Keil and Delitszch Commentary on the Old Testament, mostly because my OT professor, the only Lutheran dispensationalist I have ever met, said so. It is heavily linguistic, in fact it assumes you can read Hebrew, Greek, and several other languages, yet it is still very useful to ignorant morons like me who can barely read English.

The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, because his exposition is 99% correct, and I can actually read it for pleasure without falling asleep.

I just got The MacArthur Bible Commentary, which is one of those fat one-volume Genesis- Revelation commentaries, but I haven't looked at it much yet. I expect it will be good for the older kids to use, like an extra-detailed study Bible. Votes: +0

Wenham's Word commentary is almost universally viewed as the standard academic commentary. Some holdovers from an earlier era like older ones that are more in-depth, but I don't think you actually prefer the most depth, and Wenham is a pretty conservative evangelical in comparison to any of those. Hamilton's NICOT is much more readable and probably a little more conservative at about the same length, but people I've read tend to prefer Wenham if they have to pick. Bruce Waltke's commentary is basically his lecture notes put into more readable form by one of his students, but they're very good lecture notes. It's a lot shorter than the other two. Those are the three I've found most useful, though the commentaries by Alan Ross, John Sailhamer, Derek Kidner, John Walton, Kenneth Mathews, and Joyce Baldwin are all good enough that they're all probably someone's favorite. Votes: +0

Guys, thanks a million. I've heard good things about MacArthur's Commentary and that Wenham Comentary sounds pretty enticing. I've noticed Keil and Delitzsch Commentary in CBD but haven't heard anything about it. Thank you brothers. Votes: +0

Keil and Delitzsch will run you a couple hundred dollars. I wouldn't buy it if you just want Genesis. It's good theologically, and for what they knew at the time it was good on language matters and on historical stuff, though it's all over 100 years old. It shouldn't be used without a contemporary commentary for the most up-to-date stuff. Sometimes it offers a helpful theological understanding that you wouldn't find in some more recent commentaries, though, and their attention to geography is much higher than most people today will care about. That can be good if you want to find something that a more recent commentator won't talk about, though a good Bible atlas and Bible dictionary might provide just as much.

If you can buy Keil's Genesis commentary separately (Delitzsch only did Job through Isaiah; Keil did the rest), that might be worth your while. I'd say the whole series is worth having, though, so I wouldn't buy it unless you're sure you won't eventually get the whole series. Votes: +0

Everything I hear from commentary reviewers is that MacArthur isn't all that good. It's light on detail. He certainly isn't correct 99% of the time. I believe Carson thinks he's often importing things that aren't in the text. (It's in the room where the baby is sleeping, so I can't check it at the moment.) I'd much rather recommend works by more serious scholars with better training. He's been to seminary, but he doesn't interact with the scholars, which builds better critical thinking skills and skills in moderating your conclusions in a way that those who might disagree will have a harder time criticizing you. Scholars make mistakes, but they're less willing to go way out in left field if they're going to have someone pounce on you. If your primary audience is a church rather than scholars, you won't be as inclined to avoid extreme statements that don't hold up from the text, and as good a preacher as MacArthur is, I can't say that he avoids that problem.

Actually, I just realized I have the older edition of Carson in here. Here's what he says about his Matthew commentary/exposition:

"A hybrid difficult to classify -- part commentary, part expository sermon -- is the work of John MacArthuer in 4 volumes (publisher/price info deleted). These books are wordy and so often betray too little time and care taken with the text that they cannot be read as reliable commentary; but the amount of information goes beyond that of most expositions. Doubtless they will serve the well-read layperson and poorly trained preacher."

Here's what he says of his I Corinthians commentary: "[It] provides more of an exposition than a commentary (see remarks on his work on Matthew). Despite excellent moments, there is too little grasp of the background, and such firm "anticharismatic" interpretation of chapters 12-14, that the exegesis goes a little awry."

Again, on Galatians: "[He] often makes some very good pastoral points that are helpful to the preacher, but he should not be used on his own." Votes: +0

Years ago, as a young lad, the leaders of the group of Christians I associated with warned against reading commentaries before we read our Bibles. They taught me that the Bible is its best commentator and that I need to read the Bible first and foremost and try to let God speak through it before I listened to men's voices. These folks. however, would quote Matthew Henry or WE Vine and perhaps FF Bruce without hesitation though, but any others, and they are a tad shy. Then later, I was trained by another group of teachers who again emphasized the role of the Holy Spirit in teaching the Scriptures. These teachers emphasized the use of Biblical tools such as Bible Dictionaries and Concordances. They taught me the story of the student, the professor and the fish, highlighting the value of repeated, exhaustive observations. Later on when I got into formal Biblical education, I was taught to read commentaries, but I still do so only after I have done my own original work. I am able to appreciate the different perspectives that different commentators approach the same passage once I have done the hard work of struggling with the texts directly. However, it does take hard work. These days, I find myself either lazy or constrainted for time to use that method though. It is sometimes easier to just read the fruit of others' hard labor. :laugh: Votes: +0

I wish I had access to a Library so I can try out the books before buying them. In the past I relied often on personal recommendations but that wound up getting me into Kelly's stuff which, although enjoyable, strikes me as mostly devotionals. I'm a big fan of doing personal studies then reading what others say and realigning accordingly. It's a constant embarrassment that I know absolutely no Hebrew, laughingly small amount of Greek and horrendous English and when reading any commentary I always stumble across the recommendation of making the study of the original languages a lifelong schooling for better understanding of the Bible.

Scholars make mistakes, but they're less willing to go way out in left field if they're going to have someone pounce on you.

This might actually help the blogosphere.

Okay since I have a huge series at church coming up starting in October I wound up pouncing on the following titles:

Wenham's Word commentary on Genesis vol 1 (i'll buy volume 2 in a few weeks)
Hamilton's NICOT
Davis Paradise to Prison
and I was looking through my shelves stoking my recollection and noted I had William Kelly's Pentateuch and, of course, CHM's Genesis to Deuteronomy.

This has been Extremely helpful. Votes: +0

Keil and Delitzsch is $200,

but you can get it on CD-ROM for $136,
http://www.gbibooks.com/final.asp?id=40950
or free with e-Sword.
http://www.e-sword.net/

Also available free at e-Sword are:
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
John Darby's Synopsis of the Bible
Geneva Bible Translation Notes
John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament
Scofield's Reference Notes
The People's New Testament (B. W. Johnson)
The Treasury of David (C. H. Spurgeon)
Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Vincent's Word Studies
John Wesley's Notes on the Bible

Jeremy, you are just as right (or wrong) as I am when you say MacArthur is not 99% correct. Its an opinion, not a provable fact. Votes: +0

Wow, look what my links did to your format. Sorry. Votes: +0

no problem. B)

i didn;t know this was on e-sword!!:thumbup: Votes: +0

Rey - I would agree with The Bloke that personal Bible study before commentaries is important. Our own wrestling with text helps us to appreciate how others have wrestled and tends to leave us a tad bit more open to the idea that others may have ideas that aren't heretical...just different.

Some commentaries I'd recommend:

The Expositors Bible Commentary Series. Though sometimes not as in depth as I'd like compared to some of the other commentaries, it gives a significant amount of information. I also appreciate commentaries written by different authors since then the focus can be on people who have spent considerable time looking at the nuances of a particular book rather than trying to get a much smaller group of people (person) trying to grapple the whole OT or NT.

I found Carson's commentary on John the most readable commentary that I've ever read. It is in depth, wrestles with difficult passages and comes up with some good answers.

I know this'll get everyone riled up, but I appreciate using The Message as a commentary on all Scripture....Though it doesn't give the reasoning behind why it translates how it does, it functions in much the same as a commentary. Just to throw that up to wake everyone up on Monday morning :laugh:

And finally, though I've not used it as much, it is always interesting to go to the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scriptures which takes several of the church fathers and outlines their comments on particular passages. Its different in that they rarely try to define what the Greek nuances are, etc. that we expect in our contemporary commentaries. However, they do, again, bring a sense of perspective to what we are teaching.

Rey, on a side note, I think you live in the NY area. There must be schools or churches in the area that have libraries that you would be able to view some of these materials prior to purchasing....? Votes: +0

I'm in Queens so whenever I go to the Library they have absolutely nothing. The main branch in Manhattan probably has a bunch of stuff but since I work so far from it commuting there proves difficult.

What's the general rules for getting into a University Library? Does anyone know? As a St. John's grad I had access to a ton of great books but I don't know how that pans out when you've long since graduated...

As for studying, heck yeah...always do my own study first then I redo my work post-commentary reading realigning points the commentator has brought up or rejecting some points outright. Votes: +0

You should be able to get any book through interlibrary loan. That's what my brother does. You don't need to have access to a university library to look at books from university libraries. They don't give you enough time to read an academic book, but it's enough time to judge whether it's worth buying the book. Votes: +0

I've lived in New York City for 31 years, spent most of my childhood reading books in the library, graduated from St. John's University and never knew that you could make a request at your public library for books from other libraries. My wife is looking at me like I have two heads.

Thanks man. Votes: +0