What are the best commentaries on 1-3 John from previous usage by forum members?
Check out BestCommentaries.com whenever you need recommendations on the best commentaries. It's a meta-review site and includes ratings by many folks on these forums too along with reviews by bloggers, seminary professors, and other professional reviewers.
Here are the best ones for 1-3 John:
https://bestcommentaries.com/johannine-epistles/
To add to Rosies remarks, what is "the best commentary" will vary greatly whether you are preparing to teach some kids in VBS or whether you are preparing an academic paper for your professor. Even then there could be lots of different focus points (from a variety of broader fields like the Greek text, the theology, the interconnectedness of the "Johannine writings", ... ) and varying levels of detail.
I understand I am looking for sources for academic papers. Any thoughts?
ZECNT, NICNT, WBC, PNTC would be my go to commentaries for Academic research. Add Hermeneia and Anchor to the list and you’ll have plenty to work with!
DAL
Adding to DAL, I think the little 'T's on the BestCommentary listing are technicals. I don't use the list myself.
After the Progressives discussion in the other thread, I spent some time with the Bultmann commentary (#65 on B/C; I suppose I should check 1-64 first, joking). Anyway it's interesting. He refuses author/dating that is the usual in introductions, makes a few style/subject comments, and then refers to the verse analysis. And it's slow going ... I copied the start of 1 John 1:1:
"1* Ἀπαγγέλλομεν καὶ ὑμῖν (“we proclaim also to you,” v 3*) is the phrase that grammatically supports the proemium. Yet the structure of the proemium is complicated by the fact that the ἀπαγγέλλομεν of v 3*, which one properly expects to be the continuation of v 1*, is already inserted in the parenthesis of v 2*, i.e., in μαρτυροῦμεν καὶ ἀπαγγέλλομεν (“we testify and proclaim”). Thus the construction is disrupted.2 It is clear, however, that the object of the (double) ἀπαγγέλλομεν is stated initially in v 1* by the four relative clauses.3 All four relative clauses, of course, intend one and the same object, viz., the content of the ἀγγελία (“message”). The first expression, ὃ ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς (“which was from the beginning”) apparently means nothing other than what Jn 1:1* expresses in the form ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος (“In the beginning was the word”), and there can be no doubt that the Johannine Prologue served as the model for vss. 1–4*."
In studying for a sermon series on these letters I found the most help from Kruse (PNTC), Jobes (ZECTNT), Stott (Tyndale), and Marshall (NICNT). I did not find Smalley (WBC), Akin (NAC), or Yarbrough (BECNT) to be of enough additional help to consult them often. I suppose it all depends on one's needs and desires.
I taught an Adult CE class on the three epistles over a period of 42 weeks. I relied heavily on Stott (Tyndale), Kruse (PNTC) and Ben Witherington's Mobile Ed Course NT221: The Wisdom of John.
For what it's worth, after teaching on these three epistles several times in the past 20 years, I've found it very advantageous to start with 2 John, then 3 John and finish with 1 John. The flow seems to make much more sense. There is no chronological reason to start with 1 John, and it is the first of the 3 epistles in our New Testament solely because it is longer, not because it predates the others.
I find it interesting that none of the more literary, rhetorical, or socio-cultural commentaries are mentioned. They are where I find the most meaty, challenging, thought-provoking insights.
Ben Witherington's Mobile Ed Course NT221 is grounded in socio-rhetorical commentary and perspective. It is truly excellent.
Ben Witherington's Mobile Ed Course NT221 is grounded in socio-rhetorical commentary and perspective
Ah yes, I missed that. While I don't have the course, I am a fan of Witherington's work.
