Top Five Mark Commentaries

Introduction. Mark commentaries usually do not spend as much time worrying over the synoptic problem as Matthew commentaries do primarily because virtually all scholars consider Mark to be the first gospel written. While there has been some interest in the sources Mark may have used (see the intro in Vincent, for example), most recent commentaries find this layer of tradition inaccessible and therefore do not speculate excessively on Ur-Mark (the original form of Mark, Mark’s source, etc.) More important than sources is Mark’s literary style and the genre of “gospel.”

R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 2002). As with all the writers in the NIGTC series, France is an expert on the Greek text of Mark. The commentary has less background material that Evans, but is rich in exegetical detail. That is not to say that France is ignorant of the Hebrew Bible or other Second Temple Period literature, but only that his main interest is the Greek words in the context of Mark. France surveys the synoptic problem briefly, giving quite a bit of weight to John Robinson’s theory of cross-fertilization. In the end France concludes “I do not need a solution to the synoptic problem.” He approaches Mark as a storyteller who has created a long narrative in three “acts.” Like many commentaries on Mark, Peter’s confession in chapter 8 is the clear turning point of the book, dividing France’s first two “acts,” Galilee (1:1-8:21) and On the Way to Jerusalem (8:22-10:52). The third act in the drama of Mark at Jerusalem, beginning in Mark 11.

Craig Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20 (WBC; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001). Evans finished the Mark commentary for the Word series after Robert Guelich died unexpectedly in 1991. Guelich’s commentary is excellent, but Evans’ work is even better. The commentary follows the general pattern of all WBC volumes (bibliography, translation and text, form and structure, commentary, explanation). Although Evans is contributing to a commentary begun by another scholar, he has included a 63-page introduction to Mark which covers a number of issues not covered in Guelich’s original commentary. Evans only briefly comments on typical introduction issues, preferring to up-date and extend the original introduction. His section on the theology and purpose of Mark is excellent. But what sets this commentary apart from the rest is Evans’ use of Second Temple Period literature to illustrate the world of historical Jesus. For example, his comments on the Parable of the Vineyard provides references to several rabbinic parables which may be considered as parallels Jesus’ own parable. The section of Jewish divorce practices is brief, but contains a wealth of secondary material (p. 84-6). Bibliographies for each pericope are extensive, there are five pages for the Parable of the Wicked Vineyard tenants!

Robert Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1993). Unlike his original Matthew commentary, Gundry’s Mark commentary is more focused on the text of Mark alone. This would have to be the case given his interest in Matthew as an editor of Mark, there is no real “redaction criticism” possible for Mark. The result is an exegetical commentary which is sensitive to the text and aware of the broader theological issues at stake. What sets this commentary apart from the rest is the “notes” section for each pericope. In the main commentary section, Gundry makes scant reference to other scholars, he simply lays out the meaning of the text. After his section, he includes a section of “notes” in which he surveys the opinion of virtually every modern scholar on the topic at hand, including major German and French scholars. The type is smaller in these sections and he cites his sources only briefly, making these sections dense but rewarding.

James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002). Edwards’ commentary is in the Pillar series, edited by D. A. Carson. While the series is designed for pastors, most of the volumes will have an appeal to scholars as well. Edwards has an excellent introduction to the gospel of Mark, the highlight is his discussion of Mark’s Christology. Since the commentary is aimed at pastors, Greek is transliterated and text-critical issues are relegated to footnotes. I especially appreciate his use of the Hebrew Bible and other Second Temple Period literature. The result is a very readable and useful commentary which will serve the busy pastor well.

Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (1952, second edition 1966). Originally published in 1952, this commentary was republished in the early 1980s by Baker as a part of their Thornapple commentary series. This is how commentaries used to be written for pastors – with the Greek text running across the top of the page and textual notes in two columns beneath. Vincent’s comments on the Greek focus on syntax, citing Blass, Moulton, Turner, etc. His 150 page introduction is a window into the state of Gospel studies in the mid 20th century, critical yet respectful of the text – Mark is “an authority of first rank for our knowledge of the Story of Jesus.”

I will mention one other classic commentary here, even though this violates my “top five commentary” rule. Henry Swete’s 1902 commentary on the Greek text of Mark is available from Google Books (now, Play Books) as a free download. This is an oft-cited classic commentary on Mark which is well worth consulting.

Conclusion. What have I left out? What commentaries on Mark have you found useful? What classic commentary on Mark should be read by all students of the Gospels?

Return to the beginning of this series on the Top New Testament commentaries.

Top Five Matthew Commentaries

Introduction. Matthew Commentaries necessarily must deal with the synoptic problem. For the most part, virtually every modern commentary accepts Mark as the first gospel written, Matthew used Mark as a foundation for his later work, usually supplemented by a sayings source (Q). Very few commentaries written in the last 50 years have attempted to argue Matthew was written first. The synoptic problem is always looming in the background of Matthew commentaries, some will dwell on it more than others. To me, over-interest in redactional issues distracts from the usefulness of a commentary.

W. D. Davies and Dale Allison, Jr. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988, 1991, 1997). This 3 volume commentary is the best modern scholarly commentary written on Matthew. In fact, I am tempted to say it is the best commentary ever written on Matthew. Davies and Allison certainly set a high standard for detailed commentaries on the Greek text of the Gospels. There is careful exegesis of the Greek text, but also a sensitivity to the Jewish background to Jesus’ teaching. The recent volumes in the ICC series are all excellent, but priced for libraries only. I personally am frustrated by the girth of the final volume, it is too thick for convenient reading; perhaps dividing it into two sections would have been wise. Allison published a “shorter” commentary on Matthew based on this larger work (T&T Clark, 2004), intended for “readers who find the larger commentary too involved or too complicated.”

John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005). This commentary is on the Greek text of Matthew and is another magisterial commentary. For Nolland, Matthew is based on Mark and Q and was composed before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, although he does not think that the apostle Matthew is the author of the final form of the book. The body of the commentary includes brief bibliographies for pericopes, comments on text critical issues, and phrase-by-phrase comments. Greek is normally translated so that a reader without Greek can use the commentary without too much difficulty. It is the style of the NIGTC commentary series to use a smaller type for detailed which may be less important, although I find these sections excellent. Nolland does an excellent job setting the words of Jesus into a Second Temple Period background, his footnotes contain copious references to the literature of the first century.

Craig Blomberg, Matthew (NAC; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1992). I have always enjoyed reading Blomberg, his work on the parables is one of my favorites. His commentary on Matthew is the most brief of the five I have listed here (432 pages), but Blomberg has a knack for unpacking a text with brevity without sacrificing depth. His footnotes interact with a wide variety of scholarship. He argues for apostolic authority and an early date (A.D. 58-69) for the gospel. He is certain that there is some literary relationship between Matthew and Luke, but is not dogmatic on the synoptic problem.

Craig Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009). This is the most recent of the commentaries I have chosen and is part of a series published by Eerdmans which attempts to read the biblical books against both a social and rhetorical background. What this means is that the commentary works hard to place Jesus in a proper context (Second Temple Period Judaism) but also to place Matthew as an author in his (later) context. In fact, Keener is “more inclined to accept the possibility of Matthean authorship” than in his earlier work on the Gospel (p. 40). The gospel was written in Syro-Palestine in the wake of the Jewish War, and “within the range of” develop rabbinic influence. Keener therefore reads Matthew as a Jewish Christian voice responding to the tragedy of A.D. 70. One of the advantages of the Socio-Rhetorical series is the use of Excursus to treat issues which are outside of the normal scope of a commentary. For example, Keener has more than 3 pages on demons and exorcism in the Greco-Roman word, a section dense with primary sources. These excursuses are the highlight of the commentary.

Donald Hagner, Matthew (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1993, 1995). Hagner’s contribution to the Word Biblical series follows the pattern of the whole series. Each pericope begins with a detailed bibliography, followed by a translation with textual notes and a form / structure section. It is in this section that Hagner treats synoptic issues, leaving the commentary to a detailed examination of the Greek text of Matthew. Greek is not transliterated or translated, making the commentary less accessible for those without Greek. Hagner uses the literature of the Second Temple Period as the context for Jesus as a teacher. The Word series concludes each pericope with an “explanation,” usually brief reflections on the contribution of the section to the overall theological themes of Matthew’s gospel. My suspicion is that most pastors will skip over the details and read only the commentary and explanation sections. Perhaps Hagner’s introduction to the gospel the best of the commentaries surveyed here.

Conclusion.  After writing this essay, I realize now how difficult it is to limit myself to five commentaries, not to mention trying to summarize a thousand word commentary in 150 words.  I can think of another five which are work of a “top commentary” list and there are several classic commentaries which it pained me to omit.   So tell me, what commentaries have you found useful (and why)?  Who has been (criminally) omitted from this list?  What classic commentary on Matthew should be read by all students of the Gospels?

Book Giveaway Winner!- Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary

The third book giveaway in May is a brand new copy of the Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary by J. D. Douglas and Merrill C. Tenney, ed. Moises Silva (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2011). Using a highly scientific method involving random.org, the winner is:

geobme

Congrats Geobme, I need you to contact me with your shipping information and I will get the book out to you ASAP.  (for email, I am Plong42 at gmail dot com).  On the topic of contact info, last week’s winner LLM needs to contact me with your shipping address. I poked around your blog a bit looking for it, but did not see it.

Stay tuned for another give-away.

I reviewed the Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary about a year ago, check out this link for the full review.

On Using Commentaries

Before launching into this new series on the Top Commentaries for New Testament Studies, I want to make a few observations about commentaries in general. First and foremost, a commentary ought never take the place of reading the text of the Bible. I study should begin by reading the passage to be studied several times through, in context, with a pencil in hand. Make your own observations before opening a commentary. Preferably this reading should ne in the original language, but if that is not possible, read through in several different English translations.

When I use commentaries for preparing for a class, sermon or Bible study, I usually have a commentary which is “first off the shelf.” This is usually from a well-known author, someone I know and respect. I like the way the commentary is laid out and I can usually find what I need quickly and easily.

For serious research, there are also commentaries which are “classics.” These are so important that it is hard to write anything serious without at least consulting this book, whether you are in complete agreement with the author or now. It is strange to me that in virtually every commentary on John, Bultmann is constantly cited (if only to argue with him). Perhaps the “classic” for you will be a favorite from your denomination. Whatever this case, this book is something you simply return to are re-read because it is a joy to read.

As I mentioned in the previous post, I tend to buy a new commentary (or three) as I start a new series or begin to teach a new class. It is a sad thing for me to hear a sermon from a pastor who obviously has not read anything new since their college or seminary days. If I read a journal article and there is no awareness of what has been written on the topic in the last ten years, I am suspicious of the article. This is not to say “old is bad, new is good,” but often new commentaries provide insight based on advancements in scholarship. By reading the “latest” on a particular biblical book, you are likely to learn something new.

Once you read one or two commentary sections on your passage, it is easy to read five more. Some of the smaller commentaries may take only a few minutes to consult and will often yield an observation about the text other commentaries have missed. Do not think that a thick commentary is necessarily better than a small one!

One final comment.  I am fully aware that commentaries cost a great deal of money and that not every pastor or Bible student can afford to invest $50 in a single book.  On the one hand, I see the purchase of a good commentary as an investment in a tool which will be used to do your work properly.  If an auto mechanic objected to the price of quality tools, I would  wonder about the quality of their work.  If my doctor tried to get away with medical equipment he picked up at a yard sale, I would quickly find another doctor.  In the same way, a Bible Student (pastor or scholar) ought to be willing to invest in some good tools so that they can do the very best they can in preaching the Word of God.

On the other hand, it is possible to use local libraries as a resource.  I happen to live in an excellent area for theological studies, there are four or five serious Bible College or Seminary libraries within driving distance to me.  You may not need purchase every commentary you want, if there is a library nearby.

Appendix:  Here are a few useful abbreviations for commentary series used in the Society of Biblical Literature style guide.  I will be using these abbreviations frequently in the posts which follow.

BECNT    Baker Exegetical Commentary for the New Testament
ECC         Eerdmans Critical Commentary
ICC          International Critical Commentary
NAC         New American Commentary
NCB         New Century Bible
NICNT     New International Biblical Commentary on the New Testament
NIGTC     New International Greek Testament Commentary
WBC        Word Biblical Commentary

John 17 – Jesus’ Prayer and Apocalyptic

[Audio for this study is available at Sermons.net, as is a PDF copy of the notes. You may right-click and "save as...."]

The introduction to Jesus’ prayer in John highlights the sovereignty of God. As such, the introduction interprets the coming death, burial and resurrection of Jesus in apocalyptic terms.  While this prayer is far from the sort of thing we encounter in Daniel and Revelation in terms of  vivid imagery, there are a number of theological ideas which resonate well with apocalyptic literature.

God has appoint the hour. Everything in John’s gospel (and the life of Jesus) has led up to the moment which is about to happen. The three years has been a lengthy prologue to the next 72 hours, the arrest, trial, execution and burial of Jesus and subsequent resurrection. An “appointed hour” is common in apocalyptic literature. God has set the times and seasons for certain things to occur, and they will certainly happen because God has appointed them to happen.

God has authority over all flesh. This is an allusion to God as the creator. God has authority of all of creation because he is the creator. But creation is in rebellion against God and has created enmity, God is therefore to be feared as a judge. Another classic element of apocalyptic literature is that God has created all things and the eschatological age will “un-create.” The death of Jesus therefore has cosmic significance, all of creation will be effected by what he is about to do on the Cross.

God has authority to give eternal life. God is the only one who can offer salvation to a lost creation. God is the only way to be saved out of the coming wrath of God, the alternative to eternal life is eternal death.

God has given the disciples to Jesus. Out of all of creation, God has chosen some to be the recipients of eternal life. In John, the disciples are the “inner circle” of that Salvation. All those who believe in Jesus as the savior are saved, but in this case only the disciples are said to be given to Jesus. In apocalyptic / eschatological texts a common theme is the salvation of a righteous remnant. Usually this remnant is small (the author’s own community), but there is usually an implicit invitation to join the righteous remnant and therefore be saved.

God has given his authority to the Son so that he might accomplish the work to which he was appointed. Like the great commission in Matthew 28:18-20, the Father’s authority is naturally transferred to the Son. The reason that God has given the Son his authority is so that he may render judgment, both for eternal life and eternal separation. This too has an eschatological aspect as well, Dan 7:14 describes something like a “son of man” coming before the ancient of days to receive authority to judge and rule.

While the introduction to Jesus’ prayer in John 17 is far from the style of apocalyptic we find in Revelation or Daniel, it certainly shares something of the the apocalyptic worldview.  With the events of Jesus arrest, trial, execution, burial, resurrection, and ascension, God will accomplish his purposes by breaking into history and providing salvation for some, judgment for others.

John 17 – A High Priestly Prayer?

In March I was asked by a student to participate in the presentation of his ordination papers and to pray over him. This was a bit of an honor, since this event was in a real sense sending the man off to pastor a church. Our own church witnessed the same sort of thing when two recent graduates were presented their papers before the congregation. Both men were prayed over by someone and they too were “sent off” to do the ministry for which they had been preparing.

John 17 is a prayer of consecration, a final prayer before the arrest and execution of Jesus. The disciples were given to Jesus by the Father, Jesus as taught them and passed God’s word to them, and now they are going to be sent into the world. They are in need of protection since the world will hate them just as it hated Jesus (John 16:1-4).

This chapter is often titled “Jesus’ High Priestly Prayer” by Bible editors and in commentaries. According to Carson, this designation is as old as David Chytraeus (1530-1600), and is so common that it is difficult to call the chapter anything else. The icon image I used in this post dresses Jesus as a priest and gives him the title of “Eternal High Priest.”  Even the ESV calls this the “The High Priestly Prayer.”  Certainly Jesus is called the Great High Priest in Hebrews, but there is little else in the New Testament which uses that metaphor for Jesus.

But that is not how John presents the prayer, there is no implication that Jesus is functioning as a priest here, and it is difficult to know what a “priestly prayer” might be in a first century context. Perhaps the idea of intercession is what points preachers to call this a priestly prayer, but even this fails when one reads the prayer – Jesus is not interceding on behalf of his disciples!

Certainly Jesus is praying for his disciples, but the prayer is focused on how the disciples will be tested in the next few days, during the crucifixion and the time Jesus is in the grave. There is a real spiritual crisis of faith coming for these men as they will witness the arrest of their leader, the one they thought was God’s messiah. They will all deny their Lord in some way, from Peter’s famous denial to the more implicit denial of fleeing the garden. For the days after the execution of Jesus, these disciples will experience extreme doubts a perhaps even despair over the death of Jesus.

But after the resurrection, when their joy is restored, they will face increased persecution and pressure from both outsiders (who want to silence them) and insiders (who question who Jesus was and what he did on the Cross). Jesus is praying not only for their protection over the next three days, until the resurrection, but for their unity until he returns in power and glory.

Advice on Biblical Commentaries

I am frequently asked my opinion on the “best” commentary available. Often this come from a student who is graduating and a relative wants to buy them a commentary set as they head off into ministry. Sometimes I hear this from pastors who are planning on preaching through a book and want to know what commentaries are the best for their preparation.  For some reason students think that getting the most expensive commentary set they can find is best, but while it certainly makes them most of the generosity of their relatives, it rarely is the wisest decision.

I usually advise people not to buy a full set of commentaries as a single purchase for several reasons. First, rarely does a “full series” of commentaries have equally valuable volumes. While I think that Brown’s commentary on John in the Anchor Bible is a classic, Matthew and Mark and not particularly helpful, and Genesis is not really worth buying. Similarly, Craig Evans’ commentary on Mark in the Word series is excellent, while Ralph Smith’s volume on the minor prophets is not very good. I cannot imagine many pastors buying the full International Critical Commentary, but if they did, the volumes on Genesis and Deuteronomy are so old that they are of little value beyond their place in history. The later volumes in the ICC (Cranfield on Romans, Goldengay and Payne on Isaiah 40-55) are extremely valuable.

The second reason I do not recommend buying a full set of commentaries is that it is unlikely any pastor will make good use of a full set of commentaries in their ministry. A new pastor, for example, might preach through a short book or do a series of Bible studies on a section of the Bible, but never would they use enough of a 30 volume set to make the purchase worthwhile.

A third problem with full sets is that many popular sets come from a single author. It is possible that this will not bother some readers, but a steady diet of the same perspective is not very stimulating. When I graduated from college I bought a full set of Lenski’s commentary on the New Testament. There is nothing wrong with Lenski’s commentary, but the perspective is not always what I need when studying a text. The same is true for the popular MacArthur Commentary.

Aside from looking intimidating on the shelf, there is not much reason to buy a full set of commentaries.

Instead of a full set, I recommend buying commentaries on sections of the Bible you intend to work through as part of your sermon preparation. For example, since I know I was going to be preaching through John over the last year, I collected four of five serious commentaries on John. This allows me to have more than one commentary on the book I am studying and I spent far less than I would have if I had bought a “full set.”

There are some exceptions to this. I have often suggested to new pastors who want a “full set” to look at something like the Expositor’s Bible Commentary from Zondervan. The set is evangelical, if not conservative evangelical. The sections of the set I have used interact with the original languages, but do so in footnotes so that someone without familiarity with Greek and Hebrew (or, failing memory of Greek and Hebrew) can use the reference without difficulty.  With respect, I often recommend this set to youth pastors who have limited time to prepare for Bible studies, or laymen who may be overwhelmed by Cranfield’s ICC volume on Romans.

Another exception might be a full set of commentaries in the Logos library, especially if they are on sale. I bought the full New American Commentary series a few years ago when it was available at a special price. If the deal is good, perhaps a full set is a good buy.  Usually this doesn’t happen very often, though.

Over the next few weeks I plan to work my way through the New Testament and give some recommendations for the “top five commentaries” on individual books. This will allow me to offer my opinion on a number of excellent commentaries, but also allow readers to offer their suggestions for additions to my brief list.

Living the Book of Revelation

In a 1993 interview for The Door, Tony Campolo said:

“Any theology that does not live with a sense of the immediate return of Christ is a theology that take the edge off the urgency of faith. But any theology that does not cause us to live as though the world will be here for thousands of years is a theology that leads us into social irresponsibility”

Marvin Pate concludes his introduction to Four Views on Revelation with these words, distancing himself from both the overly zealous Dispensational interpreter of Revelation who finds cryptic references to Obama’s Health Care mandate or the events of 9/11 in the metaphors of the seals, trumpets or bowls. He also wants to avoid a totally non-eschatological view of the book, since the author of Revelation really does claim to be writing about a future, eschatological age.

Having just taught through a two week intensive course on Daniel and Revelation, I resonate deeply with what Campolo says. I think that many students think that a class on Revelation will be provide a kind of “end times outline of future events” complete with Clarence Larkin charts and graphs. While I am committed to a belief in the future return of Christ (including a rapture and a tribulation), the sort of thing that passes for “prophetic studies” are quite embarrassing. If anyone was expecting that in my class, I think that they might have been disappointed.

I joked at the beginning of the class that the title of the class ought to have been “An Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature of the Second Temple Period.” That is the class I would really like to teach, although not many undergraduates would take it based on the title alone. Daniel and Revelation ought to be read for what they are, examples of apocalyptic literature from the Second Temple Period! Books that have the a “sense of the immediate return of Christ” and an “urgency of faith,” but also call their readers to challenge their culture, and “come out of Babylon.” These books urge their readers to a level of social responsibility that maybe goes beyond even what Campolo had in mind.

These books are about God transforming the world, beginning with his faithful in the world and culminating with his Son’s glorious return in the future.  To live out the theology of the book of Revelation, we constantly be engaged with the world, evaluating and reforming it.  The seven churches were not called to found monasteries, but to constantly be on their guard against any corruption of their faith while they continue to interact with their culture.  This struggle will eventually end when Christ returns, but for now, it is difficult, and even deadly.

Nor were the seven churches in Revelation called to create complicated charts mapping out future events.  The warnings in Revelation are against complacency and compromise.  What will happen in the future is certain, but our calling now is to live properly in the shadow of the Second Coming, whether it happens in our lifetime or not.

Articles on Acts at Biblical Studies.org.uk

Rob Bradshaw posted two articles of interest to students of the book of Acts at Biblical Studies.org.uk. Steve Walton (London School of Theology) wrote two articles in The Evangelical Quarterly on Acts, both are reproduced by permission of the current copyright holder. You may download the PDF to your own computer for offline reading or send a copy to your Kindle or iPad with the Kindle App.  to save these links to your computer, right-click and select “save as.”

Steve Walton, “The Acts – of God? What is the ‘Acts of the Apostles’ all about?” The Evangelical Quarterly 80.4 (October 2008): 291-306.  Walton argues that the central theme of the book of Acts is not Paul or Mission as is often suggested, but rather God.  In order to make this point, he uses a statistical analysis of the book and shows that God (or Lord) is used as the subject of verbs more often than any other noun.  He draws a number of implications from this observation with respect to using Acts for doctrine and mission.

Steve Walton, “Primitive Communism in Acts? Does Acts Present the Community of Goods (2:44-45; 4:32-35) as Mistaken?” The Evangelical Quarterly 80.2 (April 2008): 99-111.   Some scholars have suggested that Luke has a negative view of the  the earliest believers in Jerusalem who “held all things in common.”  Since the practice is not mentioned later in the book, is it thought that the practice was given up for a variety of reasons.  Walton disagrees with several of the more “negative” views of this common ownership and also draws some distinctions between the practice in Acts and  Qumran.  In the end he thinks that the question, “does Luke have a negative view of the practice” is wrong-headed, the practice was not a sharing of all property in the first place, and the practice does not disappear later in Acts.  Sharing with those in need is in fact a Christian practice everywhere (2 Cor 8:13-15).

If you do not know about BiblicalStudies.org.uk, you ought to at least bookmark their new additions page. Rob Bradshaw provides a vast array of scholarship on both theology and biblical studies.

Book Giveaway – Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary

I have finished by May-Term class and now can devote my attention to other important things, such as grading papers from that May-Term class and giving away a few more books on this blog.

To celebrate the middle of the month of May, I am giving away a brand new copy of the Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary by J. D. Douglas and Merrill C. Tenney, ed. Moises Silva (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2011.  I reviewed the book a year ago, check out this link for the full review. This new release from Zondervan is more than a re-packaging of the venerable Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary (Merrill, 1963) or the New International Bible Dictionary (Douglas, 1999).

The dictionary contains  more than 7,200 entries covering historical and geographical topics, but also general theological issues as well (Jesus, Sin, Bible translation, etc.)  At 1571 pages, this is a significant tool which will meet the needs of most laymen and most pastors.  While it is impossible to call a book this size “handy,” it will likely be the first book off the shelf for most pastors and lay-teachers.

To have a chance at winning this book, leave a comment mentioning your favorite Bible Dictionary of All Time, or at least your name.  I suppose some other snarky comment will do as well.  I will announce the winner picked at random on May 23, one week from today.