Best one volume commentary

Page 2 of 3 (46 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next >
This post has 45 Replies | 6 Followers

Posts 1467
Josh | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 18 2014 12:25 AM

DAL:

And now you can add "The Moody Bible Commentary" available on Vyrso (which by the way is on sale at "pre-pub" price...lol).  I wish you could type a reference and make it jump to it, but its tagging is not as advanced.  Great commentary so far.  Also, just for consideration, don't forget Holman's Concise Bible Commentary, Teacher's Commentary and Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Commentary.

DAL

Why would Logos release this on Vyrso? I'm confused on this move - it is a Bible study resource.

Posts 25409
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 18 2014 1:34 AM

Josh:
Why would Logos release this on Vyrso?

Because contract negotiations between Moody and Logos were unsuccessful at continuing Moody products in Logos; however, they appear to have reached an agreement on Vyrso.

No one has mentioned the excellent New Jerome Commentary or the New International CommentaryGeeked

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 171
Adam Rao | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 18 2014 6:22 AM

Dan Francis:

Eerdman's Commentary on the Bible, Dunn, Rogerson, 2003 is still the best one volume I know of.... https://www.logos.com/product/36612/eerdmans-commentary-collection#001

And it is tucked away in this commentary collection at the moment though, hope it gets under contract soon.

-Dan

Ditto to what Dan said.

Posts 2346
Lee | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 18 2014 7:28 AM

Kolen Cheung:

By the way, I want to ask what is the main difference between a one volume commentary and the footnotes of a study Bible, let say, the ESV Study Bible.

Addressing your question a different way, several of the one-volume commentaries recommended here are very decent, and are complete enough for the layperson or even ministry worker.

Posts 5183
Dan Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 18 2014 9:50 AM

MJ. Smith:
No one has mentioned the excellent New Jerome Commentary or the New International CommentaryGeeked

The NJBC is good  (I am just happy I own the old JBC) and I would love to have the NIC, and the NIC is a real mystery to me as why we don't have it since it is a Liturgical Press Publication, but then again we don;t have the New Collegeville Commentary either.

-Dan

PS: I had been limiting myself to items available or nearly available in the Logos World, I think the Oxford Bible Commentary is as Good as NJBC, but Logos no longer has it (not  that it ever did distribute it, just provide unlocking of disk purchased elsewhere). I was lucky enough to get a CD with my Hardback, so when I became a Logos user not easily but not too difficult either I purchased the unlock (the person had argued with me it was not a Logos product, and then said unlocking is fine but we have no disks to mail you, once I stated again I had a disk, while then I can help you).

Posts 9602
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 18 2014 10:32 AM

MJ, I missed your truly 'mean' comment concerning the New Jerome.  You very much KNEW that only long time Logosians could possibly have it. And that many less-blessed Logosians are forced to simply dream of it.  I don't think one could validly pray for it.

I don't know how Collegeville compares to New Jerome.  I think one of the early Collegeville CDs had New Jerome on it. But it's really hard to track down.  The later CDs stuck with Collegeville.


Posts 556
Randall Cue | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 18 2014 10:53 AM

Kolen Cheung:

What I can think of are:

New International Bible Commentary

New Bible Commentary, 21st Century Edition

The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Abridged (2 Vols.) (not exactly one volume, but I think it is at the same type of those)

The Bible Knowledge Commentary

It seems that New Bible Commentary, 21st Century Edition is the best among the one volume commentary. Do you have any idea about which one is the best?

By the way, I want to ask what is the main difference between a one volume commentary and the footnotes of a study Bible, let say, the ESV Study Bible.

Thanks.

The Bible Knowledge Commentary is two volumes in printed form, just fyi. I too like New Bible Commentary, 21st Century Edition.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Randy

Soli Deo Gloria

Randy

Posts 25409
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 18 2014 1:27 PM

Denise:
I don't know how Collegeville compares to New Jerome.

Aimed at a different market and clearly inferior.

Denise:
You very much KNEW that only long time Logosians could possibly have it.

Devil

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 5183
Dan Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 18 2014 8:49 PM

MJ. Smith:

Denise:
I don't know how Collegeville compares to New Jerome.

Aimed at a different market and clearly inferior.

I would over all agree on that assessment but Collegville has bright spots in it. And Denise Logos has never to the best of my knowledge had The New Jerome Biblical Commentary but yes the Old Catholic collection and Scholars collection of 2.0 Logos did have the Jerome Biblical Commentary. It took me over 5 years to track down a copy of the Catholic collection. I am so glad I have it, because the JBC is a great resource. And the version we have must be a mild revision, because this was released in 1968, but it mentions dates as late as1979 (doing a search in the book for 197*, but absolutely no date references for 198*). The 1989 NJBC is a good update, and most definitely superior and if Logos can ever get it I will most certainly buy it.

-Dan

PS: The 1968 update of the Logos released Catholic Commentary on Holy Scriptures would well be worth having too. Nelson published it up until at least 1984, which is the printing date on my copy.

Posts 2810
Michael Childs | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 18 2014 9:05 PM

I have many study Bibles, and none is as complete as the New Bible Commentary.  I find it to be my best one volume commentary.

The Bible Knowledge Commentary is very good, too, but it is not really one volume.  And even if it was, the New Bible Commentary is more balanced and just better in my opinion. 

"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley

Posts 2810
Michael Childs | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 18 2014 9:19 PM

Dan Francis:

MJ. Smith:

Denise:
I don't know how Collegeville compares to New Jerome.

Aimed at a different market and clearly inferior.

I would over all agree on that assessment but Collegville has bright spots in it. And Denise Logos has never to the best of my knowledge had The New Jerome Biblical Commentary but yes the Old Catholic collection and Scholars collection of 2.0 Logos did have the Jerome Biblical Commentary. It took me over 5 years to track down a copy of the Catholic collection. I am so glad I have it, because the JBC is a great resource. And the version we have must be a mild revision, because this was released in 1968, but it mentions dates as late as1979 (doing a search in the book for 197*, but absolutely no date references for 198*). The 1989 NJBC is a good update, and most definitely superior and if Logos can ever get it I will most certainly buy it.

-Dan

PS: The 1968 update of the Logos released Catholic Commentary on Holy Scriptures would well be worth having too. Nelson published it up until at least 1984, which is the printing date on my copy.

I too have the old Jerome Biblical Commentary, and have had it since the old CDWORD program that was bought out by Logos in ancient times.  It is good, and I use it from time to time.  But as you note, it is no longer available.

"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley

Posts 9602
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 18 2014 9:22 PM

Thank you Dan for your great assessment. I have Jerome's and had already made sure New Jerome's could still compete with Jeromes (the two top 1-volume commentaries being Jeromes and New Jeromes with a few others I can't remember).

The reason I like Jeromes (old and new) is their approach to honesty.  They'll go a lot further down the rabbit trail, compared to their protestant brothers, and then at the last moment jump through a special theological hole and land back in solid Catholic territory.

I like that. Most of my commentaries waffle badly (the one Michael just mentions is a great waffler trying to figure out child birth in the Pastorals, but delicious waffles are their specialty). Jeromes just cuts to the chase, lays the data on the table, smiles, and then whoosh, they're back in safe territory.

Refreshing.


Posts 723
David A Egolf | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 19 2014 5:15 PM

In class last Sunday the question arose of why an "image" or an "idol" would be in David's house allowing Michal to use it to fool Saul's men. Inspired by this thread, I generated a Passage Guide report on 1 Sam 19:13 to see which of my commentaries would point out the impropriety of the idol.  I intended to use the results of my study to "tune" my resource priorities.

On the one hand, I was pleased that the NBC addressed the issue head on: "It is surprising to find that there was an idol in David’s house. The Hebrew word translated ‘idol’ is thought to mean a household idol of some sort, but possibly it relates in some way to the worship of Yahweh; certainly there is no suggestion elsewhere that David was ever guilty of worshipping other gods."

Carson, D. A., France, R. T., Motyer, J. A., & Wenham, G. J. (Eds.). (1994). New Bible commentary: 21st century edition (4th ed., p. 315). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press.

However, they were the only commentary to suggest that the "image" may relate in some way to the worship of Yahweh.  That just seems to fly in the face of Levitical Law.

I was also pleased that the Faithlife Study Bible had a very helpful entry and was the only commentary to refer to the prior verse where Saul had considered Michal a "snare" to David.  Based on their entry I bumped FSB to be just under my ESV Study Bible.

Since someone on this thread pointed out that The Moody Bible Commentary is now available on Vyrso, I thought I should point out that its "type" is Monograph.  Thus, even though it had a decent entry on the designated verse, it did not show up in my passage guide report!  Furthermore, I added it to my Commentaries collection and then reran the passage guide with the "Commentaries" setting.  It still did not find content for The Moody Bible Commentary.  Next, I chose an earlier verse which had a singular reference and ran a new search unsuccessfully.  I conclude that the lack of tagging will keep us from fully exploiting this Moody commentary.

Posts 9602
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 19 2014 5:28 PM

D.A. specializes in exegetical waffles. Yummy.

But FSB is indeed pretty brazen (in a world of waffle makers).


Posts 391
Geo Philips | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 19 2014 6:11 PM

I believe David F Payne wrote that entry on 1 Samuel you are referring to.

Denise:

D.A. specializes in exegetical waffles. Yummy.

But FSB is indeed pretty brazen (in a world of waffle makers).

Posts 391
Geo Philips | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 19 2014 6:14 PM

I believe the FSB entry is a little bit of conjecture. I found this Zondervan Background Commentary entry to be useful

"Michal took an idol and laid it on the bed (19:13). The nature of Michal’s “idol” (terāpîm) is somewhat mysterious. Attempts to clarify the character of “teraphim” etymologically have not proved successful. More fruitful has been a phenomenological approach, focusing on the apparent function of teraphim in their fifteen biblical occurrences. The general consensus that teraphim must have been “household gods” has been challenged recently by van der Toorn, who prefers the notion that teraphim were “ancestor statues.”

The latter theory may help to explain the Bible’s somewhat ambivalent attitude toward teraphim, but a definitive answer to the question of what the teraphim were remains elusive. Even their size seemed to vary considerably. While Rachel was able to conceal Laban’s teraphim in the camel’s saddle on which she was sitting (Gen. 31:34–35), Michal’s teraphim are apparently large enough to simulate a reclining David. About all that can be said with relative certainty is that teraphim figured more prominently in “folk religion” than in the official cult."


Walton, J. H. (2009). Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (Old Testament): Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel (Vol. 2, p. 354). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

David A Egolf:

In class last Sunday the question arose of why an "image" or an "idol" would be in David's house allowing Michal to use it to fool Saul's men. Inspired by this thread, I generated a Passage Guide report on 1 Sam 19:13 to see which of my commentaries would point out the impropriety of the idol.  I intended to use the results of my study to "tune" my resource priorities.

On the one hand, I was pleased that the NBC addressed the issue head on: "It is surprising to find that there was an idol in David’s house. The Hebrew word translated ‘idol’ is thought to mean a household idol of some sort, but possibly it relates in some way to the worship of Yahweh; certainly there is no suggestion elsewhere that David was ever guilty of worshipping other gods."

Carson, D. A., France, R. T., Motyer, J. A., & Wenham, G. J. (Eds.). (1994). New Bible commentary: 21st century edition (4th ed., p. 315). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press.

However, they were the only commentary to suggest that the "image" may relate in some way to the worship of Yahweh.  That just seems to fly in the face of Levitical Law.

I was also pleased that the Faithlife Study Bible had a very helpful entry and was the only commentary to refer to the prior verse where Saul had considered Michal a "snare" to David.  Based on their entry I bumped FSB to be just under my ESV Study Bible.

Since someone on this thread pointed out that The Moody Bible Commentary is now available on Vyrso, I thought I should point out that its "type" is Monograph.  Thus, even though it had a decent entry on the designated verse, it did not show up in my passage guide report!  Furthermore, I added it to my Commentaries collection and then reran the passage guide with the "Commentaries" setting.  It still did not find content for The Moody Bible Commentary.  Next, I chose an earlier verse which had a singular reference and ran a new search unsuccessfully.  I conclude that the lack of tagging will keep us from fully exploiting this Moody commentary.

Posts 9602
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 19 2014 6:20 PM

Geo, D.A. was the editor. Let's not play like it's an honorary position. (Though in many cases as this one, it may appear that way.)

But again thank you for yet another yummy waffle. I think the author dug himself even deeper with ancestor worship.  And 'folk religion' not as bad as 'cults'.  That's tasty strawberries on the waffle.


Posts 391
Geo Philips | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 19 2014 6:27 PM

For a different point of view,

"Then in an act that revealed as much about her spiritual condition as it did about her commitment to her husband, Michal “took a teraphim” (“idol”) and used it to deceive Saul’s cohorts.

The reference here to a teraphim, apparently a large anthropomorphic idol,75 is the second one in 1 Samuel. Ominously, the prophet Samuel previously had suggested that Saul’s rebellious acts were equitable to the “evil of teraphim” (15:23). Through the present compelling scene and without the intrusion of didactic commentary, the writer suggests that Michal was as much a spiritual rebel as her father. This observation foreshadows an outcome for Michal’s life that is the feminine counterpart to Saul’s. Michal’s father lost his opportunity to establish a dynasty; Michal lost her opportunity to establish a family (2 Sam 6:23). When read in connection with Psalm 59,76 Michal’s action creates a strong contrast with those of her husband; whereas Michal trusted in a teraphim to save David, David trusted in the Lord (cf. Ps 59:9–10, 16–17).

In spite of the negative implications of the teraphim, the sequence of actions performed by Michal creates links between her and those of previous biblical heroines. In each case these allusions identify David in particularly favorable comparisons. Jacob too was saved by a woman who had possession of teraphim and deceived her father during a desperate search (cf. Gen 31:19–35). Moses also was saved through the efforts of the daughter of a wicked ruler (cf. Exod 2:6–10). Furthermore, David’s escape echoed that of the spies saved by Rahab, who were let down through a window at night by a woman who lied to a king (Josh 2:2–15)."


Bergen, R. D. (1996). 1, 2 Samuel (Vol. 7, p. 208). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Posts 391
Geo Philips | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 19 2014 6:30 PM

I prefer chicken and waffles myself.

Denise:

Geo, D.A. was the editor. Let's not play like it's an honorary position. (Though in many cases as this one, it may appear that way.)

But again thank you for yet another yummy waffle. I think the author dug himself even deeper with ancestor worship.  And 'folk religion' not as bad as 'cults'.  That's tasty strawberries on the waffle.

Posts 182
David Sloan | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 19 2014 6:35 PM

According to Carson: "One-volume commentaries are too brief to be useful in detailed exegesis and exposition, but they have the advantage of providing at least something on every book of the Bible—an advantage when the student or minister is young or able to maintain only a very small library. The New Bible Commentary (IVP/Eerdmans, latest revision 1994) is condensed, evangelical, and brief. It is primarily exegetical, but a little space is devoted to discussing critical theories and occasionally to ongoing application of the text. In its various editions it has become something of a standard around the English-speaking world among evangelical readers of single-volume commentaries. Several other volumes have aimed for more or less the same evangelical market. Some of them deserve honorable mention: A Bible Commentary for Today (Pickering and Inglis/ 1979) = The New Layman’s Bible Commentary (/Zondervan 1979) is a product of the Christian Brethren. Based on the RSV, its focus is sometimes on exegesis, sometimes on exposition. On the whole it is lighter than the New Bible Commentary. One should not overlook the latest revision of International Bible Commentary (/Zondervan 1986), edited by F. F. Bruce. The Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, edited by Walter A. Elwell, is useful (/Baker 1989). The Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary is in two volumes, but its second volume is devoted to the NT (/Zondervan 1994). With one fat volume devoted to the last quarter of the canon, inevitably it offers a little more comment per line of text than the one-volume commentaries on the whole Bible."

D. A. Carson, New Testament Commentary Survey (6th ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 29–30.

Page 2 of 3 (46 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next > | RSS