I can’t think of another witty statement for the speed at which Goldingay turns out commentaries since, apparently, I ran out of wit before he ran out of full-length major commentaries from his pen; but in any event, his latest here is on Joshua. Strangely enough, he admits in his preface that Joshua was not the book of the Bible that he wanted to write on next. As he tells it, he had a different book in mind, and the editors convinced him he needed to do Joshua. Kudos for transparency! He did, though, explain that he came around to enjoying the process of studying Joshua.

As I have so often said in other reviews, Goldingay is a living contradiction as a writer. He will make you angry in one paragraph and then grab your attention beautifully in the next. His consistency is amazing on that score. As usual, I so like his flashes of brilliance that I will put up with the other. It’s here again…in spades. Since he is so prolific as a commentary writer, I am sure you already have your opinion of him. So the first thing I can communicate to you in this review is that it will be exactly what you are accustomed to. And as usual, I must force myself to say I’m glad to have this volume.

The part I didn’t like came early in the introduction. though I overall like the lively way he approaches an introduction to one of his commentaries. He appeared in this one to too quickly fall into a defensive stance. In acknowledging critics, he came close to becoming one. As you probably know, scholars are engrossed with discussing the violence in Joshua. It wasn’t long before he was drowning with them. The problem with that whole discussion is that it presupposes that there is some higher morality or ethic than God Himself. That strikes me as quite disingenuous for a Christian commentary writer!

By page 22 perhaps he began anticipating what people like me would be thinking as he said, “In the context of modernity we assume that we can formulate views about the propriety of God’s action, and not just the other way around”. It was also grating in how he tied what might be wrong with Joshua with the failings of Western culture, and even American culture in particular. That struck me as an overexposed portrayal of Joshua thrown off by modern political pontifications of those he lives around. Or maybe the tunnel vision of the scholarly world he works in.

And just like that he gets a little deeper in the Introduction and starts pouring out that good stuff that he is equally known for. The section on theology particularly stands out.

The commentary proper continues the dichotomy pretty much along the same lines. If you are of his mind, I doubt you could find a better commentary. For those of us to his right, and who are discerning readers, the nuggets outweigh the mud enough to land a solid 4-star rating.

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.

There are two elements to consider in evaluating this commentary. First, there is the novel, almost experimental approach of using as his Hebrew source text the old Greek text of Jeremiah! Yes, I said Greek. Second, there is the commentary skill exhibited as he works through the text. To my mind, he scores far better on the second one than the first.

For the life of me, I can’t see why that Greek text as his basis was a good idea. Yes, I read his reasoning, but I’m still unconvinced. Perhaps the scholarly world will eventually canonize him as a bold pioneer, but I don’t think still I’d be convinced. Perhaps, too, since he mentioned the plethora of commentaries on Jeremiah today, he felt he needed an angle to join the fray. I would have thought, but what do I know, that delivering a commentary in a major commentary series on one of the largest books in the Bible would have been enough. If I’m studying anything based on the Masoretic text, as most would be doing, won’t this commentary leave me high and dry where they differ? Will this be along the lines of Coca-Cola bringing out New Coke, which of course if you’re younger than me you probably never heard of?

If I’ve been sounding super-critical, let me balance it. Mr. Shepherd is a quality scholar. His writing is fine, his research thorough, his conclusions clear headed and the help he gives quantifiable. His earlier commentary on the Minor Prophets in this same series was top notch. It would not be fair to write him or this commentary off for one questionable idea even if it unfortunately pervades the whole work. To be even more fair, what he did is not one iota as bad as those who take the Masoretic text and chop it to pieces, as if you couldn’t believe a word of it. Finally, perhaps anticipating the criticism, he mentions what the MT says often throughout the commentary.

Every commentary has its strength and this one is the exegesis despite the incessant discussion of the Greek text. The exegesis is better than, say, the theology, but it’s not barren of theology and often makes good Scriptural connections.

I’ll give this 4 stars, but you can add one more if you happened to be looking for a commentary on the Greek text of Jeremiah. If that were the case for you , I doubt this one could be beat.

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.

When I first beheld this book, the first surprise was how slender it was. I mean Ephesians is one of the most prominent NT letters of all. Perhaps the quick turnaround from when Pillar’s previous Ephesians volume was retired contributed to it. Still, I knew Constantine Campbell’s expertise on union with Christ and union’s prominence in Ephesians suggested the volume would have to possess distinct advantages. The size turned out to be not a factor really and the expected proficiency was present as well.

The Introduction was sufficient, thoughtful, and well reasoned even if it too was shorter than some similar volumes. Authorship, background, and date lined up with conservative conclusions. Themes, beginning with, you guessed it, union with Christ, was the best section of the Introduction. Structure was given something of a short shrift, but overall the Introduction satisfied.

The commentary impressed me. I found the flow of logic that he laid out for arriving at his conclusions was truly enlightening. All the main passages including the thorny Household Code were well handled. I felt I was getting real help in every case.

I know it’s a bit overused in commentary reviews these days, but the word for this one is judicious.

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.

Having enjoyed Bruner on Matthew and John, I was excited to see his work here on Romans. Strangely enough, before I tell you how much I enjoyed this book, let me you what’s wrong with it.

It’s much shorter than his other commentaries, hence the “a Short Commentary”. He quotes other authors more extensively, yes on every page. Sometimes he only skims what has been deeply debated arguments. No Introduction is given. There’s no way this volume could serve as your main commentary on Romans. Maybe that sounds like a lot.

Still, I loved it. Read the preface for the beautiful outlook he has for Romans following his deeper work on Matthew and John. He quotes a lot but they are good ones. He drops theological nuggets all around. Once Spurgeon recommended a title as a spice to add at the end of meal preparation. That’s what you have here. This is some paprika to dash on after you’ve studied the major tomes. Your dish will taste better for sure.

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.

Having written extensively on Matthew’s Gospel in the past, Charles Quarles here delivers the latest entry in the EBTC series. It strikes me as being of the same value as most of the previous entries in the series and it seems to strike the balance the EBTC series calls for as well.

Somewhat surprising is the 100 page Introduction before you even get to the commentary proper. The first 45 pages cover basic introductory issues like author, date, provenance and destination, language, genre and purpose, and structure. The author’s vast learning is on display here, the conclusions conservative, and the coverage adequate.

Even better is the rest of the Introduction that embraces theological themes as this series promises. At first, I thought it was odd that these discussions began focusing exclusively on Christological titles. As I continued I had to confess that they are critical to unlocking Matthew. I especially loved later the discussion on the Kingdom of Heaven for its perceptiveness and restraint. New Covenant, New Creation, and New Israel continued fleshing out what Matthew was up to. By the end, I was sold on his approach.

The commentary proper was also a success. 650 pages for Matthew means the commentary is mid-length by today’s standards. For many, though, that’s going to be just right. This one will be especially enjoyed by pastors and anyone who is interested in careful study. The deep learning is there while the parade of it is subdued. For many, this would be all they would want or need on Matthew.

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 ZECOT has certainly found its own niche with its discourse analysis orientation and in the process has become a commentary series you simply must not miss. Here the wooly Book of Judges gets its turn and it seems to me the discourse analysis approach especially gives a rich payload in this book that many don’t know what to make of. Boda, whose commentary on Zechariah impressed me a few years back, and Conway have done good work here. The two are colleagues at McMaster Divinity College and proved to be seamless collaborators as well.

After a bibliography and translation, there’s a successful 50 page introduction that slows down where it should while zipping along where it should as well. When discussing Judges and its historical context, the authors see a dichotomy between the history itself and that of the original readers as they see Judges being written later on. Obviously, much of that is speculative. The intent of the writer taken from clues from the text is the rose among the thorns of this section. That next section leads them to an in-depth look at clause function as originated by Roy Heller. The detail is complex, but the conclusions are easy to follow and quite interesting.

My favorite section of the Introduction, entitled Judges and its literary shape, is eye opening. The earlier detailed work is marshaled into an outstanding explanation of the structure. That means, of course, the unique goal of this series is fully realized here. You’ll understand Judges fair better because of it too.

The theology section was a little brief but perhaps some would blame Judges for that.

The commentary proper with the good foundation laid in the Introduction is ideal. One of the strengths of the ZECOT is its layout and its advantages are evident here. People love Daniel Block’s work on Judges and rightly so, but you’d do yourself a favor to get this one too.

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.