Arnold Anderson's WBC on II Samuel (1989) is not as good as Klein's WBC on I Samuel. It is much thinner. Klein is a little more focused on certain aspects of commenting, and Anderson is more balanced in his approach, but he is less detailed than Klein and isn't on the cutting-edge level, as Klein was in his time (and as his forthcoming revision probably will be once again). The main use I have for Anderson is in textual criticism, since the more conservative commentaries have little of that. Longman calls Anderson moderately critical. I will sell it once I have Tsumura's second NICOT volume. He sees Samuel as an apologetic for the Davidic line through Solomon. Some have criticized him for losing the big picture in the details. Anderson thinks the source materials for Samuel (History of David's Rise, Succession Narrative, etc.) were fairly close in time to the events they describe, which I find somewhat refreshing. [Full Review]

Considers the historical context as one in which David and Solomon are presented as rightful occupants of the throne in Jerusalem. [Full Review]

Considers the historical context as one in which David and Solomon are presented as rightful occupants of the throne in Jerusalem. [Full Review]