I have blogged my recommendations for each book of the Bible for the best one or two modern commentaries here. For a more complete listing of good commentaries, graded on a three-tier system, go here.

__________________
Rev. Lane Keister
Teaching Elder, PCA, North Dakota (working out of bounds in a CRC and an RCA church)
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com
http://brahmsgreenglove.blogspot.com
http://accenttranslation.blogspot.com
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I have often thought about things like this. As i build my library and dive into scripture i find something of this nature very useful.

I notice that you do say you do not agree with the viewpoint on all of the commentaries. I would be curious to see a small follow up of things that you remember that you dont necessarily agree with or like. Could be of further assistance to those interested in browsing any of these works.

Thanks for the list brother! Hope to see a trend of people doing similar posts

__________________
Brian E
Attending Christ Reformed Baptist Church
Milwaukee, WI

Good to see Dale Ralph Davis in the Kings slot.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

The only real problems that I have with some of them is that some do not come from a conservative approach to the text. Achtemeier on 1 Peter, for instance, does not believe that Peter wrote the letter. It is astounding to me that such a good commentary can be written from such a perspective. Some others come from a slightly liberal perspective (none are flaming liberals): Goldingay on Daniel, Bergant on S of S, Fitzmyer's commentaries, Towner on the Pastoral Epistles (an egalitarian approach), Bauckham on 2 Peter (doesn't believe that Peter wrote it). There's probably quite a few more areas where I might disagree with some of them, but that's all for now.

Bauckham on 2 Peter (doesn't believe that Peter wrote it).

Calvin didn't either!

__________________
Independent Reformed Baptist Church (NE England, nr. Durham)

Well, that depends on how you read him. Yes, he says that Peter didn't actually do the writing. But he might as well have said it, imo, since he argues that Peter told someone what to write.

I see Don Carson is in the John slot, does anyone else think it is worth reading that commentary? I am thinking of buying it and reading a portion on the Lord's Day (its too big for daily devotions).

In my opinion (and Richard Phillips's comment on my blog agrees), Carson's is the best modern commentary by far.

I see, I also have R.J. Rushdoony and Bruce Milne (Bible Speaks Today series), but they could be read as part of daily devotions.

Oh yes, John Stott's commentary on Galatians (also in the Bible Speaks Today series) is the best commentary ever written on that book. If I had to preach on Galatians I think I would just read that book (and add a few comments of my own concerning infant baptism and against holy days etc).

Have you read Amazon.com: Israel from Conquest to Exile: A... I thought it was very good although it is not textual.

As I do not understand Hebrew what are the best commentaries on Kings and Chronicles?

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

No, I haven't read it, but it looks good. Can you give any bio on the two authors? I am not familiar with them.

They are conservative regarding the history and dating. I seem to recall them being premill but not from this book.

Peter Masters' review: "An outstanding work which blends a summary of events with up-to-date archaeological material and other background information. The authors make no concessions to liberal viewpoints on dating and archaeology. Problem passages are dealt with very well. Extremely readable. Very helpful for message preparation as well as in private devotional use."

Biography — Dr John C. Whitcomb

A quick suggestion, Lane. "Best" is a term that varies in meaning depending on who's using it. It might be helpful to add a paragraph to the post explaining what you're primarily looking for in a commentary, so people have a better idea of why these commentaries are the best.

__________________
Ruben
Moderator

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Calvinistas Conversando - Reformed Discussion Board in Spanish.

Spanish Blog -Teologia en Mexico
English Blog -The Howling Wilderness

Thanks for the suggestion, Ruben. It's done.

I have now added a post that details some commentaries to avoid.

Lane, what do you think of R. H. Charles on Revelation? He may not be conservative, but D. A. Carson and others think that it's still, in some ways, a watershed commentary, even if it's 88 years old this year (1920).

__________________
Richard T. Zuelch, M.Div
Ruling Elder, OPC (not currently serving)
Westminster Presbyterian Church, CA (OPC)
www.reiterations.wordpress.com
www.foft.wordpress.com

Talking to oneself is, I believe, considered a sign of lunacy. Thinking to oneself is most certainly a sign of it. - G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936), in January, 1906

I wouldn't teach on Revelation without Charles, expecially because he has such an amazing grasp of the extra-biblical literature concurrent with the times. So, yes, Charles is still important.

Thank you for this Thread! I love advice on good commentary!

__________________
~etexas~

I would echo Greenbaggins comment that Longenecker is first rate (and not just because I went to school with his son). Longenecker touches on an essential issue that is not often addressed: were the Judaizers propounding an error in justification or an error in sanctification instead of or in addition to an error in justification? You may not agree with his conclusion but he will force you to really think the issue through.

__________________
In Christ's love and service

Mr. Tim Cunningham, Dip. CS (Regent College)
Member, First Baptist Church
Vancouver, BC

------------
"The Reformation was a time when men went blind, staggering drunk because they had discovered, in the dusty basement of late medievalism, a whole cellar of 1500-year-old, 200 proof grace—a bottle after bottle of pure distillate of Scripture, one sip of which would convince anyone that God saves us single-handedly. The word of the gospel—after all these centuries of trying to lift yourself into heaven by worrying about the perfection of your own bootstraps—suddenly turned out to be a flat announcement that the saved were home-free before they started. Grace was to be drunk neat: no water, no ice, and certainly no ginger ale." – Robert Farrar Capon