Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah

Richard Patterson had the misfortune of writing his commentary for the WEC, a series that didn't last very long. Bible.org has seen to it to republish some of the volumes of that series, so they are now available again, but for a while this just wasn't easy to get. For that reason, it's had less of an impact than it should have had in Habakkuk studies. Patterson is a careful scholar. I'd place this commentary at the same level as Robertson and Bailey. Robertson is stronger on theology, and Patterson is stronger on lexical issues and historical background. His treatment of linguistic matters seems exhaustive compared to Robertson, who in comparison seems almost to ignore it. He doesn't ignore theology, but it's not his main strength, and Robertson and Bailey both strike me as giving fuller treatments of those elements. Until Bailey came along, Robertson and Patterson complemented each other nicely. I still recommend Bailey as the best overall commentary, but if you have both of the others you're doing very well. [Full Review]

Richard Patterson had the misfortune of writing his commentary for the WEC (1991), a series that didn't last very long. Bible.org has seen to it to republish some of the volumes of that series, so they are now available again, but for a while this just wasn't easy to get. For that reason, it's had less of an impact than it should have had in Nahum studies and appears in fewer libraries of those who teach the Bible than it deserves. Patterson is a careful scholar. I'd place this commentary at the same level as Robertson and Bailey. Robertson is stronger on theology, and Patterson is stronger on lexical issues, historical background, and literary analysis. Bailey is probably not as strong as either on those issues but a little more balanced than either and able to interact with more recent scholarship. Patterson's treatment of linguistic matters seems exhaustive compared to Robertson's NICOT, who in comparison seems almost to ignore it. Patterson doesn't ignore theology, but it's not his main strength, and Robertson and Bailey's NAC both strike me as giving fuller treatments of those elements. Until Bailey came along, Robertson and Patterson complemented each other nicely. I still recommend Bailey as the best overall commentary, but if you have both of the others you're doing very well. [Full Review]

A very fine little commentary for the pastor who still uses Hebrew. Provides plenty of interaction with the Hebrew, with some excellent theological insight for the preacher. Often overlooked but well worth it - cheap compared to others.