Commentaries On The Gospel of John

Scott Warren

What is a good search string to bring up all the commentaries on the Gospel of John?

Todd Phillips

The best way to find commentaries is the Passage Guide, since it looks in the resource to see if a particular passage is referenced. So just run a passage guide on John 1:1.

Otherwise, you'll have to do something like this in the library or collections window:

type:commentary AND (title:john OR subject:john) ANDNOT (subject:”1
John” OR subject:”2 John” OR subject:”3 John” OR subject:”John, 1st” OR
subject:”John, 2nd” OR subject:”John, 3rd” OR subject:revelation OR
subject:”epistles of john”)

(I got this from the Example Collections page on the Logos wiki.)

Dan Sheppard

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/192568#Comment_192568

 

So wouldn't the string for John 1:1 bring up 1 John 1:1, 2 John 1:1, and so on?

 

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/192570#Comment_192570

Dan Sheppard said:

So wouldn't the string for John 1:1 bring up 1 John 1:1, 2 John 1:1, and so on?

Not in the passage guide--Logos can tell the difference.

Scott Warren

I realized after I put  my computer down for the night I was not specific enough. Although I did learn soomething helpful anyways.

I am going to be preaching expositionally from John and was trying to pick up a few extra commentaries from Logos to help. I noticed when I did searches I was not pulling up every commentary on the Gospel of John, plus I was having to weed through a lot of authors named John. What I want is a list of all Logos products, commentaries to be  specific on the Gospel of John. I appreciate your help.

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/192592#Comment_192592

Scott Warren said:

I realized after I put  my computer down for the night I was not specific enough. Although I did learn soomething helpful anyways.

I am going to be preaching expositionally from John and was trying to pick up a few extra commentaries from Logos to help. I noticed when I did searches I was not pulling up every commentary on the Gospel of John, plus I was having to weed through a lot of authors named John. What I want is a list of all Logos products, commentaries to be  specific on the Gospel of John. I appreciate your help.

Peace to you, Scott!       Todd's post re. Passage Guide is a great one.       However, sometimes I don't want to use the Passage Guide; so - for example - I would open up one commentary in John and then use the Parallel Resources.  Parallel Resources also work with the prioritisation of your commentaries; so all I need to do to move from one commentary to the next is to use the right (or left) arrow button!

This also keeps my current layout a bit more simple.

*smile*

Blessings

Jerry M

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/192592#Comment_192592

Scott, did you mean commentaries to buy from Logos rather than from your own personal library? 

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/192592#Comment_192592

The website is in the process of being updated to make this search possible, but the data is far from complete. Indeed, it only lists 13 resources (inc. 7 commentaries) on John at the moment. To get there, go to Products and use the Narrow Your Search bar on the left hand side. Look under Bible & Apocrypha, and click on New Testament -> Gospels -> John.

So in case it's helpful, here's my John's Gospel bibliography from my copy of Logos. I don't own every commentary of course, but I've tried to build up my library to include the most useful. Many of the commentaries are only available in sets, of course, but many will be available individually. I've highlighted in bold the ones I find most helpful.

   Arnold, Clinton E. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary Volume 2: John, Acts. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002.
   Beasley-Murray, George R. Vol. 36, Word Biblical Commentary : John. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002.
   Bernard, J. H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John. Edited by Alan Hugh McNeile. New York: C. Scribner' Sons, 1929.
   Boice, James Montgomery. The Gospel of John : An Expositional Commentary. Pbk. ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2005.
   Boice, James Montgomery. The Gospel of John : An Expositional Commentary. Pbk. ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2005.
   Boice, James Montgomery. The Gospel of John : An Expositional Commentary. Pbk. ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2005.
   Boice, James Montgomery. The Gospel of John : An Expositional Commentary. Pbk. ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2005.
   Boice, James Montgomery. The Gospel of John : An Expositional Commentary. Pbk. ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2005.
   Borchert, Gerald L. Vol. 25A, John 1-11. electronic ed. Logos Library System; The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001.
   Borchert, Gerald L. Vol. 25B, John 12-21. electronic ed. Logos Library System; The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003.
   Brown, Raymond E., S.S. The Gospel According to John (I-XII): Introduction, Translation, and Notes. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008.
   Brown, Raymond E., S.S. The Gospel According to John (XIII-XXI): Introduction, Translation, and Notes. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008.
   Bryant, Beauford H., and Mark S. Krause. John. The College Press NIV commentary. Joplin, Mo.: College Press Pub. Co., 1998.
   Burge, Gary M. NIV Application Commentary: John. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000.
   Calvin, John, and William Pringle. Commentary on the Gospel According to John. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2010.
   Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991.
   Darby, J. N. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible: Matthew to John. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2008.
   Elowsky, Joel C. John 1-10. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture NT 4a. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006.
   Elowsky, Joel C. John 11-21. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture NT 4b. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007.
   Fredrikson, Roger L., and Lloyd J. Ogilvie. Vol. 27, The Preacher's Commentary Series, Volume 27 : John. The Preacher's Commentary series. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Inc, 1985.
   Gaebelein, Frank E., Merrill C. Tenney, and Richard N. Longenecker. The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Volume 9: John and Acts. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.
   Gangel, Kenneth O. Vol. 4, John. Holman New Testament Commentary; Holman Reference. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000.
   Haenchen, Ernst, Robert Walter Funk, and Ulrich Busse. John : A Commentary on the Gospel of John. Hermeneia--a critical and historical commentary on the Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.
   Haenchen, Ernst, Robert Walter Funk, and Ulrich Busse. John : A Commentary on the Gospel of John. Hermeneia--a critical and historical commentary on the Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.
   Hendriksen, William, and Simon J. Kistemaker. Vol. 1-2, New Testament Commentary : Exposition of the Gospel According to John. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953-2001.
   Hughes, R. Kent. John : That You May Believe. Preaching the Word. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1999.
   Köstenberger, Andreas J. John. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2004.
   Kruse, Colin G. Vol. 4, John: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003.
   Lange, John Peter, and Philip Schaff. A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures : John. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2008.
   Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. John's Gospel. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961.
   Lightfoot, John. A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Matthew-1 Corinthians: Volume 3, Luke-John. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2010.
   Lincoln, Andrew T. Black's New Testament Commentary: The Gospel According to Saint John. London: Continuum, 2005.
   Luther, Martin. Vol. 22, Luther's Works, Vol. 22 : Sermons on the Gospel of St. John: Chapters 1-4. Edited by Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald and Helmut T. Lehmann. Luther's Works. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999.
   Luther, Martin. Vol. 23, Luther's Works, Vol. 23 : Sermons on the Gospel of St. John: Chapters 6-8. Edited by Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald and Helmut T. Lehmann. Luther's Works. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999.
   Luther, Martin. Vol. 24, Luther's Works, Vol. 24 : Sermons on the Gospel of St. John: Chapters 14-16. Edited by Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald and Helmut T. Lehmann. Luther's Works. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999.
   McFadyen, Phillip. Open Door on John: A Gospel for Our Time. London: Triangle, 1998.
   Michaels, J. Ramsey. New International Biblical Commentary: John. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1989.
   Milne, Bruce. The Message of John : Here Is Your King! :with Study Guide. The Bible speaks today. Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1993.
   Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995.
   Newman, Barclay Moon, and Eugene Albert Nida. A Handbook on the Gospel of John. Helps for translators; UBS handbook series. New York: United Bible Societies, 1993.
   Pink, Arthur Walkington. Exposition of the Gospel of John. Swengel, Pa.: Bible truth depot, 1923-45.
   Simeon, Charles. Horae Homileticae Vol. 13: Luke XVII to John XII. London, 1832-63.
   Simeon, Charles. Horae Homileticae Vol. 14: John XIII to Acts. London, 1832-63.
   Whitacre, Rodney A. Vol. 4, John. The IVP New Testament commentary series. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999.
   The Gospel According to St. John Introduction and Notes on the Authorized Version. Edited by Brooke Foss Westcott and Arthur Westcott. London: J. Murray, 1908.
   The Gospel of John : Volume 1. Edited by William Barclay, lecturer in the University of Glasgow. The Daily study Bible series, Rev. ed. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 2000.
   The Gospel of John : Volume 2. Edited by William Barclay, lecturer in the University of Glasgow. The Daily study Bible series, Rev. ed. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 2000.
   The Pulpit Commentary: St.John Vol. I. Edited by H. D. M. Spence-Jones. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2004.
   The Pulpit Commentary: St.John Vol. II. Edited by H. D. M. Spence-Jones. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2004.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/192604#Comment_192604

Mark Barnes said:

So in case it's helpful, here's my John's Gospel bibliography from my copy of Logos. I don't own every commentary of course, but I've tried to build up my library to include the most useful. Many of the commentaries are only available in sets, of course, but many will be available individually. I've highlighted in bold the ones I find most helpful.

Mark Barnes said:

The website is in the process of being updated to make this search possible, but the data is far from complete. Indeed, it only lists 13 resources (inc. 7 commentaries) on John at the moment. To get there, go to Products and use the Narrow Your Search bar on the left hand side. Look under Bible & Apocrypha, and click on New Testament -> Gospels -> John.

So in case it's helpful, here's my John's Gospel bibliography from my copy of Logos. I don't own every commentary of course, but I've tried to build up my library to include the most useful. Many of the commentaries are only available in sets, of course, but many will be available individually. I've highlighted in bold the ones I find most helpful.

   Brown, Raymond E., S.S. The Gospel According to John (I-XII): Introduction, Translation, and Notes. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008.
   Brown, Raymond E., S.S. The Gospel According to John (XIII-XXI): Introduction, Translation, and Notes. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008.
   Bryant, Beauford H., and Mark S. Krause. John. The College Press NIV commentary. Joplin, Mo.: College Press Pub. Co., 1998.
   Burge, Gary M. NIV Application Commentary: John. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000.
   Calvin, John, and William Pringle. Commentary on the Gospel According to John. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2010.
   Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991.
  

Tsk, tsk.  You simply cannot omit Raymond Brown. 

Scott Warren

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/192602#Comment_192602

Jerry M said:

Scott, did you mean commentaries to buy from Logos rather than from your own personal library? 

Yes, I'm looking at what to buy. Mark I appreciate your list of what you. I appreciate advice on what are the better ones to buy.

Anyone hvae any advice on Ironside or Macarthur's commentary on John.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/192607#Comment_192607

George Somsel said:

Tsk, tsk.  You simply cannot omit Raymond Brown. 

I can (and I believe I just did [;)]). No, you're right to point out that Brown is one of the better commentaries on John. It didn't quite get emboldened here, because it's a little dated and there's various things that grated with me (the constant source criticism being the main one). I'm afraid I'm rather impatient of source speculation where there's no manuscript evidence to back it up.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/192609#Comment_192609

Mark Barnes said:

George Somsel said:

Tsk, tsk.  You simply cannot omit Raymond Brown. 

I can (and I believe I just did ). No, you're right to point out that Brown is one of the better commentaries on John. It didn't quite get emboldened here, because it's a little dated and there's various things that grated with me (the constant source criticism being the main one). I'm afraid I'm rather impatient of source speculation where there's no manuscript evidence to back it up.

I can understand your impatience with some source criticism, but I wouldn't simply exclude source criticism or any work which deals heavily in the subject.  Even Aune's 3 vol commentary on the Apocalypse in the WBC has considerable source criticism with which I tend to disagree.  I tend to think that "John" was probably relying on his one homiletic activity in presenting certain vignettes rather than upon some other source despite the fact that the Apocalypse makes considerable use not only of Jewish apocalyptic writings as well as OT sources.  There is, however one passage in Re that I tend to consider an interpolation regardless of the fact that there is absolutely no mss support for excluding it.  That is  

Revelation 16:15–16 (NA27)

15 Ἰδοὺ ἔρχομαι ὡς κλέπτης. μακάριος ὁ γρηγορῶν καὶ τηρῶν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ, ἵνα μὴ γυμνὸς περιπατῇ καὶ βλέπωσιν τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην αὐτοῦ. 16 Καὶ συνήγαγεν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν τόπον τὸν καλούμενον Ἑβραϊστὶ Ἁρμαγεδών.

And why do I tend to exclude it?  Look at the context.  It would appear that this was simply plunked down in the midst of a passage without any rhyme or reason.  It is totally disconnected from any of the surrounding text so that my immediate reaction is "What is this doing here?"  I tend to think that it was added by someone who was overly impressed by the 7's in the Apocalypse and who then decided that there should be seven beatitudes as well.  As Aune notes, "John" was quite capable of indicating when he wished to emphasize the number "7", which he did on a number of occassions.  When he doesn't do so then it would seem that we should not either.

 

 

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/192615#Comment_192615

George Somsel said:

I can understand your impatience with some source criticism, but I wouldn't simply exclude source criticism or any work which deals heavily in the subject

I wouldn't exclude commentaries with source criticism, but it's a too easy hiding place for scholars that aren't able or willing to deal with the text in hand. If they don't understand the text as it stands, the temptation is to allege that it must have been modified by a later editor. Carson's comments on this reflect very well my position (emphasis added):

The multiplication of sources and redactors ought to be treated with particular suspicion: most writers will frankly acknowledge that their roughest drafts are their first, and that successive polishing, by the original author or someone else, reduces the number of apparent aporias and enhances the smoothness. The only time this is not so occurs when the final editor is notoriously incompetent. Incompetent or not, there is precious little evidence in the text, solid evidence, that interpreters two thousand years removed from the events may seize on to distinguish believably amongst five layers of tradition and redaction (so Brown). The interpreter’s first job is to make sense of the text as it stands.

And later (in relation to Beasley Murray this time):

Conversely, regardless of the provenance of John 21, Beasley-Murray’s judgment that John 21 ‘would not be in place after the Thomas incident, and still less immediately after 20:19–23’ (p. 395), is tantamount to admitting that in their present form chs. 20–21 cannot be made to support his interpretation of 20:22. It is surely wiser to adopt an interpretation of 20:22, if one is available, that makes sense of chs. 20–21, than to indulge in the more speculative forms of source-criticism, especially if such analysis assumes that the alleged final editor was incompetent.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/192618#Comment_192618

Mark Barnes said:

I wouldn't exclude commentaries with source criticism, but it's a too easy hiding place for scholars that aren't able or willing to deal with the text in hand. If they don't understand the text as it stands, the temptation is to allege that it must have been modified by a later editor. Carson's comments on this reflect very well my position (emphasis added):

I would tend to agree that an understanding of the text is an absolute prerequisite.  There are occassions when commentators tend to not interpret the text but rather to remake the text as they would like it to be.  R. H. Charles' commentary on the Apocalypse fits in this category though I still find it an indispensible in my study of the book.  When one begins with the notion that he knows what the author intended to say (or should have intended to say) without first attempting to understand what the text as we have it does in fact say then he is failing in his task as a commentator.  This does not, however, obviate many things of value which he may note in the process of attempting to support his fiction.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/192622#Comment_192622

George Somsel said:

I would tend to agree that an understanding of the text is an absolute prerequisite.  There are occassions when commentators tend to not interpret the text but rather to remake the text as they would like it to be.  R. H. Charles' commentary on the Apocalypse fits in this category though I still find it an indispensible in my study of the book.  When one begins with the notion that he knows what the author intended to say (or should have intended to say) without first attempting to understand what the text as we have it does in fact say then he is failing in his task as a commentator.  This does not, however, obviate many things of value which he may note in the process of attempting to support his fiction.

On that, we can agree.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/192626#Comment_192626

Mark Barnes said:

George Somsel said:

I would tend to agree that an understanding of the text is an absolute prerequisite.  There are occassions when commentators tend to not interpret the text but rather to remake the text as they would like it to be.  R. H. Charles' commentary on the Apocalypse fits in this category though I still find it an indispensible in my study of the book.  When one begins with the notion that he knows what the author intended to say (or should have intended to say) without first attempting to understand what the text as we have it does in fact say then he is failing in his task as a commentator.  This does not, however, obviate many things of value which he may note in the process of attempting to support his fiction.

On that, we can agree.

Nothing which I have said should be understood to mean that I would disparage the practice of source criticism.  In the OT (particularly in the Pentateuch) I think it is virtually indisputable that different sources were used in its composition.  In the OT these traditions (or even documents) developed over a period of centuries whereas in the NT the period from the first Pauline letter to the final  

Revelation 22:21 (NA27)

21 Ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ μετὰ πάντων.

covers a period of no more that a tad over 100 yrs.  This makes the developement of sources somewhat less likely.  Of course, there is the matter of the literature of the 'intertestamental' period (I put this in scare quotes since Daniel would seem to fit into this period).  Still, the development of exclusively NT tradition would be restricted.  I think of one passage in the Apocalypse where "John" seems to rely upon a gospel collocation or else both the gospel and the Apocalypse rely upon the same previously established collocation.

 

 

 

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/192635#Comment_192635

George Somsel said:

Nothing which I have said should be understood to mean that I would disparage the practice of source criticism.  In the OT (particularly in the Pentateuch) I think it is virtually indisputable that different sources were used in its composition. 

No, I understand that. I too, am not opposed to source criticism, I'm only opposed to source criticism when (a) there's no textual evidence for it, or (b) the impetus to see multiple sources stems primarily from the interpreter's inability to understand (or accept) the text in it's final form, or (c) the interpreter is supremely confident that he is able to unravel the exactitudes of disparate composition on an almost sentence by sentence basis, despite the several millennia that separate him from the composition. (Yes, Wellhausen and the Jesus Seminar, I'm looking at you.)

Oh, and sorry Scott for the off-topic hi-jack!

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/192642#Comment_192642

Mark Barnes said:

No, I understand that. I too, am not opposed to source criticism, I'm only opposed to source criticism when (a) there's no textual evidence for it, or (b) the impetus to see multiple sources stems primarily from the interpreter's inability to understand (or accept) the text in it's final form, or (c) the interpreter is supremely confident that he is able to unravel the exactitudes of disparate composition on an almost sentence by sentence basis, despite the several millennia that separate him from the composition. (Yes, Wellhausen and the Jesus Seminar, I'm looking at you.)

Wellhausen is, of course, a bit dated, but the broad outlines of his four-source view still have much to recommend them.  I would disagree that it is necessary to have textual evidence.  It is generally the case that one cannot expect textual evidence.  I would agree regarding the Jesus Seminar.  I tend to agree with Bultmann that what we have in the gospels is the testimony of the early Church relating to Jesus Christ and the significance of his life and death.  Since it is the Church's testimony setting forth the meaning of Jesus Christ, one cannot expect that any particular event or saying is or is not reflective of an historical event.  What we have rather is an interpretation of that event.  I happen to think that we can be confident that the Church was rather faithful in its interpretation of Jesus, but to say that Jesus actually uttered any particular logion in precisely the form in which we have it is beyond credibility.  One must understand that those men whom we call disciples and apostles were not recording secretaries but precisely his students who may or may not have remember with total verbal accuracy. 

I am reminded of the old joke regarding lectures which states that it is the process by which material is transmitted from the professor's notes through his mouth to the ears of the students and thence into their notes without ever passing through the minds of any involved.  Don't ask what this has to do with our discussion -- it simply popped into my head.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/192657#Comment_192657

George Somsel said:

I am reminded of the old joke regarding lectures which states that it is the process by which material is transmitted from the professor's notes through his mouth to the ears of the students and thence into their notes without ever passing through the minds of any involved.  Don't ask what this has to do with our discussion -- it simply popped into my head.

I'll, at least partially, retract my statement that this has nothing to do with our discussion.  Since the disciples were not recording secretaries (as in modern students scramblind to take notes), they did indeed think about these matters.  It was the significance which they retained and not simply the verbal expression.

DMB

If periodically you get a little frustrated with the Logos categories/searches (though the new site is much better), the new search engine blekko.com works good, using the yahoo slashtag:

  site:logos.com gospel john commentary /yahoo

I've almost completely switched over to blekko from my old favorite google.

 

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/192657#Comment_192657

George Somsel said:

One must understand that those men whom we call disciples and apostles were not recording secretaries but precisely his students who may or may not have remember with total verbal accuracy. 

I'm by no means suggesting that every logion in the gospels is word-for-word what Jesus said (there's translation issues and the question of summarising, to start with), but Jesus' followers' own testimony is John 14:26. If what you've said takes that testimony seriously, then again I can agree with you.