What do you think?
Rate this book
The New Interpreter's Bible Commentary - 12 Volume Set #12
New Interpreter's Bible: Hebrews - Revelation
Hebrews; James; 1& 2 Peter; 1, 2, & 3 John; Jude; Revelation New Interpreter's® Bible offers critically sound biblical interpretations for the 1990s and beyond. Guided by scholars, pastors, and laity representing diverse traditions, academic experience, and involvement in the Church, this entirely new collection of writings is specifically prepared to meet the needs of preachers, teachers, and all students of the Bible.
Easy-to-use Format:
* Full texts and critical notes: NIV and NRSV
* A detailed, critical Commentary providing an exegetical "close-reading" of the biblical text
* Reflections that present a detailed exposition of issues raised in the discussion and dealt with in the Commentary Key Features:
* The entire Bible (including the Apocrypha Deuterocanonical books) in twelve volumes
* Introductions to each book that cover essential historical, sociocultural, literary, and theological issues
* An ecumenical roster of contributors
* Comprehensive, concise articles
* Numerous visual aids (illustrations, maps, charts, timelines) enhance use.
Easy-to-use Format:
* Full texts and critical notes: NIV and NRSV
* A detailed, critical Commentary providing an exegetical "close-reading" of the biblical text
* Reflections that present a detailed exposition of issues raised in the discussion and dealt with in the Commentary Key Features:
* The entire Bible (including the Apocrypha Deuterocanonical books) in twelve volumes
* Introductions to each book that cover essential historical, sociocultural, literary, and theological issues
* An ecumenical roster of contributors
* Comprehensive, concise articles
* Numerous visual aids (illustrations, maps, charts, timelines) enhance use.
Download The NIB Vol. 12 Errata Sheet
- GenresReferenceNew Testament
748 pages, Hardcover
First published June 1, 1998
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
March 1, 2026
Like every volume in this series, I certainly don't agree with everything (especially things on the more liberal side), but I find the work has many great insights and is valuable overall.
August 24, 2026
I read this commentary in tandem with my current trek of reading through the Bible, though not in canonical order. Therefore, the first commentaries I read were on 1st and 2nd Peter. I was particularly interested in what David L. Bartlett, the author of the commentary on 1 Peter had to say on the identity of Babylon in 1 Peter 5.13. This is because many preterists claim the Babylon in 1 Peter means Jerusalem. So Kurt Simmons writes, "Peter sent greetings in the name of the church … (1 Peter 5.13). Peter was an elder of the church of Jerusalem (1 Peter 5.1; Acts 15.6, 7). Jerusalem was also the home of Mark (Acts 12.12) (The Consummation of the Ages)." However Bartlett believes, along with the large majority of commentators, the Babylon was almost certainly Rome.
I appreciated Bartlett's thoughtful discussion of 1 Peter 3.19, where he proposes three possible interpretations of this difficult verse. Bartlett cites W. J. Dalton, as the preferred interpretation, that the risen Christ preached to disobedient angels in the lower heavens. Interestingly, Patrick J. Hartin also suggests this interpretation in his much briefer commentary on 1 Peter in the Catholic sponsored New Collegeville Bible Commentary, even though it contradicts the Catholic Doctrine that Jesus descended into hell to preach to the spirits of the dead (§632 of the Catechism).
Concerning 2 Peter, Duane F. Watson claims that the early church expected the Parousia within the lifetime of the first Christians (2 Peter 3.4). This is an important point that is sometimes denied by apologists who wish to deny that the writers of the N.T. books could be mistaken about anything. Watson also notes that 2 Peter 2.6-8 would be particularly effective if the author of 2 Peter and his audience believed, as did many at that time, that the hot springs and sulfurous gases of the region south of the Dead Sea were the smoldering ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah. This judgement is a prophetic type of the eschatological judgement by fire (3.7). It is worth noting that In Wars of the Jews (4.8.4) and Antiquities of the Jews (1.9), Josephus writes that the region of Sodom "was once a happy land, abounding in fruits and the wealth of cities, but now it is all burnt up," and that upon the destruction of the cities, the vale/valley became Lake Asphaltites.
I felt that Christopher C. Rowland's commentary on Revelation was the most successful of the commentaries in this volume. I appreciated him pointing me towards several important books, including *The Morphology of Koine Greek as Used in the Apocalypse of St. John* by G. Mussies, *The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia* by W. Ramsay, *Christianity in Talmud and Midrash* by B. T. Herford, *Novum Testamentum*, by J. J. Wettstein, and *Apocalypse: A People's Commentary on the Book of Revelation*, by Pablo Richard
Rowland writes that it is "almost impossible to resist the temptation to view Revelation as a type of code. As soon as the interpreter does this, the images are left behind and the peculiar ethos of the apocalyptic narrative, the story, with all its abrupt transitions and allusive quality, is lost," and, "Succumbing to the temptation to offer what the text *really* means, in another genre, can in fact mean intellectual and spiritual laziness, demonstrating a failure of nerve and a refusal to allow the imagination to be engaged by the letter of the text." Addressing Christians, Rowland writes, "The nature of Revelation's polyvalent imagery means that there is at the end of the day no refuting readings like this. One can only appeal to consistency with the wider demand of the gospel and its application by generations of men and women in lives of service and involvement with the suffering and marginalized to counter such world-denying and dehumanizing appropriations of Revelation and other biblical books."
These comments suggest that Rowland prefers an idealist interpretation of Revelation, as opposed to a futurist, historicist, or preterist interpretation. His claims that "The text is largely about chaos, the loosening of the bands of historical order," and "Apocalypse is not a manual of eschatology, ethics, or theology, and yet it enables all of these" suggest as much. Rowland complains that "In American Christianity, eschatology has too often been left to the feverish imaginations among the radical right and left, with no alternative voiced by Christians occupying the theological center."
Concerning the controversial question of the dating of Revelation, Rowland notes that external evidence points to a date in the time of Domitian, but internal evidence in chapter 17 points to a date three decades earlier. While most commentators favor the earlier date Rowland claims that evidence from Revelation itself suggests that an earlier date is equally likely.
However there is a *third* alternative suggested by David Aune that I thought was pretty unlikely when I was first presented with it, but seems to me now to be the most likely solution: "The position taken in this commentary is that *both* views contain aspects of the correct solution, since it appears that while the final edition of Revelation was completed towards the end of Domitian (or, more likely, during the early part of the reign of Trajan), the first edition of the book was composed as much as a generation earlier based on written and oral apocalyptic traditions that reach back into the decade of the A.D. 60s, if not somewhat earlier."
I find it harder to get excited about questions concerning the letters of John. C. Clifton Black says that in 1 John 4.7-12, "we journey into the most profound analysis of love in the Christian NT, surpassing even the better-known 1 Corinthians 13," but also notes that it is hard to get excited over something so shopworn and trivialized as love. I agree. But I do have to keep in mind that the idea of Christian love was radical at the time and contrasts favorably with love in the Qur’an, where love for others is virtually absent.
Nonetheless, Black notes that unlike Paul and the Jesus of the Synoptics, John and 1 John do not counsel love for neighbors or enemies, but love for members of the community. He also cites 2 John 7-11 as an example of the exclusionary attitude of the elder.
James has always been one of my favorite N.T. books and in fact it is the first book I translated from Greek into English. Wisdom literature is something I have to take in small bits, and James's small size is an advantage for me. I like the Wisdom of Ben Sirach as well, but I can only read a few chapters of Ben Sirach at a time.
Luke Timothy Johnson does an excellent job in this commentary, and it may be my second favorite commentary in this volume after Revelation. I’ve heard of Johnson's work before, of course, but it seems this is the first commentary of his that I have read. When Johnson claimed that James's short sentences adhere to the ancient ideal of brevity, and although to some readers they appear disconnected, closer analysis reveals careful construction and vigorous argument, I found myself nodding in agreement because the sentences do appear disconnected to me. In this respect James resembles the O.T. book of Proverbs, another wisdom book that people don’t typically read through in one sitting. James's 59 imperatives in its 108 verses makes it typical of wisdom literature; in fact James is considered the only wisdom book in the N.T.
Johnson's claim that Luther's view of James dominated much of the scholarly approach to James until very recently surprised me. I just figured scholars would be more savvy than this. Certainly your typical preacher takes pains to emphasize that James's view of faith does not contradict Paul's. Johnson himself affirms that when James declares that faith co-works the works of Abraham and that faith is perfected by works (2.22), he simply addresses the necessity of convictions to be translated into action, a position also held by Paul (see Gal 5.6). However, Johnson's assertion that in James's question "Can faith save you?" James is not really talking about soteriology confused me. I wish Johnson had explained his reasoning further.
Dr. Fred B. Craddock's commentary on Hebrews was also excellent. The reason it didn’t have me jumping up and down the way the commentary on Revelation did are my mixed feelings about Hebrews. It’s not one of my favorite books by a long shot. Craddock's commentary would be very helpful for pastors teaching the book of Hebrews, probably because of his background. He is Bandy Distinguished Professor of Preaching and New Testament, Emeritus, in the Candler School of Theology. As an ordained minister of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Dr. Craddock served pastorates in Tennessee and Oklahoma. This makes him uniquely qualified to advise pastors, and it shows throughout his commentary.
Craddock’s begins by telling us that "The author [of Hebrews] demonstrates greater skill in the use of the Greek than does any other New Testament writer, including Luke; Hebrews is the finest example of homiletic rhetoric available to us from the first century CE." Craddock follows up on this by making frequent comments on the author’s use of Greek in Hebrews, which I appreciated.
I enjoyed Craddock’s comments on 11.1-2. I always remember 11.1 as the KJV: "Now faith is the *substance* of things hoped for, the *evidence* of things not seen". Craddock points out that "Rather than offering a definition, the author focuses and gives thematic unity to the discussion. In 10.36-39, faith is presented in a context of related words: 'assurance,' 'endurance,' 'firm hope in the promises from which we do not shrink back.' The orientation is eschatological, and that perspective will prevail through v. 40." The two words "substance" and "evidence" in the KJV have always given me fits. Craddock notes the REB version: "The REB is almost objective in translating the first as 'gives substance to' and subjective in the second, 'convinces us'", which offers more explanation than the KJV I think. I never considered faith from an eschatological standpoint, and I will have to keep that in mind the next time I read Hebrews.
This is the third volume of *The New Interpreter’s Bible* that I have read cover to cover and it’s been a good experience. If I live long enough I will read them all. It is less time consuming then reading full length commentaries for each biblical text.
I appreciated Bartlett's thoughtful discussion of 1 Peter 3.19, where he proposes three possible interpretations of this difficult verse. Bartlett cites W. J. Dalton, as the preferred interpretation, that the risen Christ preached to disobedient angels in the lower heavens. Interestingly, Patrick J. Hartin also suggests this interpretation in his much briefer commentary on 1 Peter in the Catholic sponsored New Collegeville Bible Commentary, even though it contradicts the Catholic Doctrine that Jesus descended into hell to preach to the spirits of the dead (§632 of the Catechism).
Concerning 2 Peter, Duane F. Watson claims that the early church expected the Parousia within the lifetime of the first Christians (2 Peter 3.4). This is an important point that is sometimes denied by apologists who wish to deny that the writers of the N.T. books could be mistaken about anything. Watson also notes that 2 Peter 2.6-8 would be particularly effective if the author of 2 Peter and his audience believed, as did many at that time, that the hot springs and sulfurous gases of the region south of the Dead Sea were the smoldering ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah. This judgement is a prophetic type of the eschatological judgement by fire (3.7). It is worth noting that In Wars of the Jews (4.8.4) and Antiquities of the Jews (1.9), Josephus writes that the region of Sodom "was once a happy land, abounding in fruits and the wealth of cities, but now it is all burnt up," and that upon the destruction of the cities, the vale/valley became Lake Asphaltites.
I felt that Christopher C. Rowland's commentary on Revelation was the most successful of the commentaries in this volume. I appreciated him pointing me towards several important books, including *The Morphology of Koine Greek as Used in the Apocalypse of St. John* by G. Mussies, *The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia* by W. Ramsay, *Christianity in Talmud and Midrash* by B. T. Herford, *Novum Testamentum*, by J. J. Wettstein, and *Apocalypse: A People's Commentary on the Book of Revelation*, by Pablo Richard
Rowland writes that it is "almost impossible to resist the temptation to view Revelation as a type of code. As soon as the interpreter does this, the images are left behind and the peculiar ethos of the apocalyptic narrative, the story, with all its abrupt transitions and allusive quality, is lost," and, "Succumbing to the temptation to offer what the text *really* means, in another genre, can in fact mean intellectual and spiritual laziness, demonstrating a failure of nerve and a refusal to allow the imagination to be engaged by the letter of the text." Addressing Christians, Rowland writes, "The nature of Revelation's polyvalent imagery means that there is at the end of the day no refuting readings like this. One can only appeal to consistency with the wider demand of the gospel and its application by generations of men and women in lives of service and involvement with the suffering and marginalized to counter such world-denying and dehumanizing appropriations of Revelation and other biblical books."
These comments suggest that Rowland prefers an idealist interpretation of Revelation, as opposed to a futurist, historicist, or preterist interpretation. His claims that "The text is largely about chaos, the loosening of the bands of historical order," and "Apocalypse is not a manual of eschatology, ethics, or theology, and yet it enables all of these" suggest as much. Rowland complains that "In American Christianity, eschatology has too often been left to the feverish imaginations among the radical right and left, with no alternative voiced by Christians occupying the theological center."
Concerning the controversial question of the dating of Revelation, Rowland notes that external evidence points to a date in the time of Domitian, but internal evidence in chapter 17 points to a date three decades earlier. While most commentators favor the earlier date Rowland claims that evidence from Revelation itself suggests that an earlier date is equally likely.
However there is a *third* alternative suggested by David Aune that I thought was pretty unlikely when I was first presented with it, but seems to me now to be the most likely solution: "The position taken in this commentary is that *both* views contain aspects of the correct solution, since it appears that while the final edition of Revelation was completed towards the end of Domitian (or, more likely, during the early part of the reign of Trajan), the first edition of the book was composed as much as a generation earlier based on written and oral apocalyptic traditions that reach back into the decade of the A.D. 60s, if not somewhat earlier."
I find it harder to get excited about questions concerning the letters of John. C. Clifton Black says that in 1 John 4.7-12, "we journey into the most profound analysis of love in the Christian NT, surpassing even the better-known 1 Corinthians 13," but also notes that it is hard to get excited over something so shopworn and trivialized as love. I agree. But I do have to keep in mind that the idea of Christian love was radical at the time and contrasts favorably with love in the Qur’an, where love for others is virtually absent.
Nonetheless, Black notes that unlike Paul and the Jesus of the Synoptics, John and 1 John do not counsel love for neighbors or enemies, but love for members of the community. He also cites 2 John 7-11 as an example of the exclusionary attitude of the elder.
James has always been one of my favorite N.T. books and in fact it is the first book I translated from Greek into English. Wisdom literature is something I have to take in small bits, and James's small size is an advantage for me. I like the Wisdom of Ben Sirach as well, but I can only read a few chapters of Ben Sirach at a time.
Luke Timothy Johnson does an excellent job in this commentary, and it may be my second favorite commentary in this volume after Revelation. I’ve heard of Johnson's work before, of course, but it seems this is the first commentary of his that I have read. When Johnson claimed that James's short sentences adhere to the ancient ideal of brevity, and although to some readers they appear disconnected, closer analysis reveals careful construction and vigorous argument, I found myself nodding in agreement because the sentences do appear disconnected to me. In this respect James resembles the O.T. book of Proverbs, another wisdom book that people don’t typically read through in one sitting. James's 59 imperatives in its 108 verses makes it typical of wisdom literature; in fact James is considered the only wisdom book in the N.T.
Johnson's claim that Luther's view of James dominated much of the scholarly approach to James until very recently surprised me. I just figured scholars would be more savvy than this. Certainly your typical preacher takes pains to emphasize that James's view of faith does not contradict Paul's. Johnson himself affirms that when James declares that faith co-works the works of Abraham and that faith is perfected by works (2.22), he simply addresses the necessity of convictions to be translated into action, a position also held by Paul (see Gal 5.6). However, Johnson's assertion that in James's question "Can faith save you?" James is not really talking about soteriology confused me. I wish Johnson had explained his reasoning further.
Dr. Fred B. Craddock's commentary on Hebrews was also excellent. The reason it didn’t have me jumping up and down the way the commentary on Revelation did are my mixed feelings about Hebrews. It’s not one of my favorite books by a long shot. Craddock's commentary would be very helpful for pastors teaching the book of Hebrews, probably because of his background. He is Bandy Distinguished Professor of Preaching and New Testament, Emeritus, in the Candler School of Theology. As an ordained minister of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Dr. Craddock served pastorates in Tennessee and Oklahoma. This makes him uniquely qualified to advise pastors, and it shows throughout his commentary.
Craddock’s begins by telling us that "The author [of Hebrews] demonstrates greater skill in the use of the Greek than does any other New Testament writer, including Luke; Hebrews is the finest example of homiletic rhetoric available to us from the first century CE." Craddock follows up on this by making frequent comments on the author’s use of Greek in Hebrews, which I appreciated.
I enjoyed Craddock’s comments on 11.1-2. I always remember 11.1 as the KJV: "Now faith is the *substance* of things hoped for, the *evidence* of things not seen". Craddock points out that "Rather than offering a definition, the author focuses and gives thematic unity to the discussion. In 10.36-39, faith is presented in a context of related words: 'assurance,' 'endurance,' 'firm hope in the promises from which we do not shrink back.' The orientation is eschatological, and that perspective will prevail through v. 40." The two words "substance" and "evidence" in the KJV have always given me fits. Craddock notes the REB version: "The REB is almost objective in translating the first as 'gives substance to' and subjective in the second, 'convinces us'", which offers more explanation than the KJV I think. I never considered faith from an eschatological standpoint, and I will have to keep that in mind the next time I read Hebrews.
This is the third volume of *The New Interpreter’s Bible* that I have read cover to cover and it’s been a good experience. If I live long enough I will read them all. It is less time consuming then reading full length commentaries for each biblical text.
August 4, 2011
Make no mistake, this is a good serious commentary but I will caution against it for 2 reasons (both of which can be overcome): As the other reviewers no doubt notice, it is horrendously overpriced. Find some way to get around the price. The other fault is practical: Anytime a commentary volume devotes more than 2 books per volume, then the books are not give then expository justice they deserve, there simply isn't enough room.
Nevertheless, I will get specific on the pros and cons of the Johannine letters and the book of Revelation in the commentary.
Johannine Literature. Although the exposition is limited in these volumes, Dr. Black does draw out important truths from the letters, particularly good are the "Reflections." The downside of his scholarship is the uncertainty in which he deals with the practical appliactions. He notes the failures of the mainline church but wonders why they are there when the text is right before his eyes! On the other hand, this is a very detailed commentary, despite its limited expositional space. What makes the NIB interesting are the reflections, allowing the author to challenge the reader without being preachy. If the expositor's bible commentary had the reflections that NIB had, evangelicals would have a standard commentary.
Revelation: This is another flawed gem. Dr. Balckman's introduciton is rather lenghty, which is always good. His reflections are nicely done. His excurses are masterful. However, he has this annoying habit of depending on English poet William Blake for interpreting the book as opposed to godly biblical scholars. Aside from this minor faux pas, he does a fine job. I really wanted to give this commentary 4 1/2 stars
Bottom Line: if you can get this commentary cheap--get it. If not, do not lose any sleep over it.
Nevertheless, I will get specific on the pros and cons of the Johannine letters and the book of Revelation in the commentary.
Johannine Literature. Although the exposition is limited in these volumes, Dr. Black does draw out important truths from the letters, particularly good are the "Reflections." The downside of his scholarship is the uncertainty in which he deals with the practical appliactions. He notes the failures of the mainline church but wonders why they are there when the text is right before his eyes! On the other hand, this is a very detailed commentary, despite its limited expositional space. What makes the NIB interesting are the reflections, allowing the author to challenge the reader without being preachy. If the expositor's bible commentary had the reflections that NIB had, evangelicals would have a standard commentary.
Revelation: This is another flawed gem. Dr. Balckman's introduciton is rather lenghty, which is always good. His reflections are nicely done. His excurses are masterful. However, he has this annoying habit of depending on English poet William Blake for interpreting the book as opposed to godly biblical scholars. Aside from this minor faux pas, he does a fine job. I really wanted to give this commentary 4 1/2 stars
Bottom Line: if you can get this commentary cheap--get it. If not, do not lose any sleep over it.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews