I own the entire NICNT and OT set and I love this volume. Lane did an incredible job. I also appreciate you website. I have used it since 2009 as I built my library. Thanks for all your hard work!
I’ve used it before, and I’ve found it to be a very good resource. I’ve also used the New international application commentary and the new international Greek commentary for Mark, and I’d say that this one probably is my favorite of those three. It does bug me that he translates the Greek text into old English though.
The NIVAC anf NIGTC are excellent resources. Thanks for mentioning those. I had some Greek professors who taught us to translate into older English. It may have had something to do with the Greek textbooks we were using being older and using older English wording.
Thanks for your video. I really enjoy your channel and find it quite useful. Keep it up! I have Lane's commentary on Mark in my hopper and plan to review it in detail soon. The whole questions of ranking is an interesting one. For what it’s worth, I generally don’t like rankings of books in order 1 to whatever because that’s just now how the study of scripture really works for me. At the end of the day, this is a written format of a multi-person conversation which has been going on for 2,000+ years. There is no #1 because of that…these commentaries are not going to produce a definitive answer or interpretation on scripture by themselves. My main concern with rankings of these commentaries, by and large, is that they speak primarily to the perspectives and biases of the reviewers or review aggregator. For example, I’d be unobservant if I didn’t note that most rankings on all websites tend to favor Evangelical perspectives over others. Rankings on the Romans commentary is a good example on this. You will see the typical players at the top (Moo, Schreiner, etc.). Dunn is always lower, but is at least mentioned. You will RARELY see people reference Joseph Fitzmyer in the top of the list, and yet his commentary on Romans and his general biblical academic work is a top tier standard for almost everyone writing commentary on the bible. Moo explicitly ranks it as a “consistent witness” commentary on Romans that he felt deserved careful study and recommended his readers also consider it with equal respect. Considering the other commentaries that are often cited, I’m forced to conclude Fitzmyer is almost ignored or pushed to the side largely because he was a Catholic priest. I get it, I know where this comes from, but it feels like ranking websites are either unintentionally or intentionally encouraging a gap in the study of the bible, to the detriment of the faithful. To be fair, we all have our own biases (I don’t really focus on application at all when it comes to what I look for in a commentary), but I do think it’s worth trying to render these in such a way as to minimize those biases where possible. I like to think rather in tiers. Which commentaries, when you engage with them in conjunction with each other, will help give you all well rounded academic perspective on the book in question. No doubt, this can get expensive and time consuming beyond measure for most people, but I do think it’ll give a fuller, richer picture.
Hi, thank you for the response. I appreciate that you are cordial toward an approach that you don't prefer! It's not easy to find that on the internet these days! While I think there can be some benefit to "rankings," I also acknowledge the weaknesses. I also see the wisdom in a tiered approach. I don't know if you have seen my commentary series page, on which I take a five-tiered approach. Since I changed that page, experimenting with a tier approach, that page has been very well-received. I have considered doing that on many more pages as well. However, tiers don't solve all problems, because of course people will disagree with what series goes in what tier! Again, thanks for the comments. I enjoyed reading them.
@@BestBibleCommentaries I did see that, and found it very helpful...moving in the direction I tend to think about myself. It's definitly a challenge providing some sort of assessment of all of this. Argueably the best way to figure it out is start reading one well regarded commentary in one particular book, and then see which sources they are responding to more often than others. Eventually you'll get a sense as to which commentaries are the "big players" to contend with. Then again, my bias is always toward the academic, and that approach probably doesn't serve somone looking for something a bit more on the devotional side. (To be fair, I think Study Bibles are much better tools for folks with that preference but that's another topic altogether!)
Best Bible Commentaries In the video you mentioned that William L lane was Arminian but in Best Bible Commentaries website you state that he was Reformed. Which one of the two views did he actually hold? Which one is correct?
Short answer (off the top), there is no 'best' commentary on Mark or any other book in the Bible (although there may be 'better'). Mark is of special interest to me and I have at least 14 commentaries or books on aspects of Mark that I reference together and separately. Oddly enough, I don't have Lane's. I'll be listening to your thoughts with interest.
@@jussivalkonen7581 In no particular order, I do like Clifton Black (Abingdon) for his no nonsense approach, discussing only what we can 'know' and not wasting words on what is only speculative (he defines everything in his intro). It's great for a quick reference and offers a great deal of thoughtful commentary in a short number of pages. Eugene Boring's NTL well written commentary also engages more deeply and has many fine Excursuses. David Garland's NIV commentary picks up the slack that technical commentaries lack with the obvious application sections. The AYB volumes by Joel Marcus are standard technical commentaries but well written and pleasurable to read. Finally a new discovery by James Voelz in the Concordia Commentary series. This is a technical-technical commentary that goes deeply into the grammar and meaning of the words. He offers a fresh and provocative translation taking the context of the vocabulary into account. Was Jesus pierced by reed or a spear? The context suggests the soldiers would have spears and arrows and javelins, so why a 'reed' when all are suggested by the same word? Some of it is above my academic pay grade, but that's okay. A non-commentary that was very thoughtful was 'The Cross at a Distance' by Peter Bolt in the IVP Biblical Theology series. It reads like a non-technical commentary and packed a punch for me. Disclosure: I was trained in Biblical Studies, though I don't know languages. I have no denominational preference or theological position other than the cross and resurrection. Black's approach works well for me. This is what we know. this is what we can infer. This is what we don't know. I don't waste a lot of time on what we don't, can't, or will never know. I hope what I've written may be helpful to you or someone else.
Modern: Maurice Robinson, David Alan Black; Early Church: Irenaeus and Justin Martyr; many Mark commentators provide comment and explanation on the longer ending even though they don't think it's authentic, but a few just skip it altogether.
@@BestBibleCommentaries Thanks for the info. The ending of Mark is a concern because, if it is not legitimate, then the book of Mark leaves off at a very strange place and would seem to have an underdeveloped theology and sense of who Jesus was. For the gospel that most regard as being first, that's kind of alarming. The Pericope Adulterae is also a concern. Are you aware of any scholars who support it as original to John?
Check today's prices on Amazon using exact ISBN: amzn.to/3iGAbTD
I own the entire NICNT and OT set and I love this volume. Lane did an incredible job. I also appreciate you website. I have used it since 2009 as I built my library. Thanks for all your hard work!
Thanks, James. My pleasure!
Just received my copy thanks to your insightful recommendation. Appreciate the work and hands on view of the commentary.
My pleasure, Luis. May the Lord bless your study of His word.
thanks for the info on Mark
I’ve used it before, and I’ve found it to be a very good resource. I’ve also used the New international application commentary and the new international Greek commentary for Mark, and I’d say that this one probably is my favorite of those three. It does bug me that he translates the Greek text into old English though.
The NIVAC anf NIGTC are excellent resources. Thanks for mentioning those. I had some Greek professors who taught us to translate into older English. It may have had something to do with the Greek textbooks we were using being older and using older English wording.
When Is Rikk Watts version coming out? Any word?
Thank you for this review
My pleasure -- thanks for watching.
Thanks for your video. I really enjoy your channel and find it quite useful. Keep it up!
I have Lane's commentary on Mark in my hopper and plan to review it in detail soon.
The whole questions of ranking is an interesting one. For what it’s worth, I generally don’t like rankings of books in order 1 to whatever because that’s just now how the study of scripture really works for me. At the end of the day, this is a written format of a multi-person conversation which has been going on for 2,000+ years. There is no #1 because of that…these commentaries are not going to produce a definitive answer or interpretation on scripture by themselves.
My main concern with rankings of these commentaries, by and large, is that they speak primarily to the perspectives and biases of the reviewers or review aggregator. For example, I’d be unobservant if I didn’t note that most rankings on all websites tend to favor Evangelical perspectives over others. Rankings on the Romans commentary is a good example on this. You will see the typical players at the top (Moo, Schreiner, etc.). Dunn is always lower, but is at least mentioned. You will RARELY see people reference Joseph Fitzmyer in the top of the list, and yet his commentary on Romans and his general biblical academic work is a top tier standard for almost everyone writing commentary on the bible. Moo explicitly ranks it as a “consistent witness” commentary on Romans that he felt deserved careful study and recommended his readers also consider it with equal respect. Considering the other commentaries that are often cited, I’m forced to conclude Fitzmyer is almost ignored or pushed to the side largely because he was a Catholic priest. I get it, I know where this comes from, but it feels like ranking websites are either unintentionally or intentionally encouraging a gap in the study of the bible, to the detriment of the faithful. To be fair, we all have our own biases (I don’t really focus on application at all when it comes to what I look for in a commentary), but I do think it’s worth trying to render these in such a way as to minimize those biases where possible.
I like to think rather in tiers. Which commentaries, when you engage with them in conjunction with each other, will help give you all well rounded academic perspective on the book in question. No doubt, this can get expensive and time consuming beyond measure for most people, but I do think it’ll give a fuller, richer picture.
Hi, thank you for the response. I appreciate that you are cordial toward an approach that you don't prefer! It's not easy to find that on the internet these days! While I think there can be some benefit to "rankings," I also acknowledge the weaknesses.
I also see the wisdom in a tiered approach. I don't know if you have seen my commentary series page, on which I take a five-tiered approach. Since I changed that page, experimenting with a tier approach, that page has been very well-received. I have considered doing that on many more pages as well. However, tiers don't solve all problems, because of course people will disagree with what series goes in what tier!
Again, thanks for the comments. I enjoyed reading them.
@@BestBibleCommentaries I did see that, and found it very helpful...moving in the direction I tend to think about myself. It's definitly a challenge providing some sort of assessment of all of this. Argueably the best way to figure it out is start reading one well regarded commentary in one particular book, and then see which sources they are responding to more often than others. Eventually you'll get a sense as to which commentaries are the "big players" to contend with. Then again, my bias is always toward the academic, and that approach probably doesn't serve somone looking for something a bit more on the devotional side. (To be fair, I think Study Bibles are much better tools for folks with that preference but that's another topic altogether!)
Sold!
Best Bible Commentaries In the video you mentioned that William L lane was Arminian but in Best Bible Commentaries website you state that he was Reformed. Which one of the two views did he actually hold? Which one is correct?
I have the same doubt
Hello Daniel, There is no "best" commentary on Mark since 2002 ? i'm looking for something updated.
Hello Sir, how come you stop making new videos? When are you going to start again?
Short answer (off the top), there is no 'best' commentary on Mark or any other book in the Bible (although there may be 'better'). Mark is of special interest to me and I have at least 14 commentaries or books on aspects of Mark that I reference together and separately. Oddly enough, I don't have Lane's. I'll be listening to your thoughts with interest.
Curious... Which one of the 14 you like to most?
@@jussivalkonen7581 In no particular order, I do like Clifton Black (Abingdon) for his no nonsense approach, discussing only what we can 'know' and not wasting words on what is only speculative (he defines everything in his intro). It's great for a quick reference and offers a great deal of thoughtful commentary in a short number of pages. Eugene Boring's NTL well written commentary also engages more deeply and has many fine Excursuses. David Garland's NIV commentary picks up the slack that technical commentaries lack with the obvious application sections. The AYB volumes by Joel Marcus are standard technical commentaries but well written and pleasurable to read. Finally a new discovery by James Voelz in the Concordia Commentary series. This is a technical-technical commentary that goes deeply into the grammar and meaning of the words. He offers a fresh and provocative translation taking the context of the vocabulary into account. Was Jesus pierced by reed or a spear? The context suggests the soldiers would have spears and arrows and javelins, so why a 'reed' when all are suggested by the same word? Some of it is above my academic pay grade, but that's okay. A non-commentary that was very thoughtful was 'The Cross at a Distance' by Peter Bolt in the IVP Biblical Theology series. It reads like a non-technical commentary and packed a punch for me. Disclosure: I was trained in Biblical Studies, though I don't know languages. I have no denominational preference or theological position other than the cross and resurrection. Black's approach works well for me. This is what we know. this is what we can infer. This is what we don't know. I don't waste a lot of time on what we don't, can't, or will never know. I hope what I've written may be helpful to you or someone else.
You mention that he does not accept the longer ending of Mark. Can you name some scholars who do?
Modern: Maurice Robinson, David Alan Black; Early Church: Irenaeus and Justin Martyr; many Mark commentators provide comment and explanation on the longer ending even though they don't think it's authentic, but a few just skip it altogether.
@@BestBibleCommentaries Thanks for the info. The ending of Mark is a concern because, if it is not legitimate, then the book of Mark leaves off at a very strange place and would seem to have an underdeveloped theology and sense of who Jesus was. For the gospel that most regard as being first, that's kind of alarming.
The Pericope Adulterae is also a concern. Are you aware of any scholars who support it as original to John?
Does not accept the longer ending of Mark? No thanks, you can keep this particular volume.