Luke

Nolland's commentary does all the work expected of an academic commentary and it his flashes of insight, but overall it's frustrating due to the fact that he spends more time saying what is not in Mark etc. Too often he says practically nothing. For example on Luke 22v48: "This verse has no counterpart in Mark. The image of betrayal that it creates stands as one of the most powerful ever to have gripped the human imagination. It is not unlikely that for the Son of Man language here Luke draws upon Mark 14:41, of which he made no use in the preceding episode."

Then I go to John Nolland, for whom two volumes was not enough. There are three volumes in his commentary. Now a word for the wise: serious exegesis of this Gospel, which is 24 long chapters, can't be done adequately in short compass. Thus, I don't complain about length [Full Review]

Although just about as comprehensive as Bock, Nolland's massive commentary suffers from the reader-unfriendly format of the WBC. Seminary students will definitely find much of value in this work. [Full Review]

[Full Review]