben Witherington's. Both have good features, but neither have really 'clicked.'

I generally hesitate to make commentary series recommendations, as they generally vary so much book to book. But, here are some series that I feel sufficiently familiar with to have a sense of what I'm getting if I buy one.

New Interpreter's Bible: Critically sound, but lacking in detail. Helpful application section for preaching (in the form of reflection questions). Favorite commentary: Perkins on Mark.

Sacra Pagina: Similar to NIB, but more detailed. Some are more useful for preaching than others. All the authors are Roman Catholic and write from that POV but not in a way that should narrow their audience. Fav: right now, Byrne on Romans.

(New/Old) Testament Library: Critically sound with more detail than the previous two, but not pedantic. Less explicitly oriented to the preacher, you need to do more of the actualizing work yourself. Fav: Johnson on Hebrews.

Interpretation: Critically responsible, but the focus is on theological interpretation, generally from a mainline Protestant POV. Fav: Brueggemann on Genesis.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

I should also add: I generally consult the following two lists when looking for a new commentary.

Denver Seminary

Princeton Seminary

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

Okay, this is really good stuff. Thanks, Hart! I'll begin looking at those. Based on the thread Mamacita linked, I went ahead and ordered the Sacra Pagina volume on John. I also have the complete set of New Interpreters that a retired pastor gave me; it's an older edition but I do like it.

Anyway, this gives me a starting point and some direction.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Many moons ago I was working on a mission station in Zimbabwe run by the UMC. (The Methodist Church in USA for the uninitiated).

One returning UMC missionary gave me a whole set of Interpreters Bible commentaries when he returned home.

Invaluable at the time. Still valuable today.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0