what are the best academic biblical commentaries and why? biases, credentials, etc.,

[Daniel Marsh]

what are the best academic biblical commentaries and why? biases, credentials, etc.,

 

[Wolfe]

What do you mean by biblical commentaries? Like people explaining it or?

 

[mcarmichael]

Dr. Alva J. McClain, "Daniel's Prophecy of the 70 Weeks", Book I - because it is all very straightforward up through this point. Highly recommended.

 

[Mountainmike]

what are the best academic biblical commentaries and why? biases, credentials, etc.,

The problem is Daniel, much as protestants would try to convince you otherwise, scripture is not self explanatory or unambiguous without external reference.

So all bible commentary views scripture through a lens of tradition or authority. And as you know in the case of RCC that is the catechism, in the case of (for example) Anglican, a set of articles, others a "confession"

Which is why the post reformation doctrine has shattered into 100000 schisms ever since "the priesthood of all believers" were empowered to make their own interpretation of it without constraint. Net result is many different and mutually exclusive doctrines of everything from salvation, eucharist, baptism , priesthood and so on.

Sola scriptura is (provably) false - even scripture says so - when it says the "pillar of truth is the church" and "stay true to tradition". There is no unique academic interpretation or commentary based on scripture alone.


The reality is the new testament itself was a product of the authority of a council. You must view the actions of that council as inspired, to believe that the new testament itself is inspired. And so it is necessary also to study what those early fathers thought scripture meant as well as what it says.

You cannot therefore lose 2000 years of tradition of what the bible means, and try to reinterpret it, on an unbiassed academic footing.

From very early days you can see in the first generations after the apostles, they were taught the "real presence" of christ in the eucharist valid only if performed by a succession bishop, or his appointee.

The belief in "symbolic only eucharist" post reformation is a direct result of trying to atttempt to interpret the bible without recourse to tradition or authority

Any bible commentary is viewed through a lens of tradition. (which by the way is a greek term "paradosis" which means handing down of the faith, which was the mechanism Jesus gave apostles to propagate true christianity, and is directly referred to in Paul. The new testament only came later, indeed the first Canons of scripture (eg Marcions - were deemed heretical), the new testament had to wait several centuries to reach final form, and another 1500 years after that before most people could own it and or read it.

Language, history, geography and custom also matter as well as the words of scripture. For example the difference between petra and petros does not exist in spoken aramaic, so does not exist in what Jesus said, it is only "sola scriptura" which has allowed greek translation and creative imagination to try to separate Peter from "rock of the church". But you will find that many commentaries do turn cartwheels trying to separate Peter from Rock, because they view scripture through their own (post reformation) tradition created by man in middle ages..

Also in that case geography at Banyas.(caesarea phillipi) a rock platform has a roman temple of pan, and deep hole from which flowed a river, perceived as the entry to the underworld. Only by understanding the geography and history can we see that Jesus was discriminating his rock , Peter, from that of the pagans. Again that is not in scripture....you have to go beyond scripture to elucidate meaning.

So you will not find what you seek.
That is ... an "unbiased" commentary.
All view the world scripture through a lens of tradition.
All you can do is look at early church and who has an unchanged and continous dogma based on early tradition. And view scripture through that lens.

 

[TheNorwegian]

I use mainly two sets of scholarly commentaries. Both of them are very thorough and not necessarily easy read. In addition to theology and verse by verse exegesis, they cover subjects like textual criticism, literary forms, grammar, meaning of words, historical background, etc.

New International Commentary of the New/Old Testament (NICNT/NICOT) is evangelical but also makes references to other views. It is complete for NT (except for Jude +2Peter) but still not finished with all books of the OT. NICNT is my favourite series and I have worked through all of them

Word Biblical Commentary (WBC) goes even deeper than NICNT/NICOT. I have worked through about a dozen books in the OT with WBC, plus the Gospel of John. I find WBC to be more varied in terms of quality. Some of the volumes are superb, while some volmes are not very good IMHO.

I also like the New International Greek Testament Commentary (NIGTC), but you need to have some knowledge in Greek to really appreciate this series. If you do know Greek, this series is good. I have gone through a few NIGTC volumes. The ones I have worked with were good, but I do not know this series in depth.

From a Catholic perspective, the series Sacra Pagina (SP) is good. I am Protestant, but still found the volumes have checked from SP to be very helpful.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

biblical commentaries

Yes, here are some examples, biblical commentaries - Norton Safe Search

 

[Daniel Marsh]

The 100000 schisms is an exaggeration based on a very loose definition. It was something like the encyclopedia of???? He would do something like count each Southern Baptist Church in different states or countries, forget which as different denominations. By his count there are hundreds of Catholic Denominations.

 

[bcbsr]

what are the best academic biblical commentaries and why? biases, credentials, etc.,

Everyone brings a degree of bias to Bible study. A problem I see particularly with those who rely upon expositional commentaries is that they tend to respect the commentator so much they forget to subject him to scrutiny and end up treating the commentary as if it were scripture.

Exegetical commentaries - particularly those that get into language issues - are more useful. But they too can be biased. I recall something Wallace said in his "Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics" to the effect that semantics are often a matter of interpretation. And thus even Exegetical commentaries carry with them some bias as the author has to decide upon one of many interpretations. But at least those such commentaries can make one aware of language issues.

What I'm saying is that one must subject whatever commentary they chose to scrutiny. And don't be lazy letting the commentary do Bible study for you. I would recommend minimizing the use of commentaries and do the hard work of Bible study yourself. Paul writes:

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For "who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ. 1Cor 2:12-16​

Consequently it's far more important to have the right spirit rather than the right commentary (If indeed one even needs a commentary) when it comes to Bible study. Given the possible ways of reading a passage its more important reading it in the Spirit of which it was written, rather that reading into it whatever a commentator suggests. The Spirit rather then a commentator should direct one's study. Credentials are nothing in comparison with the Spirit of God.

 

[stuart lawrence]

The problem is Daniel, much as protestants would try to convince you otherwise, scripture is not self explanatory or unambiguous without external reference.

So all bible commentary views scripture through a lens of tradition or authority. And as you know in the case of RCC that is the catechism, in the case of (for example) Anglican, a set of articles, others a "confession"

Which is why the post reformation doctrine has shattered into 100000 schisms ever since "the priesthood of all believers" were empowered to make their own interpretation of it without constraint. Net result is many different and mutually exclusive doctrines of everything from salvation, eucharist, baptism , priesthood and so on.

Sola scriptura is (provably) false - even scripture says so - when it says the "pillar of truth is the church" and "stay true to tradition". There is no unique academic interpretation or commentary based on scripture alone.


The reality is the new testament itself was a product of the authority of a council. You must view the actions of that council as inspired, to believe that the new testament itself is inspired. And so it is necessary also to study what those early fathers thought scripture meant as well as what it says.

You cannot therefore lose 2000 years of tradition of what the bible means, and try to reinterpret it, on an unbiassed academic footing.

From very early days you can see in the first generations after the apostles, they were taught the "real presence" of christ in the eucharist valid only if performed by a succession bishop, or his appointee.

The belief in "symbolic only eucharist" post reformation is a direct result of trying to atttempt to interpret the bible without recourse to tradition or authority

Any bible commentary is viewed through a lens of tradition. (which by the way is a greek term "paradosis" which means handing down of the faith, which was the mechanism Jesus gave apostles to propagate true christianity, and is directly referred to in Paul. The new testament only came later, indeed the first Canons of scripture (eg Marcions - were deemed heretical), the new testament had to wait several centuries to reach final form, and another 1500 years after that before most people could own it and or read it.

Language, history, geography and custom also matter as well as the words of scripture. For example the difference between petra and petros does not exist in spoken aramaic, so does not exist in what Jesus said, it is only "sola scriptura" which has allowed greek translation and creative imagination to try to separate Peter from "rock of the church". But you will find that many commentaries do turn cartwheels trying to separate Peter from Rock, because they view scripture through their own (post reformation) tradition created by man in middle ages..

Also in that case geography at Banyas.(caesarea phillipi) a rock platform has a roman temple of pan, and deep hole from which flowed a river, perceived as the entry to the underworld. Only by understanding the geography and history can we see that Jesus was discriminating his rock , Peter, from that of the pagans. Again that is not in scripture....you have to go beyond scripture to elucidate meaning.

So you will not find what you seek.
That is ... an "unbiased" commentary.
All view the world scripture through a lens of tradition.
All you can do is look at early church and who has an unchanged and continous dogma based on early tradition. And view scripture through that lens.

You didn't mention the Holy Spirit once in your post, yet he is the one who leads believers into spiritual truth

 

[Daniel9v9]

I concur with some of what's been said with regards to there not really being much "neutral ground" in theology, beyond the creeds. I also believe tradition is important for understanding Scripture. I used to think otherwise, but I've learnt it's either very bold or very ignorant to entirely disregard 2000 years of dedication to scripture through prayer and research, and only read things in light of our own circumstances and preconceptions.

I would perhaps recommend reading the writings of the church fathers, as well about heresies. There's an incredible wealth of wisdom to be found, still relevant in our day, and I think it's something many could benefit from, regardless of denomination. There's also value in reading about the creeds and what they symbolize.

Catechisms are also very handy, though they vary depending on denomination.

His writings may be a bit heavy, though some may disagree, but I think Augustine is very safe and sound.

 

[Paidiske]

The kind of commentary I prefer most is a "reception history."

This kind of commentary, instead of presenting you with the views and opinions of one author (with all of the problems other posters have demonstrated that has) gathers a range of views and opinions from different authors, in different traditions and throughout the history of the church. So a good reception history will have material from the early fathers, from the medieval scholastics, from the reformers, from modern theologians, and so on.

It won't present you with one single point of view, but will help you to think about the complexity of the text and the range of possibilities around what understandings it can validly support.

 

[Mountainmike]

The 100000 schisms is an exaggeration based on a very loose definition. It was something like the encyclopedia of???? He would do something like count each Southern Baptist Church in different states or countries, forget which as different denominations. By his count there are hundreds of Catholic Denominations.

That is not how I calculate it. Nothing to do with numbers of denomination.

There are at least 5 different mutually exclusive interpretations of eucharist, indeed more.
Ditto Baptism - in fact more. (Method, age, and efficacy)
Ditto Salvation (eg double predestination, once saved always saved, saved but can lose, not saved till the end)
And there are many other similar variants from..
LGBT issues
Other sacraments, number , effect
Priest hood, who can be, and whether they need succession.
Godhead (modalism is still alive and well, filioque and so on)
Mary issues - intercession of saints
Authority who gets to decide doctrine and how empowered?
Liturgy necessity and content
Purgation, purgatory, theosis, etc
Value, necessity, interpretation of suffering.
Value or necessity of tradition, and what it is.
Value or necessity of works. What are works?
Marriage, divorce and variants. Who can ? And can they be remarried?
Pro life, pro choice, date of abortion, contraception etc.
There are at least a dozen issues (more I listed) with 5 variants, and someone somewhere believes in all variants. Non denoms are fundamentally designer christianity, mix and match the bits you like from the long list above. So have all sorts of flavours.

12 to power 5 is a massive number!
On top of that a lot of arcane variants....

Like I am aware of a presbyterian congregation that fractured on the basis of what happens to a child dying prebatism! ( Saved or condemned or dont know. Mutually exclusive choice... there)

So easily hundreds of thousands of variants.

And the one thing you can be certain of, almost all of them are preaching one or more false doctrines because those doctrines in the categories above are almost all mutually exclusive.You cannot be pro life and pro choice.


All because of a lack of authority , and the fact that scripture is not and does not claim to be either exhaustive or a manual on christian life.

So there is no such thing as a single authoritative bible commentary.
All view scripture through a lens of tradition.

Just read some of what Calvin wrote, the sheer arrogance not just in what he writes about some scripture, but the tone with which he says it! the man was a disgrace. The Lord prefers the humble.

The above chaos and carnage in faith, is the inevitable outcome of the false doctrine of sola scriptura, and is Luther, Calvin and Zwinglis true legacy. The legacy of excessive pride.



.

 

[Mountainmike]

You didn't mention the Holy Spirit once in your post, yet he is the one who leads believers into spiritual truth

For sure there is inspiration by the holy spirit, it is there in decisions of councils and the teaching authority of the church, not in personal interpretation. "the pillar and foundation of truth is the church" - which we are told is the "household of God"
Indeed Men inspired in councils is indeed how you got your creed and new testament.

The combination of scripture and belief in private guidance from the holy spirit is the false doctrine that has launched all the schisms.
Ask yourself the obvious question: if all that asked for inspiration of the spirit in reading scripture were guided to the right conclusion, then why do protestants DISAGREE fundamentally on every single aspect of doctrine, indeed have multiple mutually exclusive interpretations of every aspect of doctrine?

Questions such as those, and reading early fathers, led me back from protestant then evangelical, and finally back home to Rome.

 

[stuart lawrence]

For sure there is inspiration by the holy spirit, it is there in decisions of councils and the teaching authority of the church, not in personal interpretation. "the pillar and foundation of truth is the church" - which we are told is the "household of God"
Indeed Men inspired in councils is indeed how you got your creed and new testament.

The combination of scripture and belief in private guidance from the holy spirit is the false doctrine that has launched all the schisms.
Ask yourself the obvious question: if all that asked for inspiration of the spirit in reading scripture were guided to the right conclusion, then why do protestants DISAGREE fundamentally on every single aspect of doctrine, indeed have multiple mutually exclusive interpretations of every aspect of doctrine?

Questions such as those, and reading early fathers, led me back from protestant then evangelical, and finally back home to Rome.

If you are seeking a doctrine concerning trinity, purgatory, Mary as the mother of God, the necessity of water baptism unto salvation etc, I can see why such councils appeal. However, I'm not a believer these are the important things to seek doctrines concerning.
Catholics themselves disagree on issues as I am sure you are aware.

God, through the Spirit certainly can impart truth to believers without them having to read up on what councils state. Paul received his Gospel message directly from Christ, not any man.
Though I accept many who think they have received personal revelation have been misguided to think so.

 

[Mountainmike]

Catholics agree with the catechism, or they would not be catholic.


And without councils you have no New Testament.


You cannot get to choose - or have designer Christianity.

If you are seeking a doctrine concerning trinity, purgatory, Mary as the mother of God, the necessity of water baptism unto salvation etc, I can see why such councils appeal. However, I'm not a believer these are the important things to seek doctrines concerning.
Catholics themselves disagree on issues as I am sure you are aware.

God, through the Spirit certainly can impart truth to believers without them having to read up on what councils state. Paul received his Gospel message directly from Christ, not any man.
Though I accept many who think they have received personal revelation have been misguided to think so.

 

[stuart lawrence]

Catholics agree with the catechism, or they would not be catholic.


And without councils you have no New Testament.


You cannot get to choose - or have designer Christianity.

Catholics agree with the catechism, or they would not be catholic.


And without councils you have no New Testament.


You cannot get to choose - or have designer Christianity.

Do you believe Gods requirement as to who His son must be believed to be to inherit eternal life has changed since Christ died at Calvary?

I would say the Holy Spirit ultimately decided which books made up the NT.

I would agree you cannot pick and choose what you accept in that NT.
However, I'm not convinced councils do accept it all, far from it

 

[Mountainmike]

The Holy Spirit acting through councils, to give us a creed and canon just as he acts through inspired authors.

We are told in scripture this is so. How else can the church be the pillar of truth? How else can what is bound on earth be bound in heaven, other than the spirit acting through apostolic succession?

Do you believe Gods requirement as to who His son must be believed to be to inherit eternal life has changed since Christ died at Calvary?

I would say the Holy Spirit ultimately decided which books made up the NT.

I would agree you cannot pick and choose what you accept in that NT.
However, I'm not convinced councils do accept it all, far from it

 

[stuart lawrence]

The Holy Spirit acting through councils, to give us a creed and canon just as he acts through inspired authors.

We are told in scripture this is so. How else can the church be the pillar of truth? How else can what is bound on earth be bound in heaven, other than the spirit acting through apostolic succession?

Christ stated:

Now This is eternal life( note what constitutes eternal life) that they may know you( the father) the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. John 17:3

The above contradicts what one of your councils decided was the required belief as to who Christ is to inherit eternal life.

If, the Holy Spirit led the council to that decision, in trinitarian terms, the Spirit of God contradicts the word of God, God therefore contradicts God and the belief collapses

 

[Unix]

Interesting topic! Has anyone of You perhaps already seen my thread?: Concisely erudite expositional commentary vols. worth duplicating? - Logos Bible Software Forums
... I did put effort into adding to that thread. Most of the listed commentaries I recommend, the bolded ones I particularly recommend. I'm not particularly discontent with any purchases I've kept other than some individual volumes in series I had to buy as sets.

But I have to warn about getting involved with that particular software platform (Logos/Verbum) which is hosting the discussion thread: Their pricing is a labyrint for the most part, the software is slow in several situations and they are stuck using the programming they chose closer to a decade ago when they started out recoding from scratch using new coding technique (they had made such a switch twice before), and they can do things their way without competition regarding several areas and many many books as they are the largest professional platform. I would go with Accordancebible.com instead. Even WORDsearch is a really great option to Logos/Verbum if You want an easy-to-use interface and the occasional really good offers, WORDsearch does (much) get cheaper than Logos/Verbum. Accordance has some books that Logos/Verbum doesn't offer, likewise WORDsearch. If You still choose Logos/Verbum, be prepared for a steep learning curve and to invest both time and money, with an effort You can make something out of it. But for just commentaries it's not entirely necessary to choose Logos/Verbum, at least not if You are OK with having some of Your commentaries as printed matter or waiting for them to come out under Your chosen platform (search the Accordance forums to see if there are responses by staff to whether they are planned to be added).

I'm careful about which specific Biblical commentary recommendations I take seriously, and I haven't seen the two popular survey books on the topic by Longman and Carson as I don't have access to them and don't plan to buy them. I've worn out my copy of John Glynn's Commentary and Reference survey which I bought 1½ Years ago new as paperback, and even before I bought it I had some grasp and had made several choices that still stand.

NOTE: I'm also looking for people to get in touch with who start feeling inspired about things such as these! I want friends, a wife, a co-author and I'd appreciate close people with whom I could share books and lend software to (as I have accounts I never used, some of which I've specifically created not for my own use but to let another user have for their needs when I finally meet someone someday for example a co-author). So You don't necessarily need to have books since before:

what are the best academic biblical commentaries and why? biases, credentials, etc.,

 

[hedrick]

TheNorwegian has given a good list. In addition, I'd add the Anchor Bible and Hermeneia. However I should note that the best commentaries for specific books tend to come from different series or aren't part of a series. I have a couple of series, Word and Hermeneia, but I also have individual commentaries on several books.

I've looked for a list, but most of the things I find online have a conservative bias. This one is good for the commentaries it lists, Best Commentaries on Each Book of the Bible - Tim Challies, but it omits what I consider the best commentary on Romans, by James Dunn (in the Word series). What I normally do is look at the reference I just pointed to, and look for the book at Logos.com and do my best to filter out all the junk.