Ezra-Nehemiah

Williamson’s WBC remains, in my view, the benchmark scholarly commentary on Ezra–Nehemiah. It combines meticulous textual and historical work with unusually influential analysis of the book’s sources, composition and final literary form, and many later commentators are working with questions that Williamson helped to establish. Particularly valuable is his ability to distinguish the probable original setting of material from the theological function it acquires in the completed book, as with Nehemiah 8–10, while his reading of Nehemiah 13 as an intentional anticlimax exposes the inability of external reform finally to change the human heart and points toward the need for deeper covenant renewal. The WBC format and density make it less immediately accessible than some alternatives, and not every compositional reconstruction will persuade, but Williamson is consistently careful, independent and exegetically consequential. For serious study of Ezra–Nehemiah, this remains the commentary against which others should be measured.

A well-respected work from a prominent evangelical scholar. Williams aims to be comprehensive. He incorporates word studies and ample historical background into his careful exegesis. But while the volume is clearly for academics, wider audiences will appreciate the book’s pastoral tone. [Full Review]

Hugh Williamson’s commentary, along with Joseph Blenkinsopp’s, set the standard for critical commentaries on Ezra-Nehemiah in the 1980s. Even though this commentary is approaching 40 years old, it remains the gold standard in its careful treatment of the text, its clear evaluation of the critical issues, and its poignant theological engagement. [Full Review]

very important

The three commentaries on Ezra-Nehemiah I rely on (Williamson, Fensham, Blenkinsopp) were all published around the same time, but still hold up quite well. Williamson is the most technical of the three. If you are willing to work with the somewhat annoying WBC format, this is a wonderful commentary, especially the introduction, which is surprisingly short for a technical commentary (roughly 30 pages) but distilled well, avoiding speculative tangents.

offers an excellent interpretation of these books, with thorough discussion of contemporary scholarship

 

There is not only near-consensus on the best commentary on Ezra and Nehemiah, but also near-consensus on the second best–Williamson’s contribution to the WBC. Williamson takes a more scholarly and technical approach than Fensham, making this a little bit more difficult to read. His strength is in word study, background, customs and the like. With Fensham this should make a pretty good one-two punch in understanding and interpreting the text. [Full Review]

Williamson's commentary is a scholarly standard on these books and should be consulted in conjunction with Fensham's work. There is more technical information in Williamson's work, but it is less user friendly due to the cumbersome format of the WBC. [Full Review]

A judicious survey of the historical and major exegetical issues with an awareness of the archaeological component. [Full Review]