Commentary recommendations on Colossians

[djmorris1984]

Hello everyone,

 

I am very much considering the WBC set currently on sale (it would be my first commentary set), but it lacks a few volumes, so wanted recommendations for Colossians. By the way, I am definitely “Evangelical” in my view of Scripture, but it’s okay to get a different kind, if it is a commentary of good depth that will increase my understanding of God’s word. I am leaning towards one of the following

 

   Dunn (NITGC) vs. Moo (Pillar)

 I hear that both are highly regarded. I am leaning towards Dunn, because I can work through the Greek. But I also hear he does not believe in Paul as the author. This doesn’t detract me all that much, because I hear he is great on backgrounds, and that would be interesting to learn (even if I disagree on some parts overall), and the work as a whole is regarded well. I hear also that Moo is also very solid, and references Dunn also, though maybe less strong on backgrounds? But I hear it is strong overall. So I think either would be good, but just want anyone’s thoughts

 

 

 

Thanks very much!

 

Daniel

[Brian W. Davidson]

You can’t go wrong with either but if I could only have one it would be Moo. He is a go-to with anything he writes. He’s just a model of a rigorous, reasonable, charitable evangelical scholar. 

[Roy Phillips]

Moo is very good, but personally, I would choose Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Colossians/Philemon (Beale).

 

Grits

[Enoch]

Interesting if Dunn rejected Paul's authorship of Colossians, as I thought the general non-evangelical theory was that Paul was not the author of Ephesians (rather than Colossians), even if the claim were that the theology is "Pauline."  Since both texts overtly state that Paul authored them, I think the general Evangelical position would be that if a person denies the self-evident, he has no basis upon which to conduct logic, all logic depending upon self-evident truths (givens).  Of course there may be quite a difference of opinion as to what an "evangelical" is.  Are you sure that Dunn rejects Paul as author? I am curious as to why Word Biblical Commentary reportedly (by Accordance) requested that their Volume on Colossians-Philemon be withdrawn from sale? I have not scrutinized that volume.  My recommendation on Colossians would be John Eadie, a classic.  Somebody posted that what John Eadie wrote is "pure gold. He was simply the best exegete of his generation."  I generally prefer on the NT commentaries with the Greek text at the top of the page & comments below it, like Alford's Greek Testament, though I don't recommend Alford's soteriology.  But he will discuss the Greek words of the text.  As I recall Eadie is one such commentary.  Also, I generally prefer commentaries written when the authors had been taught Greek and the classics from childhood, indicating a grasp of Greek vastly superior to most modern "scholars."  I look not for those who eat up the page with platitudes, but those who analyze the Greek, not that I oppose spiritual applications.  I like to see comments like, "Polybius used the same Greek structure in his History of the Roman Republic," with a quotation from him.

Edited October 5, 2021 by Enoch

[djmorris1984]

Hello Enoch,

 

I of course have not read the Dunn volume in NITGC (obviously, otherwise I would not be here with the question), but I have seen many reviews say that he questions Paul’s authorship (he supposes Timothy? apparently). So, to me the claim seems far-fetched, and I totally believe Paul wrote it, and Colossians really feels like it matches so well with other letters. But anyway...getting off topic. If Dunn is strong in other areas, it might still be a purchase possibility, and on the commentary websites it is well regarded.. That’s why I asked.

 

As for why Word Biblical pulling Colossians, I believe Peter O’Brien was the author and he did not cite his sources correctly. The volume was apparently really good, but not citing the sources properly did cause an issue.

 

That’s all that I know!

Edited October 5, 2021 by djmorris1984

[djmorris1984]

Thank you Brian for the Moo vote, and Roy for mentioning Beale.

I assume Beal uses the Greek quite a bit.

 

In addition to anyone else’s personal recommendation for Colossians, I have just come across Zondervan Exegetical by David Pao, which seems good.

Any thoughts?

 

Starting to get harder to choose! (no bad thing at all)

Edited October 5, 2021 by djmorris1984

[Rev. Dr. Timothy M. Hall]

10 hours ago, djmorris1984 said:

As for why Word Biblical pulling Colossians, I believe Peter O’Brien was the author and he did not cite his sources correctly. The volume was apparently really good, but not citing the sources properly did cause an issue.

This is correct. Unfortunately, this was an issue with several of his commentaries that have been pulled by their publisher (O'Brian's Hebrews & Ephesians in Pillar were casualties to this as well)

[docdave]

17 hours ago, djmorris1984 said:

By the way, I am definitely “Evangelical” in my view of Scripture, but it’s okay to get a different kind, if it is a commentary of good depth that will increase my understanding of God’s word.

 

My view is kind of opposite from Daniel's on the first point, but exactly the same on the second. This looks like a really great deal on WBC, but my initial concern was that maybe this commentary series would be too "Evangelical" for me. I would welcome any advice that might disabuse me of this notion.

[Enoch]

1 hour ago, docdave said:

 

My view is kind of opposite from Daniel's on the first point, but exactly the same on the second. This looks like a really great deal on WBC, but my initial concern was that maybe this commentary series would be too "Evangelical" for me. I would welcome any advice that might disabuse me of this notion.

 

Lest you be abused, I advise the following:  Just scan the commentary & look for the following:

1) claim that somebody other than the expressed author wrote it;

2) claim that the book was not originally one book, but a compilation of several original books (with an ingenious ordering of those originals);

3) claim that the teaching which naively seems to be by Paul is actually his opponents' teaching & not Paul's own (e.g. Gnostics);

4) claim that the place of writing is not what has been traditionally held (e.g., imprisonment epistles not written from Rome, but Ephesus);

5) ingenious imaginary historical circumstances with heavy reading between the lines.

6) Consider the ecclesiastical position, doctrinal position, PC correctness position,&  theological spectrum position, of the publisher.

Edited October 5, 2021 by Enoch