This is an erudite, massive commentary in spades. Mark it down as far less tedious than we might often label commentaries on this scale. Mr. Arnold is not like some commentators who have a whole string of commentaries like, say, Douglas Moo, but he is rather that one who walks for years with one book of the Bible (well he did Ephesians too). The twenty years Arnold spent on Colossians makes him able to deliver on a magnitude that not many people can. He probably knows how many times Paul sneezed as he wrote Colossians (yes he believes Paul is the author), or what he had for lunch.

The thing that is amazing about this book is that the stars were aligned for it to be dull, but it wasn’t. For example, he wrote the most prolific section on the archaeology of the area that I have ever, and I read to the end! He has been there over and over and though he had all the requisite research, he really gave a bird’s-eye view. I simply don’t remember ever seeing something like that before.

Another trick he pulled off is in how he “interacted” with other scholars without turning into a sleep aid. He more weighed them in the balances and found them wanting. Consider the authorship of Colossians by Paul that has had pot shots taken at it for years. Arnold took the four categories of language, style, theology and historical plausibility and analyzed all the evidence for scholarly opinion. Sometimes the evidence was suspect while at other points it just didn’t exist, more like pulled out of the air. Read the excursus on Bujard where he took Bujard’s own data and proved him wrong.

In the commentary proper discussing the Hymn look how he exposed Kasemann. He wasn’t ugly about it, but proved it was merely a collection of unproven assumptions. As fascinating as it was to read, it’s also bewildering that such nonsense can enter scholarship and dominate it.

There are things mentioned in Colossians chapter 2 that are difficult to grasp even if the larger picture is quite clear. I really appreciated Arnold here. The discussion of “magic” is a weird scholarly exaggeration in many ways, but Arnold is for sure an expert on that line.

His writing on the Household Code was restrained and yet helpful. He really didn’t get in the whole egalitarian versus complementarian discussion, as much as just stating what the text was saying. He didn’t skirt it, but was as thorough as ever. I appreciated much of what he said there.

This is an outstanding commentary. Its scholarship is impeccable while what the rest of are after is here if you will invest just a bit of time. I don’t think you’ll regret it.

I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255.