★ Beale, G. K., and D. A. Carson, eds. Commentary on the NT Use of the OT, 2007. Since the church has always held to the principle that Scripture interprets Scripture, and the relationship between the Testaments is key for understanding each, works such as this prove spiritually and academically useful to a high degree. [CBQ 1/09; RelSRev 9/08; JETS 6/09; BBR 19.2; BL 2009; NovT 52.2; EuroJTh 18.2]. To follow current evangelical debates about interpreting the OT in the NT, see Berding and Lunde, eds., Three Views on the NT Use of the OT (2008), and Dan McCartney and Peter Enns, “Matthew and Hosea: A Response to John Sailhamer,” WTJ 63 (2001): 97 – 105. For a critical orientation to the status quaestionis, see Susan Docherty, “NT Scriptural Interpretation in Its Early Jewish Context,” NovT 57.1 (2015): 1 – 19.
★ Calvin’s NT Commentaries. D. W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance, eds., ET 1958 – 72. In 12 vols. and published by Eerdmans. Calvin’s theological comments have carried great weight for centuries, and these translations are adept. He covers all the NT except three books (2 – 3 John, Revelation). This set of Calvin is to be preferred to (still serviceable) reprints of the 19th century edition by the Calvin Translation Society (free online). [EvQ 7/98].
★ Metzger, Bruce. A Textual Commentary on the Greek NT, 2nd ed. 1994. [JBL 92.4]. Another, less in-depth UBS option is Roger L. Omanson, A Textual Guide to the Greek NT (2006) [NovT 50.3; ExpTim 11/07].
★ Zerwick, Max, and Mary Grosvenor. A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek NT, 5th rev. ed. 1996. Covers the entire NT with meticulous accuracy. Every seminarian could profit immensely from this analysis. [EvQ 1/75; JETS 12/80]. Similar in scope and aim is Rodgers-Rodgers’s New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek NT (1998).
★ Blomberg, Craig L. Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey, 1997, 2nd ed. 2009. I have not found a better accessible evangelical content-survey. The companion is From Pentecost to Patmos (2006).
★ Green, Joel B., Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin, eds. [ℳ], Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 2nd ed. 2013. The first of IVP’s famous dictionaries, Green-McKnight-Marshall (1992) was a standard evangelical reference work, though some of the contributors were leading critical scholars (e.g. Allison, Danker, and Painter). Now it is revised and, I argue, a bit more critically oriented. [Them 4/15].
★ Wenham, David, and Steve Walton. Exploring the NT: A Guide to the Gospels & Acts, 2nd ed. 2011. All six vols. in this IVP series are worth purchasing. [Anvil 19.3].
✓ Aland, Kurt, ed. Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, 15th ed. 1996; Synopsis of the Four Gospels: Greek-English Edition, 10th ed. 1993. Some cannot recommend Zeba Crook’s all-English Parallel Gospels (2012) because the translation hardly is one [JTS 10/13].
✓ Allison, Dale C. ‡ Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet, 1998. See also the cleverly-titled The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus (2009) [Them 11/09; JTS 4/10; JETS 6/10; CBQ 7/10; DenvJ 3/09 (Blomberg); BL 2010; Int 10/10; BTB 5/11], and Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History (2010) [EvQ 1/12 (Wenham); CBQ 4/12; JSNT 33.5; Them 11/11; BSac 7/13; RelSRev 6/11].
✓ Bailey, Kenneth E. Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels, 2008. See also his research listed under Parables below. [EQ 7/09; CBQ 7/11].
✓ Barnett, Paul. Finding the Historical Christ, 2009. [BL 2010; CBQ 1/11; JTS 4/13].
✓ Barton, Stephen C., ed. ‡ The Cambridge Companion to the Gospels, 2006. [EuroJTh 18.1].
✓ Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2006. The thesis of this conservative work is having an impact in broader scholarship and is under attack by skeptics. See Bauckham under John’s Gospel. [Bib 90.1; JSNT 31.2 (discussion); NovT 52.1; JSHJ 6.2 (discussion); EuroJTh 16.2].
✓ Bauckham, R. J., ed. The Gospel for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences, 1998. A corrective for the widespread notion that the Gospels were produced out of, and for, specific communities (see Stendahl on Matthew and Martyn on John); but Bauckham faces resistance [JSNT 84].
✓ Beilby, James K., and Paul Rhodes Eddy, eds. The Historical Jesus: Five Views, 2009. Getting Crossan, L. T. Johnson, Dunn, and Bock together in one book was a good idea and quite a feat. [RevExp Spr 10; BBR 21.2; CTJ 11/11; JSNT 33.5; JETS 3/11; SBET Aut 11; TJ Fall 10].
✓ Bird, Michael F. The Gospel of the Lord: How the Early Church Wrote the Story of Jesus, 2014. Commended “most warmly” by Dunn [JTS 4/15].
✓ Black, David Alan, and David R. Beck, eds. Rethinking the Synoptic Problem, 2001.
☆ Blomberg, Craig L. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 1987, rev. 2007. [BL 2009; RBL 2011]. See his companion vol. defending the reliability of John’s Gospel (2001).
☆ Bock, Darrell L. Jesus According to Scripture, 2002; Studying the Historical Jesus, 2002. The first of these is a massive study (650pp.) of the witness of the four Gospels to Jesus [JSHJ 1.2], while the second is a student “Guide to Sources and Methods.”
✓ Bock, Darrell L., and G. J. Herrick. Jesus in Context: Background Readings for Gospel Study, 2005.
✓ Bock, Darrell L., and Robert L. Webb, eds. Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus, 2009. Nearly 950pp. of conservative essays from IBR: “a monumental achievement” (Barnett [Them 7/12]). [BBR 21.4; JTS 10/11; JSNT 33.5; JETS 3/11; BTB 11/12; TJ Spr 11].
✓ Bockmuehl, Markus. [ℳ], This Jesus: Martyr, Lord, Messiah, 1994. Later he would edit The Cambridge Companion to Jesus (2001) [Anvil 20.2].
✓ Bockmuehl, Markus, and Donald Hagner, eds. [ℳ], The Written Gospel, 2005. A fine FS for Graham Stanton. [Anvil 24.1 (France); Evangel Spr 07 (Wenham)].
✓ Bockmuehl, Marcus, and James Carleton Paget, eds. ‡ Redemption and Resistance: The Messianic Hopes of Jews and Christians in Antiquity, 2007. Valuable for so much more than just the study of the four Gospels.
✓ Bryan, Christopher. [ℳ], The Resurrection of the Messiah, 2011. A lengthy OUP issue defending the bodily resurrection. [CBQ 4/13 (Wright); JTS 4/12; RelSRev 9/12].
✓ Bultmann, Rudolph. ‡ The History of the Synoptic Tradition, rev. 1963.
✓ Burkett, Delbert, ed. ‡ The Blackwell Companion to Jesus, 2011. [JTS 10/11; JSNT 34.5].
☆ Burridge, Richard A. [ℳ], Four Gospels, One Jesus? A Symbolic Reading, 1994, 2005, 3rd ed. 2014. [RevExp 2/15]. Note too the earlier widely-cited dissertation, What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (1992, 2nd ed. 2004).
✓ Charlesworth, James H., ed. ‡ Jesus and Archaeology, 2006. [JSHJ 8.2 (2010)].
✓ Charlesworth, James H., with Brian Rhea and Petr Pokorný, eds. ‡ Jesus Research: New Methodologies and Perceptions, 2014. [BBR 24.4 (Blomberg); JTS 4/11; JSNT 37.5; ExpTim 2/15]. There was an earlier vol., Jesus Research: An International Perspective (2009) [TJ Fall 10].
✓ Chilton, Bruce, and Craig A. Evans, eds. [ℳ], Studying the Historical Jesus, 1994; and Authenticating the Words of Jesus, 1999. Both vols. are from Brill.
✓ Collins, John J., and Daniel C. Harlow, eds. ‡ The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, 2010. Quite useful for Gospels work. [NovT 54.2; Them 5/11; BTB 5/12; JJS 63.2; RelSRev 3/12; TJ Spr 12].
✓ Cook, John Granger. Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World, 2014. A substantial updating and expansion of Hengel’s classic Crucifixion (ET 1977). [JSNT 37.5]. See also the fine Cambridge PhD by David Chapman, Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion (2010) [BTB 5/12].
✓ Crossan, John Dominic. ‡ The Historical Jesus, 1991. Highly critical and tendentious piece [Int 7/93; CBQ 7/93], followed by Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (1994).
✓ Dawes, Gregory W., ed. ‡ The Historical Jesus Quest: Landmarks in the Search for the Jesus of History, 1999. Useful for surveying past work. [JSHJ 1.2].
✓ Dungan, David Laird. ‡ The Synoptic Problem: The Canon, the Text, the Composition, and the Interpretation of the Gospels, 1999.
✓ Dunn, James D. G. [ℳ], Jesus Remembered, 2003. Yet again, Dunn has offered an enormous, lucid study for students. Blomberg writes, “While not replacing Wright in boldness of hypothesis and scope of coverage nor Meier in painstaking analysis of minute detail, Dunn’s work deserves to take its place with that of Wright and Meier as one of the three most significant, comprehensive historical Jesus studies of our generation.” [JSHJ 3.1; Anvil 22.3; DenvJ 1/03 (Blomberg)]. See also Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels (2011) [CBQ 4/13; Int 7/12; BTB 8/12; BSB 12/11; JETS 3/12].
✓ Dunn, James D. G., and Scot McKnight, eds. The Historical Jesus in Recent Research, 2005. Influential essays in the field over a 150-year period, in Eisenbrauns’s “Sources for Biblical and Theological Study” series. [JSHJ 5.1].
✓ Eddy, P. R., and Gregory A. Boyd. The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition, 2007.
✓ Edwards, James R. The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, 2009. His claims are drawing controversy. [ExpTim 6/10; JSNT 33.5; JETS 3/11; Them 8/11; BSac 4/11; RevExp Sum 10; RelSRev 9/10]. See Edwards under Luke.
✓ Evans, Craig A., ed. Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus, 2008. Also titled The Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus (2010) [JJS 66.2]. Earlier he edited a 4-vol. set, The Historical Jesus (2004). Evans has been productive, authoring the cleverly-titled Clarendon issue, The Historical Christ and the Jesus of Faith (1996); a book against the skeptics: Fabricating Jesus (IVP, 2006) [BL 2009]; the IBR Bibliography, Jesus (1992); and Jesus and His World: The Archaeological Evidence (2012) [JETS 12/12; ExpTim 4/13].
✓ Evans, Craig A., and James A. Sanders, eds. The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel, 1994. On the same fascinating topic, see Willard Swartley, Israel’s Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Traditions (1994), Christopher M. Tuckett, ed., The Scriptures in the Gospels (1997), and Richard B. Hays’s Reading Backwards: Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness (2014).
✓ Foster, Paul, et al., eds. ‡ New Studies in the Synoptic Problem: Oxford Conference, April 2008 (Tuckett FS), 2011. From BETL. [NovT 54.2; ExpTim 4/12].
✓ Gathercole, Simon. The Pre-Existent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 2006. [RTR 12/12].
✓ Gaventa, Beverly Roberts, and Richard B. Hays, eds. ‡ Seeking the Identity of Jesus: A Pilgrimage, 2008. First-rate essays illustrating the resistance of mildly and moderately critical scholars to today’s hypercritical reconstructions of the historical Jesus. [JSNT 32.3 (review discussion); BL 2009; Them 7/09; JSNT 3/10].
✓ Harding, Mark, and Alanna Nobbs, eds. The Content and Setting of the Gospel Tradition, 2010. A product of Australian scholars, highly recommended. [Them 5/11].
✓ Hays, Richard B. [ℳ], Reading Backwards: Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel, 2014. An even fuller discussion is forthcoming: Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels (2016).
✓ Hengel, Martin. [ℳ], The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ, 2000. Reflects a lifetime of study by a leading German NT professor. Worth noting is that Hengel is fully on-board with the idea that the Gospels were not produced for single communities but were general (“catholic”) tracts; cf. Bauckham, ed., The Gospels for All Christians. [Anvil 19.1].
✓ Hezser, Catherine, ed. ‡ The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine, 2010. [BBR 23.2].
✓ Holmén, Tom, and Stanley E. Porter, eds. ‡ Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 4 vols., 2011. This fine set is over 3600pp! Handbook? Costing $1300? [BBR 21.3; JSNT 34.5; JETS 9/12; ETL 89.4; Them 8/11 (Blomberg); BTB 11/13; RelSRev 6/13].
✓ Horsley, Richard A. ‡ Jesus and the Politics of Roman Palestine, 2014. [CBQ 7/15].
☆ Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, 2003. Lucid, impressive, and influential scholarship, drawing together NT research, early Christian history, and theology (Christology). [JSHJ 3.1]. Added to this is How on Earth Did Jesus Become God? (2005) [JSHJ 5.2].
✓ Hurtado, Larry W., and Paul L. Owen, eds. ‘Who Is This Son of Man?’ The Latest Scholarship on a Puzzling Expression of the Historical Jesus, 2011. [CBQ 7/13; JSNT 34.5; JETS 6/12; BibInt 22.3; BTB 11/13; JJS 66.2; RelSRev 9/12]. This book is somewhat in critique of Maurice Casey, The Solution to the ‘Son of Man’ Problem (2007) [JJS 64.1], who drives a wedge between Jesus’s Aramaic expression and the Greek of the Evangelists. See also Mogens Müller, The Expression ‘Son of Man’ and the Development of Christology: A History of Interpretation (2008) [JJS 63.1; JTS 10/13].
✓ Johnson, Luke Timothy. ‡ The Real Jesus, 1996. One of the best critiques of the so-called Third Quest, by a conservatively critical Catholic.
☆ Keener, Craig S. The Historical Jesus of the Gospels, 2009. A large (831pp.) and learned treatment of the biblical material and scholarship today. [Them 4/10; BBR 21.4; CBQ 4/11; JSNT 33.5; RBL 2011; JETS 3/11; BTB 2/11; SBET Aut 11; RelSRev 9/11; TJ Fall 12]. Added to this is the 2-vol., stunningly comprehensive Miracles: The Credibility of the NT Accounts (2011) [JSNT 35.5; JETS 12/12; Them 4/12; DenvJ 15; TJ Fall 13].
✓ Kelber, Werner. ‡ The Oral and the Written Gospel, 1983. The challenges to, and refinement of, the thesis continue in Thatcher, ed., Jesus, the Voice, and the Text: Beyond The Oral and the Written Gospel (2008) [BL 2010].
✓ Kingsbury, Jack D., ed. ‡ Gospel Interpretation: Narrative-Critical and Social-Scientific Approaches, 1997.
✓ Knoppers, Gary N. [ℳ], Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of Their Early Relations, 2013. A brilliant OT scholar offers a fresh research of the relationship, published by OUP. Called a “landmark” study [CBQ 1/15], and proves useful for studies in the OT, the Gospels, and Acts. [Int 7/14]. See also Pummer, The Samaritans: A Profile (2015).
✓ Koester, Helmut. ‡ Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development, 1990.
✓ Licona, Michael R. The Resurrection of Jesus, 2010. A huge IVP issue. [JETS 12/11].
✓ McDonald, Lee Martin. The Story of Jesus in History and Faith: An Introduction, 2013. One of the better books for getting started. [JETS 9/14].
✓ McKnight, Scot. Jesus and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement Theory, 2005. [JSHJ 5.1].
✓ McKnight, Scot, and Matthew C. Williams. The Synoptic Gospels: An Annotated Bibliography, 2000. From the IBR Bibliographies project, published by Baker. Needing an update is McKnight’s useful Interpreting the Synoptic Gospels (1987).
✓ McKnight, Scot, and Joseph B. Modica, eds. Who Do My Opponents Say that I Am? An Investigation of the Accusations against the Historical Jesus, 2008. Evangelical essays approaching the issue of Jesus’s identity from a different angle. [JETS 6/09; BL 2009 (Head); EuroJTh 18.2].
✓ Meier, John P. ‡ A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (ABRL) 5 vols., 1991 – 2016. Probably the fullest, most detailed study ever produced in the field (3500pp.). I venture my opinion that little here will help the evangelical preacher. [CBQ 7/10; BTB 8/10; JETS 9/10; JTS 10/13; Int 10/10; ExpTim 11/10; Them 11/10]. The new Vol. V is subtitled “Probing the Authority of the Parables.”
Meyer, Ben F. ‡ The Aims of Jesus, 1979. Though dated now, many still count it as seminal.
✓ Moyise, Steve. ‡ Jesus and Scripture: Studying the NT Use of the OT, 2010. [CBQ 1/13; JSNT 33.5; Them 4/12; JETS 3/12].
✓ Murphy, Frederick J. ‡ An Introduction to Jesus and the Gospels, 2005. By an authority on Jewish and Christian apocalypticism.
✓ Perkins, Pheme. ‡ Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels, 2007. [BL 2009; Anvil 26.3 – 4]. Also notable is her Resurrection: NT Witness and Contemporary Reflection (1984).
✓ Powell, Mark Allan. ‡ Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee, 1998, 2nd ed. 2013. One of the most widely used textbooks. [JSNT 36.5; RevExp 2/15; BTB 5/15].
✓ Poythress, Vern. Inerrancy and the Gospels: A God-Centered Approach to the Challenges of Harmonization, 2012. Few write at such length on this, in part because scholars tend to play up the distinctiveness of each instead of harmonizing. [JETS 12/13; Them 7/13; BSac 4/13; DenvJ 16].
✓ Riches, John. ‡ The World of Jesus: First-Century Judaism in Crisis, 1990. A Cambridge issue. For a well-written evangelical treatment, consult James Jeffers, The Graeco-Roman World of the NT Era (IVP, 1999).
✓ Riches, J., W. R. Telford, and C. M. Tuckett, with an Introduction by S. McKnight. ‡ The Synoptic Gospels, 2001. Collected vols. from Sheffield’s New Testament Guides.
✓ Robinson, James M., et al., eds. ‡ The Critical Edition of Q (Herm) 2000.
✓ Sanders, E. P. ‡ Jesus and Judaism, 1985. Followed by The Historical Figure of Jesus (1993).
✓ Schweitzer, Albert. ‡ The Quest of the Historical Jesus, ET 2000. The famous 1906 demolition of the liberal 19th century Life of Jesus research. The Bowden translation (SCM, 2000) is altogether a better, clearer work than the abbreviated 1911 2nd edition by Montgomery.
✓ Stanton, Graham N. ‡ The Gospels and Jesus, 1989, 2nd ed. 2002. An Oxford publication and certainly among the best moderately critical introductions to the subject. See also his essays in Jesus and Gospel (2004).
✓ Stegemann, W., B. J. Malina, and G. Theissen, eds. ‡ The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels, 2002. [JSHJ 2.1].
☆ Stein, Robert H. Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation, 2001. This mature evangelical book focuses on the Synoptic Problem and older diachronic methods. It is an expanded 2nd ed. of The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction (1987). Also valuable is his Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ (1996), widely used in Bible colleges and seminaries.
☆ Strauss, M. L. Four Portraits, One Jesus: An Introduction to Jesus and the Gospels, 2007. One of the best, most inviting evangelical introductions. [BL 2009].
✓ Theissen, Gerd, and Dagmar Winter. ‡ The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria, ET 2002. Theissen is a leading European scholar in historical-Jesus study. [JBL Aut 99; JTS 49.2; JSHJ 1.2]. On the same specific topic is Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research (2000).
✓ Tuckett, Christopher. ‡ From the Sayings to the Gospels, 2014. A convenient collection of the vast output of articles by a prominent critic, mainly touching on the Synoptic tradition and Q. [NovT 57.1].
✓ Twelftree, Graham H. Jesus the Miracle Worker: A Historical & Theological Study, 1999. Cf. the Keener set on the topic. See also Twelftree’s series of books on exorcism in the NT (1985 – 2007) [CBQ 10/10].
✓ Vermes, Geza. ‡ Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels, 1973.
✓ Watson, Francis. ‡ Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective, 2013. The author, who has contributed so helpfully to Pauline studies, here “engages the historical, hermeneutical, and theological aspects of Gospel transmission and later canonization” (Milinovich [CBQ 1/15]). A major work of scholarship. [JTS 4/14; JSNT 36.5 and 12/14; JETS 3/14; Them 11/14 (Blomberg); RelSRev 9/14].
Witherington, Ben. The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth, 1995, 2nd ed. 1997.
✓ Wright, N. T. [ℳ], Jesus and the Victory of God, 1996; The Resurrection of the Son of God, 2003. Two vols. (#2 and #3) from the author’s series, “Christian Origins and the Question of God.” A tour de force which seeks to understand, through research mainly on the Synoptics, “how Jesus’ whole life, not just his death on the cross in isolation, was somehow ‘gospel’ ” (JVG, xiv). Wright reads the Gospels against the backdrop of Jewish apocalyptic thinking, but is more moderate than critics like Allison and Ehrman. The series is an apology for rigorous historical study of what he believes to be the most important religious question of all. Everywhere in evidence is his ability to write “with such power and fluency” (Dunn). For The Resurrection of the Son of God [Evangel Sum 04 (Turner); DenvJ 1/03 (Blomberg)], the review discussion in JSHJ 3.2 (2005) is well worth looking up, including as it does Wright, Allison, Habermas, Goulder, Hurtado, and Evans.
NOTES: (1) Judith A. Diehl, “What is a ‘Gospel’? Recent Studies in the Gospel Genre,” CBR 9.2 (2011): 171 – 99. (2) In order to use many of the Gospels commentaries you must learn something about redaction criticism. A quick way is to study through Don Carson’s 24-page pamphlet, “Redaction Criticism: The Nature of an Interpretive Tool” (Christianity Today Institute, 1985), or the relevant section in An Introduction to the NT (2005) by Carson and Moo.
★ Carson, Donald. (EBCR) 2010. An updating of the 1984 EBC. Even after the appearance of France, this may still be the most generally useful commentary on Matthew for the pastor (650pp.). The adjective that comes to mind is “sure-footed.” Carson was allowed a great deal more space than other contributors to the series and used it well. There is mild redaction criticism. It was said of the EBC, “He has done his homework with great care, and regularly launches into very thorough explanations of particular exegetical, historical or theological points” [BSB 9/04]. I am delighted that Carson’s revision (EBCR) has given extended life to this commentary. [JETS 6/85; TJ Spr 85]. Pastors will also note Carson’s homiletical expositions of the Sermon on the Mount (see below) and Matthew 8 – 10 entitled When Jesus Confronts the World (1987). These expositions are essentially sermonic, but of a much, much higher caliber intellectually than the typical sermon. He also has one of the best Bible study guides: God with Us: Themes from Matthew (1995, 2009).
★ Davies, W. D., and Dale Allison. ‡ (ICC – new series) 3 vols., 1988 – 97. With painstaking work on the Greek text, the authors come to mainstream critical conclusions. These fat vols. must be consulted, but have been way too expensive. They listed for $468 in hb, but since 2004 have come available in less pricey pb ($170 on Amazon). I can recommend this for purchase, but only to advanced students and the most diligent and scholarly of pastors. Specialists value this magisterial and encyclopedic work as about the finest exegetical tool available (2400pp.). Compare with Luz, which along with the ICC is an authoritative reference set. Replaces Allen in the series. [JTS 4/92; JBL Sum 91; CBQ 10/91; Int 7/91; ExpTim 2/93; ThTo 47.1; EvQ 10/98; NovT 41.2; CTJ 11/91, 4/94; Bib 78.4; SJT 54.1; DenvJ]. There is also a 2004 abridgement by Allison [JTS 10/07; BL 2006; RelSRev 10/06]. Instead of Davies-Allison, the average pastor should choose another commentary such as Osborne, Evans, and Blomberg, or an exposition such as Doriani’s REC and Green’s BST.
★ France, Richard T. (NICNT) 2007. Those who anticipate forthcoming commentaries had a long wait for NICNT on Matthew. The late Robert Guelich, Blaine Charette, and Scot McKnight in succession had contracts. France delivered, building upon his TNTC gem (see below). This could be considered the top pick for the evangelical pastor — but be aware of some of the exegetically and theologically controversial positions noted by Agan [Presb Spr 09]. France (†2012) was one of the most respected evangelical NT scholars in the world, “a Matthean scholar par excellence” (Hagner), and he set out to “locate the individual parts of the gospel within the overall narrative flow of the whole” (xviii). One caution: you may not want to follow him in his argument that the “coming of the Son of Man” in 24:29 – 31 is not the parousia. [JTS 10/08; CJ Win 09; BL 2008; ExpTim 2/08; RelSRev 12/08; JETS 12/08 (Turner); BSac 10/08; Anvil 25.3].
★ Keener, Craig S. 1999, (SRC) 2009. The first edition was a massive one-vol. work (721 + 300pp. of bibliography and indices), of real usefulness to both pastor and student. Keener chose to focus especially upon “the social-historical contexts of Matthew and his traditions on the one hand, and pericope-by-pericope suggestions concerning the nature of Matthew’s exhortations to his Christian audience on the other” (p.1). The new edition is a revision and slight expansion; I have not examined the 2009 edition closely, but the commentary complements Carson very well. Do not confuse this large pb with Keener’s much briefer IVPNT, which preachers will find much more accessible. [ThTo 1/00; Int 10/00; Them Aut 00; Presb Spr 00; ScrB 7/00; Bib 82.1; SwJT Spr 01; EvQ 1/04; JETS 9/01; TJ Spr 02; RelSRev 4/01; DenvJ]. See John and Acts.
★ Nolland, John. [ℳ], (NIGTC) 2005. As expected, Nolland has largely followed the research methods used in his 3-vol. WBC on Luke and produced a redaction-critical exegesis which is exceedingly thorough (nearly 1300pp. + 200pp. of bibliography). One difference is the more contemporary feel of Matthew, as Nolland gives greater attention to narrative criticism. I regard this as a better work for pastors than the earlier Luke because it is a little more focused on the text as we have it and spends much less time on the ins-and-outs of scholarly discussion. Contrariwise, some students might want more interaction with other exegetes. This is clearly one of the best commentaries on the Greek text, more accessible than Davies-Allison. The bibliographies are nearly exhaustive. Nolland wants to date Matthew prior to AD 70, yet thinks it “most unlikely” that the apostle Matthew authored the Gospel. [JTS 10/07; JETS 9/06; BL 2007; RB 1/08; NovT 48.4; RelSRev 10/06; BSac 7/07; ExpTim 7/06].
★ Wilkins, Michael J. (NIVAC) 2004. The largest vol. in the series (over 1000pp.) and built upon a strong exegetical foundation. Wilkins develops the theme of discipleship, upon which he has written a monograph. The author completed his PhD at Fuller Seminary, has done pastoral ministry at a Presbyterian church, and now teaches at Talbot Seminary. As a preacher’s companion alongside the more exegetical works, Wilkins has a much fuller discussion (e.g. see the Beatitudes) than most preacher’s commentaries, but Green may be just as good a value for the money. Both are worth buying. [JETS 6/05].
Alexander, J. A. 1861. Once reprinted from time to time, this is a fairly well-known classic by an amazing Princeton Seminary polymath, who served alternately as professor of OT, Church History, and NT. This commentary was interrupted at ch. 16 by Alexander’s last illness; the remainder of the Gospel (chs. 17 – 28) was covered by his previously prepared chapter summaries.
Allen, O. Wesley, Jr. ‡ (FBPC) 2013. [JSNT 36.5].
Allen, W. C. ‡ (retired ICC) 3rd ed. 1922. Scholars are divided over the value of this ICC. Carson rates it low, while Danker rates it more highly. Considering Carson’s past work with Matthew, I place more weight on his judgment.
✓ Allison, Dale C. ‡ Studies in Matthew: Interpretation Past and Present, 2005. Collected essays from the main author of the Davies-Allison ICC set. [JETS 12/06; JBL Win 06; BL 2007]. Another, most stimulating read for students is The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (1993).
Argyle, A. W. ‡ (CBC) 1963.
✓ Aune, David E., ed. [ℳ], The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study, 2001. [WTJ Fall 03; RTR 12/02; SwJT Sum 02; RelSRev 1/02; BBR 13.1; Anvil 21.2]. A little more dated on the same topic is Bauer and Powell, eds., Treasures Old and New: Recent Contributions to Matthean Studies (1996).
✓ Balch, David L., ed. ‡ Social History of the Matthean Community, 1991. Approaching the same topic is Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community (1994).
F Bauer, David. (RRA).
✓ Beare, Francis. ‡ 1981. Though a technical, lengthy commentary and widely consulted at one time, Beare is not regarded as of great value at this point. The scholarly approach seemed rather dated even when it appeared in print. [JBL 103.1].
F Beaton, Rick. ‡ (BNTC).
✓ Becker, Eve-Marie, and Anders Runesson, eds. ‡ Mark and Matthew I-II, 2 vols., 2011 – 13. See David Sim’s essay, “Matthew: The Current State of Research.” [BBR 24.2; JSNT 34.5].
F Black, C. Clifton. ‡ (NTL).
☆ Blomberg, Craig. (NAC) 1992. A work containing great insight, just as one would expect in light of his previous research on the Gospels (e.g. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels) and parables (see that section below). This commentary is 460pp. long and does not directly treat the Greek text, though one senses that all the research is there to back up his conclusions. Along with Stein’s Luke, Pohill’s Acts, Garland’s 2 Corinthians, and Schreiner on 1, 2 Peter, Jude, this is the best in the NT series thus far. Nearly as valuable to the pastor as any of the above recommended commentaries on Matthew. The more I’ve used this, the more I have come to appreciate it. Comparing Keener with Blomberg, the former has more primary source material and an impressive bibliography, while the latter is a wiser, more mature guide in exposition, with a minimum of distractions. Blomberg is also half the price. [Them 10/94; CTJ 11/94; CBQ 1/94; CRBR 1994].
☆ Boice, James Montgomery. 2 vols., 2001. Of value to preachers. See John’s Gospel.
✓ Boring, Eugene. ‡ (NIB) 1995. The author also has major commentaries published on Mark’s Gospel, Thessalonians, and Revelation. [JETS 3/99].
Bornkamm, Günther, Gerhard Barth, and Heinz Held. ‡ Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, ET 1963. Significant for launching redaction criticism on this Gospel.
✓ Boxall, Ian. ‡ Discovering Matthew: Content, Interpretation, Reception, 2015.
Broadus, J. A. 1886. An old standby of preachers which can still be consulted with profit. Its strengths lie more in the area of exposition and homiletical hints than exegesis.
Brown, Jeannine K. (TTC) 2015. The author is a capable scholar who writes well, and there is a wise selectivity about aspects of Matthew’s Gospel which she engages in this succinct commentary for pastors (approx. 330pp.). She seeks to uncover the narrative theology in the text, understand the socio-cultural backdrop of the stories and teaching, and trace how the theology (with its ethics) in Matthew’s account of Jesus should shape the Christian community. I need to use Brown more, however, to make any recommendation.
☆ Brown, Raymond E. ‡ The Birth of the Messiah, 1977, rev. 1993. A notable, exceedingly full, and moderately critical commentary on the birth and infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke. Brown was a Catholic priest who long taught at Union Seminary in New York. This will be appreciated by the scholarly pastor who reads quickly. [JBL 9/79; EvQ 4/80].
✓ Brown, Raymond E. ‡ The Death of the Messiah, 2 vols., 1994. This astonishingly learned historical and theological commentary on the passion narratives is over 1500pp. long — much too long to recommend to the pastor, despite its value. [Int 4/96; PSB 16.3; JBL Sum 96; Chm 108.4; HBT 12/96].
☆ Bruner, Frederick D. [ℳ], The Christbook (Matthew 1 – 12), 1987; The Churchbook (Matthew 13 – 28), 1990. These books are subtitled, “A Historical/Theological Commentary.” The set was revised (2004), interacting with the massive amount of NT scholarship published over the last 20 years (Davies-Allison, Luz, etc.) and with influential theologians. These massive vols. (1400pp. total) are stimulating, mildly critical, and underline many preaching themes in the Matthew’s Gospel. Bruner is a mainline Presbyterian, known earlier for his valuable doctoral work in systematics, A Theology of the Holy Spirit (1970); this background helps explain why he is so theologically attentive. [EvQ 10/88; RTR 1/88, 5/92; JETS 3/91; Anvil 22.3; EvQ 4/05; Them 4/06; BL 2005; SwJT Fall 04; ExpTim 5/05; CurTM 12/07; BSB 9/04]. See also under John.
✓ Buchanan, George Wesley. ‡ (Mellen Biblical Commentary) 2 vols., 1996. The set cost only $239.90. I never saw this, but it was among the first works in a unique series of intertextual studies (now defunct). See Revelation. [RelSRev 1/98].
F Carter, Warren. ‡ (Illum). Previously he has written the well-regarded Matthew: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist (rev. 2004). See Parables of Jesus.
Case-Winters, Anna. ‡ (Belief) 2015.
☆ Chamblin, Knox. (Mentor) 2 vols., 2010. A much beloved prof at RTS, Chamblin retired in 2001. This large work (1500pp.) is steadfastly, carefully exegetical, not so expositional — important to make clear because Mentor often is equally expositional and exegetical. There is something of a dated feel to the work; I found consistent use of BAGD, not BDAG, and no citations of literature appearing after Keener (1999), except one 2001 WTJ essay. Preachers will note a reverent tone and a number of insights.
Dickson, David. (GS) 1647. Banner thankfully reset this Puritan classic in modern typeface. Retains value as a theological exposition but is not as worthwhile as his Psalms work. [EvQ 4/84].
☆ Doriani, Daniel. (REC) 2 vols., 2008. Exemplary sermons which are the fruit of long academic study — he taught a course on this Gospel for many years at Covenant Seminary — and which nurture the church with the life-giving word. Doriani models how to expound the Scriptures from the redemptive-historical angle.
☆ Evans, Craig A. (NCBC) 2012. Beautifully produced, evangelical, and insightful, which is what was expected, given Evans’s reputation as a top Gospels specialist. (He has written commentaries on the other Synoptics, including an especially thorough one on Mark. Since Matthew uses almost 90 percent of Mark’s content, we can say Evans was well-prepared for this assignment.) His focus is on the text and, though citing much of the most important scholarship, “kept the engagement with scholarly literature to a minimum” (p.xv). Evans’s handling of socio-cultural and religious background is outstanding. Quite useful to students as a recent issue and for its learning in extra-biblical literature. [VT 64.1; JETS 3/13]. See also Carlston – Evans, From Synagogue to Ecclesia (2014), surveying theological motifs: “a major contribution to Matthean studies” (Foster [ExpTim 9/15]).
Fenton, J. ‡ (WPC) 1977. Critically oriented and uneven.
Filson, Floyd V. ‡ (BNTC) 1971. Disappointing, considering Filson’s gifts.
☆ France, Richard T. (TNTC) 1985. Replaced Tasker’s contribution. This is an excellent work, supplemented by his monograph, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher (1989) [JETS 9/92]. Years ago France’s TNTC edged out Morris (but not Blomberg) as a pick for Greekless readers, especially if conserving funds. I was delighted with this fuller Tyndale entry (416pp.), and was even happier with the NICNT above, though the interpretation of ch. 24 is still off the mark.
✓ Gardner, Richard B. (BCBC) 1991. Receives a laudatory review in CRBR 1992.
✓ Garland, David E. Reading Matthew: a Literary and Theological Commentary, 1993. Well done indeed. This same evangelical scholar has written vols. on Mark, Luke, both 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Colossians-Philemon. [JETS 9/97; CBQ 10/94; CRBR 1994; RelSRev 4/97].
✓ Gibbs, Jeffrey A. Matthew 1:1 – 11:1 (Concord) 2006; Matthew 11:2 – 20:34 (Concord) 2010. In keeping with the series’ pattern, a massive and conservative Lutheran exposition. The vols. run to 1025pp. thus far. I have had less opportunity to use it, but find Gibbs to be an able exegete who writes with mind and heart. He studied under Kingsbury and follows him in his narrative approach, finding a tripart structure: 1:1 – 4:16; 4:17 – 16:20; 16:21 – 28:20. He consults much of the important literature in his exegesis, but scholarly interaction isn’t the main aim in this pastor’s commentary. [BL 2008; JETS 3/08; BSac 4/09; CBQ 4/12].
F Graham, David J. (THC).
Green, H. Benedict. ‡ 1975. An OUP issue, packing a lot of background information into small compass. At one time this was worth consulting, if one were doing more thorough research, but can now be safely ignored.
☆ Green, Michael. (BST) 2001. Almost 350pp., this entry is an excellent companion to the more exegetical works I recommended above. Should this be added to your own list? Students may hold off, but many pastors will want to buy Green as a homiletical aid. The author builds upon his earlier exposition, Matthew for Today (1988). He also taught a course on Matthew at Regent College. Preachers on the lookout for additional expository helps might consider the sermonic vols. by Doriani, Boice, and O’Donnell, the commentary by Bruner, and the old vintage Ryle.
✓ Gundry, Robert. [ℳ], Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art, 1982, rev. 1994. A brilliant, erratic commentary coming out of the evangelical ranks — was originally written for EBC, believe it or not. One of the most heavily redaction-critical works ever written on Matthew, interpreting many elements of the story as midrash. It’s hard to assess the author’s true critical stance for he has argued that he continues to believe in the full inspiration and authority of Scripture. [WTJ Fall 83; JBL 103.3; EvQ 7/83; JETS 3/83, 3/84; TJ Spr 82 (Carson)]. The 744-page revision is renamed, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution, and attempts to answer the criticisms leveled at Gundry’s method. (E.g. “Where are the methodological controls?”) As a plus, Gundry prompts us to consider Matthew’s distinctiveness as a gospel, which is a matter of vital interest to every preacher.
✓ Gurtner, Daniel M., and John Nolland, eds. Built upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew, 2008. From the Tyndale Fellowship NT Study Group, this is some of the best current evangelical scholarship. [BL 2009].
☆ Hagner, Donald. [ℳ], (WBC) 2 vols., 1993 – 95. This fine redaction-critical work has been called “certainly one of the best available” [BSB 9/04]. Just a quick look at the first vol.’s 75pp. of introduction and 400pp. of comment on chs. 1 – 13 shows this historically-oriented exegetical study to be quite thorough, and the second vol. is even better. Unlike many other massive works, Hagner is interesting throughout and does not get lost plowing through the technical issues; he gives a great deal of attention to Matthew’s distinctive message. The pastor working in the Greek should find this WBC very helpful. Hagner, now retired from Fuller Seminary, asks many of the right theological questions. There is less narrative criticism. Many have probably bought this set in lieu of the formerly expensive ICC vols. — Hagner’s two vols. together cost half the price of a single ICC hb. [Them 10/96; JETS 3/99; JBL Sum 96; JTS 4/96 & 4/01; TJ Spr 98; CTJ 11/00; RTR 1/97; RelSRev 10/97].
Hare, Douglas R. A. ‡ (I) 1993. I have not used this work (320pp.), but it was called splendid by one reviewer. His Mark commentary in WestBC is highly theological and well done, too. [CBQ 7/94; CRBR 1994; HBT 6/94].
✓ Harrington, Daniel J. ‡ (SacP) 1991. This Jesuit author is also the editor for this Catholic NT series, which is of greater interest to the student than the preacher. Evaluating the series as a whole, I judge the SacP vols. on the Gospels as most valuable; that being said, the Matthew contribution is the weakest of the four. [CBQ 7/93; Int 10/93; EvQ 1/95; Bib 75.1; CRBR 1993].
✓ Hatina, Thomas R., ed. Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels. II. The Gospel of Matthew, 2008. For two companion vols., see Hatina under Mark and Luke. [BL 2010].
Hauerwas, Stanley. ‡ (Brazos) 2006. This exposition by a famous American theologian will prompt preachers to think hard about the meaning of Matthew today. Reviewers are less sanguine about the quality of exegesis underlying the sometimes insightful exposition; see p.18 for a hint of his personal struggle to launch into the rough waters of commentary-writing and for his scheme to retell Matthew’s story. Here is a provocative quote, reflecting on ch. 4: “Give the devil his due. He understands, as is seldom acknowledged particularly in our day, that politics is about worship and sacrifice.” [CBQ 7/08; JETS 6/08; BL 2008].
Hendriksen, William. (NTC) 1976. Has been valuable for preachers, especially those in the Reformed camp. He probes a number of Matthew’s theological emphases such as the kingdom of God. Very long (over 1000pp.) and sometimes prolix, this is one of his better commentaries.
✓ Hill, David. ‡ (NCB) 1972. A moderately critical commentary which in the past was quite useful for students, less so for pastors. Years ago Hill was Ralph Martin’s first pick. With the passage of time, this commentary has much declined in value and is nowhere near the top of anyone’s list. [EvQ 1/73].
☆ Keener, Craig S. (IVPNT) 1997. Well done. See Keener above.
✓ Kingsbury, Jack D. ‡ Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom, 1975; Matthew as Story, 2nd ed. 1988. These redaction and narrative-critical works have had great influence in the discussion of Matthew’s theology. Some of his conclusions are distilled in his brief Proclamation Commentary (1981). There had been reports of a major work in ECC on the horizon. [RTR 1/77; JBL 6/77; EvQ 4/77].
Long, Thomas G. ‡ (WestBC) 1997. [Int 10/98; PSB 19.2; RelSRev 10/98].
F Lowery, David, and John Lowery. (EEC).
Luz, Ulrich. ‡ Matthew 1 – 7 (ContC) ET 1989. I recommend this be passed over in preference for the reformatted and retranslated Hermeneia vol. below [ExpTim 10/07]. This ContC vol. is translated by Linss from the 1985 edition, while the 2007 translation by Crouch comes from a revised German edition. [JBL Fall 92; Int 7/91; ExpTim 2/93; CTJ 4/94].
✓ Luz, Ulrich. ‡ Matthew 8 – 20 (Herm) 1997, ET 2001; Matthew 21 – 28 (Herm) 1997 – 2002, ET 2005; Matthew 1 – 7 (Herm) 2002, ET 2007. If you have means and are an academic, buy this. A brilliant technical work translated out of the German EKK, this commentary is more accessible than ICC — for example, there is not a lot of textual criticism — and more concerned with interpreting Matthew’s theology. Luz, a prof at Bern, is certainly worth consulting, particularly for the attention he pays to what German-speakers call Wirkungsgeschichte (more “reception history” than “history of interpretation”); there is much artwork included. The four vols. in German (1997 – 2002) become three in English. Note that this is a distinctive contribution to this Fortress series, one that is more useful to preachers than the vols. on Mark and John. See Luz above for an earlier version of Matthew 1 – 7. [CBQ 1/02, 1/07; JBL Win 02; Int 1/03, 4/09; HBT 6/02; SwJT Spr 02; JR 7/02; RelSRev 1/02; CurTM 12/03; JETS 6/08; BL 2007, 2008; ThTo 4/08; RelSRev 10/06; BSac 4/07; NovT 52.3]. Students can also look up his Studies in Matthew, ET 2005 [EvQ 10/07; RTR 12/07; JTS 10/06; JETS 6/06; Them 5/07; JBL Win 06; BL 2006; RelSRev 4/07, 9/08; BTB Win 07], and the 1995 Cambridge work, The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew [Int 7/97; JR 4/97; HBT 12/96].
MacArthur, John. 4 vols., 1985 – 89. These Matthew vols. were among the first published in this ambitious project to cover the whole NT. About 27 vols. are out. I have to say I’m not real impressed with these expositions. There is some fine sermonic material in them, and I’m glad they’re out there for lay preachers and Sunday School teachers, but I would not consider them the most dependable tools for seminary-trained pastors. Only to be used after one’s own exegesis. Of a similar genre (practical exposition) but a bit more like commentaries are the vols. in PTW, mostly by Kent Hughes. On Matthew’s Gospel compare O’Donnell. [JETS 3/87].
✓ Machen, J. Gresham. The Virgin Birth of Christ, 1930. The classic defense of Bible teaching, still being challenged. See Born of a Virgin? (2013) by Lincoln [ExpTim 11/14; DenvJ 17].
✓ Malina, Bruce J., and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. ‡ Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, 1992.
Mann, C. S., and William Albright. ‡ (AB) 1971. Has a huge introduction, but spotty and disappointing exegesis. They defend the Griesbach Hypothesis (i.e. reject Markan priority and Matthew’s dependence on the Second Gospel). This hypothesis, which goes back to the early Church and held sway until it went into eclipse in the early 1800s, was revived by W. R. Farmer’s The Synoptic Problem (1964) [EvQ 10/77]. See also Farmer’s vol., The Gospel of Jesus. For a thoroughgoing critique of that thesis, consult C. M. Tuckett’s The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis (CUP, 1983). Attacking both the Griesbach Hypothesis and Q is Mark Goodacre, The Case against Q (2002) [NovT 46.4; ExpTim 12/05]. A lively evangelical roundtable discussion of the various synoptic theories is Black – Beck, eds., Rethinking the Synoptic Problem (2001) [NovT 49.2].
✓ McNeile, A. H. ‡ 1915. On the Greek text, and still useful for that reason — more so than Allen’s old ICC.
Meier, John P. ‡ (NTM) 1979. A critical Catholic commentary by a man who has taken a lead role in Gospel scholarship since the 1980s. His influence continues today, and the controversial 5-vol. set, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, doesn’t please evangelicals. Meier has contributed to the spate of recent critical books, which amounts to a Third Quest to reconstruct the Jesus of history. This movement, while not as radical as the “New Quest” Renewed (exemplified in the works of Mack and Crossan), alleges there is less continuity between the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith. See next entry. [JBL 101.2].
F Meier, John P. ‡ (AYB). Proposed as a 2-vol. set to replace Mann-Albright. See previous entry.
Mitch, Curtis, and Edward Sri. ‡ (CCSS) 2010.
☆ Morris, Leon. (Pillar) 1992. This joins his earlier commentaries on John and Romans; all are useful works for the expositor. This work on Matthew is not scintillating and doesn’t break new ground, but it is solid, basic, and dependable. Like Hendriksen, its size and thoroughness is a major strength. Compare with Blomberg’s more incisive and up-to-date work. [Int 1/94; EvQ 1/95; RTR 1/94; CRBR 1994].
Mounce, Robert A. (NIBC) 1985. Highly regarded by some as a basic work for introducing this Gospel to beginning students. Mounce has written other fine commentaries, especially the NICNT on Revelation.
Mullins, Michael. The Gospel of Matthew, 2007. A large work (661pp.) I have never seen, published in Dublin. [ExpTim 7/09].
✓ Newman, B. M., and P. C. Stine. (UBS) 1988. A translator’s handbook which is over 900pp.
✓ Neyrey, J. H. ‡ Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew, 1998.
O’Donnell, Douglas Sean. (PTW) 2013. Highly praised as a homiletical work by Yarbrough of Covenant Seminary, but I have not seen it (1088pp.).
F Olmstead, Wesley. (BHGNT).
☆ Osborne, Grant R. (ZECNT) 2010. Doing what he does best, Osborne approaches this Gospel using a chastened redaction criticism to offer a careful and thorough exegesis of the Greek (over 1100pp.). He also employs a style of discourse analysis with text diagrams, in keeping with the series aims. Osborne is a respected senior scholar, with major commentaries under his belt (e.g. Revelation in BECNT), and he has taught Matthew to seminarians for over 30 years. He has also done much pastoral work and knows what preachers need. Anyone desiring help with preparing expositional sermons will find it in abundance here. Blomberg [DenvJ 14] terms it “my preferred commentary on Matthew,” except when he wants exhaustive technical discussion. [BBR 21.4; JSNT 34.5; RBL 2011 (Keener); JETS 12/11; ExpTim 8/12; Them 8/11; BSac 10/11].
✓ Overman, J. Andrew. ‡ Church and Community in Crisis: The Gospel According to Matthew, 1996. A fine 400-page work from the New Testament in Context series. The author is particularly interested in “the social world of the Matthean Community” (the subtitle of his 1990 Fortress vol.). This work in pb is more important than its size might first indicate, though the community idea has come in for deserved criticism.
Patte, Daniel. ‡ 1987. Subtitled, “A Structural Commentary on Matthew’s Faith.” This is a specifically structural work, not attempting to answer all the questions taken up in a full-orbed critical commentary. Those who are curious about this hermeneutical approach — part of what is called the New Literary Criticism — should consult Patte’s What Is Structural Exegesis? Truth be told, structuralism’s star was fading even when this was published. [JBL 107.4; CRBR 1990].
✓ Pennington, Jonathan T. Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew, 2007. Originally published by Brill, the work argues that “kingdom of heaven” is not an insignificant variant on “kingdom of God.” The reviews have been laudatory. [BBR 19.4].
✓ Plummer, Alfred. 1915. Has been reprinted many times but, like Allen and McNeile, is dated.
✓ Powell, Mark Allan. ‡ Chasing the Eastern Star: Adventures in Biblical Reader-Response Criticism, 2001. After explaining his take on this controversial method, Powell applies it to the story of the Magi. As several reviews have stated, the author is engaging and witty. [Evangel Sum 03; Anvil 19.3].
✓ Powell, Mark Allan, ed. ‡ Methods for Matthew, 2009. The publisher (CUP) describes this as “a primer on six exegetical approaches that have proved to be especially useful and popular.” Leading scholars contribute. [BBR 20.2; Int 10/11; JETS 3/11; ExpTim 4/11].
✓ Quarles, Charles L. A Theology of Matthew, 2013. From the P&R series, Explorations in Biblical Theology. [WTJ Fall 14; Chm Win 14; JETS 3/15; Them 4/14].
F Quarles, Charles L. (EGGNT).
F Reeves, Rodney. (SGBC).
✓ Riches, J., and D. C. Sim, eds. ‡ The Gospel of Matthew in Its Roman Imperial Context, 2005.
☆ Ridderbos, Herman. (BSC) 1952 – 54, ET 1987. Quite helpful theologically and in a readable format [JETS 3/91 (Carson)]. My former prof, Karl Cooper, told me that Ridderbos’s The Coming of the Kingdom (1962) is even more helpful and stimulating for work in Matthew’s Gospel. He was right.
☆ Ryle, J. C. (CrossC) 1993.
✓ Schnackenburg, Rudolf. ‡ 1985 – 87, ET 2002. From a leading German NT scholar. This commentary can be consulted by students who want a more historically oriented and theological work from a Catholic and critical perspective. It is heavy on redaction criticism. I’d say this Eerdmans pb (329pp.) was not one of his stronger efforts. Schnackenburg is better known for his works on John’s Gospel, Ephesians, and John’s Epistles. [EvQ 7/04; RTR 12/03; JETS 12/03; Int 7/03; ExpTim 10/04; CurTM 12/03].
✓ Schweizer, Eduard. ‡ ET 1975. His three vols. on the Synoptics make ready use of redaction criticism and are designed for pastors, often with good insights into the text. Much better on Mark and Luke than on Matthew. Carson notes that “in this volume Schweizer devotes almost all his space to non-Markan material in Matthew, making the work almost useless to those who do not have the other commentary.” [RTR 1/77; EvQ 7/76].
✓ Senior, Donald. ‡ (ANTC) 1998. Though not often interacting with other scholarly positions — see the skimpy bibliography — Senior’s work is among the best compact exegetical commentaries on this Gospel from the critical side. Cf. the Allison abridgement. The author, a recognized expert on Matthew, teaches at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, has written What Are They Saying About Matthew? (2nd ed. 1996), and also contributed Matthew to IBT (1997). [CBQ 1/00; ThTo 7/98; RelSRev 7/99].
✓ Senior, Donald, ed. ‡ The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity, 2011. Another huge vol. from BETL. [BBR 23.4; JSNT 35.5; ExpTim 12/12].
✓ Sim, David C. ‡ The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism, 1998.
✓ Simonetti, Manlio, ed. (ACCS) 2 vols., 2001 – 02. [JETS 9/03; RelSRev 10/02; BBR 13.1].
Smith, Robert. ‡ (Augsburg Commentary on the NT) 1988.
Spurgeon, Charles. The Gospel of the Kingdom, 1893. Reprinted from time to time.
✓ Stanton, Graham. ‡ A Gospel for a New People, 1992. A very stimulating read for the student and one of my favorite books on Matthew. See also Stanton’s selection of key essays in the field: Interpretation of Matthew (1983, 2nd ed. 1995).
✓ Stendahl, Krister. ‡ The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the OT, 1954, 2nd ed. 1968. One of the first studies attempting to trace the alleged influence of the believing communities surrounding the apostles on the shaping of the Gospels. [JBL 89.2]. Compare with Martyn’s History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (1968) and R. E. Brown’s work on the Johannine literature, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (1979).
✓ Stonehouse, Ned B. The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ, 1944. To appreciate the significance of this work and its companion, The Witness of Luke to Christ, see Silva’s two articles on “Ned B. Stonehouse and Redaction Criticism” in WTJ 40. Both of Stonehouse’s works were combined in one vol.: The Witness of the Synoptic Gospels to Christ (1979). You’ll find the author to be both a superb exegete and a pioneer.
✓ Talbert, Charles H. ‡ (Paideia) 2010. “What is offered here is an attempt at a fresh reading of the First Gospel” (Preface), with a first-century reader-centered approach (“reading with the authorial audience”). The author is a respected Baylor academic, learned in his field; I think his essays are more valuable than some of his commentary work (over 320pp.). He usually brackets historical issues, but dates the Gospel a bit later (80 – 100). As Davids notes, there is nary a Greek letter or a transliterated word in the book [BBR 21.4]. [CBQ 1/12; Int 4/12; ExpTim 6/11].
Tasker, R. V. G. (retired TNTC) 1961. Has had some value as a quick reference.
☆ Turner, David L. (BECNT) 2008. A competent conservative exegesis by a prof at Grand Rapids Theological Seminary who has been publishing on Matthew for a long time. Turner associates himself with the progressive dispensational camp along with such people as Bock. He reads the Gospel as coming from a “Christian-Jewish” perspective, “as the voice of ‘Jews for Jesus’ as it were” (p.3). Interestingly, he did doctoral studies at Hebrew Union College as well as Grace Seminary. A strength of the commentary is his focus upon the narrative, its features and flow. He eschews a redactional approach which might read “Matthew as an adaptation of Mark” (p.3). [ExpTim 5/09; RelSRev 12/08; Them 9/08; JETS 9/09; BL 2009; CBQ 10/11]. I count this vol. among the weaker entries in the very strong BECNT.
Turner, David L., The Gospel of Matthew, and Darrell L. Bock, The Gospel of Mark (CorBC) 2005. Solid conservative scholarship, more from a moderate dispensational perspective. Both concisely cover the basic issues and then move toward application. [JETS 12/07].
F Willitts, Joel. (NCCS). The author teaches at North Park University in Chicago and has published his Cambridge PhD, Matthew’s Messianic Shepherd-King (2007) [JETS 3/09; EuroJTh 18.1].
✓ Witherington, Ben. (S&H) 2006. This work of 550pp., by perhaps the most prolific NT scholar today, would be cause for more preachers’ celebration, were it not so poorly edited and proofread, if proofread at all [DenvJ 11/06]. Though not a work of profound scholarship, it is the product of careful study and is a help to those preparing sermons. His writing and some of the accompanying artwork (e.g. p.518) provoke reflection. As with his work on John’s Gospel, he attempts a “sapiential reading,” wanting to interpret Matthew as owing much to ancient Israel’s wisdom tradition. The thesis is less than convincing, in my opinion. [Int 1/08; RelSRev 12/08].
NOTES: (1) Please remember the recommendation of Calvin’s Commentaries. (2) See Richard France, “Matthew’s Gospel in Recent Study,” Them, 1/89; John Ziesler’s “Which Is the Best Commentary? I. Matthew,” ExpTim, 12/85; David C. Sim, “The Synoptic Gospels,” ExpTim, 4/08. (3) Darrell L. Bock, “Commentaries on the Synoptic Gospels” (pp.339 – 63), in On the Writing of NT Commentaries, eds. Porter and Schnabel, cited in the Introduction.
★ Ferguson, Sinclair B. Kingdom Living in a Fallen World, 1986. Excellent, edifying study now being published by Banner of Truth under the title, The Sermon on the Mount. Ferguson’s is one of the very best devotional works on the Sermon, and has served well, I know, as a guide for Bible studies. [RTR 9/88; SBET Spr 90].
★ Guelich, Robert A. [ℳ], 1982. This immensely learned, mildly critical book has a wealth of information and, though aging, is still regarded as a standard historical-critical commentary on this portion of Scripture. Compare to the other heavyweight academic studies by Allison, Betz, and Davies. This was reprinted by W Publishing Group in pb. [JBL 103.3; TJ Fall 83 (Wenham)].
★ Lloyd-Jones, D. Martyn. 1959 – 60. A lengthy, reverent, penetrating exposition, which deserves a place on every pastor’s shelf! Lloyd-Jones’s collection of sermons will never lose its value to the preacher. Has been reprinted many times.
★ Stott, John R. W. (BST) 1978. Formerly titled Christian Counter-Culture (210pp.), this is “a very crisp, clear and brief analysis” of the Sermon on the Mount, “standing alongside Lloyd-Jones” (George Knight). [ExpTim 5/78; EvQ 7/78; JETS 6/80].
✓ Allison, Dale C., Jr. ‡ 1999. Building upon the 3-vol. ICC on Matthew, “this book is to be commended to students and general readers alike” (Ruth Edwards). [ExpTim 1/00; RelSRev 1/01].
Augsburger, Myron. The Expanded Life, 1972. A popularly-styled exposition.
✓ Baasland, Ernst. ‡ Parables and Rhetoric in the Sermon on the Mount, 2015. A valuable, large-scale (650pp.), technical treatment of Matthew 5 – 7, written by a retired Norwegian scholar and former Lutheran bishop. He argues that both the parabolic language (a third of the material) and the rhetorical argumentation in the Sermon have been neglected in scholarship.
Barclay, William. ‡ And Jesus Said, 1970.
✓ Betz, Hans Dieter. ‡ (Herm) 1995. A huge (768-page) commentary on both Matthew 5 – 7 and Luke 6 which should be consulted. No previous exegetical work on the Sermon on the Mount has ever run to this length. This detailed, technical commentary emphasizes parallel texts and issues of rhetorical criticism; Betz writes for specialists. It is the rare expositor who could put this tome to good use. Rather critical in its orientation. See also his Essays on the Sermon on the Mount (1985). [ThTo 10/96; JETS 6/99; JBL Spr 98; Int 7/97; CBQ 4/97; SwJT Sum 96; PSB 17.3; JR 1/98].
Boice, James M. 1972. A sermonic exposition of value, from early in his pastoral ministry.
☆ Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. [ℳ], The Cost of Discipleship, ET 1959. Includes some arresting exposition of sections of the Sermon on the Mount. He argues that “only those who believe obey, . . . only those who obey believe” (p.68). Bonhoeffer’s personal history is well-known. Connected with the Neo-Orthodox Confessing Church during the Third Reich, he was imprisoned at Buchenwald for opposing Hitler and finally martyred by the S.S. at Flossenburg concentration camp.
☆ Calvin, John. Sermons on the Beatitudes, 1560, ET 2006. A brief (114pp.) but precious book. [Presb Fall 07; RTR 8/09; Chm Aut 12; RTR 8/10].
☆ Carson, Donald. 1978. A superb exposition with exegetical depth to it. This was reprinted in 1999 by Global Christian Publishers, combined in an inexpensive pb with Carson’s exposition of Matthew 8 – 10, When Jesus Confronts the World. I expect this will retain value over the years. A wise purchase for pastors.
✓ Carter, Warren. What Are They Saying about Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount? 1994. Students can make good use of Carter.
Chambers, Oswald. Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, 1960 reprint.
✓ Davies, W. D. ‡ The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount, 1964. A scholarly study of great importance, though Guelich and Betz are now the premier studies.
✓ Greenman, Jeffrey, Timothy Larsen, and Stephen Spencer. The Sermon on the Mount Through the Centuries, 2007. [RelSRev 3/08].
Hart, Addison Hodges. Taking Jesus at His Word, 2012. [ExpTim 10/14; RevExp Sum 13].
Hendriksen, William. 1934.
☆ Hughes, R. Kent. (PTW) 2001. Another really thoughtful evangelical exposition to compete with Stott, Lloyd-Jones, Ferguson, etc. [BSac 1/03].
Hunter, A. M. [ℳ], A Pattern for Life, 1965. Any who have used Hunter’s works are grateful for his clear style and insights. He was a very careful, mildly critical NT prof at Aberdeen.
✓ Jeremias, Joachim. ‡ ET 1961.
Kendall, R. T. 2011. About 400pp. of sermonic/devotional material by a successor of Martyn Lloyd-Jones at Westminster Chapel. [BSac 1/13].
✓ Kissinger, W. S. ‡ The Sermon on the Mount: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography, 1975.
Luther, Martin. “The Sermon on the Mount (Sermons),” Luther’s Works, vol. 21, ET 1956.
☆ McKnight, Scot. (SGBC) 2013. Though not in an academic series, McKnight distills an abundance of good scholarship and is useful to students. The main users of this SGBC (300pp.), however, will be pastors and Bible study leaders. He terms himself Anabaptist (p.254) and, at the outset, protests against interpreters who have “softened, reduced, recontextualized, and in some cases abandoned what Jesus taught” (p.1). [JETS 9/14].
✓ Patte, Daniel. ‡ The Challenge of Discipleship: A Critical Study of the Sermon on the Mount as Scripture, 1999. [Int 4/01].
Pelikan, Jaroslav. ‡ Divine Rhetoric: The Sermon on the Mount as Message and as Model in Augustine, Chrysostom, and Luther, 2001.
Quarles, Charles. Sermon on the Mount: Restoring Christ’s Message to the Modern Church, 2011. A large (over 350pp.), conservative Baptist work. [JETS 9/12].
Schnackenburg, R. ‡ All Things Are Possible to Believers: Reflections on the Lord’s Prayer and the Sermon on the Mount, ET 1995.
✓ Strecker, Georg. ‡ ET 1988. This exegetical commentary published by Abingdon is “heavily Germanic and theological” [ExpTim 3/90]; it should be consulted by students who want to get a historical-critical reading.
✓ Talbert, Charles H. ‡ Reading the Sermon on the Mount, 2004 (Baker, 2006). [BL 2005, 2007; BSac 1/08].
✓ Vaught, Carl G. [ℳ], 1987, rev. 2001. Subtitled A Theological Interpretation, and now published by Baylor. [CRBR 1989].
✓ Welch, John W. ‡ The Sermon on the Mount in Light of the Temple, 2009.
F Wenham, David.
NOTE: Five fine books specifically on the Lord’s Prayer are: Thomas Watson’s Puritan exposition; Helmut Thielicke’s sermons, Our Heavenly Father; the 1992 supplementary issue of the PSB on the Lord’s Prayer (“1991 Frederick Neumann Symposium”); Kenneth Stevenson’s historical study, The Lord’s Prayer: A Text in Tradition (2004); and Jeffrey B. Gibson, The Disciples’ Prayers: The Prayer Jesus Taught in Its Historical Setting (Fortress, 2015).
★ Edwards, James. (Pillar) 2002. Clearly written, good and solid, offering a satisfying exegetical treatment and theological discussion. Reviewers have been very pleased with this 552-page vol., which pays attention both to matters of historical background and narrative analysis (for more of the latter, see SacP, BCBC, Witherington, and Moloney). The greatest strength here may be his attention to extra-biblical Jewish literature. Compare Edwards with Lane. Stein, France, and Strauss now take pride of place as the leading recent evangelical exegeses, but they deal directly with the Greek, and some preachers may find Edwards less threatening. See also his Luke. [CTJ 4/04; Them Aut 03; Int 1/03; JETS 6/03 (Stein); SwJT Spr 03; RelSRev 7/03; EvQ 10/04; BBR 13.2; RTR 8/08; Anvil 20.1].
★ France, Richard T. (NIGTC) 2002. I find I now turn first to France and Stein (in that order), as reference tools on technical questions. This is a mature and excellent piece of work on the Greek text. Many, however, will refuse to follow him in his interpretation of the coming of the Son of Man texts. (See under Matthew.) For the student and academically oriented pastor, the (slightly more) critically oriented Guelich and Evans set is nearly as valuable as NIGTC. [CTJ 4/04; Them Sum 03; JTS 10/03; JETS 6/03; Int 1/03; TJ Fall 03; RelSRev 7/02; BBR 13.2; RTR 8/06; CurTM 12/05; Anvil 22.2].
★ Garland, David. (NIVAC) 1996. The author also contributed the Colossians-Philemon commentary in this series. Though English is good, this is fuller (630pp.) and of greater help to the expositor. Less informed by NT scholarship but also very useful are Hughes and English below. Garland knows the Gospels; see his earlier work on Matthew as well. One of the best in the series. He has added A Theology of Mark’s Gospel (2015), which is extensive (650pp.) and serves both academics and expositors.
★ Stein, Robert H. (BECNT) 2008. Cause for rejoicing! Like France, Stein offers solid technical exegesis which is also quite readable. For decades Stein has been a leading American evangelical scholar on the Synoptics, and I opine that he has given us some of his best work, near the close of his career, in this full commentary (864pp.). He gives considerable space to a discussion of the original ending or lack of one. See also his NAC work on Luke; both tend to pursue redaction critical questions instead of literary/narratological ones. Having a literary reading (e.g. Moloney or Witherington) and an incisive critical interpretation (e.g. Hooker or Marcus) alongside Stein makes for a well-rounded discussion. [JETS 12/09; ExpTim 10/09; CBQ 7/10; BBR 20.2; BL 2010].
★ Strauss, Mark L. (ZECNT) 2014. The author was here given opportunity to dig deeper into Mark’s Gospel after having reworked Wessel’s contribution for EBCR. He knows the Gospels well — see his Four Portraits, One Jesus (2007) [RelSRev 9/12] — and has produced a large (730pp.), well-rounded commentary that treats matters of translation, literary structure, the flow of argument/story, exegesis, theological exposition, and contemporary application. The reader comes to appreciate, as Strauss himself does, the Gospel “author’s literary design and theological skill,” which yields “a well-structured, powerful theological drama that catches the reader up and carries them to a new destination” (Preface). Strauss is learned (Aberdeen PhD), articulate, and serves on the faculty of Bethel Seminary. One of the stronger vols. in the series. [JSNT 37.5; BBR 25.2].
Alexander, J. A. (GS) 1858. Though dated, it is still useful as a theological exposition. Alexander has other commentaries on Psalms, Isaiah, Matthew, and Acts.
✓ Anderson, Hugh. ‡ (NCB) 1976. Sometimes frustrating in its skeptical approach, but Anderson has been a noted work. Ralph Martin used to recommend this NCB, with its full introduction, and I turned to it when I wanted a scholarly, critical perspective. Like Hill on Matthew, this does not have prominence among commentaries as it once did.
✓ Anderson, Janice Capel, and Stephen D. Moore, eds. ‡ Mark & Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies, 1992, 2nd ed. 2008. This touted book should not be missed by students working on Mark or even the Synoptics generally, if they seek an understanding of the shape of Gospels study today. [BibInt 18.3; RelSRev 9/09; BL 2010].
Barbieri, Louis. (Moody Gospel Commentary) 1995. A full, popular-level work in pb.
✓ Beasley-Murray, George R. [ℳ], Jesus and the Last Days: A Commentary on Mark 13, 1957, rev. 1993. The revision published by Hendrickson is 600pp. long and gives a thorough, rich treatment of Jesus’s eschatological teaching.
✓ Beavis, Mary Ann. ‡ (Paideia) 2011. The author did her PhD on Mark at Cambridge in the mid – 1980s, and she has contributed a lucid exegetical treatment of the Gospel, particularly a sensitive narrative reading. She spells out her commitments on p.29: “academic, Anglican, liberal, feminist, social-justice oriented.” [BBR 22.4; Int 4/13; JSNT 35.5; ExpTim 11/12; TJ Spr 14].
✓ Becker, Eve-Marie, and Anders Runesson, eds. ‡ Mark and Matthew I-II, 2 vols., 2011 – 13. See Cilliars Breytenbach, “Current Research on the Gospel according to Mark.” [BBR 24.2].
✓ Black, C. Clifton. ‡ (ANTC) 2011. I have not had opportunity to use this commentary, but the author is a well-respected critic. [CBQ 1/14; Int 7/15; JSNT 35.5; ExpTim 3/13]. His dissertation was a blockbuster in critiquing the redaction critical approach: The Disciples According to Mark (1989, 2nd ed. 2012) [BTB 5/15].
☆ Bock, Darrell. “The Gospel of Mark” (CorBC) 2005. See Turner under Matthew.
☆ Bock, Darrell. (NCBC) 2015. Exactly the solid work one would expect of this Gospels expert (390pp.). Because of the recent date and Bock’s goal “to reflect the discussion [the major commentaries] raise about the book” (p.xi), this CUP issue will be useful to both students and pastors. He comes to traditional conclusions on matters of authorship, date, provenance, and genre (ancient bios “that presents Jesus as a hero whose life is worthy of reflection and emulation,” p.37). He is an unusually gifted and productive exegete, as seen here and in his works on Jesus, Luke, and Acts. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about this NCBC is that Bock devotes 65pp. to bibliography. Bolt, Peter. The Cross from a Distance: Atonement in Mark’s Gospel (NSBT) 2004.
✓ Boring, M. Eugene. ‡ (NTL) 2006. Considered to be in the top rank of mid-level critical commentaries on Mark, Boring “emphasizes Mark’s theological creativity as an evangelist” (Bock). Not only is this work quite full (482pp.), it is also a model of compressed historical scholarship, and the reader gets a great deal of information for the time invested. I have to class it as one of the better contributions to the NTL series. Boring pays attention to literary or narrative features but asserts that “the substantive content of Mark’s narrative is theological” (p.24). There is properly a focus on Christ, since “[t]he Gospel of Mark is narrative Christology” (p.8). The translation offered is forceful and fresh. Boring holds that the evangelist drew from oral traditions, not being an eyewitness. Here “the approach is still heavily indebted to form-critical insights” (Foster). At points I find myself in strong disagreement with Boring, as when he contends that “for Mark, ‘Son of David’ is a misunderstanding of Jesus’ true identity” (p.305). [Int 10/08; BL 2008; RelSRev 4/07; ExpTim 12/07; CurTM 12/08].
F Botha, P. J. J. (RRA).
Bratcher, R. G., and E. A. Nida. (UBS) 1961. One of the oldest in the series.
☆ Brooks, James A. (NAC) 1991. Some reviewers find it not as full, insightful, or well-informed as the other NAC vols. on the Gospels. Clifton Black sees Brooks as surprisingly open to higher criticism. I have not made enough use of it to justify a personal opinion. Carson ranks this highly. [EvQ 1/94; ThTo 10/93; CRBR 1994].
✓ Chilton, Bruce, Darrell Bock et al., eds. A Comparative Handbook to the Gospel of Mark: Comparisons with Pseudepigrapha, the Qumran Scrolls, and Rabbinic Literature, 2010. From the Brill project, NT Gospels in Their Judaic Context, which aims to be a new “Strack und Billerbeck” — nothing to worry about, if you don’t know what this means. [BBR 21.3 (Evans); JETS 3/11; BTB 8/12; RelSRev 6/12].
☆ Cole, R. Alan. (TNTC) rev. 1989. Though not one of the best entries in the series, it is serviceable and thoughtful. The newer edition was more of a revision than many others in the series. [RTR 5/91].
☆ Cranfield, C. E. B. [ℳ], (CGTC) 1959. A clear, balanced, sensible commentary which you will consult often once you’ve sampled it. Mildly critical with incisive exegesis. Cranfield’s method does not seem to have been influenced much by Marxsen’s redaction critical approach (see p.478). For work on the Greek text, scholarly pastors keep this handy. It is a shame that Cambridge prices it at $50 (pb). Still in print. Through six editions of this guide I recommended Cranfield for purchase, but its place was given to France.
✓ Culpepper, R. Alan. ‡ (S&H) 2007. One of the best in the NT section of this series. The author is especially known for his expertise in narrative criticism, and in particular his research on the narratives in John. I have found this commentary (622pp.) to be uncommonly insightful, yielding many insights that a preacher can bring into sermons. E.g. over 20 years ago I found it stunning that after cleansing the leper, who previously had been ostracized from the community, Jesus is put in the position of having to “stay outside in lonely places” due to the healed man’s disobedience (1:45). Culpepper picks up on such narrative features and reflects on them theologically. [RelSRev 3/08; Int 4/09].
☆ Decker, Rodney J. (BHGNT) 2 vols., 2014. Over 600pp. of learned analysis of the Greek by a late veteran Baptist scholar (†2014). The set is not inexpensive, but I can think of few better tools for one to learn verse-by-verse exegesis of Greek narrative.
✓ Donahue, John, and Daniel Harrington. ‡ (SacP) 2002. This large-scale (488pp.) Catholic work interprets the Gospel of Mark through research into intertextuality and intratextuality, besides other more tried methods like redaction criticism and narrative criticism. There is great learning here as two veteran scholars have teamed up (Donahue is primarily responsible for 1 – 8 and 14; Harrington does the rest). [CBQ 1/03; JETS 6/03; Int 1/03; RelSRev 10/02].
Dowd, Sharyn. ‡ Reading Mark (RNT) 2000.
F Dunn, James D. G. ‡ (ICC – new series). Once Barbour had been announced.
☆ English, Donald. (BST) 1992. A boon for the expositor. Very well written, with many theological and pastoral insights. [Chm 109.2].
☆ Evans, Craig. [ℳ], Mark 8:27 – 16:20 (WBC) 2001. This completes the work Guelich so ably began. Evans did the vol. on Luke for NIBC and is a first-rate scholar. It is very full (nearly 100pp. of introduction and 500pp. of commentary), and the theological approach seems to be similar to Gundry’s. As we have come to expect of WBC, the bibliographies are very well prepared. Unfortunately, there are more than a few editorial problems — e.g. on p.131 the Hebrew for Jericho is misspelled in one place and in another Jerusalem is mistakenly written for Jericho. Strangely, too, the hb cover to my copy is upside down. I value Evans more highly than Guelich, and not only because of more current bibliographies. Evans is to write a new WBC on 1:1 – 8:26. Students and scholarly pastors won’t want to be without Evans in working with the Greek. [CTJ 11/02; NovT 44.4].
✓ Focant, Camille. ‡ 2004, ET 2012. A work 30 years in the making, building upon his many essays (collected in Marc, un évangile étonnant, BETL, 2006). Though treating historical-critical concerns (e.g. through redaction criticism), Focant delivers mainly a narrative critical interpretation in this important major commentary (approx. 750pp.), published by Pickwick. [NovT 56.2; CBQ 4/14; ETL 84.1, 89.4; JETS 6/13 (Stein)].
☆ Geddert, Timothy. (BCBC) 2001. An excellent, more literary commentary, which is one of the very best in the NT section of the series. The Anabaptist author did previous work (Aberdeen PhD) on the Olivet Discourse in Mark. There is much to be enthusiastic about here. [JETS 9/02; RelSRev 10/01].
F Gombis, Timothy G. (SGBC).
Gould, E. P. ‡ (ICC) 1896. Can be safely ignored.
☆ Guelich, Robert A. [ℳ], Mark 1 – 8:26 (WBC) 1989. This standard scholarly commentary needs to be consulted. Draws heavily from German scholarship on this Gospel (Gnilka, Pesch, etc.) and is interested in tradition history. Sadly, Guelich died (†1991) in the prime of his career before finishing Mark for the series. Evans has completed the 2-vol. set, and these both are highly recommended for advanced students. Guelich is the same scholar who produced the exceptional study of the Sermon on the Mount. This work is due to be replaced; see Craig Evans above. [CRBR 1992; EvQ 4/92; CBQ 10/91; Them 10/91].
☆ Gundry, Robert. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, 1993. An exhaustive and penetrating study of this Gospel (1069pp. in small print!). The subtitle gives his perspective on Mark’s purpose. Many will be intimidated by the price tag and the sheer size and detail of this work. It is more of a purchase priority, if you are an advanced student or scholarly pastor. Gundry’s friend, Moisés Silva, calls it “an enormous treasure of information.” Douglas Moo says the provocative commentary “enhances this scholar’s reputation as an original and independent thinker.” Released in a 2-vol. pb in 2004. [JBL 113.4; CBQ 4/95; Them 10/94; CTJ 4/95; ExpTim 1/95; EvQ 1/97; SJT 50.1; Chm 111.4].
☆ Hare, Douglas R. A. ‡ (WestBC) 1996. Fairly good. Has received complimentary reviews as a “thoroughly theological commentary” (Allison). The author, Professor of NT Emeritus at Pittsburgh Seminary (PCUSA), also wrote the Matthew vol. for the Interpretation series. [Int 1/98; HBT 12/98].
✓ Hatina, Thomas R., ed. Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels. I. The Gospel of Mark, 2006. For two companion vols., see Hatina under Matthew and Luke.
Healy, Mary. ‡ (CCSS) 2008. The initial vol. in the series. [CBQ 7/10].
F Henderson, Susanne Watts. ‡ (Illum).
☆ Hendriksen, William. (NTC) 1975. Not as prolix nor as good as Matthew in the series. The pastor could put his theological exposition to good use, though the student will be looking for a more rigorous work. [RTR 1/76].
✓ Hengel, Martin. [ℳ], Studies in the Gospel of Mark, ET 1985. The measure of Hengel’s significance is other commentators’ heavy use of him.
Hiebert, D. E. rev. 1979. An evangelical commentary of some size organized around the servant theme.
☆ Hooker, Morna. ‡ (BNTC) 1992. This replacement work for Johnson is a big improvement. Hooker has 411pp. of phrase-by-phrase exposition and is easily accessible to non-specialists. This is also a significant commentary for students to consult. Hooker’s stature among NT scholars and the low price of this vol. make it among the “best buys” for students. An excellent commentary which is moderately critical. [EvQ 7/93; ExpTim 2/93; RTR 9/92, 1/94; JBL Spr 94; JTS 4/94; Them 10/94].
☆ Hughes, R. Kent. (PTW) 2015. Carson has spoken of PTW as one of the best in the genre of sermonic commentary. The series, which includes good theology, much illustrative material, and application, now covers almost the entire NT; the OT section is also growing rapidly. Hughes was pastor of the College Church in Wheaton, IL. The original commentary on Mark was 480pp. in 2-vols. (1989), while the new ESV edition is a single vol. See Garland above. [JETS 12/92].
Hunter, A. M. [ℳ], (Torch Bible Commentary) 1967. Good, but sketchy compared with the recent exegetical commentaries on Mark.
☆ Hurtado, Larry W. [ℳ], (NIBC) 1989. A 320-page work certainly worth consulting. Hurtado is a respected scholar, who lectures at the University of Edinburgh.
✓ Iersel, Bas M. F. van. ‡ Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary, ET 1998. [CBQ 7/00; Bib 81.2; JBL Win 00; JTS 4/01; RelSRev 10/01]. Previously there was the more accessible Reading Mark (ET 1986) [Bib 70.4].
Jeffrey, David Lyle. (Brazos) 2012. [CBQ 1/14].
Johnson, Sherman E. ‡ (retired BNTC) 1960. Never particularly helpful. See Hooker.
F Joynes, Christine. ‡ (BBC).
✓ Juel, Donald H. ‡ (IBT) 1999. A serviceable introduction to Markan studies by a Princeton Seminary professor.
✓ Kealy, Sean P. A History of the Interpretation of the Gospel of Mark, vols. I and II/1 – 2, 2007. [CBQ 4/11].
Kernaghan, Ron. (IVPNT) 2007. The author is a PCUSA minister connected to Fuller Seminary. I have not had opportunity to use this. [BL 2008].
✓ Kuruvilla, Abraham. 2012. Subtitled “A Theological Commentary for Preachers.” [ExpTim 6/13].
☆ Lane, William. (NICNT) 1974. This was long considered the most valuable work for the evangelical pastor; now Edwards’s Pillar commentary challenges its place, to say nothing of the fuller, more recent works like France, Gundry, WBC, Stein. Employs a mild form of redaction criticism (see p.7) in a responsible way. Lane has a standout commentary on Hebrews. For students’ sake I have removed this from the purchase list, but pastors should still seriously consider it. [WTJ Spr 77; RTR 9/74; JBL 94.3; EvQ 1/75].
MacArthur, John. 2 vols., 2015. Many preachers will gravitate toward this sermonic material from the famous “Grace to You” expositor. Compare with Hughes.
✓ Malina, Bruce J., and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. ‡ Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, 1992.
✓ Mann, C. S. ‡ (retired AB) 1986. This critical commentary argues the Griesbach Hypothesis. See Albright under Matthew, but note that this vol. is better and worth consulting by students. Those who use it will find that the introduction is massive and the exegesis a bit disappointing. Mann has been replaced; see Marcus below. [ThTo 44.2].
✓ Marcus, Joel. ‡ (AYB) 2 vols., 2000 – 09. This set replaces Mann. The first vol. has a 65-page introduction, 49pp. of bibliography, and approximately 400pp. of mainly historical-critical exegesis, while the second is well over 600pp. This work can be compared to Guelich’s, though more liberal and skeptical. What I have read of Marcus is pleasingly full, but I have not always trusted his exegetical judgment (e.g. at 1:43). He carefully notes some of the surprising ironies in Mark and the development of Isaianic themes (e.g. God’s way of holy war to liberate his people). As mentioned above, Marcus and Collins are the leading liberal technical commentaries on this Gospel. [JTS 4/02; Int 1/02, 4/11; ExpTim 8/01; NovT 44.3; BBR 13.2, 20.2; RBL 6/10; HBT 32.1; CBQ 4/10 (Moloney); JETS 9/10 (Stein)]. Marcus has made a special study of The Mystery of the Kingdom of God (1986) and christological exegesis of the OT in Mark: The Way of the Lord (1992) [TJ Spr 94; CTJ 4/95]).
Martin, Ralph P. [ℳ], Mark: Evangelist and Theologian, 1973. Not a commentary, but one of the helpful introductions to the four evangelists published by Zondervan. Not as good as Marshall on Luke or France on Matthew. [JBL 94.1].
✓ Marxsen, Willi. ‡ Mark the Evangelist, 1956, ET 1969. The ground-breaking redactional study on Mark and quite critical. To investigate more recent redaction criticism on this Gospel, see The Disciples According to Mark (1989) by C. C. Black.
F McDermott, John Michael. (Brazos).
☆ Moloney, Francis J. ‡ 2002. This mid-level commentary published by Hendrickson (outside any series) lucidly presents a moderately critical Catholic interpretation. It blends literary, historical, and theological concerns and can be compared to Donahue-Harrington above. He seeks and finds narrative coherence. Quite a number of leading NT scholars have highly praised this: “the finest one-volume commentary in English on Mark that I know” (Black). Moloney was reissued by Baker in 2012. The author is better known for his extensive work on John. [JTS 10/04; CBQ 1/04; RTR 12/03; JETS 9/04; ExpTim 1/04, 4/14; RelSRev 1/03; Bib 85.4; Int 10/05; BL 2005; CurTM 10/05]. See the added introductory study of Mark (2004): Mark: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist [NovT 48.4; ExpTim 3/07]. Further reflection on the ending of Mark and a “narrative commentary on the resurrection accounts in the four Gospels” is found in The Resurrection of the Messiah (2013) [CBQ 7/15; JETS 6/15].
F Moritz, Thorsten. (THC).
Moule, C. F. D. ‡ (CBC) 1965. Insightful, as Moule always was, but brief.
Myers, Ched. ‡ Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus, 1988. This lengthy (500pp.) Orbis publication applies both literary criticism and a (leftwing) political hermeneutic. I note it because it won a book award and was praised outlandishly — “most important commentary . . . since Barth’s Romans.”
Nineham, Dennis E. ‡ (Pelican) 1963. Destructively critical, as expected from a contributor to The Myth of God Incarnate. Though cited by some, it can be ignored, unless you are especially interested in form criticism.
✓ Oden, Thomas C., and Christopher Hall, eds. (ACCS) 1998. [RelSRev 7/99; EvQ 7/02; NovT 42.4].
Osborne, Grant R. (TTC) 2014. A veteran Gospels scholar at TEDS, Osborne has the exegetical expertise and teaching experience to write a good, concise commentary for pastors (335pp.). There are many insights. I need to use it more to make a recommendation.
✓ Perkins, Pheme. ‡ (NIB) 1995. The author is a prof at Boston College and has written many books in the NT field. See, for example, Ephesians. Perkins’s work on Mark fits well into this much-used series for pastors. [JETS 3/99]. Her further research on the Gospels is published as Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels (2007) [ExpTim 11/08].
F Pitts, Andrew. (EEC). A reassignment after Rodney Decker’s death.
Placher, William C. ‡ (Belief) 2010. By the late series editor. [Int 7/11; JSNT 34.5; JETS 6/11; ExpTim 12/11; RelSRev 3/12; SJT 66.4].
✓ Plummer, Alfred. [ℳ], 1914. A dated but helpful commentary on the Greek text.
F Powery, Emerson Byron. (PC).
Rawlison, A. E. J. ‡ (Westminster) 1949. Can be ignored, despite Childs’s comment.
✓ Rhodes, David, and Donald Michie. ‡ Mark As Story, 1982, 2nd ed. 1999, 3rd ed. 2012. Riches says (with some disapproval) this interpretation “has been influential among a growing circle . . . in the States who wish to see the abandonment in biblical study of historical in favour of literary modes of investigation” (A Century of NT Study, 165) [JSNT 35.5]. The measure of its impact is the 2011 celebratory Brill monograph, Mark as Story: Retrospect and Prospect, eds. Kelly Iverson and Christopher Skinner [EvQ 10/13; CBQ 7/13; JSNT 34.5; JETS 12/12; RelSRev 3/13].
✓ Robbins, Vernon. ‡ Jesus the Teacher: A Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation of Mark, 1992. Robbins teaches at Emory and has for some time been encouraging an integrated model of biblical interpretation, emphasizing synchronic methodologies. His book, Exploring the Texture of Texts (1996), has been seminal for many. Quite critical. Compare with the evangelical Witherington below.
☆ Ryle, J. C. (CrossC) 1993.
✓ Schweizer, Eduard. ‡ ET 1970. Much better on Mark than on Matthew. If you do some sifting, Schweizer is well worth reading. This vol. was written essentially for pastors, and readers with a sharp eye will find many theological insights and homiletical hints.
Smuts, P. W. Mark by the Book: A New Multidirectional Method for Understanding the Synoptic Gospels, 2013. [Them 11/13]. I have yet to see it.
✓ Swete, H. B. [ℳ], 1895, 3rd ed. 1927. Something of a classic, at least for its full treatment of the Greek text, but Swete is eclipsed by more recent commentaries.
F Tan, Kim Huat. (NCCS). The author teaches at Trinity Theological College, Singapore.
✓ Taylor, Vincent. ‡ 1952, 2nd ed. 1966. Admirable as a full-scale, painstaking work on the Greek, this was the first thoroughgoing form-critical analysis of Mark. Taylor’s vol. is less valuable for its theology. This has long been used alongside Cranfield and now feels dated.
✓ Telford, W. R. ‡ The Theology of the Gospel of Mark, 1999. Prior to this work for CUP [EvQ 7/01], he edited The Interpretation of Mark (1985). For a massive history of research, see Writing on the Gospel of Mark (2009) [NovT 52.4; JSNT 33.5; Them 11/10; RelSRev 12/11].
Thurston, Bonnie. ‡ Preaching Mark, 2002. [Int 1/03; SwJT Spr 03].
✓ Voelz, James W. Mark 1:1 – 8:26 (Concord) 2013. The level and quality of engagement with the Greek text is very high, and I regard Voelz as one of the better, more rigorous contributions to this large-scale, confessional Lutheran series. J. K. Elliot says it is “stimulating, engagingly written, and erudite” [NovT 56.4]. When complete it will certainly be among the fullest commentaries on Mark’s Gospel ever written. [BBR 25.1].
F Watts, Rikk E. (NICNT replacement). The author teaches at Regent College in Vancouver. Expect this to give prominence to the theme of his book: Isaiah’s New Exodus and Mark (1997).
☆ Wessel, Walter W., and Mark L. Strauss. (EBCR) 2010. While Wessel’s 1984 EBC was competent [TJ Spr 85], some preferred fuller works and ignored it. The new work is a major improvement, as Strauss has done a creditable job bringing Wessel (†2002) up to date. Again a briefer “Mark” (pp.671 – 989) is paired with a more helpful, twice-as-long “Matthew.” Many young preachers, who buy this vol. 9 for the highly-rated Carson, will be content with Wessel-Strauss on Mark, at least for a while.
F Williams, Joel F. (EGGNT).
Williamson, Lamar. ‡ (I) 1983. I have never used it enough to form an opinion. Others assess it as a useful preacher’s commentary.
☆ Witherington, Ben. The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (SRC) 2001. Mark has been the subject of an increasing number of literary studies, which are chiefly concerned with the nature of the text, its rhetoric, settings, plot, and characterization. This nearly 500-page work is a good representative of a conservative literary approach, to be contrasted with liberal Robbins above. For further review see SRC under Commentary Series and the comments under 1 Corinthians. Previously a recommended purchase. [CTJ 4/04; CBQ 4/02; Them Spr 03; JETS 9/02; Int 7/02; ExpTim 8/01; TJ Spr 02; SwJT Fall 02; RelSRev 10/01; BBR 13.2; Anvil 19.4].
✓ Yarbro Collins, Adela. ‡ (Herm) 2007. A publishing event! NT specialists were eagerly anticipating this technical, historical-critical exegesis for many years. It is quite critical in orientation (Bultmann is a favorite citation) and builds on earlier research published in The Beginning of the Gospel: Probings of Mark in Context (1992), as well as an abundance of journal articles. Collins believes Mark has a long, complicated compositional history and can be termed “an eschatological counterpart of an older biblical genre, the foundational sacred history.” In many places she shows she shares her husband’s (OT scholar John J. Collins) keen interest in apocalyptic. Portions of Mark receive extremely detailed exegesis, while others do not (e.g. four pages on 1:35 – 45). Students must take account of this 800-page reference work, especially the massive number of literary parallels from the ancient world she adduces to help interpret this Gospel. Collins and Marcus would be the leading liberal technical commentaries now. [NovT 51.2; RelSRev 3/08; JETS 3/09; BL 2009; Int 1/09 (Boring); CBQ 1/13].
NOTES: (1) See Hurtado’s article on “The Gospel of Mark in Recent Study” in Them 1/89; and (2) John Ziesler’s “Which Is the Best Commentary? VII. Mark,” ExpTim 6/87. (3) Darrell L. Bock, “Commentaries on the Synoptic Gospels” (pp.339 – 63), in On the Writing of NT Commentaries, eds. Porter and Schnabel, cited in the Introduction.
NOTE: I do not see a standout exposition for pastors, though Garland provides a measure of help in applying the text to heart and life. Compare the following: Bock’s NIVAC (previously recommended), Ryken, Calvin, France, Hughes, Just (Lutheran), Gooding, and Wilcock. Luke’s Gospel is well served by exegetical works.
★ Bock, Darrell. (BECNT) 2 vols., 1994 – 96. Baker Books described the first vol. (nearly 1000pp.) as “the most extensive, up-to-date, and consistently evangelical commentary on the first portion of Luke.” Bock is less up-to-date now, but still of great value. None can match his thoroughness. In comparing this with other major exegetical works on the Greek text (i.e. Fitzmyer, Marshall, Nolland, and Bovon), you will find this set to be the more accessible (less technical), more conservative, and theological. (Bock is a senior prof at Dallas Seminary and a leader in progressive dispensationalism.) Stein’s expertise in redaction criticism and Green’s more refined literary investigations have complemented Bock’s grammatico-historical approach. For two decades I have loved this set ($85 on sale), but I’m tempted to recommend Garland as a first choice for pastors because of date, price ($32 on sale), and his application. See the other two Bock works below. [Presb Fall 95; RTR 1/96; JETS 9/98 (Blomberg); JBL Spr 98; WTJ Spr 96; TJ Fall 96; SwJT Fall 97; AsTJ Fall 98; RelSRev 1/98]. Warmly welcomed is his full (over 400pp.) summary theological treatment of the Lukan corpus: A Theology of Luke and Acts, 2012 [EvQ 4/14; CBQ 1/14; JSNT 35.5; JETS 3/13; Them 11/12; BSac 4/13; TJ Fall 13] — it’s good to be reminded that Luke-Acts is 25 percent of the NT.
★ Edwards, James R. (Pillar) 2015. Perhaps it was through unusual circumstances that Edwards was enlisted by the series editor to contribute this Luke commentary after he had already done the Pillar entry on Mark (p.xiii), but the church is glad he took on the assignment. There are 750pp. of introductory material and commentary, and readers will find him to be thorough, lucid, and reliable as an exegete. Not surprisingly, the work has similar emphases and strengths as Edwards’s Mark. One difference comes as the result of his research on The Hebrew Gospel (2009) — see under Jesus & Gospels Research. He now believes that Luke made use of both Mark and a supposed “Hebrew Gospel” as sources, along with a so-called “Double Tradition” containing material common to Matthew and Luke (see pp.14 – 18). There is much interaction with scholars (esp. Bovon, Fitzmyer, Plummer, and Wolter), but to keep this an approachable pastor’s commentary the discussion is limited mostly to footnotes.
★ Garland, David E. (ZECNT) 2011. Some have the gift of writing consistently insightful, crystal-clear commentaries for pastors, while inspiring a love for Scripture; Garland has it. This is a very long book (950pp. of introduction and commentary), but it reads well and will be extremely useful to busy pastors in preparing expository sermons. Because Garland has previously published well-received works on Matthew and Mark, he is sensitive to the distinctiveness of Luke among the Synoptics. Note that the series not only probes the background and structure of the text on the way to treating exegetical fine points (Greek text), it also stimulates the preacher to think about appropriate application. This works well as a first-choice for pastors, though they may be slightly disappointed with the brevity of the Introduction (20pp.). See my comments above on Bock. [JETS 12/12; DenvJ 15].
★ Green, Joel B. [ℳ], (NICNT) 1997. A fine, recommendable work, but perhaps best not used by itself. Though so much work had lately been done on Luke, Green brought a fresh, more literary approach, which can be compared with L. T. Johnson’s and Carroll’s. (I use them just as much.) He is less interested in historical questions. Evangelical pastors may find that this vol. has a less conservative feel than others in NICNT. It replaced Geldenhuys. [EvQ 7/99; Them 5/99; JTS 10/99; Bib 79.4; CBQ 1/99; Chm 113.2; RelSRev 10/98; Presb Spr 00]. See Green’s well written vol. on Luke in the Cambridge NT Theology series (1995) [Them 10/97; Int 7/97; JR 1/97; CRBR 1996; CBQ 1/97]. He also edited the Cambridge issue, Methods for Luke (2010) [RBL 8/10; ExpTim 3/11; BTB 11/11].
Arndt, W. F. 1956. A conservative Lutheran work designed for the pastor.
F Aune, David. ‡ Luke-Acts (Illum).
✓ Bartholomew, Craig G., Joel B. Green, Anthony Thiselton, eds. Reading Luke: Interpretation, Reflection, Formation, 2005. Essays published in Zondervan’s “Scripture and Hermeneutics Series.” [JETS 9/06; Evangel Aut 07].
F Bauckham, Richard. [ℳ], (ICC – new series). This may be a long way off, since Bauckham still seems mainly focused upon John’s Gospel.
Bentley, Michael. Saving a Fallen World (WCS) 1992.
☆ Bock, Darrell. (IVPNT) 1994. A fine, well-informed commentary of about 400pp. which the pastor can put to good use, being more manageable than the huge BECNT set. He aims to make the conclusions of his exegetical work in BECNT above available to a broader audience, but I do not think he gave us his best work here. [Presb Fall 95].
☆ Bock, Darrell. (NIVAC) 1996. “Bock has turned Lukan commentary into a growth industry” (C. R. Matthews). Yes, three different commentary series in a three-year span! BECNT gives you full exegesis, theological reflection, and some hints for appropriate application. IVPNT makes Bock’s exegetical conclusions more accessible to a general audience and begins the move from text to sermon. NIVAC moves more quickly from original message to significance today (homiletical musings). Busy pastors might be tempted to bypass the massive BECNT in favor of NIVAC, but I can’t recommend that, unless money is a key factor.
Borgman, Paul. The Way According to Luke: Hearing the Whole Story of Luke-Acts, 2006. A narrative reading (400pp.) by a Gordon College English prof.
✓ Bovon, François. ‡ Luke 1 (Herm) ET 2002; Luke 2 (Herm) ET 2013; Luke 3 (Herm) ET 2012. A truly great commentary! The vol. covering 1:1 – 9:50, translated from the German (EKK, 1989), introduces 3-vols. of technical exegesis and probing theological interpretation (approx. 1400pp.). Vols. 2 – 3 are from the French (CNT, 1996/2001, 2009). This huge work’s availability in the three languages indicates its influence in European scholarship and its value; only for advanced students. Note that Bovon has not divided the Lukan material in Hermeneia as he has in the 4-vol. German and French commentaries. Luke 2 covers 9:51 – 19:27, and Luke 3 provides an exegesis of 19:28 – 24:53. [Int 7/03; ExpTim 1/03; CurTM 4/05; CBQ 10/11]. Likely the most valuable critical introduction to Luke and Lukan scholarship is Bovon’s 681-page Luke the Theologian: Fifty-five Years of Research (1950 – 2005) in its 2nd edition (2006) [ExpTim 2/07], while the fullest survey is Seán P. Kealy’s 1250-page The Interpretation of the Gospel of Luke, 2 vols. (2005).
F Brown, Jeannine. (NCCS). The author teaches at Bethel Seminary in St. Paul, MN.
☆ Brown, R. E. ‡ The Birth of the Messiah, 1977, rev. 1993. See under Matthew.
Browning, W. R. F. ‡ (Torch) 1982. Somewhat similar to Caird below: too brief to compete with the major works, but insightful nonetheless.
Caird, G. B. ‡ (Pelican) 1963. One of the better commentaries in the series. Caird was always incisive.
☆ Calvin, John. Songs of the Nativity: Selected Sermons on Luke 1 & 2, 2008. [RTR 8/10].
☆ Carroll, John T. ‡ (NTL) 2012. After a rather brief 15-page introduction, this Union Seminary (Virginia) prof devotes about 480pp. to a clear exegesis of the text. Carroll provides a “synchronic narrative analysis that attends closely to literary shaping of the canonical form of the Gospel of Luke” (p.9), with a bit of redaction criticism thrown in. Because of its focus on the literary qualities and message of the text, I predict that many pastors will gravitate toward this vol., which stands among the best and most interesting in NTL (see also de Boer on Galatians, and Johnson on Hebrews). There is less engagement with various scholarly debates; perhaps it is slightly less useful to students on that account. It’s worth remarking, too, that Carroll is an enjoyable read, since most commentaries aren’t. He shows a reluctance to take any firm positions on authorship or date (75 – 125 CE, p.4). [CBQ 7/14; Int 10/13; JSNT 36.5; RevExp 5/15].
Craddock, Fred B. ‡ (I) 1990. Mainly for the communicator and very well done from a moderately critical angle. [Int 1/92; ThTo 48.2; CRBR 1992; AsTJ Fall 92].
Creed, J. M. ‡ 1930. Highly critical and dated. Though still cited in the literature, Creed can be safely ignored.
✓ Culpepper, R. Alan. ‡ (NIB) 1995. This Baylor professor is well-known for his literary critical work on John’s Gospel (see below). His commentary on Luke will be of more use to the student than the pastor, though he seeks to assist preachers. [JETS 3/99].
☆ Culy, Martin M., Mikeal C. Parsons, and Joshua J. Stiggall. (BHGNT) 2010. Praised by a number of scholars as a well-done, thorough lexical and grammatical analysis of the Greek text (over 800pp.). [JSNT 34.5; ExpTim 12/11].
☆ Danker, Frederick. ‡ Jesus and the New Age, 1972, rev. 1988. No, this is not a “New Age” book, but a stimulating commentary. It is easy to understand why the 432-page work is a favorite of Marshall. Danker’s immense learning in the classics is put to good use, and there are many insights a preacher would find suggestive for sermon preparation. This is Danker of the BDAG lexicon. [CRBR 1990].
F DeLong, Kindalee Pfremmer. (SGBC).
✓ Ellis, E. E. [ℳ], (NCB) 2nd ed. 1974. Still valuable, especially for understanding passages as a whole and their historical backdrop. An appealing evangelical work which is mildly critical and astute. Advanced students also note his monograph, Eschatology in Luke (1972). Marshall really liked Ellis’s lengthy introduction.
☆ Evans, Craig A. [ℳ], (NIBC) 1990. Over 400pp. Worthwhile to consult and perhaps purchase. Don’t confuse with C. F. Evans, the very liberal scholar who has published a substantial work on Luke for TPI. A pastor friend, John Turner, once said in his commentary review that “Evans has stimulated a number of sermon ideas for me.” Note also his work on Mark for WBC.
✓ Evans, C. F. ‡ (TPI) 1990. This is the sort of work you would want to consult to get the radical, Jesus Seminar type of interpretation of this Gospel. This is a large (933pp.), significant work from the far left. The SCM 2nd edition (2008) is really just a reprint. [JTS 4/91; CBQ 7/92; BL 2010].
☆ Fitzmyer, Joseph A. ‡ (AB) 2 vols., 1981 – 85. Even Marshall humbly called this work the best on Luke. Over the years I have encouraged advanced students especially to consider buying this moderately critical Catholic commentary. The long-lived Fitzmyer (b. 1920) has been a leading authority on Aramaic and the Semitic background of the NT. Many pastors find this historically oriented set too skeptical as a commentary on the Greek text and are glad to have Bock’s BECNT instead. Compare with Marshall and Nolland below. [Int 7/83; SJT 42.2; JBL 9/87; EvQ 10/83, 1/88; ExpTim 6/83]. See also Fitzmyer’s follow-up study, Luke the Theologian (1989) [JTS 10/90; JBL Win 91; EvQ 4/91; CBQ 10/91]. Finally, note that Fitzmyer has published much in AB: Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Philemon.
☆ France, R. T. (TTC) 2013. Regrettably, the British scholar did not live to see this vol. (†2012), which rounds out his studies on the Synoptics. The other two commentaries were exceptional academic works, while this one is a more accessible, to-the-point (400pp.) pastor’s commentary, including much illustrative material. Recommended to all expository preachers. [JSNT 36.5].
Geldenhuys, J. Norval. (retired NICNT) 1951. The first NICNT, Geldenhuys once served preachers well with its spiritually edifying exposition. E.g. his theological comments (pp.479 – 87) on the Triumphal Entry are among the more fruitful I have found for the pastor. Also, at 670pp. it was a full work that covered many of the questions raised by the average Bible student. Similar to NTC in Reformed orientation.
Godet, Frederic. ET 1893. Pastors for generations relied on Godet’s insightful theological commentaries, which were reprinted by Kregel 1977 – 81. A great pastor-scholar with Arminian theology, Godet withdrew from the Swiss state church in protest against liberalism. He helped found a seminary where he served as a professor in exegesis. He is not as good here as on John’s Gospel. His gifts as a commentator are reviewed in Warfield’s Selected Shorter Writings (I: 432 – 36).
González, Justo L. ‡ (Belief) 2010. [CBQ 4/12; Int 7/11; JSNT 34.5; RevExp Sum 11].
☆ Gooding, David. 1987. A very useful study guide, though not so detailed, with application for our time (350pp.). Gooding’s work is expositional (not verse-by-verse), focused on “Luke’s flow of thought” (p.7), with many narrative insights and some mild redaction criticism. [Evangel Win 88; EvQ 7/89].
✓ Goulder, Michael D. ‡ Luke: A New Paradigm, 2 vols., 1989. A painstaking study (824pp.) offering a new critical approach to this Gospel which argues for dependence upon Mark and Matthew. The alleged sayings-source Q is dispensed with. Gives close attention to material unique to Luke and challenges traditional source criticism and redaction criticism. Includes a technical commentary of 600pp. which applies his new paradigm. [WTJ Fall 91; JTS 4/92; JBL Spr 91]. The Goulder thesis is now being pushed by his student, Mark Goodacre, in such vols. as The Case Against Q (2002) and Goodacre-Perrin, eds., Questioning Q (2004) [BTB Spr 06].
F Gray, Timothy. ‡ (CCSS).
✓ Hatina, Thomas R., ed. Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels. III. The Gospel of Luke, 2010. For two companion vols., see Hatina under Matthew and Mark.
Hendriksen, William. (NTC) 1978. This was his lengthiest commentary at 1122pp., and probably his most homiletically styled work too. [RTR 5/80].
☆ Hughes, R. Kent. (PTW) 2014. See Mark’s Gospel. Nearly 1000pp., the original version of this homiletical work was in 2-vols. (1998). It has been re-edited to explain the ESV text.
☆ Jeffrey, David Lyle. (Brazos) 2012. If all the vols. in the series were of this quality, Brazos would have a much higher profile. Jeffrey has little to satisfy those with historical questions, but offers a solid literary and theological reading. Like Gooding a real help to preachers. [ExpTim 8/13 (Marshall); TJ Fall 14].
☆ Johnson, Luke Timothy. ‡ (SacP) 1991. Delivers an interesting, sensitive, literary reading of this Gospel (466pp.). Advanced students can learn a lot here, especially because Johnson has some respect for the text. There is less of a hermeneutic of suspicion here. To be more accurate, there is suspicion of any attempt, either hyper-critical (Jesus Seminar) or supposedly uncritical (evangelicals), to discover the historical Jesus. See his controversial book, The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels (1996), and the high-level discussion of it in BBR 7 (1997). This SacP was among Carson’s top-picks in 2007. [JBL 113.2; Int 10/93; Bib 74.2; CBQ 1/93]. It was wise for the series’ editors to allow Johnson to contribute Acts as well; Johnson wrote his dissertation on Luke-Acts. In another series (AB), Johnson wrote on James and Timothy.
✓ Just, Arthur A. (Concord) 2 vols., 1996 – 97. A large-scale (1066-pp.) commentary with real exegetical value and theological exposition in a confessional Lutheran mold. The author is well-educated (Yale and Durham, beyond his Concordia Seminary training), and his aim clearly is to assist the studious preacher who is reading through the Greek text to compose a sermon.
✓ Just, Arthur A., ed. (ACCS) 2003. [RelSRev 4/04].
Leaney, A. R. C. ‡ (BNTC) 1958.
F Levine, Amy-Jill, and Ben Witherington III. (NCBC).
☆ Liefeld, Walter L., and David W. Pao. (EBCR) 2007. The original Liefeld EBC (1984) was regarded as a very good entry, despite its brevity. [TJ Spr 85]. The older work has been improved in this collaborative effort of 320pp. It is competent, insightful, and well-written throughout. Found in vol. 10, covering Luke to Acts.
Lieu, Judith. ‡ (Epworth Commentaries) 1997. Written for pastors.
✓ Malina, Bruce J., and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. ‡ Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, 1992.
☆ Marshall, I. Howard. [ℳ], (NIGTC) 1978. Still one of the five most important scholarly commentaries on Luke. It is more conservative than Fitzmyer — cf. their approaches to redaction and historical questions — and was Silva’s first pick years ago. Many pastors will prefer Marshall’s evangelical approach to Fitzmyer’s assiduous criticism. Unfortunately, the format of this work (about 900pp.) is somewhat self-defeating. It is laborious to use Marshall because, in Carson’s words, it is so “densely-packed,” with notes incorporated into the text of the commentary. But diligence on the part of the student does pay off. The advanced student working on Luke will want Marshall and Fitzmyer, in addition to Bock and Bovon. Rather than write a new introduction for this vol., Marshall refers readers to his excellent Luke: Historian and Theologian (1970, rev. 1979, enlarged ed. 1989). Though I haven’t included this monograph among the above recommendations, it has long been a smart buy for studies in Luke and Acts. [WTJ Spr 80; RTR 1/79; EvQ 10/79]. I heard a rumor that Marshall (†2015) will do a 2nd edition.
Morgan, G. Campbell. 1931. I do not intend to list all of Campbell Morgan’s thoughtful expositions, but pastors should be reminded that they are available and useful. He was Lloyd-Jones’s famous predecessor at Westminster Chapel, London.
☆ Morris, Leon. (TNTC) 1974, rev. 1988. Helpful and handy, Morris was definitely one of the more insightful works in the series. The financially-strapped preacher could start here. The revision is minor. [EvQ 1/75].
✓ Nolland, John. [ℳ], (WBC) 3 vols., 1989 – 93. One would have thought there was little to say after Marshall and Fitzmyer got done, but Nolland wrote a fine, heavily redaction-critical commentary that goes on and on for 1300pp. After sampling it, one comes to the conclusion that this is more of an academic commentary; Nolland seems to spend proportionally more time interacting with the literature on Luke than bringing out the meaning of the evangelist himself. In other words, those working on the graduate level will find these three vols. more useful than the expositor preparing for Sunday. This set received mixed reviews. One of the best is CRBR 1995. [WTJ Fall 91; JTS 4/91, 10/95; EvQ 1/93, 4/96; CBQ 4/92; RTR 1/91; Them 1/92, 5/95; BSac 7/93].
✓ Parsons, Mikeal C. ‡ (Paideia) 2015. The author has published a lot on Luke-Acts. E.g. see his Luke: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist (2007) [BBR 19.1; RelSRev 12/08], and BHGNT above. This is a good representative of the series (about 360pp.).
Pate, C. Marvin. (Moody Gospel Commentary) 1995. A fuller, popular-level commentary in pb.
F Porter, Stanley. (EEC).
✓ Plummer, Alfred. (ICC) 5th ed. 1922. The standard of its day and still useful for work in the Greek. Silva called it first-rate. This commentary was about the most conservative work ever published in ICC. Should now be used in conjunction with AB, NIGTC, BECNT, WBC, and Herm.
Reicke, Bo. ‡ The Gospel of Luke, 1964.
Reilling, R., and J. L. Swellengrebel. (UBS) 1971. A translator’s handbook of nearly 800pp.
Ringe, Sharon H. ‡ (WestBC) 1996. A feminist treatment by one of the editors of The Women’s Bible Commentary. [Int 1/98; CBQ 4/97].
F Robbins, Vernon K. ‡ (RRA).
☆ Ryken, Philip. (REC) 2 vols., 2009. Excellent sermonic material indeed! Were it not, then 1300pp. would seem awfully excessive. Ryken has followed the grand tradition of Boice, his predecessor at famous Tenth Presbyterian. See his other large-scale expositions of Exodus, 1 Kings, Jeremiah, Galatians, and 1 Timothy.
☆ Ryle, J. C. (CrossC) 1997.
F Schertz, Mary. (BCBC).
✓ Schweizer, Eduard. ‡ ET 1984. See under Mark.
✓ Spencer, F. Scott. ‡ The Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles, 2008. This entry in Abingdon’s IBT series gives less attention to Acts. [BL 2009; Int 7/10].
☆ Stein, Robert A. (NAC) 1992. This is the heftiest (642pp.) and one of the most thoughtful commentaries in the series. “Written with a pastor’s heart,” says Steve Walton [BSB 12/97]. Stein is an experienced, very sharp exegete (see his BECNT on Mark). Among the many features here to appreciate is “a regular summing up of Luke’s distinctive redactional emphases in each passage” (Blomberg). Note that Stein uses the terminology “composition criticism,” instead of “redaction.” This work proves to be a good counterbalance to Green. [ThTo 10/93; EvQ 7/94; JETS 6/96; CRBR 1994].
✓ Stonehouse, Ned B. The Witness of the Synoptic Gospels to Christ, 1979 reprint. See under Matthew.
F Strauss, Mark. (THC).
✓ Talbert, Charles H. ‡ Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel (RNT) 1982. Provocative and packed commentary by a leading American Lukan scholar. The evangelical pastor found this useful years ago, but it is a little less valuable today. See also Talbert’s books on John, Acts, and Corinthians. [JBL 104.2].
✓ Tannehill, Robert C. ‡ The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, A Literary Interpretation, 2 vols., 1990 – 91. An exciting study that provided a synchronic, literary reading of the final form of the Lukan corpus. There are many insights in this Fortress set. See the next entry. [Bib 69.1; CRBR 1988 (more critical)].
✓ Tannehill, Robert C. ‡ (ANTC) 1996. This 378-page entry updates his past work and makes his conclusions available in a less expensive pb format. [Int 7/98; RelSRev 1/98].
F Thompson, Alan J. (EGGNT).
✓ Tiede, David L. ‡ (Augsburg NT Commentary) 1988. This full Lutheran work (457pp.) is praised by Danker, who knows this Gospel well. [CRBR 1991].
Trites, Allison. (CorBC) 2006. Also covers Acts (Larkin). I have not seen this.
✓ Verheyden, J., ed. The Unity of Luke-Acts, 1999. Huge BETL vol.
Vinson, Richard B. ‡ (S&H) 2008. Substantial research underlies this, one of the largest vols. in the series (760pp.). Vinson is open to “suspicious readings” of Luke and makes it a goal of his interpretation “to offer readings that support the full participation of women in ministry” (p.19). Application parts of this exposition sometimes have an oddly-loaded, unpracticed feel to them (e.g. commending the example of elaborate, expensive preparations for death after an ominous palm-reading, p.473). Vinson teaches at Salem College in North Carolina. [Int 4/10].
☆ Wilcock, Michael. (BST) 1979. Formerly titled The Saviour of the World. Directly serves the expositor as it explains pericopae (not a verse-by-verse commentary).
F Wolter, Michael. ‡ ET 2016. A massive, detailed commentary from Handbuch zum Neuen Testament (800pp. in the German). Students will welcome it.
NOTES: (1) See Marshall’s article, “The Present State of Lucan Studies,” in Them, 1/89; and (2) C.S. Rodd, “Two Commentaries on Luke,” ExpTim 9/90. (3) Darrell L. Bock, “Commentaries on the Synoptic Gospels” (pp.339 – 63), in On the Writing of NT Commentaries, eds. Porter and Schnabel, cited in the Introduction.
★ Barrett, C. K. ‡ 2nd ed. 1978. Moloney terms this “precise but rich.” The Germans translated it for inclusion in their prestigious NT series, MeyerK (1990). I call this indispensable for the student and scholarly pastor doing exegesis of the Greek text. Yes, you must have a handle on the Greek to make good use of this. Amazingly thorough, compressed and well-reasoned from the critical angle (638pp.), with some fine theological points: “the Father is God sending and commanding, the Son is God sent and obedient” (p.468). The commentary really has not changed much since it was first published in 1955. Some would say that Barrett’s argument has been partially vitiated because of a shift in scholarly opinion toward identifying a Palestinian milieu for the Fourth Gospel (see Martyn below). This commentary is complemented by his Essays on John (1982). Barrett is one of Carson’s and Silva’s favorite critical works. Compare with Brown’s more expensive set, which some say has more for the pastor. Evangelicals may want the caveat emptor that Barrett believes the Fourth Gospel is theologically creative in presenting Jesus traditions which have little historical value. Any who wish to stick with conservative exegetical works are urged to buy Kruse or Blomberg instead. [EvQ 4/79; JBL 99.4].
★ Burge, Gary. (NIVAC) 2000. A sizable (600-page) homiletical commentary building upon a solid foundation of NT scholarship (see Burge below). Burge did his PhD at Aberdeen and teaches at Wheaton. This vol. ventures some bold, thought-provoking application and well complements these other exegetical commentaries. Other wise purchases for preachers would be Hughes, Boice, Milne, and Morris’s Reflections. [CTJ 11/01].
★ Carson, Donald. (Pillar) 1991. This is still the evangelical pastor’s first choice. The vol. was originally intended as Tasker’s replacement in TNTC, and I’m glad it proved much too lengthy. Boice — who, incidentally, did his dissertation on John’s Gospel and took six years preaching through John — called this 700-page work “the most exciting, helpful, and sound commentary on the Gospel of John in decades.” I used it extensively during a 15-month series and believe Boice’s comments are right on target. The strengths of his earlier Matthew commentary are mirrored here. [WTJ Fall 92 (Silva); CBQ 7/92; RTR 5/92; EvQ 1/95; JETS 6/95; CRBR 1992]. Pastors might also note Carson’s exposition of chs. 14 – 17, The Farewell Discourse and Final Prayer of Jesus (1981).
★ Keener, Craig. 2 vols., 2003. Published by Hendrickson, this exceedingly full evangelical interpretation displaced Morris on my list of suggestions. But perhaps Keener is too full for the pastor (1600pp.). As with his huge commentaries on Matthew and Acts, this work is long on historical, cultural, and ancient literary background. (He adduces too many supposed parallels, in my opinion, but I don’t complain.) Those who want a more manageable evangelical commentary in one vol. can repair to Blomberg, or the TNTC by Kruse. Students willing to work through the astonishing amount of detail will find this set a masterful guide into John’s Gospel, where, Augustine famously said, a child may safely wade and an elephant can swim. The size and weight here suggest more the elephant. [CBQ 10/04; ExpTim 8/04; SwJT Fall 05; RTR 12/08; JTS 10/05; Int 7/06; BSac 1/09; EuroJTh 15.2].
★ Köstenberger, Andreas J. (BECNT) 2004. This welcome addition to the company of larger John commentaries has not superseded Carson, but is a good supplement to it. Both are full (about 700pp.), yet manageable for busy pastors. BECNT reviews and culls the best, more recent Johannine scholarship and thereby supplements Carson; this will please NT students but cause some pastors to want to speed-read. Also, the theological discussion is sound and satisfying. Students will be glad for both the Greek exegesis and the bibliographical help they receive here. One criticism is that the work is not strong in narrative criticism. My counsel to the average pastor would be to buy Carson, then Michaels or Köstenberger (in that order), and finally an expositional work like Burge. The more scholarly can then add some combination of Keener, Barrett, Ridderbos, WBC, Smith, Morris, Blomberg, Moloney, and perhaps Brown or Schnackenburg — but do start with Keener, Barrett, and Ridderbos. [CBQ 1/06; BBR 16.2; JETS 9/05; BSac 4/06; SwJT Fall 05; Them 10/05; BL 2006; SBET Aut 06; RelSRev 1/06; ExpTim 5/06; EuroJTh 15.2]. See also Köstenberger’s earlier college-level textbook, Encountering John (2nd ed. 2013) [JSNT 37.5; 1999: JSNT 12/00; CTJ 11/00; JETS 9/01], and, below, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters.
★ Michaels, J. Ramsey. (NICNT replacement) 2010. The fat, trusty Morris vol. in the series was retired to give place to this even larger tome (about 1100pp.), the size and detail of which may discourage busy pastors from using it. Michaels builds upon his earlier NIBC (see below) and has obviously thought long and hard about the Fourth Gospel. He has always seemed to me a more independently-minded gentleman, and, though very well-informed, he is not concerned to interact with all the available scholarship. (Reviewers are critical at this point.) In other words, this is a fresh take on John, specified as “synchronic” (xii), though with less interest in newer literary studies. There is less, too, on background, which is Keener’s strength, and he leaves aside some historical and chronological issues (e.g. the temple cleansing). Where does it rank? I continue to regard Carson as the pastor’s first-choice, even though that work dates to 1991. This NICNT (which is perhaps not as reliable a guide) is a complement to it. Michaels’s handling of both the Greek and the basic exegetical questions is admirable. He is now retired; he taught for a couple of decades at Gordon-Conwell and then was long at Missouri State. See also his 1 Peter, Revelation, and Hebrews commentaries. [CBQ 4/12; JTS 10/11; JSNT 33.5; Chm Sum 12; JETS 12/11; ExpTim 3/11; Them 5/11 (Harris); BSac 4/12; DenvJ 14; RelSRev 9/11; TJ Fall 12].
★ Ridderbos, Herman. The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary, ET 1997. You ought to consider this for purchase, as extensive as it is, and as masterful a theologian as Ridderbos is. Though rich and profound, this work is not always lucid in ET and is not easy for beginners. Some pastors might prefer another book. [Them 5/99; JETS 9/99; WTJ Fall 97; TJ Spr 98; Int 7/98; CBQ 1/99; RTR 8/98].
F Anderson, Paul. ‡ (S&H). The author is known for The Christology of the Fourth Gospel (1996, enlarged ed. 2010) [JSNT 34.5]. On the way to S&H he offers The Riddles of the Fourth Gospel: An Introduction to John (2011) [Int 7/12; JSNT 34.5; JETS 12/12; BibInt 21.1; RelSRev 9/14].
✓ Anderson, Paul N., Felix Just, and Tom Thatcher, eds. ‡ John, Jesus, and History. Vol. I: Critical Appraisals of Critical Views, 2007. [BL 2009; JSHJ 7.1]. Volume II is Aspects of Historicity in the Fourth Gospel (2009) [JSNT 33.5; ExpTim 10/10].
✓ Ashton, John. ‡ Understanding the Fourth Gospel, 1993, 2nd ed. 2007. Published by OUP (624pp. in 1993) and seeks to interpret John with reference to apocalyptic. [JBL Spr 93; JTS 10/92; ExpTim 10/91, 11/07]. Added to this is The Gospel of John and Christian Origins (2014) [JSNT 37.5], and the Ashton-edited collection of various scholars’ essays in The Interpretation of John (2nd ed. 1997) [RelSRev 7/00].
F Attridge, Harold. ‡ (Herm). Some initial work is published in Essays on John and Hebrews (2010).
Bartholomä, Philipp. The Johannine Discourses and the Teaching of Jesus in the Synoptics, 2012. A fine Leuven PhD on a topic of perennial interest. [JETS 6/13].
F Bauckham, Richard. [ℳ], (NIGTC). Bauckham could make a very important contribution to scholarship here, especially as he argues further the thesis proposed in Bauckham, ed., The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (1998), which takes aim at the widely-held idea of a conflicted Johannine Community. The thesis, that the Gospels are general tracts for all Christians, is applied to all four. He builds brilliantly on it in The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple (2007) [JETS 9/08; CTJ 11/09; EvQ 7/09; DenvJ 12/07; JSHJ 8.2; RelSRev 3/12], though I disagree with him identifying the author as John the Elder, not John, son of Zebedee. Cf. Martyn and Klink below. For Bauckham’s rejection of a source and form-critical approach to the Gospels, see Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2006 [BBR 19.1; JTS 4/08; TJ Spr 08; JSNT 12/08; Them 5/08 (Wenham)]. Most recently we have received Gospel of Glory: Major Themes in Johannine Theology (2015), each essay of which is self-contained.
F Bauckham, Richard. [ℳ], (THC).
✓ Bauckham, Richard, and Carl Mosser, eds. The Gospel of John and Christian Theology, 2008. [CBQ 4/09; ExpTim 4/09; TJ Spr 09; Chm Sum 09; Them 4/10; BL 2009; RelSRev 12/09].
✓ Beasley-Murray, George R. [ℳ], (WBC) 1987, 2nd ed. 1999. Highly respected as an erudite, closely-packed commentary. I was somewhat disappointed by its critical stance on a number of issues. Barrett and Brown are better coming from the critical perspective, and Carson is more dependable and insightful from a consistently evangelical viewpoint. This commentary, says Silva, is exceeding rich on the last half of the Gospel. The 2nd edition contains the same commentary and a much lengthened introduction and bibliography. Students should note that the addendum gives an especially fine account of major developments in studies on John’s Gospel from the late 1970s to late 90s. [JTS 40.1; JBL Win 89; WTJ Fall 88; JBL 108.4; RTR 1/88; Chm 104.1]. Students may consult his follow-up work, Gospel of Life: Theology in the Fourth Gospel (1991).
Bernard, J. H. ‡ (ICC) 2 vols., 1928. Can be ignored at this stage. See McHugh below for what was the start of a replacement.
☆ Blomberg, Craig. The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel, 2002. Not only does the Denver prof address the scholarly wrangle mentioned in the book title, he also has a commentary in these pages. This is a good piece of work by a leading evangelical that can be recommended to both students and pastors. [Them Aut 02; JETS 6/03].
☆ Boice, James Montgomery. 1975 – 79. A huge vol. of exposition — really printed sermons (his series on John’s Gospel began in 1971). Boice here builds on his doctoral dissertation at Basel. This would be useful to the preacher looking for a guide in preaching through John (hopefully more quickly). For further review of Boice’s work, see Genesis. The more recent multivol. sets which he wrote (e.g. Psalms, Matthew) are better, more mature preaching.
☆ Borchert, Gerald L. (NAC) 2 vols., 1996 – 2002. The set has received generally favorable reviews and has good research behind it, but I do not place Borchert in the top rank of evangelical commentators. Of special interest to some is the author’s proposal regarding an alternative structuring of the Fourth Gospel. He sees ch. 1 as introductory. What follows are three sections he terms cycles: the Cana Cycle (2:1 – 4:54); the Festival Cycle (5:1 – 11:57); and the Farewell Cycle (13:1 – 17:26). The pivot in the middle is ch. 12, while the passion and resurrection narratives form the Gospel’s conclusion. Students could make use of Borchert. [Them Sum 04; JETS 9/04].
✓ Brant, Jo-Ann A. ‡ (Paideia) 2011. A 290-page exegesis from a Goshen College prof, which takes a fresh literary-rhetorical approach and moves along at a good pace. It has a contemporary feel, as she makes diverse connections to popular culture. The theological reading is odd in places; e.g. she believes Jesus’s prayer language in 17:9 – 10 “is perhaps best described as boasting.” [CBQ 7/13; JSNT 35.5; ExpTim 9/12; TJ Fall 12].
✓ Brodie, Thomas L. ‡ 1993. This OUP work is subtitled “A Literary and Theological Commentary” (625pp.), and urges readers to consider the evidence for literary unity and coherence. Compare this with another Catholic literary interpretation: Moloney. [JTS 4/95; JETS 3/96; JBL Sum 95].
☆ Brown, R. E. ‡ (AB) 2 vols., 1966 – 70. Rich and incisive exegesis with a treasure trove of notes. This commentary, by one of the most prominent Catholic NT scholars of the 20th century, is quite a work to set one thinking, especially since there’s a good bit for an evangelical to disagree with (e.g. the sacramental emphases). Brown’s work is also significant because he was one of the first to recognize the importance of the Qumran discoveries for Johannine studies and to emphasize a Palestinian setting. Among critical works I have sometimes found Brown marginally more useful than Barrett, and one can sometimes buy the Brown set s/h for $30. The scholarly student or pastor with means might try to obtain both. Brown’s work on a revision of the commentary was cut short by his death in 1998. [JBL 90.3]. The new introduction with updated notes was edited by Moloney, filling almost 400pp., and was published by Random House in 2003 [JTS 4/05; ThTo 7/04 (Moody Smith)]. Additionally, see Brown’s AB commentary on John’s Epistles.
☆ Bruce, F. F. 1983. Once it was hard to beat this 400-page commentary in terms of value for your money ($10 in pb). Bruce offers a solid, sober, careful grammatico-historical interpretation of John. Eerdmans also published a one-vol. 600-page hb which included Bruce’s work on John’s Epistles. [Them 1/85; EvQ 4/86; ThTo 41.4].
☆ Bruner, Frederick Dale. [ℳ], 2012. Bruner has been known for his large-scale, 2-vol. Matthew commentary, and now Eerdmans has published this follow-up work of 1300pp. on John. The strengths of the author are theological rather than exegetical, in the minds of many NT scholars. Preachers will definitely find Bruner stimulating, but more as “a companion volume than a stand-alone text” (Koester [Int 10/13]). [JSNT 35.5; RTR 12/14; JETS 12/13; RelSRev 12/12; TJ Spr 13].
✓ Bultmann, Rudolf. ‡ ET 1971. Called by many Bultmann’s greatest work, this commentary is radically critical, proposes a complex source theory, and is stimulating (because it compels the reader to interact). It once had towering stature, but John studies have moved sharply away from his thesis that the Fourth Gospel addresses a gnostic viewpoint and should be interpreted against a Hellenistic, non-Christian background of Mandaeism (see comments on Barrett above). Ironically, Bultmann the demythologizer did a lot of mischief in pushing the pre-Christian gnostic redeemer myth (shown to be baseless). This is only for advanced students.
✓ Burge, Gary. The Anointed Community: The Holy Spirit in the Johannine Tradition, 1987. Not a commentary, but a PhD on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in this literature. Such a work was needed “since pneumatology plays a fundamental role in the very fabric of the Fourth Gospel” (Silva). [WTJ Spr 88; JBL 108.1]. Also helpful is Burge’s Interpreting the Gospel of John (2nd ed. 2013) [JSNT 37.5], with a commentary guide as an appendix. See his NIVAC on John’s Gospel (above) and John’s Epistles.
Calvin, John. (CrossC) 1994. The full commentary is free online.
✓ Carter, Warren. ‡ John: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist, 2006. One of the better introductions to John and Johannine scholarship. [BL 2008; ExpTim 2/08; BTB Spr 08]. More important from the scholarly side is Carter’s John and Empire (2008) [Pacifica 22.1; BibInt 18.3].
✓ Coloe, Mary L., and Tom Thatcher, eds. ‡ John, Qumran, and the DSS: Sixty Years of Discovery and Debate (SBL) 2011. [CBQ 1/14; JSNT 34.5].
✓ Culpepper, R. Alan. ‡ Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design, 1983. A signal book, not only for Johannine studies but also for the NT discipline as a whole. Culpepper applies the new literary criticism to John’s Gospel. Though his conclusions are not compatible with a high view of Scripture, advanced students should acquaint themselves with the work. For something of an update and a survey of scholarship, consult The Gospel and Letters of John (IBT) 1998; he gives the Letters little attention (mainly pp.251 – 83). See also Moloney’s works and Thatcher-Moore for further fruitful research into John as narrative. [TJ Fall 83].
✓ Dodd, C. H. ‡ The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 1953. Once a seminal study of the ideas behind and in this Gospel. Stresses a Hellenistic background, which is less plausible. He later published Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (1963). See Thatcher-Williams, eds., Engaging with C. H. Dodd on the Gospel of John (CUP, 2013) [CBQ 4/15; JTS 10/14].
Dods, Marcus. [ℳ], (EB, and Expositor’s Greek Testament) 1886 and 1897. These are still somewhat useful. Dods imbibed some old-style liberalism.
Edwards, Mark. ‡ (BBC) 2004. [EuroJTh 15.2].
Edwards, Ruth. ‡ Discovering John: Content, Interpretation, Reception, 2015.
Ellis, Peter F. ‡ The Genius of John: A Composition-Critical Commentary on the Fourth Gospel, 1984. This Catholic scholar pursues a narrative-critical approach, coming to some surprisingly conservative conclusions about the composition of John and its literary unity. The last two paragraphs are worth reading over and over.
✓ Elowsky, Joel C., ed. (ACCS) 2 vols., 2006 – 07.
Godet, Frederic. ET 1886. A true classic for pastors, containing 1100pp. of masterful exposition and theological exegesis. You can ignore the discourses on the religious issues of his day. “The thoughtful reader will always discern practical applications if he or she ponders Godet’s remarks” (Carson). See his commentaries on Luke, Romans, and 1 Corinthians, which have been reprinted. All are free online.
✓ Haenchen, Ernst. ‡ (Herm) 2 vols., ET 1984. This expensive, very critical work was called a major disappointment by almost everyone except the neo-Bultmannians. Completed posthumously by a student of Haenchen. Dated and sketchy at points. You’d best ignore it, unless you are doing full research at an advanced level.
F Harris, W. Hall. (EEC).
Harris, Murray J. (EGGNT) 2015. I have yet to see the work. If it has the quality of his Colossians-Philemon, the 500-page vol. will serve extremely well for Greek-readers.
F Heever, G. van den. (RRA).
Hendriksen, William. (NTC) 1953. This commentary is not so prolix as some later ones, but it is also more dated. Sturdy, Reformed, and needs to be checked against an up-to-date work like Carson’s. Of little use to students.
✓ Hoskyns, Edwyn, and F. N. Davey. ‡ 1940, 2nd ed. 1957. A very rich theological commentary with something of a Barthian slant. In fact, Hoskyns interrupted his work on John’s Gospel to translate Barth’s Römerbrief, after he had experienced a conversion from a liberal religion of experience to a religion of revelation. Unlike much English biblical scholarship from the 1920s and 30s, this work retains value down to today. For an account of the author’s life work, see John M. Court, “Edwyn Clement Hoskyns (9th August 1884 — 28th June 1937),” ExpTim 118 (2007): 331 – 36. [WTJ Fall 40].
☆ Hughes, R. Kent. (PTW) 1999. A good choice for the preacher, if used in conjunction with a solid exegetical work. Approximately 500pp. See Mark above.
✓ Hunt, Steven A., D. Francois Tolmie, and Ruben Zimmerman, eds. ‡ Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel, 2013. [JSNT 36.5; JETS 12/14]. For a more conservative study, see Cornelis Bennema, Encountering Jesus: Character Studies in the Gospel of John (2009, 2nd ed. 2014) [JSNT 37.5; Them 5/11; BTB 5/11; RelSRev 6/11], now complemented by a broader study, A Theory of Character in NT Narrative (2014) [JETS 6/15; JSNT 37.5].
Hunter, A. M. [ℳ], (CBC) 1965. Insightful in brief compass.
Hutcheson, George. (GS) 1657. A great Puritan exposition. Spurgeon wrote that it was “excellent; beyond all praise . . . a full-stored treasury of sound theology, holy thought, and marrowy doctrine.” Recommended for lovers of the Puritans.
Kanagaraj, Jey. (NCCS) 2013. The author teaches at Hindustan Bible Institute and College in India. [JSNT 36.5].
Keddie, Gordon J. (EPSC) 2 vols., 2001. [Evangel Spr 05].
✓ Keith, Chris. ‡ The Pericope Adulterae, the Gospel of John, and the Literacy of Jesus, 2009. [JTS 10/14; BibInt 20.2; RelSRev 3/11].
Kellum, L. Scott. Preaching the Farewell Discourse: An Expository Walk-Through of John 13:31 – 17:26, 2014. [Chm Spr 15; Them 11/14].
✓ Klink, Edward W. The Sheep of the Fold: The Audience and Origin of the Gospel of John, 2007. Called a “splendid” dissertation [Bib 90.1 (Kysar)], written under Bauckham at St. Andrews. It presents a trenchant critique of the scholarship about John being written for a single Christian community. [BBR 19.2 (Carson)].
F Klink, Edward W., III. (ZECNT) 2016.
✓ Koester, Craig R. ‡ Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community, 2nd ed. 2003; The Word of Life: A Theology of John’s Gospel, 2008 [JETS 3/10; Int 10/09; BL 2010; EvQ 7/11; ExpTim 6/12].
✓ Köstenberger, Andreas J. A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters, 2009. This is the first installment in an 8-vol. series, Biblical Theology of the NT (BTNT), edited by Köstenberger. [Them 7/10 (Kruse); SBET Aut 10; BBR 20.4; CBQ 1/11; JSNT 33.5; JETS 12/10; DenvJ 14]. See his commentary above; he published a great deal over the decade (1999 – 2009).
☆ Kruse, Colin G. (TNTC) 2004. This handy 395-page exegesis replaces Tasker and completes the initial revision of the Tyndale NT series. Kruse knows the Johannine literature well — he produced the Pillar commentary on the Epistles — and does a fine job here. He chooses not to follow the scholarship that reads the Gospel as addressed to a particular Johannine community. This is what I would give to the thoughtful lay leader who is studying John’s Gospel and who has questions which require well-founded and succinct answers. This can also serve the pastor well as a quick reference, unlike Keener. Published in 2003 in the UK, but 2004 in the USA. Worth buying. [DenvJ 8/04; CBQ 4/07; ExpTim 11/04; Anvil 21.4 (Smalley)].
✓ Kysar, Robert. ‡ The Fourth Evangelist and His Gospel, 1975. Surveys issues in the interpretation of John and is similar to Smalley, but more critical in outlook. See also his Augsburg Commentary (1986). Students doing literature review will certainly consult Voyages with John (2005) and weigh his critique of Martyn’s work.
Laney, J. Carl. (Moody Gospel Commentary) 1992. A popular-level pb (407pp.).
✓ Lierman, John, ed. Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John, 2006. These essays from the Tyndale Fellowship explore new and different paths, often challenging dominant theories in higher criticism. [BBR 19.1; JETS 9/08; EuroJTh 17.1].
Lightfoot, R. H. ‡ 1969. A scholarly commentary published by Oxford.
✓ Lincoln, Andrew T. ‡ (BNTC) 2005. In the longest contribution to the series so far (584pp.), Lincoln provides a fresh, lucid, mainly narrative and theological commentary on the Fourth Gospel. I found insights on nearly every page. When interpreting the passion narratives, he runs down the track he earlier set out in Truth on Trial: The Lawsuit Motif in John’s Gospel (2000) [BBR 16.2; JTS 4/07]. This is an important moderately critical work for students to consult. He knows the scholarship and can summarize it well, but there is less interaction with differing views. As with many other critical interpreters, Lincoln does not read John as providing a historically grounded, reliable portrait of Jesus. [CTJ 4/07; BBR 17.2; JTS 10/07; JETS 12/06; JSNT 3/07; BL 2007; DenvJ 1/06 (Blomberg); ExpTim 3/06; RelSRev 3/11].
✓ Lindars, Barnabas. ‡ (NCB) 1972. A highly praised commentary from a late, prominent Roman Catholic scholar who long taught at Manchester. Students benefit from consulting this, even though there have been many developments in Johannine research since. Moderately critical. [EvQ 4/73; JBL 95.4].
Lüthi, Walter. ‡ 1942, ET 1960. Expositions by a once famous German Catholic preacher.
✓ Malina, Bruce J., and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. ‡ A Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John, 1998. [JBL Sum 00; CBQ 4/00; RelSRev 4/99].
F Marshall, Bruce. (Brazos).
Martin, Francis, and William M. Wright IV. ‡ (CCSS) 2015. I have not seen it.
✓ Martyn, J. Louis. ‡ History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, 1968; 3rd ed. (NTL) 2003. This study revolutionized John studies years ago and was further developed by others like Raymond Brown. But the notion that John’s Gospel throughout reflects the history and conflicts of a mainly Jewish, Johannine Community — and is therefore more narrowly focused than a general Christian tract — is now being challenged by Bauckham, Carson, and others. [ThTo 10/03]. See Wally Cirafesi, “The Johannine Community Hypothesis (1968 – Present),” CBR 12.2 (2014): 173 – 93.
✓ McHugh, John. ‡ John 1 – 4 (ICC – new series) 2008. This might have joined the ranks of Brown, Schnackenburg, Lindars, and Moloney as an immensely learned Catholic commentary on John’s Gospel. McHugh was due to replace the old Bernard work. The sad news is that the author died after making just a start, and Stanton (in the closing months of his own life) put it into publishable form. Foster calls it “a fragmentary work with no great coherence. Readers are only left with a sense of what might have been.” Students doing full research on the early chapters will certainly make use of it. [ExpTim 7/09; NovT 52.3; BL 2010; RelSRev 12/12].
Michaels, J. Ramsey. (NIBC) 1989. This updated the 1984 entry in GNC to explain the NIV. At 400pp. it is a probing exegesis, but see his NICNT above.
☆ Milne, Bruce. (BST) 1993. Has 320pp. of exposition of John’s message. The theology drawn from John is well founded. Includes as an appendix a study guide which could be put to good use in a Bible study format.
✓ Moloney, Francis J. ‡ (SacP) 1998. Highly theological from a Catholic perspective, but also attentive to literary and rhetorical features of the text. Moloney attempts to aid preachers in calling their congregations to the response of faith. I call it a real success. The SacP vol. of nearly 600pp. follows on the heels of a 3-vol. set which focused more on reader and narrator (that term is preferred over evangelist). Those titles are Belief in the Word: Reading John 1 – 4 (1993); Signs and Shadows: Reading John 5 – 12 (1996); and Glory Not Dishonor: Reading John 13 – 21 (1998). Those three vols. total about 700pp. [Bib 80.4; Int 1/99; CBQ 7/99; RelSRev 7/00]. See also the follow-up vol. of essays, The Gospel of John: Text and Context (2005) [JTS 10/07; BL 2006], and a fine monograph on Love in the Gospel of John (2013) [CBQ 7/15; ExpTim 7/15; RevExp 5/15; BSac 7/15].
☆ Morris, Leon. (retired NICNT) 1971, rev. 1995. Morris was long the standard among evangelical works, and prior to my 7th edition I always recommended its purchase. However, I prefer Carson’s approach to Morris’s “strictly earthly-historical view of Jesus’ ministry” (Carson’s phrase). Still, the evangelical pastor is very much helped by Morris. [EvQ 1/73; JBL 91.3; RelSRev 4/99]. Honestly, the Sunday School teacher and expositor will find nearly as much help — help of a different kind — in Reflections on the Gospel of John, 4 vols. (1986 – 89), later published by Hendrickson in one hb vol. (760pp.). Students should note his suggestive work on the theology of this Gospel: Jesus Is the Christ (1989). Eerdmans replaced the Morris NICNT with Michaels (see above).
☆ Mounce, Robert. (EBCR) 2007. The author writes expressly for pastors in these 300pp. Students will see, even in the 3-page introduction, that this is not written for them. Mounce is well-informed, insightful, and clear.
✓ Newman, B. H., and E. A. Nida. (UBS) 1980.
✓ Neyrey, Jerome H. ‡ (NCBC) 2007. This commentary by a Catholic at Notre Dame is one place to go for a critically oriented, up-to-date, social science perspective. Students will appreciate his bibliographical guidance (pp.28 – 36), and may look up his complementing essays in The Gospel of John in Cultural and Historical Perspective (2009) [Int 1/12; ExpTim 9/10]. [2007: CBQ 7/08; BL 2008; ExpTim 3/08 (Keener); RBL 7/10; HBT 29.2; Anvil 25.3; JSNT 33.5; BSac 1/12; BTB 5/11].
Ngewa, Samuel. 2003. A good-sized, helpful commentary, published by Evangelical Publishing House in Nairobi, and written by my senior colleague, a prof at Nairobi Evangelical Graduate School of Theology. It is a reflective, warm-hearted work for pastors.
✓ O’Day, Gail. ‡ (NIB) 1995. The author teaches at Emory, and her commentary is bound up with Culpepper’s work on Luke. I have not examined her work closely enough (370pp.). [JETS 3/99]. Note that she has also coauthored a more accessible exposition with Susan E. Hylen in WestBC (2006) [Int 1/08].
F Painter, John. ‡ (SRC). Earlier he wrote The Quest for Messiah: The History, Literature, and Theology of the Johannine Community (2nd ed. 1993). Compare Brown.
F Parsenios, George. ‡ (Illum).
F Perrin, Nicholas. (SGBC).
Peterson, Robert. Getting to Know John’s Gospel, 1989. Not a commentary, but a study guide which takes “a fresh look at its main ideas.” With its 13 chs., this works quite well as a quarter-long Sunday School study. It fits a niche few other publications do.
Phillips, Richard D. (REC) 2 vols., 2014. Regrettably, I have yet to see this set, but it is reportedly over 1400pp. I’ve heard the gentleman preach, and I expect many will find these sermons a blessing to their heart and life.
Pink, Arthur. 1945. If you are looking for a fat vol. of exposition, buy Boice.
Plummer. Alfred. 1882. Reprinted around 1985, but among the older English commentaries, Westcott’s two are more useful.
✓ Porter, Stanley E., and Andrew K. Gabriel. Johannine Writings and Apocalyptic: An Annotated Bibliography, 2013. [JETS 12/14; JSNT 37.5]. Also from Porter is John, His Gospel, and Jesus: In Pursuit of the Johannine Voice (2015).
✓ Rainbow, Paul A. Johannine Theology: The Gospel, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse, 2014. Given a warm review by Blomberg. I’ve yet to use it. Cf. Marvin Pate’s The Writings of John (2011) [JETS 6/12; JSNT 37.5].
Sanders, J. N., and B. A. Mastin. ‡ (BNTC) 1968. Never very good to begin with and now replaced by Lincoln.
✓ Schnackenburg, R. ‡ 3 vols., ET 1968 – 82. This is surely one of the most valuable scholarly commentaries available and one of the best examples of the moderately critical scholarship coming out of the Catholic Church — a monument to it, really. Moody Smith says, “Schnackenburg is for the European scene what Raymond Brown has been for the American.” Just a note: Schnackenburg became, like Brown (compare his commentaries on the Gospel and the Epistles), more critical with the passage of time. The third vol. does not compare favorably with the first. There is also a fourth vol. with essays to consult, but only if you read German (IV: Ergänzende Auslegungen und Exkurse, 1984). The author has other standout commentaries in ET on Ephesians and John’s Epistles.
✓ Segovia, Fernando, ed. ‡ “What Is John?” Readers and Readings of the Fourth Gospel, 1996. A collection of essays which deal primarily with the newer hermeneutical approaches and with important theological issues in John under discussion today. Also worthwhile, especially in researching some of the older historical scholarly questions, is The Johannine Writings, eds. Porter and Evans (1995). [RelSRev 1/99, 4/99].
✓ Skinner, Christopher W., ed. ‡ Characters and Characterization in the Gospel of John, 2013. [CBQ 4/15; JETS 9/14].
Sloyan, Gerard. ‡ (I) 1988. Not of much account, I’m afraid.
✓ Smalley, S. S. John: Evangelist and Interpreter, 1978, 2nd ed. 1998. [EvQ 10/78; JETS 6/80]. Smalley also did the WBC on the Johannine Epistles and is right at home in the literature. He takes a more critical view on issues such as authorship. He was supposedly doing the NIGTC, but see Bauckham above.
✓ Smith, D. Moody, Jr. ‡ (ANTC) 1999. This 400-page commentary, by a man Barrett calls “one of the highest authorities on St. John’s Gospel,” is not to be missed. Though not extensively footnoted and not evidencing much interaction with other scholars’ work (especially in the area of narrative criticism), there is mature scholarship undergirding his clearly argued conclusions. [CBQ 1/04; Them Aut 01; Int 4/04; RelSRev 10/02; JTS 10/01 (more critical)]. For a critical theological introduction to John’s Gospel, see Smith’s 1995 vol. in the CUP NT Theology series [Int 1/97; CRBR 1996 (Carson)]. Yet more Smith works on this Gospel are John among the Gospels: The Relationship in Twentieth-Century Scholarship (2nd ed. 2001) [JTS 10/03; JBL Sum 04; RelSRev 7/03]; and The Fourth Gospel in Four Dimensions: Judaism and Jesus, the Gospels and Scripture (2008) [CBQ 7/10].
✓ Stibbe, Mark W. G. ‡ (Read) 1993. [CBQ 10/94].
Stevick, Daniel B. ‡ A Commentary on John 13 – 17, 2011. A lively exposition, meant to assist preachers. [JTS 4/13; Int 10/12; JSNT 34.5; ExpTim 11/12; RelSRev 3/13].
F Swartley, Willard. (BCBC).
✓ Talbert, Charles H. ‡ Reading John: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles (RNT) 1992, rev. 2005. This study complements his work on Luke and Corinthians. [CRBR 1994; RevExp 2/15].
Tasker, R. V. G. (retired TNTC) 1960. Retains more value than some think (230pp.), and is still good to lend to a Sunday School teacher. See Kruse’s newer TNTC.
Tenney, Merrill C. John: The Gospel of Belief, 1948. A popularly-styled exposition, later joined by Tenney’s weak EBC (1981). Can be honorably retired.
✓ Thatcher, Tom, and Stephen D. Moore, eds. ‡ Anatomies of Narrative Criticism: The Past, Present, and Futures of the Fourth Gospel as Literature, 2008. Compare these essays with the Culpepper work they celebrate. [JETS 12/09; BL 2010; ExpTim 1/12; BibInt 18.4]. Also for students is Thatcher, ed., What We Have Heard from the Beginning: The Past, Present, and Future of Johannine Studies (2007) [BBR 19.3].
✓ Thompson, Marianne Meye. [ℳ], (NTL) 2015. This is well-done, and conservative relative to the series. Earlier she wrote The God of the Gospel of John (2001) [Anvil 19.4 (Smalley)]. I will need to make further use of this 560-page work, written by a veteran Fuller Seminary prof and PCUSA minister, in order to give a recommendation. Students will surely appreciate her insights on narrative, rhetoric, and theology, as well as the (smaller) measure of interaction with current scholarship.
F Turner, David L. John and 1 – 3 John (TTC).
✓ Van Belle, Gilbert, Jan Gabriël van der Watt, and P. J. Maritz, eds. Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel, 2005. A BETL vol. from SNTS.
✓ Wahlde, Urban C. von. ‡ The Gospel and Letters of John (ECC) 3 vols., 2010. A huge project (over 2000pp.) to be “greeted with enthusiasm by those who look to source analysis as a key to understanding these writings” (Swetnam [CBQ 7/12]). There is no question of the learning here, of which scholars will take account. Note that von Wahlde’s assumptions regarding a Johannine Community make this extensive commentary set of less use to those critical of that long influential theory (see Bauckham). [CBQ 7/12; JSNT 34.5; ExpTim 7/11; Them 8/11; RevExp Spr 12; RelSRev 9/13; JETS 3/12].
Wallace, Ronald S. The Gospel of John, Chapters 1 – 21: Pastoral and Theological Studies, 2003. A lovely, brief exposition (327pp.). See also under Daniel and Kings.
✓ Watt, Jan van der. ‡ An Introduction to the Johannine Gospel and Letters, 2007. [BL 2009].
Watt, Jan van der, and Ruben Zimmerman, eds. ‡ Rethinking the Ethics of John, 2012. Treats the epistles as well. [JSNT 36.1 (Koester); ExpTim 9/14].
Weinrich, William. John 1:1 – 7:1 (Concord) 2015. What adds interest here is the author’s long career as Professor of Early Church and Patristic Studies. I am yet to see this.
✓ Westcott, B. F. 1889, 1908. There are two different commentaries being reprinted: the earlier work treats the English text, and the later one exegetes the Greek. Both are classics, still on the shelves of many pastors.
✓ Williams, Catrin H., and Christopher Rowland, eds. ‡ John’s Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, 2013. Building off of Ashton’s work. [JSNT 36.5].
Whitacre, Rodney. (IVPNT) 1999. I have not used it, but both Carson and Smalley commend it. [CTJ 11/00; Anvil 17.3 (Smalley)].
✓ Witherington, Ben. John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel, 1995. This amazingly prolific scholar has published a couple of dozen other NT commentaries, and full-scale works on NT Theology and Paul’s Narrative Thought World (1994). All these books are worth consulting, but they needed better editing and proofreading. In this distinctive commentary, close attention is paid to narrative and various themes, especially wisdom. I must say the author has not convinced me that wisdom is a strong motif in the Fourth Gospel (note that σοφία and σοφός are not even found there). This vol. has numerous insights, though it is not one of Witherington’s more successful efforts. See 1 Corinthians. [EvQ 1/98; JETS 3/99; Int 7/97; CBQ 10/97].
Yarbrough, Robert. (Everyman’s Bible Commentary) 1991. A popularly-styled, well researched commentary that has more substance to it than the other vols. in the series. Covers the Gospel and offers an annotated bibliography of the various commentaries in 216pp.
NOTE: See Don Carson’s articles, “Selected Recent Studies of the Fourth Gospel,” in Them 14.2., and “Recent Literature on the Fourth Gospel: Some Reflections,” in Them 9.1. Other articles to help students understand where Johannine scholarship has come from are: S. S. Smalley, “Keeping up with Recent Studies; XII. St. John’s Gospel,” ExpTim 1/86; D. Moody Smith, “The Contribution of J. Louis Martyn to the Understanding of the Gospel of John,” in The Conversation Continues (Nashville: Abingdon, 1990); Klaus Scholtissek, “Johannine Studies: A Survey of Recent Research with Special Regard to German Contributions,” (part I) CurBS 6 (1998): 227 – 59, and (part II) CurBS 9 (2001): 277 – 305; Paul N. Anderson, “Beyond the Shade of the Oak Tree: The Recent Growth of Johannine Studies,” ExpTim 119.8 (2008): 365 – 73; and Francis Moloney, “Recent Johannine Studies,” ExpTim 4/12 and 6/12.
★ Blomberg, Craig. Interpreting the Parables, 1990, 2nd ed. 2012. A superb contribution, which I’ve long argued should be required reading in a seminary Gospels course. Prior to Wenham and Blomberg we’d been lacking solid, scholarly introductions to the parables from an evangelical standpoint. This new edition (430pp.) is a major updating and expansion of the old. See Boucher below. [Bib 72.4; JETS 6/92; EvQ 7/92; Chm 104.4]. Also excellent is Blomberg’s Preaching the Parables (2004) [CTJ 4/05; Them Win 05; TJ Spr 05; Int 7/06].
★ Snodgrass, Klyne R. [ℳ], Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus, 2008. Snodgrass intended this tome (864pp.) to be a resource book for the parables, i.e. what the seminary professor with expertise in parables wanted to put in the hands of students. It is an up-to-date treatment from a evangelical fully abreast of critical scholarship — his earlier surveys of the field of research were “Modern Approaches to the Parables,” in The Face of NT Studies (2004) and “From Allegorizing to Allegorizing” in Longenecker, ed., The Challenge of Jesus’ Parables (2000). Especially appreciated by this student of the OT is the author’s effort to place Jesus’s parabolic teaching in the context of the Jewish prophetic tradition. Though seminarians will prefer Wenham and Blomberg as introductory reading, this vol. is now the main reference text and replaces Hultgren as a recommended purchase. Already in 2010 I termed this a “landmark study.” [ThTo 1/09; ExpTim 5/08; TJ Spr 09; RelSRev 9/08; Them 9/08 (Wenham); JETS 6/09; JTS 4/09; BL 2009; BBR 19.4 (Blomberg); EvQ 7/09; Int 4/09 (Hultgren); RTR 4/09; RevExp Fall 09].
★ Wenham, David. 1989. As part of IVP’s The Jesus Library, this has been the best, most inviting popular introduction to the parables on the market — by one of the editors of the Gospel Perspectives vols. [EvQ 4/91].
☆ Bailey, Kenneth E. Poet & Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes, 1976, 1980, Combined ed. 1983. Argues capably that the parables can only be fully understood when studied in their cultural context. Our occidental canons of interpretation can be misleading. [WTJ Fall 78, Spr 81; JETS 3/82; JBL 96.4, 102.2].
✓ Boucher, Madeleine. ‡ The Mysterious Parable: A Literary Study, 1977. A much needed critique of the customary distinction — argued by Jülicher (1886 – 99), Jeremias, and Dodd — between parable (one point) and allegory (many points). Blomberg also presses this critique in a measured way. [JBL 12/78].
Bruce, A. B. The Parabolic Teaching of Christ, 1908. Still of some value, especially for those interested in the history of interpretation. Pastors should only use Bruce in conjunction with more recent works.
✓ Buttrick, David. ‡ Speaking Parables: A Homiletic Guide, 2000. No froth! Buttrick is a most thoughtful and skilled homiletician, and his guide will stimulate readers to approach the parables in fresh ways which capture the frequent surprises found in Jesus’s stories.
Capon, Robert. ‡ Kingdom, Grace, Judgment, 2001. Bold exposition.
✓ Carter, Warren, and John Paul Heil. ‡ Matthew’s Parables: Audience-Oriented Perspectives, 1998. [JTS 51.1].
✓ Dodd, C. H. ‡ The Parables of the Kingdom, 1935. A classic in the field.
✓ Gowler, David B. ‡ What Are They Saying about the Parables? 2000. A good introduction to where parable research had been and where it might be headed. [Int 7/01].
☆ Hultgren, Arland J. ‡ 2000. Considered by many a tour de force (500pp.), which introduces and comments upon the parables. There is good balance and judgment in Hultgren’s discussions. While he warns against a return to an allegorical method of interpretation, he also notes that parable and allegory were not sharply differentiated in Jesus’s world. In the NT parables there are allegorical elements to which the reader should be alert. Hultgren provides a digest of much of the best work on parables and should be classed as moderately critical. I once recommended Hultgren for purchase, but have given his place to Snodgrass. [ExpTim 5/01; SwJT Sum 01; CBQ 4/01; EvQ 7/03; CTJ 11/01; JETS 12/01; TJ Fall 02; HBT 6/02; RelSRev 1/02; WTJ Fall 01 (Poythress, more critical)].
✓ Hunter, A. M. [ℳ], Interpreting the Parables, 1960. A lucid, helpful introduction, but rather brief. See also his later work, The Parables Then and Now (1971).
☆ Jeremias, Joachim. ‡ The Parables of Jesus, ET 1963. This has been the classic treatment of the genre. All modern discussion of the parables has had to begin with Dodd and Jeremias. Here you will find both strong criticism of allegorizing and a strong interest in possible reconstructions of the original parables (after they were corrupted or reworked by the early church).
✓ Johnston, Robert M., and Harvey K. McArthur. They Also Taught in Parables, 1990. A significant study published by Zondervan.
✓ Jones, Ivor Harold. ‡ The Matthean Parables: A Literary and Historical Commentary, 1995. An enormous work. [JTS 48.1 (Nolland)].
☆ Jones, Peter R. Studying the Parables of Jesus, 1999. Another good evangelical introduction.
✓ Kissinger, Warren S. ‡ The Parables of Jesus: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography, 1979. Those who are interested in an updated bibliography should see Blomberg (2012), Hultgren, and Snodgrass above, and also Blomberg’s “The Parables of Jesus: Current Trends and Needs in Research,” in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (Brill, 1994). [JBL 101.1].
☆ Kistemaker, Simon J. 1980, rev. 2002. This is a worthwhile reference book for pastors which explains each parable in the Synoptics. A good expositional tool, which has been revised to become even better. The theology is solidly Reformed. [WTJ Spr 81; RTR 1/82; JETS 3/82].
✓ Lambrecht, Jan. ‡ Out of the Treasure: The Parables in the Gospel of Matthew, 1991. His more general introduction was Once More Astonished (1981).
Linnemann, E. ‡ ET 1966. A bright German scholar’s treatment of the parables. It is of interest to note that this former student of Bultmann completely renounced her critical works, including this one, and converted to evangelicalism.
Lischer, Richard. ‡ Reading the Parables, 2014. For preachers. [RevExp 2/15].
✓ Longenecker, Richard, ed. The Challenge of Jesus’ Parables, 2000. [EvQ 4/02; RTR 8/02; Them Aut 02; DenvJ; Anvil 19.3].
Marshall, I. Howard. Eschatology and the Parables, 1963.
Meier, John P. ‡ A Marginal Jew. Vol. V: Probing the Authenticity of the Parables, 2016.
✓ Michaels, J. Ramsey. Servant and Son: Jesus in Parable and Gospel, 1981.
✓ Perrin, Norman. ‡ Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom, 1976. Includes a survey of parable research since Jeremias together with his own critical views. Can be updated by checking the articles and vols. referenced with Kissinger above. You could also see The NT and Its Modern Interpreters, and Scott.
Schottroff, Luise. ‡ ET 2006. [JSHJ 5.2].
✓ Scott, Bernard Brandon. ‡ Hear Then the Parable: A Commentary on the Parables of Jesus, 1989. A 427-page work published by Fortress. Prior to Hultgren’s appearance this was the fullest critical commentary on the parables, Scott’s work exemplifies the highly skeptical work done, for example, in the Jesus Seminar. E.g. he pays a lot of attention to the Gospel of Thomas. [SJT 93.2; JBL Win 91; CBQ 4/92; Int 7/91].
✓ Shillington, V. George, ed. ‡ Jesus and His Parables, 1997.
✓ Sider, John W. Interpreting the Parables, 1995. [JETS 6/98].
✓ Stein, Robert H. An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus, 1981. An excellent conservative work. [EvQ 1/84; WTJ Spr 82; JETS 9/82].
Via, Dan O. ‡ 1967.
✓ Westermann, Claus. ‡ The Parables of Jesus in the Light of the OT, ET 1990.
✓ Young, Brad H. ‡ Jesus and His Jewish Parables: Rediscovering the Roots of Jesus’ Teaching, 1989 [EvQ 4/91]; The Parables: Jewish Tradition and Christian Interpretation, 1998. He studied under Flusser in Jerusalem.