Rating: 
Summary: Excellent
Review: Athough Carson's on the gender-inclusive bandwagon, this commentary on John is excellent. Leon Morris' commentary on John is equally valuable. I would highly recommend either of these, both extremely well written and both by conservatives.Eric
Rating: 
Summary: A good intermediate level commentary on John
Review: Considered by many evangelicals to be a leading scholar in the field of biblical exegesis, Professor D. A. Carson has produced an outstanding commentary on the Gospel According to John. One of the many strengths of this commentary is Carson's ability to combine his extensive knowledge of biblical theology with a thorough exegesis of the original text. No study of John's Gospel is complete without this fine commentary. Highly recommended!
Rating:
Summary: The finest modern commentary on the fourth Gospel
Review: Considered by many evangelicals to be a leading scholar in the field of biblical exegesis, Professor D. A. Carson has produced an outstanding commentary on the Gospel According to John. One of the many strengths of this commentary is Carson's ability to combine his extensive knowledge of biblical theology with a thorough exegesis of the original text. No study of John's Gospel is complete without this fine commentary. Highly recommended!
Rating:
Summary: Carson tries hard but he is out of his depth.
Review: D.A. Carson is an able New Testament scholar, which is one of the reasons I purchased this commentary. His recent work on the Inclusive Language Debate was cogent and well written. This commentary, however, finds Carson out of his depth. He writes in a lucid style that often borders on the colloquial. Although he is excellent at summarizing the views of others, he is not as strong in formulating his own. A case in point is his unfortunate exegesis of John 3:5, where Carson concludes that "water and spirit" refers neither to water baptism nor to the Holy Spirit. At times Carson offers good insights for preachers, and is particularly helpful for people who know little or nothing of the critical issues in John's Gospel. The overall impression however, is that in a world where exceptional commentaries on John abound, like those of R.E. Brown, R. Bultmann, and C.K. Barrett, this commentary pales by comparison. If one were looking for a single volume, non-technical commentary, I would recommend Leon Morris' work above Carson's.
Rating:
Summary: a regular commentary written by a follower of Ulrich Zwingli
Review: I bought this commentary on John, and this is not a bad one, and Carson gives you several good insights, but he follows one of the routes of the protestant tradition, the worst one, the zwinglian. He tries to hide any sacramental sign of the Gospel of John: He says that the water and Spirit of Jn 3:5 is not about baptism. He says that water and Spirit is a reference only to the Spirit, and that we to understand Jn 3:5 as pointing to Ezekiel and the divine promise of the gift of Spirit and water. But Carson can't avoid the fact that Ez could refer to the giving of the Spirit via the sacrament of Baptism. Carson is a baptist, so he follows the bias of his tradition. George Beasley Murray is a Baptist exegete, but he admits as the christians of the first 3 centuries that Jn 3:5 is about the One Baptism: the sacrament of baptism, which wash away sins and gives the Spirit.
Carson tries to twist Jn 6, to avoid the obvius: that Jesus is the Bread of Life who must be believed, and Who can gives us life by eating His flesh and drinking His blood at Lord's Supper. Carson tries to convince the reader that Jn 6,53-58 isn't about Eucharist, and he fights against the clear meaning of the text and the reading of the first christians as Ignatius, but, Carson finally gives up and says, "well, this text is about the Eucharist as any other text of the Gospels". Even though he is a follower of Ulrich Zwingly, he at least admits that John 6 has an alussion to the Eucharist. Beasley Murray also a baptist says clearly that the firs readers of John could understand that John was talking about Lord's Supper. Carso'ns interpretation of Jn 20,23 is wrong as the Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of John shows. Well, you better buy George Beasley Murray commentary on John or C.K. Barrett, which is better.
Rating:
Summary: A great John Commentary
Review: I have just finished reading through this commentary for the third time. I have read many commentaries on John's Gospel and consider this one of the best evangelical commentaries on John available today. Carson interacts with many views on controversial items but is never boring. The commentary is a good mix of excellent and profound scholarship but never loses its readability. If one is not familiar with the Greek Language of the Bible this commentary is a good one. If you do have a working knowlege of Greek, Carson is an excellent Greek exegete and you will find satisfaction here. I recommend this great commentary wholeheartedly.
Rating:
Summary: A Modern Commentary Lacking Imagination
Review: I was a student of Carson's in Deerfield and I know him to be an able professor of Greek and an unquestionably Christian man. That said, however, he has always drank a little too deeply from the well of Enlightenment modernism for my taste. It is fairly uncontroversial by now to note how Protestant liberalism and Protestant fundamentalism are both innovations of Enlightenment modernism. As a Baptistic evangelical, Carson's exegetical writings are quintessentially representative of the conservative modernist reaction against modernist liberalism. This characteristic consistently appears in his exegesis in the way that he divorces the Scripture from its typological and liturgical performance in the real historical institution and communion of the Church. Carson seems to have embraced the notion that one may arrive at the divine meaning of the text through a bare lexicographic and grammatical analysis and apart from the living interpretive community that bears living witness to it. Thus, while denying liberals their individualized conclusions, he has conceded their individualistic premises. Other reviews of this work on Amazon.com have noted Carson's novel approach to the Holy Spirit and the Sacrament of Baptism in John 3 so I will not reproduce that criticism here. I will, however, note a similar issue in John 6 with particular regard to the way in which it illustrates my above-stated concerns. When treating the statements of Jesus in 6:53-55 ("I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you," etc.), Carson denies the plain Eucharistic allusion on two grounds. The first is that Jesus uses the word "flesh" (Gk. sarx) rather than "body" (Gk. soma). The second is that because the historical "bread of life" discourse would have happened before the Last Supper, Jesus audience would have had no context for the meaning of his words. This non-sacramental reading of Jesus words may fit hand in glove with Carson's Baptist ecclesiology, but it fails to comprehend that the Gospels were not presented bare transcripts of the words of Jesus. Even the most conservative inerrantist will concede that the Gospels record only the "voice" of Jesus (Lat. verba vox) and not his "precise words" (Lat. ipissima verba). Such a conclusion is necessary based on the mere fact that the gospels subsist in Koine Greek rather than in the Aramaic that Jesus actually spoke. John is remembering the teaching of Jesus for the sake of a living Church in the Late First Century. Thus, the reconstruction of the historical "bread of life" discourse is less determinative for the interpretation of John 6 than the late First Century context of the Apostle John. Jesus' command to eat his flesh and drink his blood is at one and the same time a report and an interpretation. St. John is remembering Jesus words as they apply to a living Church that shares in the Eucharistic flesh and blood on at least a weekly basis. His preference for sarx over soma likely originates from the fact that this same late First Century Church found itself mired in controversies with proto-Gnostic Docetism. Making clear that Jesus was concerned with "flesh" makes sense in amid a culture that treated the physical world as irredeemably evil. It is for this reason that the Church has historically always regarded the passage as an allusion to the Eucharist. Problems like this abound in Carson's commentary. While one may appreciate his analysis and explication of grammar and lexicography, the commentary as a whole is far inferior to the works of Raymond Brown, Rudolf Schnackenburg, and Edwyn Hoskyns/Noel Davies. Students of Carson's particular tradition would do better with the new commentary by Craig Keener.
Rating:
Summary: A Modern Commentary Lacking Imagination
Review: I was a student of Carson's in Deerfield and I know him to be an able professor of Greek and an unquestionably Christian man. That said, however, he has always drank a little too deeply from the well of Enlightenment modernism for my taste. It is fairly uncontroversial by now to note how Protestant liberalism and Protestant fundamentalism are both innovations of Enlightenment modernism. As a Baptistic evangelical, Carson's exegetical writings are quintessentially representative of the conservative modernist reaction against modernist liberalism. This characteristic consistently appears in his exegesis in the way that he divorces the Scripture from its typological and liturgical performance in the real historical institution and communion of the Church. Carson seems to have embraced the notion that one may arrive at the divine meaning of the text through a bare lexicographic and grammatical analysis and apart from the living interpretive community that bears living witness to it. Thus, while denying liberals their individualized conclusions, he has conceded their individualistic premises. Other reviews of this work on Amazon.com have noted Carson's novel approach to the Holy Spirit and the Sacrament of Baptism in John 3 so I will not reproduce that criticism here. I will, however, note a similar issue in John 6 with particular regard to the way in which it illustrates my above-stated concerns. When treating the statements of Jesus in 6:53-55 ("I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you," etc.), Carson denies the plain Eucharistic allusion on two grounds. The first is that Jesus uses the word "flesh" (Gk. sarx) rather than "body" (Gk. soma). The second is that because the historical "bread of life" discourse would have happened before the Last Supper, Jesus audience would have had no context for the meaning of his words. This non-sacramental reading of Jesus words may fit hand in glove with Carson's Baptist ecclesiology, but it fails to comprehend that the Gospels were not presented bare transcripts of the words of Jesus. Even the most conservative inerrantist will concede that the Gospels record only the "voice" of Jesus (Lat. verba vox) and not his "precise words" (Lat. ipissima verba). Such a conclusion is necessary based on the mere fact that the gospels subsist in Koine Greek rather than in the Aramaic that Jesus actually spoke. John is remembering the teaching of Jesus for the sake of a living Church in the Late First Century. Thus, the reconstruction of the historical "bread of life" discourse is less determinative for the interpretation of John 6 than the late First Century context of the Apostle John. Jesus' command to eat his flesh and drink his blood is at one and the same time a report and an interpretation. St. John is remembering Jesus words as they apply to a living Church that shares in the Eucharistic flesh and blood on at least a weekly basis. His preference for sarx over soma likely originates from the fact that this same late First Century Church found itself mired in controversies with proto-Gnostic Docetism. Making clear that Jesus was concerned with "flesh" makes sense in amid a culture that treated the physical world as irredeemably evil. It is for this reason that the Church has historically always regarded the passage as an allusion to the Eucharist. Problems like this abound in Carson's commentary. While one may appreciate his analysis and explication of grammar and lexicography, the commentary as a whole is far inferior to the works of Raymond Brown, Rudolf Schnackenburg, and Edwyn Hoskyns/Noel Davies. Students of Carson's particular tradition would do better with the new commentary by Craig Keener.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent.
Review: If you would like an exercise in Baptist theology purchase this commentary. If however, you would like to know something about the Gospel of John, I recommend you try another commentary. Carson is almost maniacal about defending Baptist belief and therefore rejects the sacramental teaching of the fourth Gospel. He writes in a chatty style, using the lingo of a pseudo intellectual guru. This is possibly the worst commentary on St. John that Eerdmans have ever published.
Rating:
Summary: An evangelical commentary worthy of 3.5 stars
Review: One of the strengths of this commentary is its introduction covering issues such as authorship and date. For those who prefer commentaries with a more conservative approach, Carson's argument for the authorship of this gospel is helpful. He argues that the beloved disciple is the primary author of the gospel, and that the beloved disciple is John, the son of Zebedee. Carson also arrives at a date of composition around 80-85 C.E. and sees no reason to doubt the tradition of Ephesus as the probable place of origin. Another strength of this commentary was the theological insights provided by Carson. He does a good job of bringing out John's message and I'm sure this would be a helpful aspect for preachers. The NIV is the text used by Carson. There are frequent discussions of Greek terminology, and thankfully the commentary was written with footnotes instead of endnotes. This helped to make for a much smoother read. While not an excellent work on John, Carson does an above average job in providing a work written from a conservative, evangelical perspective.
| 
