DavidH

Bergant's AOTC Lamentations is readable and literarily sensitive, but contains problems serious enough to warrant caution. Most concerning is a persistent pattern of framing God's character negatively: she dismisses omniscience and omnipotence as "not really biblical" (a claim contradicted by Ps 139, Jer 32, and her own subsequent exegesis); she labels God's actions in chapter 3 "divine brutality" as her own theological verdict rather than as the sufferer's lament rhetoric; she repeatedly asks whether God's punishment was "excessive" or "vindictive," which cuts against the text's own declaration that "the LORD is in the right" (1:18); and she flatly asserts that "the voice of God is never heard" in the book, overlooking 3:57 where God explicitly speaks ("Do not fear"). Other unusual moves include raising — as a genuine open question — whether the mothers who cannibalized their children were morally wrong, apparently finding the mothers' intent to survive a mitigating factor, whereas every other commentary treats these passages (Lam 2:20; 4:10) with unambiguous horror as the nadir of devastation and the covenant curses of Deuteronomy 28 in their most extreme form. She also states a methodological commitment to avoid historical presuppositions that she then ignores throughout. These tendencies are compounded by a selective bibliography that omits significant pre-2003 evangelical works (Harrison TOTC, Kaiser, Huey NAC), meaning perspectives that read Lamentations within a robust doctrine of God — affirming divine justice, covenant faithfulness, and the ultimate goodness of God's discipline — are largely absent from the conversation and contribute to the commentary's overall theological tilt. Useful as a supplementary voice on poetic structure, but a poor first choice.

Horsley's 1 Corinthians (ANTC, 1998) brings useful social-historical colour to the Corinthian context but is seriously compromised by a totalising socio-political hermeneutic that consistently subordinates Paul's theology to an anti-imperial agenda — framing Paul from the outset as "a third-world missionary," an anachronistic postcolonial label that is more rhetorical positioning than historical description, and then reducing the cross to "God's political action" against Rome with atonement for sin mentioned almost in passing, reframing the resurrection as "an imminent worldwide political event" rather than a redemptive eschatological reality, treating the Lord's Supper primarily as political-communal boundary maintenance, and describing love in chapter 13 as Paul's tool for "building a countersociety" — robbing each of these of its directly theological character. God himself is reduced to a "divine estate-owner" operating through Roman-style patronage categories. Several exegetical positions are either idiosyncratic or indefensible: he argues that 11:2–16 "fits so poorly into the context" that it is a later interpolation, and that 15:56 is "probably a gloss" — both conclusions drawn without a shred of manuscript evidence; he follows Countryman's fringe reading of malakoi and arsenokoitai as "masturbators" and "male prostitutes" and then draws the remarkable conclusion that "the list in 6:9 provides no indication that Paul considered [homosexual relations] to be sinful" — a position contradicted by Fee, Thiselton, Ciampa/Rosner, Barrett, and virtually every major technical commentary; and he dismisses 8:6 as "a foreign body in the midst of a genuine Pauline letter," effectively evacuating one of Paul's most significant Christological statements. A glaring internal inconsistency undermines his central thesis: he denies any demonic dimension to the "rulers of this age" in chapter 2 in order to sustain his purely political reading, yet in chapter 10 he acknowledges that Paul genuinely believed idol worship involved fellowship with demons. Paul himself is repeatedly characterised as "arrogant," "insecure," "paternalistic," and even employing "psychic coercion," and the dedication — "To the many many women and slaves who suffered because of what 'Paul' wrote and how that was used" — with its scare-quoted "Paul," signals an adversarial posture toward both the apostle and the text from the very first page. Valuable for its social-historical background, but its theological judgments must be checked carefully against more balanced treatments such as Fee, Thiselton, or Ciampa/Rosner.

McCann's Judges (Interpretation, 2002) offers genuine value in its canonical framing, its tracing of the book's progressive deterioration motif, and its pastoral attentiveness to the role of women — but it carries significant theological baggage that warrants caution. Most seriously, McCann repeatedly limits divine sovereignty: he explicitly states that "God cannot prevent" injustice and violence, that God's "quality of life is diminished" by human sin, and that God "risks" the failure of his purposes — all formulations drawn from Fretheim's open-theist leanings rather than from the text itself. He even parenthetically describes God as among "the big losers" in the Samson narrative, a stark contrast to Block's well-grounded conclusion that "the true hero in the book is God and God alone." Hermeneutically, McCann advocates a "hermeneutic of suspicion toward Scripture" and reduces the Canaanites to a purely symbolic code-word for oppressive social systems — a move that dissolves the historical seriousness of the text and creates an unresolved logical tension: real battles, real deaths, but victims who are only metaphors. His identification of Jephthah's daughter as the primary Christ-type in Judges is directly rejected by Butler's WBC as "going too far," and is internally inconsistent with McCann's own insistence that suffering is not inherently redemptive. Useful for its homiletical creativity, but needs to be read alongside Block (NAC), Webb (NICOT), or Younger (NIVAC) for a theologically reliable treatment.

Perkins's First and Second Peter, James, and Jude (Interpretation, 1995) is a competent pastoral commentary with useful social-contextual background on 1 Peter and solid epistolary analysis, but it carries several serious problems that teachers and preachers should weigh carefully. Most critically, on 1 Pet 1:10–12 Perkins does not merely note interpretive complexity — she explicitly tells readers that 1 Peter's argument is wrong, asserting that "we cannot suppose, as 1 Peter argues, that God had only the Christian community of faith in mind throughout the Old Testament," and then suggesting that Jews may be "obedient to the word of the Lord in the law and the prophets without being obedient to the word of the gospel" — a two-covenant theological position contradicted by every letter she is expounding and introduced without exegetical justification. On James 5:7–8, she confidently asserts that the parousia tou kyriou refers to God the Father rather than Jesus Christ, a minority position directly contradicted by Martin (WBC), McCartney (BECNT), Blomberg/Kamell (ZECNT), and Moo (PNTC), all of whom identify the language as the standard early Christian technical term for Christ's return. She describes the difficult passage 1 Pet 3:18–22 as the text "confusing" its own sequence — unusual and theologically troubling language for a preaching commentary. Her dismissal of apostolic authorship across all four books is stated with more confidence than the divided scholarly field warrants (Bauckham, Moo, and McCartney all argue substantively for authenticity of Jude, James, and 1 Peter respectively), and she never resolves the logical inconsistency of invoking apostolic authority for letters she regards as pseudonymous — since the only reason these letters ever carried that authority is that the church believed apostles wrote them; if it had known otherwise from the start, they would not have been canonized. The commentary's opening frames these letters as "marginal indeed" to the apostolic faith and introduces a parishioner who wasn't sure there was "anything there" — a dismissive posture toward canonical Scripture that stands in striking contrast to the enthusiasm with which McCartney calls James urgently relevant for our age, Blomberg and Kamell call it "probably the first NT document written" and "our roots," and Bauckham argues Jude is a unique and irreplaceable Jewish-Christian witness. Best used cautiously, as a supplement for its social-historical material on 1 Peter, but not as a primary resource for preaching or theological formation.

Brown's Ecclesiastes (Interpretation, 2000) is elegantly written and pastorally imaginative, with real strengths in its treatment of joy, work, and the carpe diem passages. Several concerns, however, warrant caution. He uses the Gilgamesh Epic as his primary interpretive lens throughout, well beyond what the evidence supports; Krüger (Hermeneia) calls broader dependence claims "pure hypothetical speculation," and Seow (AB) treats the parallels as shared cultural themes, not literary dependence. His heading "Cosmos without Creation" (on 1:3–7), arguing that God "does not appear to be involved," is exegetically extreme and inconsistent with his own later affirmations that God gives every good gift and receives the life-breath back (12:7); Seow, Bartholomew (BCOT), and Longman (NICOT) more accurately read 1:3–7 as a rhetorical omission of creation, not a cosmological denial. He describes the epilogue as "blunting the book's subversive edge" — privileging Qoheleth's autonomous voice over the canon's framing device — while criticising Longman for separating Qoheleth's theology from the book's, a mirror-image of the same move. His reading of 7:16 as prescribing moral "balance" between righteousness and wickedness misleads preachers; Fox (JPSTC) and Seow more accurately read it as warning against perfectionist scrupulosity. The epilogue imports Bonhoeffer's contested "living without God" as an interpretive key and characterises God as "the God of small things" (Arundhati Roy's ironic novel title) — framings that risk portraying God as passive and marginal, contrary to Qoheleth's own insistence that God judges, gives, and determines all (3:14; 5:2; 11:9). Brown also invokes Bildad to critique Job's lament, overlooking that God vindicates Job and condemns Bildad in Job 42:7; and he draws a positive parallel between Qoheleth's joy and the medium at Endor, whose divination the law explicitly forbids (Lev. 19:31). Useful homiletically, but best read alongside Seow, Fox, or Bartholomew.

Towner's Daniel (Interpretation, 1984) is readable and pastorally warm, but its foundational framework is seriously compromised. Its most pervasive problem is a categorical denial of predictive prophecy — stated not as a debated position but as settled fact ("human beings are unable accurately to predict future events centuries in advance") — which is essentially the 3rd-century pagan philosopher Porphyry's antisupernatural argument dressed in incarnational language. From this premise flows a series of escalating problems: Daniel is declared "a non-historical personage" and his narratives "a work of fiction" (described, remarkably, as "good news"), despite Jesus's own explicit reference to "the prophet Daniel" in Matthew 24:15. Most troubling of all, Towner states outright that "the eschaton failed" and "the prophet failed to call history correctly" — charging inspired Scripture with error while simultaneously trying to affirm its theological truth claims, a logical contradiction the commentary never resolves. He also states in the Introduction that for the oppressed, "the greatest source of hope lay not in God's mercy, but in his wrath" — a formulation that directly contradicts Daniel 9:18, where hope is grounded explicitly in God's "great mercy." Historical problems compound these theological ones: Darius the Mede is dismissed as fiction without engaging Wiseman's or Whitcomb's serious counterarguments; a factual error places Antiochus III "recapturing Antioch" from Ptolemy (Antioch was always Seleucid territory); and Ginsberg's minority interpolation theory for the Daniel 9 prayer is accepted without scrutiny. Useful for its literary and applicational insights, but its critical presuppositions must be handled with considerable caution throughout.

Bechtel's Esther (Interpretation, 2002) is warmly written and structurally perceptive, with helpful observations on the book's banquet structure and the theme of proportion among characters. However, several significant problems limit its usefulness. Most seriously, Bechtel applies a canoe metaphor — explicitly defined as achievable "only with a lot of exhausting effort, and even then, not always successfully" — to God's own providential working ("even God sometimes chooses to steer from the front"), producing a theologically reductive picture of divine sovereignty that no other major Esther commentary endorses; she also describes God as "notoriously elusive," an unfortunate choice of language. Her interpretive positions include a number of unsupported novelties: she floats the idea that Mordecai's refusal to bow was "a fit of pique" driven by jealousy; she reads Mordecai's urgent words to Esther in 4:13–14 as "a thinly veiled threat" to expose her identity — a reading found in no other commentary; and she treats Sandra Berg's speculative homophone theory (that Ahasuerus may have misheard "destroy" as "enslave") as a foundational interpretive key to chapters 3 and 7, when virtually no other major commentary adopts it. She also contains a chronological inaccuracy, claiming Xerxes "was off fighting the Battle of Salamis" when Esther was presented to him, when Salamis preceded Esther's arrival by some three months. Internally, her "proportionality" framework produces a logical inconsistency: she blames Mordecai for "getting the people of God into this mess" with a rash refusal, yet simultaneously celebrates his being honored "in proportion to his merits." Her governing theological framework of "critical compromise" as a model for modern Christians is applied without adequate engagement with the moral and covenantal failures of Esther and Mordecai — a dimension taken more seriously by Jobes (NIVAC), Tomasino (EEC), and Duguid (REC). Best used as a devotional supplement; serious exegetical work should rely on Levenson (OTL), Bush (WBC), or Jobes (NIVAC).

Cook's Genesis (New Collegeville Bible Commentary, 2011) is a readable popular-level introduction, but it is marred by serious problems that limit its reliability. It presents the Documentary Hypothesis in its classical Wellhausenian form as settled fact, without acknowledging that the consensus has collapsed even within critical scholarship. More troubling are several derogatory characterizations of God: Cain's rejected offering is described as "troubling" and seemingly evidence that "God plays favorites" — ignoring the text's own distinction between Abel's choicest firstlings and Cain's unqualified produce; God's response at Babel is framed as a defensive move to avoid "a recurrence of chaos," implying an anxious, reactive deity; the flood narrative says God's grief "announces God's realization that something is out of place," the word "realization" implying prior ignorance; and Abraham is said to "persuade the Lord to think again about this plan that is out of character for the Deity" at Sodom, suggesting God required human moral correction. Additional unusual positions include the claim that Melchizedek's "God Most High" was "the chief deity among the Canaanite gods" — ignoring Abram's own identification of El Elyon with Yahweh in the very next verse — and the assertion that identifying Dinah as Leah's daughter "casts her in a negative light," a reading unsupported by any major commentary. The volume also contains a notable logical inconsistency, praising Abraham's silence as obedience in earlier chapters while calling his silence before God in Genesis 22 "problematic." Readers wanting an accessible Catholic commentary on Genesis would be better served elsewhere.

Meyers' Exodus (NCBC, 2005) is a learned work with genuine strengths: her Egyptian and ancient Near Eastern contextualisation is expert, her attention to literary technique is careful, and her recovery of female figures in the narrative is welcome. However, the commentary is controlled by a "mnemohistory" framework that consistently replaces the text's own theological claims with sociological analysis — treating the exodus not as God's acts in history but as Israel's "collective cultural memory," Moses not as the inspired covenant mediator but as "a larger-than-life figure, if not a demi-god" comparable to George Washington, and the Passover not as a divinely commanded memorial but as a repurposed agricultural festival. This framework produces a series of serious problems: the plagues are described as "neither miraculous nor unusual" once stripped of "exaggerated language"; the death of Egypt's firstborn is mitigated by declaring it "ahistorical"; and Exodus 34:6–7 — the theological climax of the book — is treated as an interesting creedal formula rather than the supreme self-disclosure of the God of mercy. Most damaging is Meyers' claim that in Exodus 32 "Moses comes off better than God — representing mercy and forgiveness in contrast with God's unremittingly punitive stance," a reading sourced from Whybray's "immorality of God" thesis that is both exegetically indefensible (it contradicts the text's own disclosure in 34:6–7) and internally inconsistent (Meyers herself writes, in the same section, that "God can be both punitive and merciful"). Throughout, divine commands are framed as community policy, the holiness concept is explained partly as property-protection strategy, the Canaanite expulsion passages are labelled "ethnic cleansing," and the kappōretis stripped of atonement theology in favour of a "neutral" translation. Readers wanting sociocultural background to Exodus will find much of value here; those seeking a commentary that takes seriously what the text claims about the God who redeems, covenants, and dwells among his people should look to Childs, Fretheim, Sarna, or Moberly instead.

Van Wijk-Bos writes fluently and gives welcome attention to narrative texture and female characters, drawing well on Fokkelman and Alter. However, the commentary has limitations serious enough to warrant caution. Most concerning is its characterisation of God: she explicitly calls the God of Samuel "inscrutable, cruel, and capricious" (on 2 Sam 24), states that "God can evidently make mistakes," dismisses Samuel's canonical declaration about divine immutability (1 Sam 15:29) as "obviously wrong," and describes the portrayal of God in the census episode as "decidedly offensive" — language absent from every other major Samuel commentary, including the most critically liberal (McCarter AYB, Auld OTL, Klein WBC, Anderson WBC). She unambiguously labels the David-Bathsheba encounter "rape" as settled fact — a contested minority position rejected by all comparison commentaries, which use "adultery" — while elsewhere criticising readers for anachronism, an inconsistency that typifies the book's deeper methodological tension: she champions patient, ambiguity-embracing reading in principle but reaches hostile verdicts on God's character whenever the text is difficult. She also raises the homoerotic reading of Jonathan and David with unwarranted force, compares David's treatment of Moabite prisoners to Nazi death-camp selections (p. 184), and operates from a declared postmodern framework that treats the material primarily as "myth" — a characterisation unique to this commentary. Best used, if at all, alongside a historically and theologically grounded commentary such as Tsumura (NICOT), Firth (ApOTC), or Bergen (NAC).

Van Wijk-Bos writes accessibly but this commentary has enough shortcomings to warrant caution. She misreads Ezra 3:3 — where the exiles built the altar despite their fear of neighbours — as if fear were the motivating purpose, and her claim that the foreign-wife expulsion had "no precedent in the laws anywhere" ignores the Deuteronomic prohibitions she herself quotes nearby; as Williamson (WBC) shows, the issue was not the absence of legal basis but of a prescribed remedy once marriage had occurred. More seriously, she accuses Nehemiah of deliberately inflating the threat from Sanballat — "who can blame Nehemiah if he fanned the fires of rumors a little" — a grave charge no other major commentary supports. She calls Ezra's handling of the intermarriage crisis "cowardly and condemnable behaviour," reduces the community's genuine theological motivation to mere fear and "scapegoating," and is inconsistent in praising creative application of Torah in one passage (Neh 10) while condemning it in another (Ezra 9–10). The Esther section fares no better: her suggestion of a Maccabean date is an older view Berlin (JPSBC) regards as largely abandoned; she dismisses Esther 4:14 ("relief will arise from another quarter") as merely human agency, against the near-consensus of Baldwin, Berlin, Levenson, and Jobes that it is a veiled reference to divine providence; and her flat assertion that "God is not a presence in the book" contradicts commentators who find a theology of hidden sovereignty throughout. Her reading of Esther primarily as a patriarchal critique is what Jobes (NIVAC) calls an "ideological reading" that misses the author's actual concerns. The commentary closes by declaring "there is no hope in the 'letter of the law,' no matter how creatively interpreted" — an unfortunate verdict on the very books being expounded. For better lay-level alternatives: Kidner or Throntveit on Ezra-Nehemiah, Baldwin or Jobes on Esther.

Laughlin's Reading Joshua (Smyth & Helwys, 2015) brings genuine archaeological competence to the table — his survey of the LBA/Iron Age I transition, his treatment of extra-biblical inscriptions, and his discussion of DH literary structure are all solid — but the volume is fatally compromised by an ideological agenda that overwhelms its scholarship. From the preface onward, Laughlin treats the non-existence of God not as a methodological bracket but as a settled conclusion, repeatedly characterizing Yahweh as a "killer god," "celestial despot," and "xenophobic and genocidal deity," and approvingly quoting Dawkins, Hitchens, and — remarkably — Archie Bunker as theological authorities. He claims agnosticism while practicing atheism, invokes the "comfortable theory" warning against scholarly bias without applying it to himself, and calls for tentativeness in archaeological conclusions while simultaneously declaring the Jericho and Ai stories "abundantly clear" fictions. His false dichotomy between naïve "literalists" and evasive "decoders" leaves no conceptual room for the serious theological-historical scholarship of commentators like Nelson, Butler, Hess, or Firth. There is also a striking internal contradiction: the series editor's foreword explicitly states that the Reading the Old Testament series aims to present the Bible "as authoritative Scripture" and hopes its scholarship will "water the faith of another generation," yet Laughlin announces in his preface that he will not assume Joshua is "the 'word' of the god, Yahweh" — a repudiation of the series' stated mission that the editor appears not to have anticipated. As a commentary proper, the book also disappoints: despite offering fresh translations of the Hebrew, actual exegesis is frequently thin, with large sections of chapters 13–21 receiving little more than perfunctory translation notes, and the sustained attention to narrative structure, rhetorical strategy, and theological implication found in Butler (WBC), Nelson (OTL), Hess (TOTC), or Firth (EBTC) is largely absent — the volume reads more as an extended archaeological and ideological essay that uses Joshua as its occasion. Even at the level of individual passages, the approach misfires: on the spies "lying down" in Rahab's house, Laughlin volunteers that "knowing human nature, sex would be my guess" — a conjecture with no lexical basis in the standard Hebrew verb shakav, one that every other serious commentator reads simply as lodging, and that demeans Rahab while misleading readers about what the text actually says. A fabricated mocking epitaph for Joshua — complete with scotch and cigars — and a closing recommendation that the book simply be "put on the shelf" confirm that this is advocacy, not commentary. It can be read as a representative of the skeptical-minimalist position, but should always be paired with more balanced critical works such as Nelson (OTL) or Butler (WBC), and readers should be forewarned that its hostile tone and sweeping dismissals do not reflect the mainstream of historical-critical scholarship.

Brayford’s 2007 Brill volume comments on the Greek Septuagint of Genesis (specifically Codex Alexandrinus), and its philological attention to Greek translation technique is the work’s strongest feature. However, a persistent and undisclosed theological agenda significantly compromises its value as a commentary. Most pervasively, God is characterised across the entire narrative as jealous, reactive, insecure, and self-protective in ways that are presented as straightforward description rather than acknowledged interpretive choices. In Genesis 3, his expulsion of Adam is described as “the first subtle instance of the jealousy that will become one of his chief characteristics,” driven by the need to protect his own uniqueness from creatures who might acquire immortality — a framing that makes God’s action indistinguishable from self-interested rivalry. At Babel, God’s confusion of tongues is presented as frustration that humans were accomplishing more than he “wanted them to do,” casting divine judgment as the suppression of human potential rather than a response to hubris. In the Akedah, God’s command to Abraham is described as “the most heinous of God’s instructions,” a stark moral verdict that stands against the text’s own evaluative grain, which presents the episode as the pinnacle of covenant faithfulness. Genesis 3 itself is recast as a coming-of-age story rather than a fall narrative, with the expulsion from the garden as healthy developmental growth, a reading that conveniently coheres with the diminished God on display throughout. Taken together, these readings produce a portrait of a deity who is threatened by human capability, prone to jealousy, and given to extreme measures to preserve his own prerogatives — a characterisation more reminiscent of the capricious gods of pagan mythology than the sovereign Creator of the biblical text, and one that no serious commentator in either the Jewish or Christian tradition, critical or conservative, has endorsed. Readers will find it useful as a Septuagintal linguistic resource but should treat its theological conclusions with considerable caution.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Walter Brueggemann’s Genesis is a creative, pastorally engaged commentary, but also one of the less exegetically controlled. Its strength is its ability to keep Genesis theologically urgent for the church through promise, conflict, and divine freedom; its weakness is that this same energy often overrides historical, literary, and structural discipline. His church-facing method, his use of the United Church of Christ’s Statement of Faith as a governing framework, his selective appeal to historical criticism, and his rapid move from Genesis to New Testament fulfillment often blur the line between exegesis and theological appropriation. His most vulnerable readings include the downplaying of Genesis 3 and the entrance of sin by insisting that chapter 3 must not control chapter 4 and that Cain “is not fallen,” which weakens the narrative continuity between Eden and Cain’s violence; the claim that Yahweh’s rejection of Cain reflects “capricious freedom,” which makes God the effective cause of Cain’s crisis while still demanding Cain’s responsibility; and a weak structural judgment that resolves the Joseph story too early, minimizing the real closure of Genesis 48–50, where family drama becomes tribal destiny, providence is made explicit in 50:20, the land promise is reasserted through burial in Canaan, and Genesis ends by looking toward Exodus rather than simply settling Joseph in Egypt. The result is a commentary with real interpretive interest, but one best read alongside more textually and methodologically disciplined works.

Brueggemann’s Deuteronomy is a vivid, morally serious, and often penetrating theological commentary, especially strong on covenantal rhetoric, social ethics, land, debt, and royal power under Torah. Its chief limitation is exegetical and methodological: compared with Driver, Weinfeld, McConville, and Merrill, he leans too heavily on Josianic and exilic framing and gives too little weight to philological, geographical, treaty-form, and legal counterevidence. The clearest example is his reading of Deut 4:24–28 as a late vaticinium ex eventu (“prediction after the fact”) because phrases such as “provoke to anger” sound Jeremianic; the argument is circular, assuming the text must be late because it describes exile, whereas Weinfeld and Merrill note that such warnings fit the blessing-and-curse logic of ancient treaty forms and do not by themselves require a late date. He is often more illuminating on rhetorical force than on lexical or compositional detail, and at times reads centralization, war, and some family laws more through modern ethical sensibility than through their ancient covenantal logic. The result is a stimulating and often profound commentary, but one stronger as theological and homiletical exposition than as tightly argued critical exegesis.

Biddle’s Deuteronomy is thoughtful and often pastorally stimulating, especially on covenant and Deuteronomy’s canonical significance, but it is uneven as a primary scholarly guide. As Longman notes, Biddle’s introduction creates a straw man on Mosaic authorship: he suggests conservatives treat any doubt that Moses wrote every word of the Pentateuch as irreverent or heretical, yet evangelical commentators such as Thompson, Craigie, Block, Arnold, and Merrill all allow some degree of post-Mosaic shaping while still preserving substantial Mosaic origin or authority. The volume also contains avoidable errors and inconsistencies: Biddle says observant Jews “twice daily donned” phylacteries at “morning and evening prayers,” but Thompson and Tigay note weekday morning use, not evening prayer; and on asherim he calls them “probably phallic fertility symbols” in one place but elsewhere “wooden carvings in the form of stylized trees, probably date palms,” with Thompson, Weinfeld, Nelson, Arnold, and Christensen supporting the latter view. His Decalogue-grid for chapters 12–26 is also often strained: McConville says it has only “some cogency” and is “not wholly convincing at every point,” and Biddle’s assignment of 14:1–21 to misuse of the divine name is a particularly weak example. The sidebar-heavy SHBC format can also drift from exposition into contemporary political discussion, so that application sometimes overtakes careful textual analysis. Best used for pastoral reflection, it is less reliable where its structural theories or applications outrun the evidence.

Walter Brueggemann’s First and Second Samuel is a vivid, provocative, and often brilliant commentary whose great strength lies in literary and theological imagination: he reads Samuel as an “artistic” narrative of power, ambiguity, and Yahweh’s hidden sovereignty, and he is especially good at exposing irony, rhetoric, and the moral cost of monarchy. But that same method also creates his main weakness. Brueggemann explicitly sidelines the “immensity of textual problems” and treats “historical” and some “theological” questions as beside the point, even while still speaking of the story as historically reliable; compared with technically grounded commentators like P. Kyle McCarter and especially David Toshio Tsumura, who insist that the text must first be established philologically before literary interpretation can safely proceed, this can feel methodologically inconsistent. His strong sociopolitical lens also sometimes presses the narrative too far in an anti-monarchical direction: compared with Robert Bergen’s more canonical and messianic reading, and with J. Robert Vannoy’s structural case that 2 Samuel 21–24 is a carefully designed conclusion rather than merely an intrusive deconstruction of David, Brueggemann can sound overly partisan and anachronistic. And at least once his rhetoric outruns the evidence: Harry Hoffner explicitly notes that Brueggemann is “clearly in error” to call 2 Sam. 20:24 the first mention of forced labor, since such practices appear already in Joshua and Judges. The result is a commentary that is highly stimulating and memorable, but best used alongside more textually careful and historically controlled works such as McCarter, Tsumura, Bergen, Vannoy, and Hoffner.

Samuel Balentine’s 2006 Smyth & Helwys commentary offers a provocative, post-critical analysis that frequently turns exegetical tensions into radical theological antitheses. While brilliant on reception history, Balentine often escalates daring suggestions into governing theses, such as his controversial rejection of the "euphemism" theory for barak (bless) in Job 1:5 and 2:9, which introduces a logical inconsistency regarding Job’s subsequent sacrifices. He further radicalizes the divine character in 2:3, suggesting a "manipulable" God "coerced" by the satan—a view far more extreme than the "sovereign testing" interpreted by Garrett (EEC) or Andersen (TOTC). By portraying Job as a heroic figure of dissent in his "assault on creation" (Ch. 3), Balentine struggles to reconcile this with the "Patient Job" of James 5:11, creating a disconnect in his contemporary "Connections." This interpretive trajectory culminates in a skeptical view of the "happy ending" (42:7–17), which Balentine dismisses as a "cliché" that fails to address Job’s trauma. This stands in sharp contrast to Hartley (NICOT) and Andersen, who defend the epilogue as a necessary "gesture of grace." Ultimately, by authorizing Job as a uniquely truthful speaker who offers God "redemption," Balentine renders the final form a collection of rival theological strata rather than the profound vindication of piety defended by the broader commentary tradition.

Beverly Roberts Gaventa’s contribution to the Interpretation series offers a distinctively theological and pastoral reading of the Thessalonian correspondence, though it takes several positions that challenge both traditional and technical consensus. Most notably, Gaventa rejects the Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians, categorizing it as a later "Deuteropauline" work—a stance that puts her at odds with the robust defenses of authenticity provided by scholars like Fee and Weima. In doing so, she employs a sharp "nuclear holocaust" analogy to describe the negative reaction of those who equate pseudonymity with "a lie," a rhetorical framing that is highly unusual for an academic commentary and serves to distance her from traditionalist readings. Her interpretation is further marked by a socio-rhetorical emphasis on Paul’s familial metaphors (infant, nurse, orphan) as a deliberate subversion of Greco-Roman patriarchal authority, and a nuanced reading of Ioudaioi as "Judeans" in 1 Thessalonians 2:14–16 to mitigate anti-Jewish interpretations. However, her methodology reveals a significant logical tension: she rejects the theory that the "wrath" passage in 1 Thessalonians is a later interpolation specifically due to a lack of manuscript evidence, yet she simultaneously accepts the pseudonymity of 2 Thessalonians despite its own unblemished manuscript tradition. While insightful for its apocalyptic focus and sensitivity to gendered imagery, Gaventa’s work occasionally prioritizes thematic and sociological frameworks over the strict textual and historical rigor found in more technical volumes like those of Wanamaker or Bruce.

Amy Erickson’s Illuminations volume is a stimulating and learned contribution, distinguished by its extensive reception history and a robust challenge to the anti-Jewish "narrow Jew vs. enlightened Gentile" schema—a critique echoed by scholars like Salters and Elaine Phillips. However, the work is frequently marked by hermeneutical overstatement; her central thesis regarding Protestant ideological bias is viewed by some as rhetorically over-totalizing, while her characterization of God as "capricious" or "suggestible" contrasts sharply with the measured mercy described by Youngblood and Richard Phillips. While her postexilic scribal provenance argument aligns with modern trends, she presses the theory of "scribal literary invention" with a confidence that exceeds the suggestive data provided by more restrained scholars like Nogalski. Methodologically, her fluid genre treatment offers fresh "meta-prophetic" insights but risks a "methodological looseness" when compared to the steadier balance of irony and moral pathos found in Uriel Simon. Most critically, her reading of Jonah 4:11 as an assertion rather than a rhetorical question has been challenged (most notably by Graybill) for undercutting the narrative logic of the Ninevites' repentance and draining the ending of its force. Ultimately, while Erickson provides a brilliant lens for exposing the ethical freight of older readings, her tendency toward polemical framing makes this volume a provocative dialogue partner that is best read alongside steadier guides such as Simon, Sasson, and Graybill.

Walter Brueggemann’s 1 & 2 Kings (Smyth & Helwys) is a vivid, provocative, and often brilliant socio-prophetic reading that shows well how Kings is not mere chronicle but a theological interpretation of public life under YHWH; yet it is less reliable as a commentary than stronger alternatives because its rhetoric and political imagination often outrun the text. Departing from the archaeological, philological, and historical-critical rigor of commentators such as Cogan, Hobbs, and Wiseman, Brueggemann reads the narrative through a pronounced hermeneutic of suspicion, especially in his treatment of Solomon as an imperial, quasi-Pharaonic ruler, and frequently frames Kings through modern political and economic categories that give the volume homiletical punch but can also feel anachronistic. He repeatedly presses genuine insights into overstatement by sharply minimizing the historiographical dimension of Kings, treating chronology as largely inconsequential, presenting suspicions as conclusions, and building large ideological claims on textual silences or narrative “confusions” that other commentators explain more cautiously. The result is a work of real energy, imagination, and theological seriousness, but also one marked by occasional factual slips and logical inconsistency, including the tension between calling Kings our best timeline and insisting it is not really “history” in any meaningful sense. As a secondary, provocative reading partner it is valuable; as a primary guide to what Kings actually says and how securely one may say it, it is markedly weaker than Wray Beal, Cogan/Hobbs, House, or even the more cautious Fretheim and Nelson.

Dobbs-Allsopp is a rich and often brilliant commentary, especially for its literary sensitivity, attention to voice, imagery, and lyric form, and its refusal to soften the book’s pain and protest. My main reservation is that it sometimes presses debated positions too hard: the “Palestinian voice” reconstruction and the city-lament framework are illuminating but more certain than the evidence warrants, and his strong denial of any straightforward hope seems overstated, since passages such as 3:21–24, 4:22, and 5:21 are commonly read by other major commentators as real, if fragile, hope. In short, this is one of the most stimulating modern readings of Lamentations, but best used alongside Berlin, Hillers, House, Wright, or Lalleman for greater balance on historical reconstruction and the theology of hope.

William Johnstone’s SHBC Exodus is an original but highly idiosyncratic outlier, replacing both standard critical models and traditional readings with a “dialogical” scheme of a Deuteronomy-based “D-version” later overlaid by a priestly “P-edition.” That approach yields some provocative ideas, but also several weakly supported ones, including a seven-plague earlier narrative, conflicting Sinai chronologies treated as a “creative debate,” and a tabernacle account read less as wilderness history than as post-exilic theological imagination. His heavy use of medieval art and typology gives the commentary unusual aesthetic depth, but it also moves him further from historical-grammatical control, and his reconstruction risks circularity by treating Deuteronomy as “remembering” a version he dates later. By comparison, Propp, Childs, Davies, and Enns stay closer to established critical discussion, while Alexander, Stuart, Carpenter, Currid, Mackay, and Sarna handle the canonical text with much more restraint. The result is a clever and stimulating commentary, but also a speculative and ultimately less convincing one.

Paul House’s Isaiah is a clear, energetic, and pastorally useful commentary that does a fine job tracing the book’s theological unity and repeated movement from sin to Zion, but its most distinctive argument is also its least convincing: while House joins a small conservative minority in defending single Isaianic authorship, he goes well beyond Motyer, Oswalt, and Young by relocating much of Isaiah 40–66 from the Babylonian exile to the Assyrian era, a move that leaves him isolated not only from critical scholarship but from most conservative interpreters as well. His reading is bold and occasionally stimulating, yet it often feels possibility-driven rather than text-driven, especially in his treatment of exile language, his attempt to read Assyrian deportations where many passages fit sixth-century Babylonian and postexilic realities more naturally, and his highly idiosyncratic handling of Cyrus as an early seventh-century figure from the household of an Assyrian vassal rather than the Persian king almost universally recognized by both critical and evangelical commentators. His view that Isaiah 6 is a redirection of an existing ministry rather than the inaugural call is also possible but depends heavily on reading the book’s order as more strictly chronological than many commentators allow. Overall, this is a stimulating and worthwhile evangelical exposition of Isaiah’s message, but as a guide to historical setting and compositional history it is strained, historically eccentric, and significantly less persuasive than the stronger major commentaries.

Carolyn Sharp’s Joshua is a stimulating, morally serious commentary that brings a strong hermeneutic of resistance to the book’s conquest ideology and refuses to mute its rhetoric of annihilation. But it also overreaches. It contains clear inaccuracies, including the claim that no contemporary English Joshua commentary by a female scholar existed, despite works by Pressler, Dallaire, and Wray Beal, and the claim that children are not mentioned in Joshua, despite explicit references to children asking about the memorial stones and to Achan’s sons and daughters. Methodologically, Sharp is also too absolute in dismissing archaeology’s capacity to test historical claims, in contrast to the more nuanced treatments of Boling, Howard, and Hess. Her ideological lens can flatten Joshua’s internal complexity, especially around figures such as Rahab, Caleb, and the Gibeonites. Most importantly, the commentary never fully resolves its central tension: it calls Joshua sacred and theologically rich while repeatedly resisting its own claims about God’s commands. It is therefore best read as a provocative ethical dialogue partner rather than a balanced guide to Joshua.

O’Connor’s Genesis is a creative and pastorally sensitive commentary, especially strong on suffering, threatened futures, and the experiences of women, but its trauma/exilic framework is often too controlling and more confidently stated than the evidence warrants. That lens can be illuminating in major disaster texts, yet O’Connor never really explains what passages such as Genesis 24, 26, 36, and parts of 47 are doing in a book supposedly shaped primarily as trauma theology; those chapters suggest that Genesis is also preserving kinship memory, tracing genealogical continuity, mapping relations with neighboring peoples, and narrating ordinary providence, not simply processing catastrophe. Readers seeking firmer guidance on literary structure, philology, and narrative flow will usually do better with Wenham or Hamilton, while Goldingay offers a more balanced modern critical alternative. O’Connor is therefore best used as a stimulating supplementary voice rather than a primary Genesis commentary.