Suggest academic commentaries

[blackhole]

I'm looking for academic-style Protestant (used broadly) commentaries.

Examples of what I don't want in commentaries:

• Unsubstantiated Speculation
• Doxology (e.g. Henry)
• Preaching (e.g. Guzik)
• Tangents (e.g. Ironside)
• Incomplete Information (proposing dubitable or obscure ideas without defending them, e.g. Henry).
• Spiritualizing of Texts

Example of a commentary that I love:

• Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary

I love it because it's careful; it gives information that helps me understand the text. I don't want a commentary that tries to move me.

Unfortunately, there's a lot this Zondervan commentary doesn't cover. I need more sources.

And unlike in my last thread, your suggestions do not need to be authors whose lineage is sans colonialism.



Edit: Added examples from the Zondervan book to show the style that I want to find.

 

[createdtoworship]

I'm looking for academic-style Protestant (used broadly) commentaries.

Examples of what I don't want in commentaries:

• Unsubstantiated Speculation
• Doxology (e.g. Henry)
• Preaching (e.g. Guzik)
• Tangents (e.g. Ironside)
• Incomplete Information (proposing dubitable or obscure ideas without defending them, e.g. Henry).
• Spiritualizing of Texts

Example of a commentary that I love:

• Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary

I love it because it's careful; it gives information that helps me understand the text. I don't want a commentary that tries to move me.

Unfortunately, there's a lot this Zondervan commentary doesn't cover. I need more sources.

And unlike in my last thread, your suggestions do not need to be authors whose lineage is sans colonialism.


View attachment 272223

I personally like through the Bible commentaries, you can look up a verse at blue letter bible, then select commentaries, then select on the right column, david guzik or chuck smith notes for the chapter, and look it up there. To me david guzik is the best I have seen, he has more historical background than many many commentaries, and it's all free online. If you just feel like spending money, get the "believers bible commentary by william macdonald", or "through the Bible commentary with J vernon mcgee", I also like the "grace commentary by wilkins" and the "Bible knowledge commentary" by walvwoord. The "evangelical commentary of the Bible by Elwell" I suprisingly like the "KJV Bible commentary by Edward Hindson" I have probably 15000 books, but I just look up david guzik notes on blue letter bible. Wasted thousands of dollars, when the best are free. But I just provided more to give you a varied group. Most of them are whole Bible commentaries. So you can look up a passage in each of them. I have them on logos, so I type in a verse and it searches all the volumes. But again, you don't need that with david guzik. Anyway I hope this is helpful.

(sorry I just seen your comment that you don't like preaching....and listed guzik" Well if you are into theological studies go for a systematic theology such as Lewis sperry chafers works, or norman geislers systematic theology, or wayne grudems systematic theology). anyway, good luck.

 

[hedrick]

There are a number of good series. I have Logos, Hermeneia and selected volumes from the Anchor Bible, New International Commentary on the New Testament, and New international Greek Testament commentary. All are solid commentaries that meet your criteria. Note that widely-used academic commentaries don't typically accept evangelical ideas such as inerrancy. Logos comes closest.

 

[grasping the after wind]

There are a number of good series. I have Logos, Hermeneia and selected volumes from the Anchor Bible, New International Commentary on the New Testament, and New international Greek Testament commentary. All are solid commentaries that meet your criteria. Note that widely-used academic commentaries don't typically accept evangelical ideas such as inerrancy. Logos comes closest.

When you say they don't accept certain ideas do you mean they openly reject them ? Or do they remain non committal? If the former then it would probably not comply with what I see as the OP's request for a completely theologically neutral commentary.

 

[hedrick]

When you say they don't accept certain ideas do you mean they openly reject them ? Or do they remain non committal? If the former then it would probably not comply with what I see as the OP's request for a completely theologically neutral commentary.

Commentaries don't typically start out by discussing inerrancy, but the major academic commentaries generally say things that are inconsistent with inerrancy. While commentaries can be theologically neutral, you can't really be neutral on this issue, since one major part of a commentary is to talk about things like sources of the passage. Commentaries on the Gospels will typically make judgements about how likely it is that Jesus actually said what he's quoted as saying. They'll also discuss who wrote a book.

While they will usually give all the views, it's normally pretty clear that the authors don't accept inerrancy. If you insist on commentaries that are consistent with inerrancy, you're going to end up with a set of commentaries that would only be used in evangelical Bible colleges, and wouldn't be what I'd consider widely used academic commentaries.

Note also that you can't really get all the details that the OP seems to be asking for except in commentaries on a specific book. There are one-volume commentaries that attempt to digest the most important things for general readers, but they aren't really academic works. The OP obviously has used that kind of thing, but is unsatisfied. I agree. There's a lot of discussion in CF about specific passages. The one-volume commentaries often don't have the details you need to really do that intelligently.

The real technical commentaries are also based on the Greek or Hebrew text. You can normally make sense out of what they're talking about even if you don't know Hebrew or Greek. Just don't be surprised.

There are intermediates, multi-volume sets that deal with maybe 3 books of the Bible in one volume, and are intended for a general, non-academic audience. I'm not familiar with them, but I think there are evangelical works of that kind, that would accept inerrancy. That may be what the OP is really looking for.

 

[blackhole]

Note also that you can't really get all the details that the OP seems to be asking for except in commentaries on a specific book.

I'd consider those.

I'll include screenshots from the Zondervan book to show you the style that I want to find.

Those screenshots are now in my OP.

 

[hedrick]

If you just want a couple of volumes, and you're conservative this might be reasonable: https://www.amazon.com/Expositors-B...2VZ0G81XXFQ&psc=1&refRID=K0GGVADRF2VZ0G81XXFQ, together with the OT equivalent.

I believe these are evangelical scholars, so their opinions won't agree with the major commentaries on single books. To my knowledge, those series are all from critical scholars.

The critical equivalent of Expositor's Commentary would probably be the New Interpreters' Bible One-Volume.

I haven't used either of these, so I'm basing this on the authors and comments I've seen.

 

[blackhole]

If you just want a couple of volumes, and you're conservative this might be reasonable: https://www.amazon.com/Expositors-B...2VZ0G81XXFQ&psc=1&refRID=K0GGVADRF2VZ0G81XXFQ, together with the OT equivalent.

I believe these are evangelical scholars, so their opinions won't agree with the major commentaries on single books. To my knowledge, those series are all from critical scholars.

The critical equivalent of Expositor's Commentary would probably be the New Interpreters' Bible One-Volume.

I haven't used either of these, so I'm basing this on the authors and comments I've seen.

Here's a screenshot from a preview of the Expositor's commentary.

It does look like the style that I want. Thank you.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Commentaries don't typically start out by discussing inerrancy, but the major academic commentaries generally say things that are inconsistent with inerrancy. While commentaries can be theologically neutral, you can't really be neutral on this issue, since one major part of a commentary is to talk about things like sources of the passage. Commentaries on the Gospels will typically make judgements about how likely it is that Jesus actually said what he's quoted as saying. They'll also discuss who wrote a book.

While they will usually give all the views, it's normally pretty clear that the authors don't accept inerrancy. If you insist on commentaries that are consistent with inerrancy, you're going to end up with a set of commentaries that would only be used in evangelical Bible colleges, and wouldn't be what I'd consider widely used academic commentaries.

Note also that you can't really get all the details that the OP seems to be asking for except in commentaries on a specific book. There are one-volume commentaries that attempt to digest the most important things for general readers, but they aren't really academic works. The OP obviously has used that kind of thing, but is unsatisfied. I agree. There's a lot of discussion in CF about specific passages. The one-volume commentaries often don't have the details you need to really do that intelligently.

The real technical commentaries are also based on the Greek or Hebrew text. You can normally make sense out of what they're talking about even if you don't know Hebrew or Greek. Just don't be surprised.

There are intermediates, multi-volume sets that deal with maybe 3 books of the Bible in one volume, and are intended for a general, non-academic audience. I'm not familiar with them, but I think there are evangelical works of that kind, that would accept inerrancy. That may be what the OP is really looking for.

I wouldn't insist on anything myself as I am open to all sorts of opinions being expressed, but if the OP really wants no biases in commentary then a commentary that takes a stand for or against any theological viewpoint would not fit the OP's needs.

 

[Athanasius377]

I have two sets that are my go to and two more for more information if I want a different point of view. I really like a lot of the volumes from the “Word biblical commentary series”. The other is the “New international commentary on the old and new testaments NICOT, NiCNT”. They are technical in places and knowledge of the original languages is really helpful though you can slog through it in most cases. If you’re going to spend serious money on commentaries you really should have a working knowledge of the original languages.

Oddly enough I agree with @hedrick on the Hermania series. Some volumes have really good acedemic work though I disagree with the conclusions the authors often make. IMO it is still helpful to understand differing points of view. Know why you believe what you believe not out of ignorance but out of knowledge.

The last one I mention is the “Ancient Christian Commentary”. It’s really good to also have a collection the Early church fathers (like the Schaff collection) because if you use this commentary wisely you will find yourself trolling the bibliography because a snippet from Ambrose on Romans 8 isn’t the whole story.

just my two cents.

 

[hedrick]

I have two sets that are my go to and two more for more information if I want a different point of view. I really like a lot of the volumes from the “Word biblical commentary series”.

Sorry, I had a slip of the brain. When I recommended the Logos commentaries, this is actually what I meant.

For someone interested in historic commentaries I recommend Calvin's commentaries. I always find him interesting, and in many cases illuminating. However all premodern commentaries, including his, miss the results of lots of scholarship in the last couple of centuries.