John [Plagiarism Acknowledged]
in Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
Publisher Baker Academic
N.B. In December 2017, this volume was withdrawn from publication due to containing “a series of inadvertently unattributed references” to the PNTC volume on John by D. A. Carson (Eerdmans, 1990). Apparently, it was the author himself who alerted the publisher to this issue, taking full responsibility for the errors. He seems to have handled the issue with transparency and integrity, even offering a financial restitution to Carson and the publisher. Köstenberger's full announcement can be found here.
This book appears in the following featured collections.
- Recommended NT Commentaries by Denver Seminary Journal
- D. A. Carson's "Best Buys" by D. A. Carson
- Commentaries I use for sermon prep by Eric Nygren
- Building a Commentary Library - New Testament by Invitation to Biblical Interpretation
By the time I’ve arrived at the fifith and final spot in these roundups, it always becomes a little bit more difficult. Whether Kostenberger’s volume should be on this list, or whether it should be another, what’s clear from the experts is that this is still an excellent commentary. Mathison describes it as “a solid, thorough, and practical work that will be of benefit to students and pastors.” [Full Review]
Of the five I have chosen, I have used Köstenberger the most over the last year as I prepared for my preaching on John. For the last year, this has been my “first off the shelf” commentary, although there are more detailed commentaries available. Like most of the BECNT series, each pericope begins with a synopsis of the section followed by a translation and exegesis. He deals with lexical matters int eh body of the commentary, syntactical issues tend to be placed in footnotes. Textual critical comments are covered (briefly) in the “additional notes” at the end of a pericope. Köstenberger’s commentary is excellent for its interaction with other literature on John. The footnotes are packed with detailed notes drawn from a wide variety of scholarship. Köstenberger does not have a conclusion to each pericope to draw out theological implications, this is done in the body of the commentary where necessary. For the most part, the theological results of his commentary are to be found in his Theology of John (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2009). [Full Review]
An excellent commentary, but suffers from being a little too similar to Carson. One key difference between the two is that Kostenberger is more concise in the main commentary, and has extensive footnotes. [Full Review]
our church is currently preaching through the Gospel of John, and out of all of the commentaries that I have been using, this is one that I keep going to. If you are going to get only 4 commentaries on John, I'd get this one.
Standing in the tradition of Carson and Morris, Kostenberger has provided a fine conservative and evangelical commentary on the Gospel of John. This is a solid, thorough, and practical work that will be of benefit to students and pastors. [Full Review]
Pretoria, South Africa 0081 The Gospel according to John is certainly a well commentated Gospel with good commentaries like that of Bultmann, Brown, Schnackenburg, Barrett, Morris, Lindars, Haenchen, Moloney, Carson, Keener, and Wengst, to name a few. This wealth of commentaries begs the question of what a new commentary on John can contribute to those already available. This question is addressed in the series preface by the two editors: “The chief concern … is to provide, within the framework of informed evangelical thought, commentaries that blend scholarly depth with readability, exegetical detail with sensitivity to the whole, and attention to critical problems with theological awareness” (ix). A major purpose is thus to “address the needs of pastors and others involved in the preaching and exposition of the Scriptures” (ix), which means that problems relating to the meaning of the text are the object of focus. However, the current state of scholarly research must be reflected, irrespective of the source of such information. The commentary presupposes a canonical framework based on the trustworthiness and essential unity of Scripture. What matters in the end “is whether the series succeeds in representing the original text accurately, clearly, and meaningfully to the contemporary reader” (x). [Full Review]