Here’s a massive two-volume commentary in a series in its infancy. Though I take exception to some of the thrusts of this commentary, I must give Mr. Carter his props on writing. He reads so easily. I do enjoy scholarly writing that flows.

In the Introduction he says that this commentary is built around seven propositions that he has on Matthew’s Gospel. I’ll be honest and admit those propositions don’t exactly jump off the page for me (though I love focus). These propositions are quite dependent on a later date for Mathew, which I don’t agree with and I wasn’t persuaded by the case he presented. The logic is too tenuous. Matthew, he says, had to come after Mark and he dates Mark just after the fall of Jerusalem (70 A.D.). If we believe that predictive prophecy is possible, then both could have been before that date. That’s like a house of cards that fell with the gentlest of breezes.

His discussion of genre is interesting, but I just don’t know. I find help in the general categories of genre, but scholars keep adding new ones regularly. I think I’ve seen 30 or so in recent years (I didn’t actually count). So they see this new genre in a biblical book, define it, and read its rules back to the text. Isn’t that a bit circular?

The section on “telling the story of Jesus” is where he discusses structure. I could get on with section relativity more. I was surprised, too, to find him a bit skeptical about the thread worn “Q” theory. For sure, he focuses on the “finished form” of Matthew. His discussion of who Matthew is or authorship is highjacked by “reader-response criticism”. How could that even be a thing?

The rest of his proposals center in the Roman Empire. His fixation on the Syrian Antioch depends completely on his dating discussed earlier. I already told you what I think of that. Additionally, isn’t the story of Jesus even more fascinating because of how He almost ignores Rome even though it dominated the world scene? Squeeze Matthew as hard as you like and I think you’ll be hard pressed yourself to see an organizing feature in the “socioeconomic realities of daily urban and rural life in the ancient Roman world of Syrian Antioch”.

I even have something to say on the bibliography. It stands out by what is not there. Notice how few conservative writers are mentioned. I’ve always felt that conservative writers read more liberal works while the favor is rarely returned. The danger of an echo chamber is real. Notice also the relative lack of commentaries in the bibliography. I will only say that that is surprising.

Though the theological approach is in a different lane than I travel, I liked the commentary proper much better. Not really for the big picture obviously, but for all the fascinating details. At 1800 pages between the two volumes there are plenty of them.

A conservative reader like me is going to like a volume like this for its nuggets not found in other works, its unique biblical theology, and its interesting connections to other texts. In that regard, it delivered.

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.

This release finishes Smith’s grand commentary on Isaiah. I always enjoyed his older commentary in the NAC and this revision is only better. It’s easily one of the best conservative commentaries we have on Isaiah. It’s in the company of Motyer and Oswalt where the rarified air leaves out much of the pollution found in modern Isaiah tomes.

Another Introduction for the second half of Isaiah? You bet! Over 70 pages? And not one is wasted. You can attribute two reasons for so many introductory issues in Isaiah. First, hardly does a second half of a book contrast to the level found in Isaiah. Second, hardly since at least the Pentateuch has a biblical book been subjected to the level of barrage by critical scholars found here. In this volume, you’ll find both interesting coverage of the issues and winning pushback against those scholars.

The Introduction is so well informed on structure. Smith is fantastic in summarizing key observations on these issues. He makes comparison so easy. The same could be said for compositional issues. You know how some scholars want to posit a Second Isaiah and some even a Third Isaiah (40-55 & 56-66). There’s no legitimate need to do that as Smith’s work will show. He is very thorough in this regard.

The commentary itself is exceptional. The help it provides is distinct. I feel the depth is ideal and the footnotes are rich if you want more.

Add the earlier volume and have great coverage on Isaiah. Try it and I think you will agree with me on its value.

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.

This replacement volume in the beloved TOTC series is, in my view, an upgrade over its predecessor. Mr. Williamson is more known to me in the biblical theology realm, but here he gives commentary writing a try.

My least favorite part of this work is the Introduction. It was competent on many levels, but was a bit too agreeable to some dubious scholarly concerns. He seemed to beat around the bush about Mosaic authorship and sources before, I think, concluding conservatively. He couldn’t bring himself to pick a date or a route for the exodus. I much prefer reading that champions a view. His couple of pages on structure, though, were perfectly succinct. Even if this Introduction is not exactly to my taste, I think few readers of this series are coming for that reason.

Not more important for this audience is the commentary proper. It is well done here and strikes the right balance in length for the series. Are you preparing a lesson or sermon? I think you would enjoy this one. His penchant for biblical theology enriches many a passage. You likely know what to expect in the TOTC series and you will get it here.

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.

This latest in the NICOT series is massive, especially to get through only chapter 6. I can sum this one up quickly. If you are coming to this commentary for academic concerns, you will feel like you’ve received candy from your stocking on Christmas morning. If you are more into sermon prep or regular Bible study, not so much. To be fair, this work approaches commentary writing in the pattern that has developed over the last couple decades in this series, though maybe even a bit more detail.

There are good things to share here, but let me share my concerns. First, more weight was laid upon genre than it could bear. The genre “court tales” is simply overused to explain Daniel at large here. Assumptions are made and then those conventions are too often made the central argument to what’s going on. Second, the history of composition and the corresponding historical background of those times also carries too much. I love a big commentary, but I’m not sure we need 30 pages there. Finally, the structure and theology sections were weak. For these reasons, the long Introduction was not too helpful to me.

Again, with an eye to fairness, more scholars would think I’m off base than the authors here, but I think, for example, pastors would agree with me.

On the plus side, the scholarly work here will be graded exceptional in those circles. When something is addressed, no one can deny the sweat evident in the work. Additionally, the commentary hits a higher gear in the commentary proper. Check out the background on young men like Daniel being taken into the service of Babylon. That’s what I call thoroughness!

I’m a fan of this series, and I’ll want the follow up volume to have the full coverage of the commentary proper, but let’s rate it 5 stars for scholars and 4 stars for the rest of us.

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.

It’s been at least 25 years ago that I picked up this volume’s predecessor in the NAC series. I’ve used it many times to advantage over those years. Count me as happy this one got a revision and landed in the CSC series here. Reading again his now improved Introduction reminds me of why I like Blomberg on Matthew. I’ve gotten more out of it than volumes in several larger academic series.

Ironically enough, I recently reviewed a fine theology on Matthew. Following up so soon with this volume makes me really appreciate how in so many less pages than that huge volume he still covered all the key things sufficiently well. I agree with most of his conclusions and even appreciate how he weighed things. In other words, he had a great understanding of which issues were important and which ones were not so much.

His section on structure was fairly brief, but most people are in fairly close agreement over Matthew’s structure. It’s the theology section beginning on page 10 that was his best. Again, he took the topics in order of importance and I think he nailed it as he really grasps what Matthew is all about.

I marked up several pages for things I need to go back and add to my own studies on Matthew. It was a real help to me. As I have already mentioned, I have used the commentary section for years. I wholeheartedly recommend it.

This is a great volume that is perfect for pastors or teachers or those just doing some really serious Bible study. You simply can’t go wrong with this one. 

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.

Can you believe this is the second major commentary on Zephaniah in the last few months? Perhaps even more surprising, I must label this volume a winner just like I did the other recent one in the ZECOT. To be sure, they possess different strengths. Both are very unique contributions that don’t mimic each other at all. Some readers are definitely going to favor this one. It’s deep, but very understandable. The last portion of the Introduction does get into the minutiae a bit, but it’s different minutiae than the other one too. I don’t know if I can sell you on having two standalone commentaries on Zephaniah, but that is actually what I think you should do.

One of the reasons that Mr. Chisholm can write so many interesting things in a different lane is that he is open to dispensational theology. Don’t expect a dispensational treatise, as I’m not suggesting that at all; but it can just give some very interesting viewpoints that other commentaries do not. Still, all the basic things you look for are here as well.

The introduction is outstanding and full of learning. It didn’t have as much on structure, but it did seem to have better linkage with the rest of the Old Testament. Its historical background was excellent, but I felt the book was at his best at bringing in material that really illuminated the big picture. He even has some pages that suggest possibilities for a sermon series on Zephaniah. You don’t see that too often.

The scholarly conclusions and the theology are both warmly conservative. The amount of research that he did is very impressive. The introduction runs to 140 pages! They held my interest all the way through.

Mr. Chisholm is a name that has always come up favorably over the years I have been doing Bible study. He has still got 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.

The OLT is my go-to for these conservative eyes to grasp the more liberal viewpoint. I know going in what to expect and that I’ll have a host of disagreements. I rate these volumes, though, on how interesting they are and how much imaginative theology is given. What did I find here? It was easy to read, it was not as extreme as I figured especially with this being on Genesis, and it was sufficiently imaginative. It gave me that out-of-my-box perspective I hoped it would.

The positions held in the Introduction were as expected, but without the usual pontificating. The raggedly worn Documentary Hypothesis theory was held to, but it seemed Petersen instinctively knew it would weary readers so he didn’t drone on about it. Some of his literary conclusions were still a bit much for me, but somehow he was still interesting in discussing it. Though I disagreed with much, there were a few nuggets along the way in the Introduction. Readers like me could safely skip the Introduction actually.

It’s when you get to the commentary proper that your time is repaid. If you work around a few subversive sentences, you will discover stimulating ones await you. I told you what I was looking for and I got it here. Better than some OTL volumes and better by far than Von Rad’s volume that preceded it, Petersen gives us a thoughtful work here. Liberal theologians should love it while we conservatives who admit we can learn from others can walk away with something worthwhile as well.

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.