what would be the better one?
https://www.logos.com/product/1342/word-biblical-commentary-volume-35a-luke-1-1-9-20
or
https://www.logos.com/product/54051/pillar-new-testament-commentary-the-gospel-according-to-luke
thanks for Help
Sascha
Maybe this will help...
http://bestcommentaries.com/luke/
To me Darrell Bock's is the best, Pillar second and WBC third.
NICNT 4th
DAL
To me Darrell Bock's is the best
Yes, in the Baker Exegetical set—Pricey however.
what would be the better one? https://www.logos.com/product/1342/word-biblical-commentary-volume-35a-luke-1-1-9-20 or https://www.logos.com/product/54051/pillar-new-testament-commentary-the-gospel-according-to-luke thanks for Help Sascha
Better for what purpose? Technical to help you into the original language--perhaps for academics? Exposition & application for preaching? All-around?
Thanks for the Answers
Bill I have Pillar but not this one, so I thought I might buy this to get this Series complete, than I thought WBC allways seem to be under the Best. I manly look for Technical Commentaries and Background Study. I was on best Commentaries and read that Darrel Bocks is the Best...but it's also 20 Euro more..
Mark thanks for your List is there a Different to this one?
https://www.logos.com/product/37626/niv-application-commentary-luke?utm_source=bestcommentaries.com&utm_medium=website&utm_content=johndyer&utm_campaign=bestcommentaries
I also have the Commentaries from Green and Marshall in Marks List
Here is a little taste of WBC 35a Luke 1:1
I had WBC as my First Technical Commentary, but it is now 2nd to Hermeneia, I added it with the L7 upgrade.
Comment
Despite Luke’s careful composition, the sense of almost every element of the prologue has been disputed. Among the major disputed issues are Luke’s attitude to his predecessors (the πολλοί, “many”), the degree to which he may be said to have abandoned a faith certainty in favor of an evidential certainty in his commendation of the Christian faith, the nature of Luke’s claim to “having followed” (παρηκολουθηκότι), and the scope of the work anticipated by the preface (Gospel only or Luke–Acts).
1 ἐπειδήπερ, “since”/“inasmuch as,” is not found elsewhere in the NT or LXX and is rare in the classical period, but it is not uncommon in the literary writings of the Hellenistic age. It is found in Josephus’ introduction to War (1.17), and here it contributes to the formal and literary flavor of the preface (Cadbury, “Preface of Luke,” 492). ἐπειδήπερ normally follows the principal clause, but here that would destroy the balance of Luke’s sentence as it pivots around ἔδοξε κἀμοί, “it seemed good to me also.”
While for Luke it will not be a merely rhetorical flourish, πολλοί, “many,” is a rhetorically appropriate beginning (cf. Acts 24:2, 10). See Cadbury, “Preface of Luke,” 492–93; Bauer, NovT 4 (1960) 263–66; E. Fraenkel, “Eine Anfangsformel attischer Reden,” Glotta 39 (1960) 1–5, for references from the rhetorical literature. The attention of the “many” underlines the importance of the events while at the same time establishing a precedent for Luke. The verb ἐπιχειρεῖν may focus on the achievement (“an attempt”) or on the taking in hand of an activity, and it may be pejorative (e.g., Josephus, Life 40) or neutral (e.g., Josephus, Ag.Ap. 1.13—see further references in Cadbury, “Preface of Luke,” 494, and Fitzmyer, 291). Reference to the limitations of the works on the basis of theological necessity (the human articulation of the gospel can never be more than an attempt; Grundmann, 43) or of method (the many depend only upon apostolic narration, whereas Luke will reach beyond the barrier between events and their narration and regain the actual events themselves; G. Klein, “Lukas 1, 1–4,” 173, 188–89) cannot be supported. Any direct criticism must be excluded on the basis of the κἀμοί, “to me also,” of v 3. Even a notion here of “attempts to be improved upon” would require an “although” (καίπερ—cf. the opening sentence of Dioscorides, De Materia Medica), and either fails to do justice to the forward reference of the confidence-creating words of v 3 or requires that Theophilus had received his instruction from these earlier writings, which in turn makes the implied criticism more radical than the καίπερ, “to me also,” allows. The parallel between ἔδοξε κἀμοί, “it seemed good to me also,” and ἐπεχείρησαν, “they took it in hand,” encourages a reading of ἐπεχείρησαν in relation to the intentions of the “many,” rather than their achievements.
ἀνατάξασθαι is a rare word which can mean “to repeat (from memory)” or “to set in order” (G. Delling, TDNT 8:32). At issue is whether the διήγησιν is primarily that of the witnesses (i.e., an oral narrative) or whether the oral tradition becomes narrative through the literary efforts of the “many.” The literary context here strongly favors the latter because of the use of διήγησις for the ordered narrative presentation of events in a literary work (cf. Lucian, How to Write History, 55). The attention to order indicated by ἀνατάξασθαι is to be compared with the καθεξῆς, “in order,” claimed by Luke for his own effort.
The “many” write about (περί) what Theophilus has been informed about (περί): “the events that have been brought to fruition in our midst” (τῶν πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων). πληροφορεῖν is not used elsewhere by Luke but is almost certainly a more impressive synonym for his usual πληροῦν (see esp. Luke 7:1; Acts 19:21). There is some difficulty involved in doing justice to the notion of completion required by the verb and its tense (perfect). However, G. Klein’s separation of the events and their completion is artificial (“Lukas 1, 1–4,” 174–79). Nevertheless his objection that in the case of the fulfillment of Scripture events may be the fulfillment but may not be themselves fulfilled (175) is telling against those who see here scriptural fulfillment (e.g., Schürmann, 5). Perhaps Luke has in mind the obstacles successfully overcome in the achievement of Jesus (e.g., Luke 4:1–11; 24:19–21). He may have in mind the achievement of heavenly enthronement (1:32–33; 9:31; 24:26; Acts 2:32–36). In any case we are to think in terms of matters brought to a successful completion. The use of πραγμάτων, “events,” suits well the historian’s craft (cf. Josephus, Ag.Ap. 1.45–49; van Unnik, Neot 7 [1973] 12). ἡμῖν, “to us” (“in our midst” in the translation above), is also found in v 2. If personal presence were indicated in v 1, then the transmission indicated in v 2 would be superfluous. Blass (Philology, 20) understands the “us” geographically: of the Christian community of Judea. This helps a little with v 2, but the writer of Luke–Acts is hardly a member of the Christian community of Judea. Schürmann’s eschatological understanding (5) of ἡμῖν (“the generation of the end time”) in v 1 is attractive but cannot be sustained without a fulfillment understanding of πεπλροφορηνένων. G. Klein’s tradition-historical understanding (the “us” for whom the saving events stand as completed are to be set over against the “eyewitnesses” for whom the events had been in progress; “Lukas 1, 1–4,” 177–78) makes too much of the perfect tense and creates an unnecessary complexity. The “us” of v 1 is general, and refers to those whose lives are determined by the events that have transpired (cf. Stonehouse, Witness of Luke, 38–39): the community formed around these events.
Nolland, J. (2002). Luke 1:1–9:20 (Vol. 35A, pp. 5–7). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
Edited and here is the same Luke 1:1 in Pillar
Luke 1:1–80
THE PROLOGUE (1:1–4)
Luke prefaces his Gospel with a formal introduction composed in the best Greek in the NT, which differs perceptibly from the language and style of the remainder of his Gospel.1 Luke’s introductory dedication bears similarities to introductions of other academic Hellenistic works, especially in history and science, but he is the only Evangelist in the NT who offers such for his Gospel. The prologue of the Third Gospel is the most important testimony in the first century to the prehistory of the Gospels, and it offers unique insight into Luke’s craft as author and Evangelist. Unlike the other Evangelists, Luke begins not with the gospel but with a description of the hermeneutical task before him. His gospel is rooted in eyewitness testimony and prior written sources, and he identifies the recipient of the work by name, “the most excellent Theophilus” (v. 3). Every meaningful proclamation of the gospel requires an interpreter, and Luke stands as a hermeneutical bridge between his sources and his audience.
1 “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us.” Luke’s Gospel is not a pioneer or novel effort, but dependent on “many” who have gone before him. Like all mediators of the gospel in the postapostolic era, Luke is dependent on authoritative tradition for his narrative. Luke does not identify the “many” before him, but as noted in the Introduction, and as we shall see repeatedly in the commentary, two of Luke’s sources were doubtless the Gospel of Mark and the Hebrew Gospel. Several early church fathers interpreted v. 1 as a disparagement of the prior traditions, a point of view occasionally followed by modern commentators. The prologue does not suggest that the previous narratives were defective, however. They too were indebted to “eyewitnesses and servants of the word” (v. 2), and they may possibly have been Luke’s inspiration. The Greek for “draw up an account” (v. 1) means to organize a complete and orderly record, to make a coherent narrative. The aorist middle of the Greek infinitive anataxasthai may intensify the sense, implying the personal investment and assiduousness of the “many” who contributed to the conversion of oral testimony into written tradition. The Greek noun diēgēsis, “account,” occurs only here in the NT. The singular is important: Luke does not say there were “many accounts,” but one gospel narrative, of which there are various versions. The noun and its verbal form diēgeisthai, also a distinctive Lukan word (8:39; 9:10; Acts 8:33; 9:27; 12:17; only three times elsewhere in the NT), mean “to recount a narrative.”5Diēgēsis is a “historical-literary term which appears both in Jewish-Hellenistic literature and among Greek authors,” thus a written narrative. The various versions of the account known to Luke and Theophilus were thus written.
The subject of the account is “the things that have been fulfilled among us.” Luke’s Gospel is not a testimony of his ideas, or even of his faith. It narrates events that have been brought to completion among us, i.e., the concrete and saving acts of God that have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The gospel is not a noble moral proclamation, nor can it be reduced to a set of abstract teachings and truths. It is not something that Luke or any witness can take credit for. The passive voice of the Greek verb translated “the things that have been fulfilled” means a history of what God has done, to which the proper human responses are belief and proclamation. Since Luke admits he was not an “eyewitness and servant of the word” (v. 2), the references to “us” in vv. 1, 2 probably mean “the things that have been fulfilled among us Christians.”
Edwards, J. R. (2015). The Gospel according to Luke. (D. A. Carson, Ed.) (pp. 23–25). Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.; Nottingham, England: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos.
thanks Lee
I've really profited from this one: https://www.logos.com/product/37576/the-new-international-commentary-on-the-new-testament-the-gospel-of-luke
[Y] this on I allready have
I got fed up with Bock and switched to Green's NICNT.
Mark thanks for your List is there a Different to this one? https://www.logos.com/product/37626/niv-application-commentary-luke?utm_source=bestcommentaries.com&utm_medium=website&utm_content=johndyer&utm_campaign=bestcommentaries
Not sure of your question. Here is a link to the info on that book. It is number 6 on the list. http://bestcommentaries.com/book/3733/0310493307-luke-darrell-l-bock
I hear great things about Hermeneia's 3 volumes on Luke but have not had the time to really look at them.
I'd go with Francois Bovon (Hermeneia)
thanks for help
Darrel Bocks is the Best...but it's also 20 Euro more..
IMO, Bock is worth the investment.
thanks John
Hi
Not only is the devotional/pastoral/technical aspect for the issue of importance - don't forget to consider the 'churchmanship' issue - i.e. what type of theological approach you are from/happy with reading.
Personally I would go with the Bock (the man's a 'legend'), but then I approach my theology from an Evangelical/non-sceptical perspective - although I do value and want to be aware of alternative views.
Shalom
thanks Kevin I'm not shure what my Background is (and I don't care much about it) [;)]
I'm looking for Commentaries who gave me Textual Critics on the Basics of what was actualy written (So I study the Manuscripts) than Ancient Church Fathers Isues (So I study Church History) Than what dit the Text say and how dit People at the Time of the Text understand the Text. (So I study all the Culturell Aspects of the Time)...And I do it just for me.
Soo thats the Background. :-)
Thanks for Help. I know get booth Commentaries. Noland and Bock :-)
Greetinngs
Me, too.
