DavidH

O'Brien's AOTC volume (2004) on Nahum–Malachi is competent in literary analysis and useful in surveying the history of interpretation, but it is seriously compromised by its ideological framework. Most troublingly, she applies derogatory language to God that no other major commentary uses. She calls Yahweh "the rapist" in her treatment of Nahum 3:5–7 and endorses the label "pornoprophetics" for divine actions — a characterisation that is reductive and inflammatory, collapsing the distinction between metaphor and literal description. By contrast, Timmer (ZECOT) reads the same passage as ironic reversal: the attractive prostitute (Nineveh/Ishtar) who consumed her clients is publicly stripped of her glory, with the theological point being Yahweh's dismantling of Assyrian ideology; Robertson (NICOT) and Patterson (WEC) similarly emphasise that God's action is judicial — the exposure of a guilty nation — rather than sexual violence; and Renz (NICOT) discusses the imagery carefully within Ancient Near Eastern conventions of warfare and shame without ever describing God as a perpetrator of sexual assault. Even where scholars acknowledge the difficulty of the imagery (as Renz, Barker, and Bruckner all do), no other major commentary on Nahum equates the metaphorical depiction of a city's fall with divine endorsement of sexual violence. Equally troubling, O'Brien argues (via psychologist Donald Capps) that Malachi's depiction of God as Father "perpetuates the necessary precondition for child abuse" — reasoning that because Malachi portrays God as demanding honour and because authoritarian parenting can lead to abuse, the text itself is complicit. This is a category error: the father-son analogy in Malachi 1:6 functions within the logic of covenant obligation, not domestic violence, as Taylor (NAC) demonstrates by showing the language is rooted in suzerain-vassal loyalty frameworks pervasive in the Ancient Near East and Deuteronomy, and as Verhoef (NICOT) and Hill (TOTC) confirm by treating it as covenantal analogy calling priests to accountability, not servile terror. Her method is also internally inconsistent: she insists the prophetic message cannot be universalised because it is historically contingent, yet universalises twenty-first-century Western feminist ethics as her evaluative standard across all six books — Nahum's imagery assessed against "contemporary views of rape and domestic violence," Malachi's father-son language measured against modern child psychology, Zephaniah's treatment of nations evaluated through postcolonial theory — and she criticises G. A. Smith (1903) for cultural arrogance toward Nahum while applying exactly the same evaluative method with different cultural content, the difference being the substance of the external standard, not the approach. Her reading of Malachi 2:10–16 as entirely about idolatry rather than divorce — including a gender-switch in which Yahweh becomes Judah's "covenant wife," reversing the conventions of the entire prophetic marriage metaphor without any textual signal — is a significant exegetical stretch and a minority position that does not adequately account for the passage's explicitly marital vocabulary (as demonstrated by Taylor [NAC], Verhoef [NICOT], Hill [TOTC], and Hugenberger's monograph). She leans toward a late, post-Assyrian composition of Nahum without adequate defence against the strong arguments for a 663–612 BCE date marshalled by Timmer (ZECOT), Roberts (OTL), Robertson (NICOT), Patterson (WEC), and Barker (NAC). Throughout, her engagement with scholarship is selective, drawing heavily on feminist and ideological critics while largely ignoring evangelical, Reformed, and moderate critical scholars; a reader relying on O'Brien alone would not know that the overwhelming majority of commentators across the theological spectrum treat Nahum's theology of divine justice as theologically legitimate, read Malachi 2:10–16 as at least partly about literal marriage, and affirm that the prophetic books substantially preserve prophetic speech rather than being editorial fictions. Best used as one voice among many, read alongside Renz (NICOT), Timmer (ZECOT), Boda (NICOT/NIVAC), or Robertson (NICOT) for theological balance.

Kovacs & Rowland's Blackwell commentary is a rich reception history tracing Revelation's impact on Western art, theology, and culture, but it has notable weaknesses. Several factual errors undermine confidence: Dionysius of Alexandria is wrongly said to have suggested Cerinthus wrote Revelation (it was Gaius of Rome and the Alogoi; Dionysius explicitly distanced himself from that claim, as Aune's WBC confirms); "2 Esdras 21:31" is cited but 2 Esdras has only 16 chapters; the works-based judgment criterion is attributed to Rev 20:11 when it belongs to 20:12–13; and 1 Cor 6:9 is oddly cited as a "hint of the millennium" when it concerns moral qualifications for the kingdom, not an earthly messianic reign. Theologically, the commentary's most troubling move comes in its Hermeneutical Postscript, which describes Revelation's "catalogue of disaster and destruction, apparently sanctioned by God, its cries for vengeance, and its terrible gloating over the fall of Babylon" as "so contrary to the spirit of Jesus." But Revelation presents itself as "the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him" (1:1), so characterizing its content as contrary to Jesus' spirit effectively sets Christ against his own revelation; Jesus' own teachings include extensive judgment oracles (Matt 23; 25:31–46; Mark 13), and the cry for divine vengeance in Rev 6:10 echoes his parable in Luke 18:7–8; the exultation over Babylon's fall (18:20; 19:1–3), far from "terrible gloating," is rooted in OT precedent (Jer 51:48; Deut 32:43) and reflects the vindication of martyrs — as Beale (NIGTC), Osborne (BECNT), Fanning (ZECNT), Mounce (NICNT), and Schreiner (ESVEC) all argue; and the qualifier "apparently sanctioned by God" introduces doubt about whether the judgments truly reflect God's character, approaching derogation of the divine nature as portrayed in canonical Scripture. Similarly, Jung's reading of the wrathful Lamb as "an aggressive and irascible ram" representing repressed archetypes — effectively treating Christ's wrath as psychological regression from the teaching of divine love — is presented without critique, even though Rev 5–6 deliberately integrates the slain Lamb with the one who opens the seals of judgment, holding sacrificial love and righteous wrath together. Rev 14:4 is flatly stated to commend "male celibacy" despite the dominant scholarly view (Beale, Osborne, Fanning, Koester, Smalley) that the virginity language is metaphorical for faithfulness against idolatry, and the claim that "resistance to the Beast and Babylon can be discerned in all those who instinctively do what is required of them by God (cf. Rom 2:13–14)" imports a contested Pauline passage into Revelation's final judgment to suggest a quasi-universalist ethic unsupported by the text's own language, which ties salvation to the book of life and to those who have "washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb" (7:14; 21:27). Methodologically, while reception history is a legitimate genre, the commentary's practice of presenting hundreds of interpretations side by side — from Victorinus to Blake to liberation theologians — without consistently evaluating them against the text leaves the impression that Revelation's meaning is essentially indeterminate, and the inconsistency of applying critical criteria to some readings (e.g., the Münsterite Anabaptists) but not others (Jung, Adela Collins' catharsis model, Girard's scapegoat theory) weakens its scholarly balance. As a cultural and literary resource the volume is genuinely valuable, but readers seeking exegetical engagement with what Revelation actually says will need to look elsewhere.

Johnstone's two-volume commentary (Sheffield, 1997) offers genuine strengths — his identification of ma'al as a structuring theme, his attention to Masoretic paragraph markers, and his intertextual work linking Chronicles to Leviticus 5–6 and 25–26 are all valuable. However, the commentary is marred by serious problems. Methodologically, his programmatic dismissal of historicity as "at best a distraction," his labelling of Manasseh's repentance and Jehoiakim's exile as the Chronicler's "inventions," and his treatment of narrative data as "moveable counters" go further than even critical scholars like Japhet (OTL) or Knoppers (AYB), and stand sharply at odds with Thompson (NAC), who marshals Assyrian inscriptions supporting the very historicity Johnstone denies; Dillard (WBC) likewise argues that the deviations from orthodox practice in Hezekiah's Passover would be highly unlikely in a fabricated account, and most commentators allow that the differing accounts of Josiah's death may simply reflect different aspects of the same event — mortally wounded at Megiddo, dying upon arrival in Jerusalem — rather than irreconcilable theological constructions. To construct a theology of atonement and holiness from narratives one has already admitted are "inventions" and "moveable counters" is to build on sand by one's own reckoning, and the same self-undermining logic applies to his claim that the Chronicler's prophetic source citations refer to works that "probably never existed" — if an author fabricates his sources, how secure is the theology built upon them? His method compounds the problem: he treats every minute textual variation between Chronicles and Samuel–Kings as theologically significant and deliberate, while acknowledging that some may be accidents of transmission, resolving the tension by fiat ("any changes that exist are deliberate, no matter how small") — creating an unfalsifiable system in which every variation confirms the thesis. Theologically, his opening claim that Chronicles teaches "no easy blotting out of the guilty past" foregrounds legalistic reparation while backgrounding the Chronicler's own repeated celebrations of divine mercy, not least the centrepiece of the Chronicler's forgiveness theology in 2 Chronicles 7:14 — "If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land" — a remarkably gracious and direct promise that sits poorly with Johnstone's framing; the effect is to present a harder, more legalistic picture of God than the text warrants. Several of his distinctive constructs — a jubilee chronology making the exilic generation the "fiftieth from Adam," a "duality in the one Deity," and the elevation of Pharaoh Neco to a "righteous gentile" alongside Cyrus — find no support in any other major commentary. His listing of "consulting the physicians" (2 Chr 16:12) as an abstract theological category of sin alongside idolatry and foreign alliances miscategorises what is specifically a criticism of Asa's failure to seek God — not a blanket condemnation of medical practice — potentially misleading readers about the Bible's stance on medicine, as Selman (TOTC) carefully notes. In short: stimulating to argue with and frequently illuminating on details, but too thesis-driven and too dismissive of the text's historical claims to serve as a reliable guide to what the Chronicler is actually saying.

Johnstone's two-volume commentary (Sheffield, 1997) offers genuine strengths — his identification of ma'al as a structuring theme, his attention to Masoretic paragraph markers, and his intertextual work linking Chronicles to Leviticus 5–6 and 25–26 are all valuable. However, the commentary is marred by serious problems. Methodologically, his programmatic dismissal of historicity as "at best a distraction," his labelling of Manasseh's repentance and Jehoiakim's exile as the Chronicler's "inventions," and his treatment of narrative data as "moveable counters" go further than even critical scholars like Japhet (OTL) or Knoppers (AYB), and stand sharply at odds with Thompson (NAC), who marshals Assyrian inscriptions supporting the very historicity Johnstone denies; Dillard (WBC) likewise argues that the deviations from orthodox practice in Hezekiah's Passover would be highly unlikely in a fabricated account, and most commentators allow that the differing accounts of Josiah's death may simply reflect different aspects of the same event — mortally wounded at Megiddo, dying upon arrival in Jerusalem — rather than irreconcilable theological constructions. To construct a theology of atonement and holiness from narratives one has already admitted are "inventions" and "moveable counters" is to build on sand by one's own reckoning, and the same self-undermining logic applies to his claim that the Chronicler's prophetic source citations refer to works that "probably never existed" — if an author fabricates his sources, how secure is the theology built upon them? His method compounds the problem: he treats every minute textual variation between Chronicles and Samuel–Kings as theologically significant and deliberate, while acknowledging that some may be accidents of transmission, resolving the tension by fiat ("any changes that exist are deliberate, no matter how small") — creating an unfalsifiable system in which every variation confirms the thesis. Theologically, his opening claim that Chronicles teaches "no easy blotting out of the guilty past" foregrounds legalistic reparation while backgrounding the Chronicler's own repeated celebrations of divine mercy, not least the centrepiece of the Chronicler's forgiveness theology in 2 Chronicles 7:14 — "If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land" — a remarkably gracious and direct promise that sits poorly with Johnstone's framing; the effect is to present a harder, more legalistic picture of God than the text warrants. Several of his distinctive constructs — a jubilee chronology making the exilic generation the "fiftieth from Adam," a "duality in the one Deity," and the elevation of Pharaoh Neco to a "righteous gentile" alongside Cyrus — find no support in any other major commentary. His listing of "consulting the physicians" (2 Chr 16:12) as an abstract theological category of sin alongside idolatry and foreign alliances miscategorises what is specifically a criticism of Asa's failure to seek God — not a blanket condemnation of medical practice — potentially misleading readers about the Bible's stance on medicine, as Selman (TOTC) carefully notes. In short: stimulating to argue with and frequently illuminating on details, but too thesis-driven and too dismissive of the text's historical claims to serve as a reliable guide to what the Chronicler is actually saying.

Johnstone's two-volume commentary (Sheffield, 1997) offers genuine strengths — his identification of ma'al as a structuring theme, his attention to Masoretic paragraph markers, and his intertextual work linking Chronicles to Leviticus 5–6 and 25–26 are all valuable. However, the commentary is marred by serious problems. Methodologically, his programmatic dismissal of historicity as "at best a distraction," his labelling of Manasseh's repentance and Jehoiakim's exile as the Chronicler's "inventions," and his treatment of narrative data as "moveable counters" go further than even critical scholars like Japhet (OTL) or Knoppers (AYB), and stand sharply at odds with Thompson (NAC), who marshals Assyrian inscriptions supporting the very historicity Johnstone denies; Dillard (WBC) likewise argues that the deviations from orthodox practice in Hezekiah's Passover would be highly unlikely in a fabricated account, and most commentators allow that the differing accounts of Josiah's death may simply reflect different aspects of the same event — mortally wounded at Megiddo, dying upon arrival in Jerusalem — rather than irreconcilable theological constructions. To construct a theology of atonement and holiness from narratives one has already admitted are "inventions" and "moveable counters" is to build on sand by one's own reckoning, and the same self-undermining logic applies to his claim that the Chronicler's prophetic source citations refer to works that "probably never existed" — if an author fabricates his sources, how secure is the theology built upon them? His method compounds the problem: he treats every minute textual variation between Chronicles and Samuel–Kings as theologically significant and deliberate, while acknowledging that some may be accidents of transmission, resolving the tension by fiat ("any changes that exist are deliberate, no matter how small") — creating an unfalsifiable system in which every variation confirms the thesis. Theologically, his opening claim that Chronicles teaches "no easy blotting out of the guilty past" foregrounds legalistic reparation while backgrounding the Chronicler's own repeated celebrations of divine mercy, not least the centrepiece of the Chronicler's forgiveness theology in 2 Chronicles 7:14 — "If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land" — a remarkably gracious and direct promise that sits poorly with Johnstone's framing; the effect is to present a harder, more legalistic picture of God than the text warrants. Several of his distinctive constructs — a jubilee chronology making the exilic generation the "fiftieth from Adam," a "duality in the one Deity," and the elevation of Pharaoh Neco to a "righteous gentile" alongside Cyrus — find no support in any other major commentary. His listing of "consulting the physicians" (2 Chr 16:12) as an abstract theological category of sin alongside idolatry and foreign alliances miscategorises what is specifically a criticism of Asa's failure to seek God — not a blanket condemnation of medical practice — potentially misleading readers about the Bible's stance on medicine, as Selman (TOTC) carefully notes. In short: stimulating to argue with and frequently illuminating on details, but too thesis-driven and too dismissive of the text's historical claims to serve as a reliable guide to what the Chronicler is actually saying.

Duncan's AOTC Ecclesiastes (2017) offers genuine contributions—her case for retaining "vapor" as a concrete metaphor for hebel is well argued, and her literary analyses are often perceptive—but the commentary is undermined by a systematic theological skew. Her cumulative portrayal of God trends toward the adversarial: God has "stacked the deck" against humanity, "withheld information," and "created barriers to human insight," language that goes well beyond the text's own wrestling with divine inscrutability and that Murphy (WBC) and Krüger (Hermeneia) explicitly warn against (Murphy: "It is a mistake to characterize Qoheleth's God as a 'distant despot'"). This trajectory is reinforced by several interlocking exegetical choices: she reads ḥōṭēʾ in 2:26 as a non-moral category, making God's distribution of blessings appear arbitrary (contra Bartholomew's strong counter-argument in the BCOT); she narrows "fear God" toward existential dread of an opaque sovereign rather than the richer wisdom-tradition concept of relational and covenantal reverence; and she grounds the joy passages more in courageous human acceptance of mortality than in grateful reception of divine gifts, despite the text's repeated "from the hand of God" language. Her heavy reliance on Camus and existentialist philosophy as an interpretive lens, while interesting, tends to secularise the book's theology: what gets noticed is confrontation with mortality and the limits of existence, while what gets minimised is the positive theological content—God as giver of good gifts, creation as fundamentally good, and the enjoyment refrains as genuine affirmations of divine generosity rather than consolation prizes wrested from the void. As Bartholomew warns, Ecclesiastes is wisdom literature rooted in the fear of YHWH, not a proto-existentialist manifesto; the book may resonate with existentialist themes, but making existentialism the hermeneutical key reverses the proper order. Duncan's reading also harbours an unresolved internal contradiction: she affirms that food, drink, and enjoyment are "from the hand of God" (2:24), while simultaneously arguing that God has "stacked the deck against humanity"—yet if God is the generous source of life's good things, the language of rigging the game is at best misleading, and Duncan never adequately reconciles these two portraits. Most problematically, she treats the canonical epilogue (12:13–14) as "fundamentally at odds with the temper of the book" and is explicitly "wary of allowing this voice the last word"—effectively marginalising the conclusion that calls for fearing God and keeping his commandments. Readers will benefit from her literary observations but should be aware that her theological reading is notably darker than what the consensus of scholarship across critical (Seow, Krüger, Crenshaw), evangelical (Bartholomew, Longman, Enns, Kidner, Garrett), Catholic (Murphy, Lohfink), and Jewish (Fox) traditions would support, and should supplement accordingly.

Gowan's Abingdon OT Commentary on Daniel (2001) is readable and pastorally warm, with perceptive literary analysis of the court tales and a moving treatment of Dan 3:17–18, but it suffers from several significant weaknesses when measured against the full range of Daniel scholarship. His central axiom—that an inspired author has "no more exact knowledge of the future than any other human being—inspired or not"—is a philosophical presupposition, not an exegetical conclusion, and goes further than even fellow critical scholars like Collins (Hermeneia), Goldingay (WBC), or Newsom (OTL), who handle the dating question without issuing sweeping verdicts on what inspiration can accomplish. This creates a deep internal inconsistency: Gowan affirms God's absolute sovereignty as the book's controlling theme while denying that this sovereign God could communicate future events—even though the text itself explicitly claims that God "reveals deep and hidden things" and "knows what is in the darkness" (2:22), meaning Gowan's hermeneutic requires him to affirm the theology of the text while denying the very epistemological mechanism the text identifies as the basis for that theology. He calls the prophecy "defective" and the author's timing "wrong" without explaining how a defective vehicle carries reliable theology, and even Collins concedes that the prediction in 8:14 "cannot be after the fact and must have been composed before the actual rededication of the temple"—acknowledging genuine predictive content within the critical framework itself—yet Gowan frames the author being "partly right" about Antiochus's imminent fall as essentially a lucky guess rather than engaging its theological significance. He overstates the historical difficulties in Dan 1:1, the Belshazzar problem, and the Darius the Mede question: the Dan 1:1 discrepancy, for instance, is easily explained by the difference between Babylonian accession-year and Judaean non-accession-year dating systems, a solution widely acknowledged since Wiseman and defended by multiple commentators (Miller/NAC, Tanner/EEC, Baldwin/TOTC, Young). His tone toward conservative and dispensationalist readings is unusually sharp—repeatedly labelling them "misuse" and "inappropriate" rather than engaging their arguments, a contrast with Collins's detached neutrality. He raises the question of whether Daniel's angelology represents "a partial surrender, finally, to polytheism," a framing not shared by any major Daniel commentary, whether conservative or critical, all of which treat Daniel's angelology as a development within monotheism rather than a compromise of it. Most strikingly, he parenthetically includes Jesus and Paul among those whose eschatological expectations were mistaken, an extraordinary claim for a commentary series aimed at Christian teaching and preaching; most scholars who engage the imminent-eschatology question frame it with far greater care through the "already/not yet" framework or the distinction between prophetic foreshortening and outright error, and Gowan's formulation carries Christological implications he never explores. Ultimately, Gowan occupies an uneasy middle ground—too theologically committed to satisfy critical scholars, and too dismissive of the text's own claims to satisfy those who take those claims seriously. Readers seeking a rigorous critical commentary are better served by Collins or Goldingay; those seeking theological and pastoral depth will find Davis (BST), Duguid (REC), or Longman (NIVAC) more reliable guides.

Chapman's 1 Samuel as Christian Scripture (Eerdmans, 2016) is a cultivated, intellectually serious work whose introduction — his engagement with the "book" as a theologically significant unit, his rebuttal of Sommer's midrashic objection, and his synthesis of Alter's literary approach with a genuinely theological intention — is worth consulting by any serious student of canonical and literary hermeneutics; but the commentary proper is compromised by a cluster of idiosyncratic and occasionally troubling positions that sit uneasily with the text and with the mainstream of Samuel scholarship. Most significant is his claim that Saul "adumbrates Christ" in his suffering and "overliving": the move is theologically confused, because Saul's dying-in-life is explicitly the consequence of his own disobedience and God's judicial withdrawal — punitive deterioration, not innocent redemptive suffering — and equating this with the Christ of Gethsemane and Calvary distorts the theological logic of the narrative, since Chapman's own assurance that such a christological interpretation "can honor the contours of the Old Testament narrative in a highly effective manner" is quietly refuted by the text's own explicit judgment on Saul's disobedience; no other major Samuel commentary — not Brueggemann (Int), Arnold (NIVAC), Tsumura (NICOT), Firth (ApOTC), Phillips (REC), Bergen (NAC), or McCarter (AYB) — supports this typological identification. More troubling still is his treatment of 1 Samuel 15, where he entertains "the possibility" that the narrator "actually means to portray" Samuel's execution of Agag as "reprehensible" — "perhaps Samuel is now depicted as making the opposite mistake by bringing battle into worship" — a reading unsupported by any narratorial signal and contradicted by the book's consistent presentation of Samuel as its orthodox spokesman; he then approvingly cites Buber's declaration that "Nothing can make me believe in a God who punishes Saul because he has not murdered his enemy" without substantive rebuttal, lending credence to what is, in effect, a protest against the divine command itself — a position verging on the derogatory toward God that no other serious evangelical or even moderate critical commentary endorses. His handling of 1 Sam 15:29 versus 15:11 and 15:35 is characteristically glib — "God, being God, absolutely does not regret, except when God does" — whereas Tsumura (NICOT), McCarter (AYB), and Klein (WBC) all show that naham in v. 29 functions in a different register (God will not reverse his judicial decision on Saul) from its uses in vv. 11 and 35 (God's personal grief over Saul's behavior), so there is no flat contradiction requiring the embarrassed irony Chapman deploys. His reading of Saul's removal of mediums (28:3) as "a worrisome signal" of prior spiritualist involvement rather than an act of Deuteronomic piety is a minority position against the near-consensus of Baldwin, Arnold, Bergen, and Firth, who rightly see it as obedience to Deut 18:10-11, making the subsequent resort to the medium all the more bitter. Chapman's characterisation of David's "sex appeal" as "contributing to the sense that he is God's chosen one" is an underdeveloped and misleading theological inference, and his footnote noting without explicit rejection the view that David's attractiveness to both men and women evidences "bisexuality" is an irresponsible half-endorsement of a fringe reading. The Thérèse of Lisieux conclusion is charming but finally a category error: a nineteenth-century French Carmelite's interior spirituality is not an adequate analogical lens for the thoroughly public, political, and covenantal theology of a book about the origins of Israelite monarchy, and the application says more about Chapman's Baptist pietist instincts (which he himself acknowledges) than about the text. There is also an internal inconsistency between Chapman's announced goal of letting literary presentation govern interpretation and his willingness to treat 2 Samuel 21–24 as the hermeneutical key to 1 Samuel — material he concedes is chronologically and compositionally displaced — quietly privileging the canonical-redactional perspective he claims to resist elsewhere; and despite the theological richness of the introduction, the exegetical engagement with Hebrew linguistics is thinner than in Arnold, Tsumura, Firth, or McCarter, so that the literary-theological readings sometimes float free of the grammatical anchors that would make them compelling rather than merely suggestive. The commentary is best read as an extended hermeneutical essay by a serious canonicist, paired with Firth (ApOTC) or Arnold (NIVAC) for exegetical control; readers should be forewarned that its willingness to leave the divine commands of 1 Samuel 15 as an open theological wound — rather than doing the harder work of canonical theodicy — reflects a fashionable academic discomfort with the Old Testament's portrayal of God that the text itself does not share.

Thompson's Deuteronomy (Belief series, WJK, 2014) is a readable pastoral essay for church audiences, but it has significant weaknesses that limit its usefulness as a scholarly commentary. As a systematic theologian rather than an OT specialist, Thompson makes recurring factual errors — misdating the end of the Babylonian exile (stating "540 BCE" rather than the standard 539/538 BCE), overstating the current consensus behind Wellhausen's four-source theory, and claiming Deuteronomy is "the only book of the Pentateuch" with monotheistic claims. Her logic is inconsistently applied: she mounts a sustained argument against Marcionite separation of the OT and NT gods, yet persistently frames OT divine violence as morally troubling in ways she never applies to NT judgement texts, effectively reproducing the emotional valence she formally rejects. Most seriously for a Christian theological commentary, she concedes that "it is difficult to mount a defense against" David Blumenthal's characterisation of God as "abusive," approvingly cites Martin Buber's "This is no God that I know" in response to the Amalek command, and flatly describes "the God of the Bible in its entirety" as "irreducibly… destructive toward God's own creation" — language that goes beyond acknowledging textual tension and into an evaluative indictment of the divine character. She also politicises the "choose life" passage (30:19) by framing it primarily as a counter to pro-life usage, and she endorses Muslim claims on Deuteronomy 18:18 without critical theological evaluation. Readers wanting serious engagement with Deuteronomy's theology would be better served by Block (NIVAC), McConville (ApOTC), or even the more critical Miller (Interpretation).

Jensen's 1 & 2 Samuel (Belief, 2015) offers moments of genuine theological reflection — on Hannah's prayer, place theology, and the ambiguities of power — but is undermined by serious and recurring problems. His opening claim that "many, if not most" events in Samuel "probably did not happen in the way the authors describe" is both historically overstated and logically inconsistent, since he then mines every passage for authoritative theological meaning. He incorrectly defines Samuel's name as meaning "name of God" or "He who is from God," when virtually every other commentary correctly derives it from sha'al ("to ask"), meaning "asked of God." His consistent framing of the David–Bathsheba episode as rape — including a section header "David Seizes Bathsheba" — goes beyond what the Hebrew text supports and against the mainstream of scholarship, which treats it as adultery. His "Further Reflections: LGBT Theologies" section approvingly surveys queer theology (including the claim that the Eucharist is "gay sex as well as straight sex") with minimal critical engagement, while the David–Jonathan relationship is left open to a homoerotic reading that commentaries such as Bergen (NAC) explicitly and carefully reject — Bergen rightly notes that in ancient Israel a man's wife was a partner in procreation rather than his closest emotional confidant, which fully accounts for the intensity of David's bond with Jonathan without any sexual dimension. His treatment of biblical authority effectively endorses Carter Heyward's position that some canonical texts are neither inspired nor authoritative. Most seriously, Jensen repeatedly uses language derogatory toward God: he approvingly cites the characterisation of the resurrected Christ as "the disabled God," leaves unrebutted the claim that God has a "dark side" and is "demonic" in his dealings with Saul, and twice quotes approvingly the view that the God of Samuel is "not particularly loving or lovable." A process-theology influence (drawing on Catherine Keller) further undermines classical theism in his treatment of God's relenting over kingship — a passage Brueggemann, himself a liberal scholar, handles comfortably within a covenant-relational framework without recourse to process categories. The commentary is also heavily burdened with partisan contemporary political commentary. Readers seeking theologically rich engagement with Samuel will be better served by Arnold (NIVAC), Firth (ApOTC), Bergen (NAC), or even Brueggemann (Interpretation).

Jennings' Acts (Belief, 2017) is a creative postcolonial and homiletical meditation rather than a commentary in any traditional exegetical sense, and readers should approach it accordingly. Its genuine strengths — attentiveness to diaspora as Acts' social context, sensitivity to Luke's portrayal of women, and sustained focus on the Spirit's agency — are real contributions. However, several serious problems warrant caution. Most troubling is Jennings' repeated characterization of God in explicitly erotic terms ("an erotic God," divine desire as "eros" and "sensuality," the resurrection as "closer to the erotic than the evidentiary"), language with no grounding in Luke's text and potentially dishonoring to God's holiness. He also calls Jesus' disruption of kinship networks "an act of utter terrorism" and describes God as "an extravagant busybody" — rhetorical flourishes that cross into irreverence. Exegetically, his treatment of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5) is a significant failure: he displaces the passage's own stated issue — lying to the Holy Spirit (5:3-4), as every mainstream commentary from Barrett and Bruce to Peterson and Bock consistently identifies — with an argument about "the idol of the couple," which he then uses as a platform for same-sex marriage advocacy entirely absent from the text. His characterization of Gamaliel as "the quintessential compromised intellectual" is dismissive beyond what the text warrants. He also asserts without justification that "all violence is religious violence," a claim internally inconsistent with his own economic analysis of the prison system elsewhere in the same volume. Throughout, contemporary political concerns — prison abolition, anti-nationalism, postcolonial critique — are read into Acts with a confidence the text itself rarely supports. Useful as a supplementary homiletical perspective when read critically; not reliable as a guide to what Luke actually wrote or meant.

Kraftchick's ANTC commentary has real strengths — readable prose, solid rhetorical analysis, and useful engagement with the Hellenistic background of 2 Peter — but it is weakened by a persistent bias against the letters' sharpest theological claims, which surfaces at nearly every significant exegetical decision. Most strikingly, the preface connects the letters' rhetoric about divine judgment and the distinction between the faithful and the "ungodly" to the 9/11 attacks, warning that "these texts can be used for harm" — an extraordinary insinuation, without precedent among commentaries on these letters, that frames canonical Scripture as potentially dangerous before the exegesis even begins. This same instinct to soften and qualify runs through the commentary proper. God's judgment is consistently reframed as sinners forfeiting their status rather than incurring the active wrath of a holy God; Käsemann's verdict that 2 Peter corrupts the Pauline gospel into institutionalised moralism is treated with unwarranted sympathy, with Kraftchick's concession that the letter's theology is "not particularly daring" implicitly validating the core charge that Bauckham and Schreiner decisively reject; and at 2 Pet 2:1 the claim that condemned false teachers retain intact redemption is simply self-contradictory. Exegetically, the confident assertion that pseudonymity is near-universal consensus overstates the case — Bauckham, Kraftchick's primary source, argues for the authenticity of Jude, noting that the author's self-description as "brother of James" rather than "brother of Jesus" is far easier to explain on authenticity than pseudonymity, since a pseudepigrapher would naturally have invoked the more prestigious connection. At two critical Christological texts (Jude 4; 2 Pet 1:1), Kraftchick ignores the Granville Sharp rule — that a single article governing two singular nouns connected by kaiidentifies them as the same person — which would render "Master and Lord" and "God and Savior" as unified titles for Christ; the cost is particularly high at 2 Pet 1:1, where the rule yields one of the New Testament's clearest direct ascriptions of deity to Jesus. His reading of Jude 7 follows Bauckham's minority view that Sodom sought sex with angelic beings rather than engaging in homosexual activity, without adequately engaging Schreiner's compelling counter that the Sodomites didn't know their visitors were angels. Best used cautiously and alongside Bauckham (WBC), Schreiner (NAC), or Green (TNTC).

Thompson's Revelation (ANTC, 1998) is a compact, student-oriented commentary whose sociological and comparative-religion methodology produces several significant problems. Its most controversial thesis — that Asian Christians lived "quietly, peacefully, and prosperously" with no widespread persecution — is both historically questionable and internally inconsistent: Thompson never reconciles it with the text's own depictions of martyrdom, poverty, and imprisonment (2:9–10; 6:9; 11:7–8). The commentary also exhibits what Sandmel called parallelomania: at virtually every significant image Thompson reaches first for Hellenistic, Egyptian, or Greco-Roman parallels — the Mithras Liturgy alone is cited repeatedly — consistently subordinating the OT prophetic tradition to pagan comparanda and reversing the methodological priorities most other scholars consider primary; Beale's meticulous demonstration that John's imagery derives overwhelmingly from Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Zechariah stands as the decisive corrective here. More troubling, Thompson applies derogatory language to God's judicial acts, describing divine vengeance as involving "personal spite and vindictiveness" (on 6:10–11), the two witnesses' God-authorised judgments as "an excess of vengeance and gore," and the Messiah's career in ch. 12 as "aborted" — language unwarranted by the Greek and found in none of the other major commentaries. Several exegetical positions are idiosyncratic and thinly argued, including the denial that the "one like a human" in 14:14 is Christ (against Beale, Mounce, Aune, Koester, and Fanning). Thompson's introductory sketch of civic life in Asia Minor has genuine student value, but the commentary as a whole should be read with significant caution and alongside Beale, Koester, or Aune as necessary correctives.

Black's ANTC commentary on Mark is well-written and literarily sensitive, with astute structural analysis, a moving treatment of Gethsemane, and careful attention to the women characters — but several significant problems warrant caution, and what is striking is that Black frequently exceeds even the most critical scholars in this field in his harshness. On the hardening theme in 4:11–12, Marcus (AYB) and Collins (Hermeneia) — neither of them conservative — both question whether the Greek hina ("so that") implies divine intent or merely describes an unfortunate result, and situate the hardening within a framework of human responsibility and redemptive purpose; Black dismisses such attempts as "heroic efforts to soften its blow" and presents God flatly and without qualification as the agent of deliberate blindness, yet later declares "God is no punishing agent" — a contradiction he never resolves, leaving his theology of God incoherent. On the centurion's confession at 15:39, Collins and Marcus acknowledge ambiguity but still lean toward a genuine if imperfect confession; Black alone among major commentators calls it possibly "sarcastic" and ultimately "inconsequential," undermining what the narrative structure of the entire Gospel has been building toward. On Jesus' apparent slip at 2:26 (Abiathar/Ahimelech), even Hooker is cautious before concluding error; Black accepts it without examining the exegetical alternatives France, Lane, and Guelich carefully lay out. The Petrine tradition is dismissed outright where even Marcus and Collins engage it as a live option. Readers will be better served by France (NIGTC) or Lane (NICNT), which handle the hard questions with greater precision and consistency.

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.