Comments on: Can’t decide on an Acts commentary

By: Chuck Grantham

Chuck Grantham — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:29:20 +0000

I look at commentaries much like Bible translations: always useful to have at least two to compare.

Alas, that adds up to several bookcases over the eight years of Lifeway’s tour of the Bible.

That Keener NIVAC Revelation sells a lot of NIVAC sister volumes, I think. Great book.

By: Scripture Zealot

Scripture Zealot — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:29:41 +0000

I thought about Witherington too. I would possibly get his as a second.
Jeff

By: Chuck Grantham

Chuck Grantham — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:39:06 +0000

On the other hand, Witherington is always useful as a different take on things, and Acts is generally considered perhaps his best commentary.

I used Witherington, Bruce’s Greek, and Fitzmeyer when Lifeway went through Acts.

By: Scripture Zealot

Scripture Zealot — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 04:09:43 +0000

I do LOVE the BECNT format, paper quality etc. So if you guys like it, I’ll get it whether or not I have to put up with any possible commentary on commentaries. Thank you for the input. I’d rather have a commentary that addresses more stuff.
Jeff

By: T.C. R

T.C. R — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 03:14:12 +0000

Here’s another reviewer:

“This commentary is one of the best commentaries available on the book of Acts. There are not many questions that Darrell Bock overlooks. He interacts with the secondary literature, informing his readers of the various positions, then carefully explains the rationale for his own conclusions.

Knowledge of Greek is not required for this commentary, but helpful. Greek words and phrases are rendered in Greek, but are also transliterated with the meaning close at hand in the immediate context. On occasion, however, a previous understanding of Greek grammar is sometimes assumed. For example, he may incidentally mention such things as “epexegetical infinitives,” “datives of purpose,” and “ingressive aorists” without explanation. When a grammatical observation is particularly significant, however, he does give a thorough explanation.

If you could only have one evangelical commentary on the book of Acts, it should either be this one by Darrell Bock or the one by Ben Witherington. Together, they form a dynamic duo. If you are looking for a brief commentary, check out Richard Longnecker or I H Marshall.”

And yes, Esteban is spot about Bruce.

By: Dan

Dan — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:02:59 +0000

Bock is good on Luke, so my thought would be he would be good on Acts as well.

I currently teach an Acts class and use Bruce’s commentary.

By: Scripture Zealot

Scripture Zealot — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:57:20 +0000

Here is my reservation about Bock from a reviewer:

“In fact, Bock refers so often to Fitzmyer and Witherington that I seriously wonder what I’m doing reading Bock, when I can be getting the goods from the horse’s mouth. Surveys of the best (and worst) of scholarly opinions are great, but such books become books about the research rather than books about the scripture. As I read Bock, I often find myself vainly seeking to find what Bock himself thinks about a passage. And, there are times when I find Bock expressing an original opinion, only to find other experts disagreeing with him, and I agree with the other writers.”

The commentary being that long, Idon’t want to be reading constant comparisons. If you think that’s unfounded I’ll trust you’re judgment.
Jeff

By: Esteban Vázquez

Esteban Vázquez — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:29:56 +0000

I second TC’s suggestion, of course, but out of the three you mention, I would definitely recommend Bruce. I own both Bruce’s volume for the NICNT and Fernando’s for the NIVAC, and I think that Bruce is an altogether better commentary, especially when it comes to the question of the relationship between Acts and Galatians. (Plus, Bruce has a marvelous commentary on the Greek text of Acts that supplements his NICNT volume quite splendidly.)

By: T.C. R

T.C. R — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 02:55:56 +0000

For gor Bock’s Acts in BECNT. Quite recent and reliable.