Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah

Between O. Palmer Robertson and Richard D. Patterson, I've found this to be the most helpful.

Waylon Bailey's NAC is probably my favorite of all the commentaries I looked at. It isn't so detailed that it's hard to wade through, but he addresses most issues most people might ask of the text unless they're working on an academic paper. He deals with historical, theological and linguistic matters fairly well, and he's also concerned about connections with the New Testament. He's coming from a conservative evangelical perspective, but he's also good at presenting various views. This is my all-around recommendation for seeking the best balance of what I look for in a commentary. It doesn't shirk anything I consider truly important. [Full Review]

At about the same level of difficulty as the NICOT volume, the volume in the NAC series by Barker and Bailey is also a helpful commentary. It is also just as accessible as the NICOT volume. It is not quite as helpful as the NICOT volume, however, on theological issues. [Full Review]

At about the same level of difficulty as the NICOT volume, the volume in the NAC series by Barker and Bailey is also a helpful commentary. It is also just as accessible as the NICOT volume. It is not quite as helpful as the NICOT volume, however, on theological issues. [Full Review]

At about the same level of difficulty as the NICOT volume, the volume in the NAC series by Barker and Bailey is also a helpful commentary. It is alsojust as accessible as the NICOT volume. It is not quite as helpful as the NICOT volume, however, on theological issues. [Full Review]

The New American Commentary series is what I’d consider an entry level pastoral commentary. It’s geared towards pastors and discusses only the most pertinent issues related to the original language. It’s still user friendly enough, though, that a lay person looking for a meatier commentary than the NIVAC or BST would be well served by it. This volume in particular is difficult to rate because the quality is not consistent across both contributors. I read about a third of the section on Micah and all of Habakkuk. I found that Barker was rather dull and unhelpful, while Bailey’s exposition was enlightening.

Things I liked:

The background information in the Habakkuk commentary was outstanding. I particularly enjoyed the discussion of how Habakkuk fit in with the rest of the Minor Prophets. Bailey clearly explained how the Minor Prophets fit together with Habakkuk as the climax of the crisis in the overall plot sketched by the post exilic editor.

Bailey does draw heavily on the work of other scholars. Even though it isn’t the longest commentary out there, I felt that I got a good survey of what scholarship is saying on Habakkuk.

Bailey grasps the theology of Habakkuk very well. I gained clearer insight into the attitude of Habakkuk and how he interacted with God.

Things I didn’t like:

I would have liked a little more help on the grammar. I find the NAC inconsistent on this issue. Some have a substantial amount of footnotes dealing with grammatical issues, some don’t. I would have liked more here.

Pretty much everything about the Micah commentary by Barker. It was short, had little technical help, and was uninspiring.

Conclusion:

If you’re looking for a commentary on Micah, look elsewhere (especially Leslie Allen in the NICOT). If you want a good commentary on Habakkuk (and I assume Nahum and Zephaniah) this would be a good place to start. Bailey possesses the brevity and clarity that all commentators would do well to imitate, and his exposition is enriching, as he forces you to wrestle with the issues, just like Habakkuk did. As an added bonus, Bailey provides you with a wealth of information in the introduction sections. I give Barker 2 stars and Bailey 4.5 stars, so I guess the book gets 4 stars as a whole.

Waylon Bailey's NAC (1999) is probably my favorite of all the commentaries I looked at. It isn't so detailed that it's hard to wade through, but he addresses most issues most people might ask of the text unless they're working on an academic paper. He deals with historical, theological and linguistic matters fairly well, and he's also concerned about connections with the New Testament. He's coming from a conservative evangelical perspective, but he's also good at presenting various views. This is my all-around recommendation for seeking the best balance of what I look for in a commentary. It doesn't shirk anything I consider truly important. [Full Review]

Bailey is very good on Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah. Barker’s Micah is a bonus. Robertson (NICOT, 1990) is rhetorically useful (a good second choice).

Exposition from a conservative evangelical viewpoint. [Full Review]

Exposition from a conservative evangelical viewpoint. [Full Review]

Exposition from a conservative evangelical viewpoint. [Full Review]

Exposition from a conservative evangelical viewpoint. [Full Review]