Dr. Joel Green’s Commentary Recommendations for Gospels and Acts (Gupta)

Over at Catalyst Resources, Dr. Joel Green (Fuller) offers his advice on best commentaries on Gospels and Acts.

Matthew: RT France (NICNT), Nolland (NIGTC); Keener (Eerdmans)

Mark: France (NIGTC), Strauss (ZECNT), Donahue/Harrington (SP)

Luke: Carroll (NTL), Green (NICNT), Bovon (Hermeneia)

John: Thompson (NTL, soon-coming!), Ramsey-Michaels (NICNT), Lincoln (BNTC), O’Day (NIB)

Acts: Gaventa (Abingdon), Wall (NIB), Spencer (Journeying through Acts), Peterson (Pillar), Schnabel (ZECNT)

Green is a recognized Gospels expert, so his recommendations are very worthwhile. I echo his choices, esp the works of RT France, and please do check out Marianne Meye Thompson’s new John commentary – it is spectacular! Here are some of my favorites in addition (not that you asked):

Matthew: Hagner (WBC) – phenomenal exegetical work, but also his pastoral and theological insights are profound.

Mark: Morna Hooker’s short work on Mark is one of my favorite (BNTC), and I would also add Larry Hurtado’s brief, but valuable NIBC volume.

Luke: I would add Mikeal Parsons’ Paideia volume, and note that RT France wrote the Teach the Text commentary on Luke (Baker) just before he passed away – it is a goldmine for pastors!

John: Lincoln is my favorite, but it also is worthwhile to mention Moody Smith’s Abingdon volume – lots of insight packed into a short volume.

Acts: Truth be told, I often return to classics like FF Bruce (NICNT) and Richard Longenecker (Expositor’s). But Gaventa is certainly the best for brief exposition and literary-theological insight.

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Dr. Joel Green’s Commentary Recommendations for Gospels and Acts (Gupta)

  1. Nijay,

    I share your praise of Hagner’s WBC on Matthew. Excellent work! I find Nolland’s work on Matthew (NIGTC) to be unhelpful at points.

    I still find Cranfield’s work on Mark to be excellent, as well as Gundry’s 2 vol. work.

    Barrett on John is a classic and should be on every pastor’s shelf.

    FF Bruce’s work on the Greek text of Acts is a gem as well.

  2. Nijay

    I really would have loved a bit more on the pros and cons of Matthew by Hagner and Nolland. Carson says Hagner is cautious and understated on many points and about Nolland he only talks about his annotated structural outline as supab and exegesis accessible. If you or anyone has used both, which one would you go with and why?

    And on Mark, I have looked in vain for any serious recommendations of Stein and Strauss. Especially as to which one is better.

  3. I am impressed with Strauss on Mark as I think its better as a preaching commentary than Stein. You must also look at Edwards in the Pillar series on both Mark and Lukes gospel he has a nice warmth to his commentary especially Marks Gospel.

  4. Referring to Edwards, when I say warmth, it has a pastoral aspect to how he writes and it easy to read even for a laymen. It has depth going into the historical/cultural aspects of the times as well as theological. Cheers Steve.

  5. Thanks Steve. I have France, Edwards and Donahue/Harrington, and was thinking about adding a fourth one as I teach Mark’s gospel. I’ve Mark and Luke by Edwards and so far his Mark is proving to be both exegetically and theologically sound. I hope the same will be true of his Luke. France is top notch.

  6. Hi,
    Mark is the best of his I think. Luke is quite good, he is very impressive in many parts, the shepherds at the birth of Jesus, prodigal son going to the culture of the time etc. He is good how he will discuss the OT and synoptics and theological themes. At times I felt he overlooked key themes or didn’t go into depth enough for example Luke 4:16-21 I felt he spirtualised it a bit and didn’t really go into the jubilee theme and its significance, whereas Greens commentary did. But then again Green misses at times synoptics gospels and dosent give the breath of theological themes instead just focusing on the culture of the times. Hope that all makes sense. Wish there was a commentary that does it all.
    I see the for Luke they miss Bock commentary all-together, that is still one of the best commentaries on Luke, easy to read, substantial and often evangelicals (Carson) say the standard to compare with.
    Cheers
    Steve.

  7. Hi Steve,
    Thanks for the heads up on Luke by Edwards. I’m curious as well as to why Bock is left out on both Luke and Acts and yet they seem to be among the standard commentaries on these books. I do not have his Luke though I have his Acts.

    Kind regards
    Chita

  8. His Luke commentary is better than his Acts commentary, twice the size and more depth.
    Cheers
    Steve

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s