Comparing Greek Commentaries

Could someone here comment on the advantages or disadvantages of the Expositor's Greek Testament versus the Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges? I picked up a volume of the former set as a free Logos book, and have really come to like it. But due to the vagaries of academic pricing, the Cambridge set is about 20 dollars cheaper for me, so I thought I'd ask for opinions. Is either one head and shoulders above the other?

And if anyone has any suggestions for similar commentary sets that are heavy on the Greek and extra-biblical literary references to the classical tradition, I'd love to hear them.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Bruce Dunning

Could someone here comment on the advantages or disadvantages of the Expositor's Greek Testament versus the Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges? I picked up a volume of the former set as a free Logos book, and have really come to like it. But due to the vagaries of academic pricing, the Cambridge set is about 20 dollars cheaper for me, so I thought I'd ask for opinions. Is either one head and shoulders above the other?

And if anyone has any suggestions for similar commentary sets that are heavy on the Greek and extra-biblical literary references to the classical tradition, I'd love to hear them.

Personally I prefer the Expositor's. It may be a generalization but to me it generally has fuller explanations. Here is a comparison of Matthew 1:1 to read yourself.

Expositor's - Matthew intro -

CHAPTER 1. THE GENEALOGY AND BIRTH OF JESUS.—The genealogy may readily appear to us a most ungenial beginning of the Gospel. A dry list of names! It is the tribute which the Gospel pays to the spirit of Judaism. The Jews set much store by genealogies, and to Jewish Christians the Messiahship of Jesus depended on its being proved that He was a descendant of David. But the matter can hardly be so vital as that. We may distinguish between the question of fact and the question of faith. It may be that Jesus was really descended from David—many things point that way; but even if He were not He might still be the Christ, the fulfiller of O. T. ideals, the bringer-in of the highest good, if He possessed the proper spiritual qualifications. What although the Christ were not David’s son in the physical sense? He was a priest after the order of Melchisedec, though ἀγενεαλόγητος; why not Messiah under the same conditions? He might still be a son of David in the sense in which John the Baptist was Elijah—in spirit and power, realising the ideal of the hero king. The kingdom of prophecy came only in a spiritual sense, why not also the king? The two hang together. Paul was not an apostle in the legitimist sense, not one of the men who had been with Jesus; yet he was a very real apostle. p 62 So might Jesus be a Christ, though not descended from David. St. Paul writes (Gal. 3:29): “If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed”. So might we say: If Jesus was fit to be the Christ in point of spiritual equipment, then was He of the seed of David. There is no clear evidence in the Gospels that Jesus Himself set value on Davidic descent; there are some things that seem to point the other way: e.g., the question, “Who is my mother?” (Matt. 12:48; Mk. 3:33), and the other, “What think ye of the Christ, whose son is He?” (Matt. 22:42, et par.). There is reason to believe that, like St. Paul, He would argue from the spiritual to the genealogical, not vice versâ: not Christ because from David, but from David, at least ideally, because Christ on other higher grounds.
Ver. 1. βίβλος γενέσεως κ.τ.λ. How much does this heading cover: the whole Gospel, the two first chapters, the whole of the first chapter, or only 1:1–17? All these views have been held. The first by Euthy. Zigab., who argued: the birth of the God-man was the important point, and involved all the rest; therefore the title covers the whole history named from the most important part (ἀπὸ τοῦ κυριωτέρου μέρους). Some moderns (Ebrard, Keil, etc.) have defended the view on the ground that the corresponding title in O. T. (Gen. 6:9; 11:27, etc.) denotes not merely a genealogical list, but a history of the persons whose genealogy is given. Thus the expression is taken to mean a book on the life of Christ (liber de vita Christi, Maldon.). Against the second view and the third Weiss-Meyer remarks that at 1:18 a new beginning is made, while 2:1 runs on as if continuing the same story. The most probable and most generally accepted opinion is that of Calvin, Beza, and Grotius that the expression applies only to 1:1–17. (Non est haec inscriptio totius libri, sed particulae primae quae velut extra corpus historiae prominet. Grotius.)
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Christ here is not an appellative but a proper name, in accordance with the usage of the Apostolic age. In the body of the evangelistic history the word is not thus used; only in the introductory parts. (vide Mk. 1:1; John 1:17.)
υἱοῦ Δ., υἱοῦ Α. Of David first, because with his name was associated the more specific promise of a Messianic king; of Abraham also, because he was the patriarch of the race and first recipient of the promise. The genealogy goes no further back, because the Gospel is written for the Jews. Euthy. Zig. suggests that David is placed first because he was the better known, as the less remote, as a great prophet and a renowned king. (ἀπὸ τοῦ γνωριμωτέρου μᾶλλον ἀρξάμενος, ἐπὶ τὸν παλαιότερον ἀνῆλθεν.) The word υἱοῦ in both cases applies to Christ. It can refer grammatically to David, as many take it, but the other reference is demanded by the fact that ver. 1 forms the superscription of the following genealogy. So Weiss-Meyer.

Cambridge Matthew 1:1 -

CHAPTER 1

In the remarks on the results of textual revision prefixed to the Notes on each Chapter, it is not intended to enter minutely into each critical point, but to indicate generally the drift and import of the corrections, and occasionally to state the grounds on which a reading is preferred.

κατὰ Μαθθαῖον is adopted in preference to κατὰ Ματθαῖον by the best recent editors on the authority of אBD. The evidence, however, is not conclusive, for in the text even these MSS. admit the other forms in some instances. See Scrivener’s Introd. p. 488.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

And if anyone has any suggestions for similar commentary sets that are heavy on the Greek and extra-biblical literary references to the classical tradition, I'd love to hear them.

Pastor Mark Barnes, forum MVP, has posted a suggested list of commentary tags => http://www.logosbiblesoftwaretraining.com/documents/suggested-commentary-tags/ that has many technical commentaries, including => Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (BECNT) (15 vols.) and => The New International Greek Testament Commentary (13 vols.)

Lenski's Commentary on the New Testament (LCNT) (12 vols.) is listed as intermediate, which uses untransliterated Greek with technical comments plus much about meaning (interpretation).

Wiki review => UBS New Testament Handbook Series has cross cultural translation insights.

Keep Smiling [:)]

Timothy Brown

And if anyone has any suggestions for similar commentary sets that are heavy on the Greek and extra-biblical literary references to the classical tradition, I'd love to hear them.

Older than the two sets you mention, yet authoritative in its day is Henry Alford's The Greek Testament.