Technical Commentary Question

The first one I would recommend is the Baylor Handbooks on the Hebrew and Greek Testaments. Though not completed as of yet, you will not find a better set that deals specifically with syntax and other related topics.

After this, the first critical commentary I turn to almost every time is the ICC. Frankly, every other commentary places second fiddle to this fine set. After the ICC, if I need to consult another commentary I tend to gravitate towards the BECNT or Hermeneia. While some like the AYBC, I tend to find them not as helpful for what I am needing.

Take this recommendations with a grain of salt. While some look for a good commentary that will discuss the theology of the text, I am more interested in its interaction with the Greek and Hebrew text first and foremost. After this, I then tend to look at the history of scholarship on a given passage. Last, theology and application.

Cliff

WBC for you:

The First Shall Be First (6:1-7)

Bibliography

Clifford, R. “The Use of Hôy in the Prophets.” CBQ 28 (1966) 458–64. Dahmen, U. “Zur Text- und Literarkritik von Am 6,6a.” BN 31 (1986) 7–10. Dahood, M. “NĀDâ [vol. 31, p. 357] ‘to Hurl’ in Ex 15, 16.” Bib 43 (1962) 248–49. Daiches, S. “Amos VI:5.” ExpTim 6 (1914–15) 521–22. Eissfeldt, O. “Etymologische und archäologische Erklärungen alttestamentlicher Wörter.” OrAnt 5 (1966) 165–76. Elhorst, H. “Amos 6:5.” ZAW 35 (1915) 62–63. Freedman, D. N. “But Did King David Invent Musical Instruments?” Bible Review 1 (1985) 48–51. Holladay, W. L. “Amos 6:1bβ: A Suggested Solution.” VT 22 (1972) 107–10. Iwry, S. “New Evidence for Belomancy in Ancient Palestine and Phoenicia.” JAOS 81 (1961) 27–34. Pope, M. “Notes on the Rephaim Texts from Ugarit.” Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of J. J. FinkeLstein. Hamden: Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1977. Wanke, G. “אוי und הוי.” ZAW 78 (1966) 215–18. Williams, J. “The Atlas-Oracles of the Eighth-Century Prophets.” HUCA 38 (1967) 75–91. Wolff, H. W. “Form-Criticism of the ‘Woe-Cries.’” Hosea, 242–45.

Translation

Announcement/summons to mourning

6:1  Woe to those comfortable in Zion,

And who feel secure on Mount Samaria,

Preeminent persons of the leading nation,

To whom the family of Israel come!

Call to react/direct address to the fallen

2  Travel to Calneh and take a look;

Go from there to the great Hamatha;

Then go down to Gath of the Philistines.

Are youb better than these kingdoms?

Is their territory larger than yours?

Description of the tragedy

3  Those who are forecastingaa bad day

And diviningb a harmful week,c

4  Who sleep on ivoried beds

And are sprawled out on their couches,

Who eat lambs pickeda from the flock

And young bulls selecteda from the farthing-pen,

5  Who improvise to the sound of the harp, like David,a

Who invent for themselves all sorts ofb songs,

6  Who drink from basins of wine

And anoint themselves with first-quality oils,

And are not bothered by the ruin of Joseph;

7  Therefore now:

They will go into exile at the front of the exiles;

The celebrating of those sprawled out will cease,a

Notes

2.a MT vocalizes חמת “Hamath” as the constr (cf Joüon, Grammaire, 131 n), though syntactically this is hardly a necessity.

[vol. 31, p. 358]

2.b Or possibly “they,” in which case “these kingdoms” would refer to Israel and Judah.

3.a-b MT מנדים probably reflects Akkadian nadû, to “(fore)cast.” Likewise ‏נגש, hiphil, has the sense of “produce via divination.”

3.c Vocalizing ‏שַׁבָּת rather than שֶׁבֶת “seat.” On notes 3.a,b,*, c.*, cf Dahood, “NĀDÂ,” 248–249; and Iwry, “New Evidence,” 27–34.

4.a This sense is implicit in the context. The food is “choice” food.

5.a Counted syllabically, the meter suggests that כדוד “like David” ends v 5a rather than begins v 5b.

5.b MT is not impossible. However, making up songs in one’s idle time seems far more likely in the context than designing musical instruments; thus we vocalize ‏כָּל “all” rather than כְּלֵי “instruments of.”

7.a The Heb is much more alliterative than the translation can suggest.

Form/Structure/Setting

Two themes dominate the passage: self-indulgence and self-confidence. These are reflected both in v 1 (“comfortable . . . secure . . . preeminent”) and v 7 (“at the front . . . celebration . . . sprawled out”). Verse 1 announces the woe, and v 7 provides the punishments in fulfillment of covenant curses (see Comment). The passage is clearly self-contained and rhetorically unified. It follows to a substantial degree the structure expected in funerary laments (cf 5:1–17). In this connection, the second-person plural speech of v 2 makes the most sense as a combination of direct address to the fallen and call to react, rather than either a quote placed on the lips of the complacent nobles (E. Sellin, J. C. Mays) or a later interpolation. The passage is entirely poetic, in mixed longum meter with a predominance of synonymous parallelism.

It cannot be dated precisely, except that since Calneh, Hamath, and Gath all came under Assyrian control via the Western campaigns of Tiglath-Pileser III between 738–734 BC, the references in v 2 predate 738 BC (Properly understood, v 2 does not imply that these city-states had already fallen to Assyria.) The reference to Gath, a region under Judean domination from about 800 until 734 BC, obviates the suggestions that somehow “Zion” does not belong in v 1. While the woe oracle centers on Israel as evidenced by the explicit reference to “Joseph” (cf 5:15), it certainly seeks to condemn south and north alike for the materialistic decadence of their leading citizens.

Comment

1 Amos, like his eighth-century contemporaries Hosea, Isaiah, and Micah, was given a message which at points involved both Judah and Israel. The present oracle speaks of Zion, ie, Jerusalem, even before it mentions Samaria, perhaps because to be “comfortable in Zion” (‏השאננים בציון‎) had a ring of decadence to it beyond what being “secure on Mount Samaria” (‏בהר שמרון בטחים‎) would connote. Jerusalem enjoyed a long history as a sacred place (Gen 14:18; Gen 22; etc) compared to Samaria, which had been founded only a century and a quarter by Amos’ time, and which had no comparable religious traditions associated with it. Both Jerusalem and Samaria were crown property, separately obtained (2 Sam 5:6–9; 1 Kgs 16:24) and governed outside of the tribal traditions and administration. As these capitals grew in importance with the fortunes of their respective nations, they became centers of conspicuous wealth as well as of substantial political [vol. 31, p. 359] power. Association with the monarchy, whether by birth, marriage, or employment, or even proximity, afforded the opportunity for gaining wealth and prestige, but at the risk of abandoning the old original values of the covenant. With regard to Samaria, Amos’ primary audience, her leading citizens undoubtedly enjoyed respect and even adulation. Those in government had the power, for example, to assign tax liabilities, to control public works projects, and to influence the distribution of wealth obtained both externally and internally. “The family of Israel,” ie, people from all over the country, came to them as the preeminent people of the “leading nation” (‏ראשית הגוים‎), which in that region Israel indeed was by now. Jeroboam II had, by God’s design, even subdued Syria, Israel’s often more powerful rival to the north (2 Kgs 14:25). And yet to this prestigious, materially powerful group Amos sings a funerary lament.

2 Leading Samaritans and Jerusalemites may have thought themselves important, but the oracle reminds them that they were no better or no worse than nearby nations whom they had subjugated. Calneh and Hamath were Aramean city-states under Israelite influence and were perhaps often mentioned together because they were major cities of eastern Syria (cf Isa 10:9). Gath, one of the five major Philistine cities, was at this time under Judahite control (and thus is not mentioned in 1:6–8). It is not necessary to emend “their” to “your” and vice versa at the end of the verse. The two rhetorical questions Amos’ oracle poses make the point of equality between those nations and Israel (and, implicitly, Judah). Israel/Judah is no better than they, and they are no more impressive than Israel/Judah. Nations have no right to give themselves priority as Israel had done. By thinking themselves first among the nations, the Israelites had gravely misinterpreted their situation in respect to Yahweh.

3 The description of the tragedy of Israel’s decadence begins with an excoriation of two kinds of sins, both apparently frequent enough to constitute an appropriate characterization of the style of life in Samaria. (Awareness of Judah now recedes, though nothing in the remaining verses would not apply to Jerusalemite society as well.) These sins are practice of the occult (Lev 19:26, 31; Deut 18:10–11) and laziness (Prov 25:14–16). The rich were able to avoid work because of their wealth. They apparently justified this lazy behavior at least sometimes by claiming that divination told them to stay at home for a period of time (“a bad day . . . a harmful week”). As with some modern horoscopes, ancient predictions of doom could be avoided by an individual’s not venturing forth at all (cf Prov 22:13).

4 The idle rich lay around the house a lot and ate the finest foods. Their “ivoried beds” (‏מטות שן) were couches whose wooden frames were inlaid with ivory decorations (J. W. and G. M. Crowfoot, Early Ivories from Samaria [London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1938]; ANEP, figs. 125–32; R. Barnett, A Catalogue of Nimrud Ivories and Other Examples of Ancient Near Eastern Ivories [London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1957]).

Many Israelites probably ate meat as infrequently as three times a year—only at the festivals (Deut 12:17–18) and even less often if they were poor. By contrast, the leading citizens could command choice meats, and all they wanted, so excessive was their selfishly gotten wealth (cf 2:8; 5:11).

5 These people were living like royalty. The reference to David, rather [vol. 31, p. 360] than being a late interpolation as some have suggested, adds to the flavor of high living in an idle lifestyle. Even prior to his becoming king, David was a member of a leading Judahite family and was therefore able to indulge his musical talents. With plenty of time on their hands, the urban upper classes of Amos’ day could also improvise and create music, their output rivaling that of the past master.

6 Amos’ words caricature debauchery and wastefulness. Instead of drinking their wine from a cup (‏כוס‎; cf 2 Sam 12:3; Prov 23:31: Jer 25:17; etc), these folk were drinking straight out of the storage basins! (On ‏מזרק‎ “basin,” see A. Honeyman, “The Pottery Vessels of the Old Testament,” PEQ 71 [1939] 76–90; cf 1 Kgs 7:40). Anointing was a common practice of personal hygiene, since oil kills lice. But demanding the highest quality of refined oil (‏ראשית שמנים‎) for this purpose was simply an excess. And all the while, the ruin (‏שבר‎; cf the use of the root in Lev 26:13, 19, 26) of Joseph (Ephraim) as guaranteed by the covenant curses (esp type 9, desolation: cf Lev 26:31–35; Deut 29:23) was coming closer.

7 Again ‏לכן‎ (“therefore”) introduces the judgment sentence concluding the lament (cf 5:11, 13, 16). Twice already the passage has featured the word ‏ראשית‎ (“first, leading,” vv 1 and 16) in connection with the preeminent citizens of Samaria and Jerusalem. These leaders will now lead the nation into exile, at their “front” (‏ראש‎). Thus the major covenant curse of exile (type 13) is to be fulfilled against them. The concluding line of the oracle is alliterative: ‏סר מזרה סרוחים‎, sar mizrah seruhim lit, “the celebrating (-house) of those sprawled out will turn aside.” Alliteration makes statements memorable. Amos’ audience is left with the clear message that the present high living simply will not be allowed to last. Though מרזח can mean funerary celebrating or the place thereof (as in Jer 16:5), it also refers to general revelry, particularly that involving extremes of feasting, drinking, etc (P. Miller, “The Mrzḥ Text,” The Claremont Ras Shamra Tablets, ed L. Fisher, AnOr 48 [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1971]; M. Pope, Song of Songs, AB 7C [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977] 214–29; O. Eissfeldt, Etymologische . . . OrAnt 5 [1966] 165–76).

Explanation

Yahweh would not tolerate the dissolute luxury, that prevailed among the Israelite urban rich, both North and South, in the mid-eighth century B.C. Such conspicuous degeneracy witnessed to exploitation of the poor, unconcern for moral and spiritual values and practices, and an outright lack of fear of God. Jesus’ severe warning that no one can serve both God and wealth, in part because one’s heart will always pay attention to one’s treasure (Matt 6:19–24), did not represent a pronouncement without precedent. To fall prey often to materialism is a serious enough fault; to give oneself over to materialistic hedonism is an outrageous offense. Those whom God through Amos excoriated in this passage had gained the world, but they would lose their very lives (cf Luke 9:25). Since the royalty, nobility, and leading citizens were presumably taken captive first, ie, prior to the general citizenry, by both the Assyrians and the Babylonians (cf 2 Kgs 24:11–16; 25:11–12, 18–21; [vol. 31, p. 361] ANET, 284–85; 2 Chr 36:5–7; Jer 24), there came eventually a literal fulfillment of the warning that the first among the people would be the first of the exiles.

Douglas Stuart, Hosea–Jonah, vol. 31 of Word Biblical Commentary. Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 356-361.

For Textual Study Aland in his Book (1989) mentioned

https://www.logos.com/product/9847/critical-and-exegetical-commentary-on-the-new-testament

Second would be ICC

Sascha

I'm more in NT so I look for the NT ICC...but it's still expensive. Haven't found him yet in a Bundle and Base Pack. are more expensive.

ICC spans over 100 years. 1895 to 2014 is the date Faithlife has listed on the product page. The more current dates are revisions to earlier works I would guess.

I have all of the above mentioned technical commentaries and they are all great.  Another that I think is often overlooked is the Concordia Commentary Series.  An extract from the "Textual Notes" section for Amos 6:5 follows:

From the Concordia Commentary:

6:5

הַפֹּרְטִ֖ים עַל־פִּ֣י הַנָּ֑בֶל—The exact meaning of the hapax legomenon verb פָּרַט is open to debate. Its Qal participle הַפֹּרְטִ֖ים is variously understood as meaning "those who pluck [stringed instruments]," "those who improvise [music]," "those who sing songs," or "those who howl." The LXX renders the phrase οἱ ἐπικροτοῦντες πρὸς τὴν φωνὴν τῶν ὀργάνων, "those who are clapping/applauding to the sound of instruments," while the Vulgate has qui canitis ad vocem psalterii, "you who sing to the sound of a stringed instrument." The translation above reflects general idea of making songs by improvising tunes.

The prepositional phrase עַל־פִּ֣י, literally, "according to the mouth of," means "according to the sound of" an instrument (see BDB, s.v. פֶּה, 2 e; cf. 6 d (1)). The stringed instrument נֵבֶל, "lyre," is sometimes incorrectly translated "harp" (e.g., RSV). A harp does not employ a neck, whereas a lyre does. The Psalms and Chronicles often refer to playing the נֵבֶל for religious festivals and services, as in Amos 5:23. The context of 6:5–7 indicates that Amos is describing a marzēaḥ feast that had religious implications; see the second textual note and the commentary on 6:7.

כְּדָו֕יד חָשְׁב֥וּ לָהֶ֖ם כְּלֵי־שִֽׁיר׃

—The simile כְּדָוִ֕יד, "like David," indicates that the musical innovators compared themselves to Israel’s greatest psalmist. The grammar of this clause can be understood in three different ways. First, in this context, the verb חָשַׁב may mean "to invent" (BDB, 5) and take the direct object כְּלֵי־שִֽׁיר, literally, "instruments of song/music." חָשַׁב conveys artistic talent to "invent, devise" artwork in, for example, Ex 31:4; 35:32; 2 Chr 2:13 (ET 2:14). For accounts of David’s connections with musical instruments see, for example, Neh 12:36; 1 Chr 23:5; 2 Chr 29:26–27. A second possibility is to understand חָשַׁב in its more common sense of "to think, consider," and translate the clause as "they think regarding themselves that [their] musical instruments are like David’s." However, David probably did not invent new musical instruments. Instead, he composed new music on kinds of instruments that already existed in Israel. Therefore the third possibility is most likely: חָשַׁב means "to compose (music)" and כְּלֵי־שִֽׁיר is an accusative of means: "like David they compose [music] for themselves [using] musical instruments." This is the direction taken by NIV ("improvise on musical instruments") and NASB ("have composed songs for themselves"). As with נֵבֶל "lyre," in the preceding clause, שִׁיר, "song, music," in this clause frequently is associated with worship and liturgy, as in the superscriptions to Psalms 120–134, each of which is called a "song [שִׁיר] of ascents" for pilgrims traveling up to the Jerusalem temple. The Israelites described in Amos 6:5 (wrongly) imagine that they too are composing God-pleasing worship music.

Rick Brannan (Faithlife) said:

On the NT, if you don't have it already, give Lenski serious consideration.

https://www.logos.com/product/3911/lenskis-commentary-on-the-new-testament 

It's in the Christmas sale too. 

Lenski is ok, but with the advances on Greek studies there are better commentaries. Carson is not the final authority but he may be right when he says that Lenski is amateurish in his handling of the Greek since he only had so much knowledge when he wrote his commentaries.

DAL

All commentary series are uneven. In the ideal world you can get a few select commentaries on each passage. Marketing, however, loves to put things into series and collections, and wise stewardship of your resources says you may want to take advantage of this.

That said, it is surprising to me that your seminary is not making clear what would be an acceptable technical commentary. In my experience, this is often covered in the intro classes, is certainly in the syllabi for the advanced classes, and often the bible faculty have a list of recommendations for everything for graduates. I would not depend on BestCommentaries.com because from glances I have made at it, it is quite dominated by what is best for pastors - not for an academic setting.

That said, the old CD's of WBC are one of the best deals out there for technical commentaries in Logos. Very good bibliographies, as mentioned, and in general good summaries of the information out there on the passages. The format is not the most friendly to just read, but if you learn the format, you learn where to go for the specific questions you may have.

The Classic volumes of the ICC set a high bar - but are classic. They still have value, are dated. The new volumes are amazing and need to be consulted by anyone in an academic setting, IMHO.

Lenski? I come from a church body that uses him a LOT and am actually quite sympathetic to those who want to open people up to the fact that there is more out there. That said, he does have a LOT of very good information on the greek text. He is not as good with the context though. He did, after all, write before the DSS and Nag Hammadi were discovered...

Herm was described as the "Cadillac set both in quality and price" when I was in seminary. It has many great volumes and few weak ones.

Anchor is all over the map. The one consistent thing about it is that it does all (or any) original languages in transliteration. That said, there are some very good volumes, and it seems that the newest volumes are getting more dependable.

You mention you are taking a class on John. Unfortunately this is one of the briefer volumes in the WBC set, and so the bibliographies are definitely the most useful part of this. It is also one of the older volumes, even if it was updated since then a bit... The Herm volumes on John are uneven, since the scholar writing them died while writing them. The early chapters are good, but the later ones a bit thin. Raymond Brown on John in Anchor is a classic - but is 50 years old at this point. He was rewriting it when he died, but, well, we will have to enjoy the fruits of that after the grave...

There is no ideal solution. But if you can get your hands on one of those "cheap" WBC cd's, it could be a decent core for you.

Rick Brannan (Faithlife) said:

Regarding Ken's take, which I do appreciate: "[Lenski] did, after all, write before the DSS and Nag Hammadi were discovered...". And Lenski wrote on the NT, where the DSS has little bearing, and the Nag Hammadi finds shed insight more on Coptic (lexical/grammatical) than Greek. There is value in both Nag Hammadi and DSS in the context of handling the Greek of the NT; but I'd argue it is minimal and not a reason to discount Lenski — unless you're specifically looking for interaction with 2nd-5th century gnostic sources in your commentary series.

Just to clarify my point. In looking at Lenski (who actually was a member of my current parish when he landed as a teenager to this country) instead of people complaining about him, I see he is quite aware and conversant with the Lexical and Grammatical revolution in Koine Greek that was happening during his lifetime - more so than some who write today, unfortunately. This is one of his strengths actually. That said, he is a bit less aware and conversant with scholarship about the Classical world, and especially of the various Judaisms of the 1st century. In spite of the differences in language, this world view brought to us by the DSS is relevant to New Testament studies, and NagHam too with caution.

If someone from Today like Aland who works for Years on the Text of the Greek New Testament and give out NA28 told me "also have a look to this old Commentaries of Meyer" why should I not trust him?

Ken McGuire said:

He was rewriting it when he died, but, well, we will have to enjoy the fruits of that after the grave...

Or buy this.

I personally rank the commentary sets as follows:

1.  New International Commentary OT / NT

2.  Word Biblical Commentary

3. ICC

4. Pillar Commentaries

5.. New Interpreters Bible Commentary

Just my opinion, but that is the order I would follow in general.  But all the sets have weaker and stronger volumes, no exception to that at all.  Word is by far the best commentary for some of the OT book such as Genesis, Psalms, etch.  Actually the NAC is outstanding on Samuel and Kings.. And nobody touches the NICOT on the book of Isaiah. There is no best set as such.  What really matters is what is the best commentary for the book you are studying.

[Y]