Technical Commentary Gospel of John

Hello I have the D. A. Carson, Pillar New Testament Commentary, Leon Morris, NICNT, Brown's Anchor Yale, and Expository Thoughts on John by Ryle. I am looking for a commentary that deals more with Greek. I heard Keener but I wanted to get everyone's thoughts?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Jack Hairston

Richard Lenski is my go-to guy for Greek when I want to know what it says.

Barclay Newman's UBS Handbook runs a close second.

Mattillo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1247513#Comment_1247513

I haven't used it but: https://www.logos.com/product/201488/john

Mark Smith

I heard Keener but I wanted to get everyone's thoughts?

Keener does not deal directly with the Greek text.

The ICC by Bernard deals directly with the Greek text, but is dated (1929). C. K. Barrett deals directly with the Greek text and is more recent (1978). I have benefitted from all Barrett has written.

Milkman

Seems to me you have enough. Do your own greek studies and enjoy what you "personally" learn. I'm sure your profs would agree.

mm.

Hello I have the D. A. Carson, Pillar New Testament Commentary, Leon Morris, NICNT, Brown's Anchor Yale, and Expository Thoughts on John by Ryle. I am looking for a commentary that deals more with Greek. I heard Keener but I wanted to get everyone's thoughts?

mab

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1247552#Comment_1247552

I will second Barrett. Also ZECNT Klink.

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1247552#Comment_1247552

Of the texts mentioned thus far, for the purpose of learning exegesis, I prefer Bernard and Lenski. They better demonstrate the principles of the art of exegesis. If I were to choose but one, I would say that Bernard is indispensable.

I don't own Barrett's John so, I only can judge him on his performance with ICC Acts, and here his presentation is dense, having long quotes in German and obscure references to Classical authors. So, if that be a foretaste of his work, I'm better off without him at this time.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1247566#Comment_1247566

Regarding Bernard, I didn't realize his John volume was split up in Logos, allowing the greek text to be used in a Text Comparison (though Bernard splits the Adulterous Woman out, in formatting, but works in Text Comparison). The intro notes are also interesting (largely follows WH, but periodically chooses the TR).

Mentioning Westcott, he did a commentary on John, with periodic discussions of the greek issues. If you remember, Hort largely led the band on the manuscript arguments.

Mark Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1247566#Comment_1247566

ICC Acts, and here his presentation is dense, having long quotes in German and obscure references to Classical authors.

This is true, but with the Logos 10 translation function much less of a problem.

I have seen no quoting like this in his Gospel of John commentary.

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1247569#Comment_1247569

ICC Acts, and here his presentation is dense, having long quotes in German and obscure references to Classical authors.

This is true, but with the Logos 10 translation function much less of a problem.

I have seen no quoting like this in his Gospel of John commentary.

If this be true, then perhaps I'll give him a test to see if his style secedes from his pattern presented in his work with Acts. Thirty days will be an adequate duration to detect the accuracy of your claim, and I do thank you for it.