I am planning on leading a Bible Study and want to try and provide some commentary by people such as Augustine, St John Chrysostom, etc. I've tried looking around and found it very difficult to find anything and it seems a lot of the references are implicit rather than explicit from my searching. I found Augustine's "On Grace and Free Will" which has some good references but I'd like to find more if possible.

I'm trying to find Calvin's commentary on Psalm 88 in his original Latin.

I'm looking for an English translation of Martin Luther's notes in his German Bible translation. Or maybe it would be called his preface. My understanding is that he included personal notes before each book in the New Testament. Does anyone know what I am talking about or where I could find it? Thanks.

In Weimar's edition of Luther's work, Luther supposedly summarized Psalm 83 as follows: > "God must be recognized and honored by all creatures, whether by grace or, contrary to the will, in damnation." I'm trying to locate that quotation in the original German work.

Regardless of the historicity of the account, the people who wrote it down, edited it, listened to the story, and edited again, must have realized some people would be confused by the characters simply giving up after they had overcome much more physically demanding hurdles. The authors and the audience must have had this literary sensitivity. This raises the question: _Why was this not adressed? Why was this not commented on? Why did the author of the story of the Tower of Babel did not consider, or did not address, or glossed over the possibility of some of his characters trying to learn the other's language to continue the enterprise?_

I was recently shown an excerpt of commentary from the NIV edition of the _Life Application Study Bible_ from Tyndale/Zondervan. Frankly I was rather surprised by how blatant the eisegesis was in that specific case. Since I don't have a full copy of it to review key passages I can't tell whether this is a persistent issue or just one poorly thought out bit that slipped through. It's remarkably hard to find reviews of Study Bibles online that delve into what kind of theological background the commentary is from. Some of them are obvious¹ but most of them seem to specialize in being as "middle of the road" as possible. It's easy to find descriptions of how many maps and illustrations and reader aids a given work includes and most tout "a broad range of scholarship", but a lot harder to find anything specific about the backgrounds of the actual commentators. With that in mind I'm looking for a general break down of what went into the writing and editing of this particular work: 1. Who were the major contributors and from what theological traditions do they hail? 1. Were there any explicit boundaries set by the project as for as what hermeneutical approaches and/or theological traditions would be represented in what light? 1. Are there strong theological biases² evident at any point in the commentary? Specifically is are there consistent trends towards explanations that endorse specific views on key issues such as: * Arminian vs. Calvinist views on soteriology. * Complementarian vs. Egalitarian views of gender roles. * Premillennial, Postmillennial, or Amillennial views on eschatology. * Dispensational vs. Covenantal views on the nature of the church through history. * Credobaptist vs. Pedobaptist views on baptism. * Cessationist vs. Continuationist views of apostolic gifts? 1. Are there any notable trends in which denominations or traditions have embraced the use of or disapproved of the content of this work? Note this same commentary content seems to have been published alongside a number of different English translations. As far as I can tell it isn't important to this question that the NIV edition is used for review. ¹ For example it's no mystery what theological framework the notes in the _MacArthur Study Bible_ will represent. One can easily lookup the general editor's views on a variety of subjects and understand how he'll be evaluating passages. ² I don't use "bias" in a negative sense here, in fact I think bias is both impossible to avoid and even necessary, but I like to understand specifically what presuppositions are involved all the time.

I'm trying to locate an online edition (*archive.org*, etc) of Martin Luther's Commentary on the book of Psalms, specifically the Weimar (WA) edition of Luther's works.

"Hugh of Saint-Cher († 1263) was the second Dominican Master of Theology in Paris, and the first Dominican cardinal" (n. 39) who, "through the persuasion of Master [St.] Albert [the Great]", convinced "John of Vercelli, Master General of the [Dominican] Order" to accept St. Thomas Aquinas into "the Baccalaureate at the Order’s studium in Paris." (*William of Tocco’s Life of St. Thomas Aquinas* pp. 61-62). "Hugh is celebrated for his prodigious theological and exegetical works, particularly the monumental commentary on the entire Bible (*Postillæ in totam Bibliam*) that he composed with a team of friars." (*ibid.* p. 62n39). Does an English translation of Hugh of Saint-Cher's *Postillæ in totam Bibliam* exist?

My question is how to compare and contrast the contents of The Apologetics Study Bible and The Apologetics Study Bible for Students . It is clear from the title that the latter is targeted toward students, but my understanding was that the average Christian adult is no better versed in subjects such as apologetics, philosophy of religion, natural theology, etc., than the average Christian student. I want to know why a potential buyer/reader would choose one over the other, apart from their age or schooling status. The above link offer a small clue. From the standard edition: > More than 100 articles relate biblical truth to science, history, archaeology, psychology, philosophy, and other critical subjects. Strategically placed alongside the text of Scripture. From the student edition: > In addition to the complete HCSB text and dozens of articles collected from today’s most popular youth leaders, including general editor Sean McDowell, this new study Bible also includes:
Two-color design-intensive layout on every page for the visual generation
Sixty “Twisted Scriptures” explanations
Fifty “Bones & Dirt” entries (archaeology meets apologetics)
Fifty “Notable Quotes”
Twenty-five “Tactics” against common anti-Christian arguments
Twenty “Personal Stories” of how God has worked in real lives
Twenty “Top Five” lists to help remember key apologetics topics
However, it is very difficult to find any more specific information, as it seems few people have read both editions. How does the Biblical commentary in each edition of The Apologetics Study Bible differ, in terms of scope (the number of topics addressed), depth (how thoroughly addressed topics are explored, i.e., does one go further into point->counterpoint->countercounterpoint->etc. than the other), focus (are some types of topics a heavier focus in one than the other), etc.? Does one include more non-apologetic commentary than the other to fill the space of whatever content it lacks?

According to Wiki: >The Church Fathers, Early Church Fathers, Christian Fathers, or Fathers of the Church were ancient and influential Christian theologians and writers who established the intellectual and doctrinal foundations of Christianity. The historical period in which they worked became known as the Patristic Era and spans approximately from the late 1st to mid-8th centuries Luke 10:16: > He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me. *(Douay-Rheims)* Can anyone provide some commentary that (specifically) Church Fathers have made on Luke 10:16?

We know that early in his career (as *baccalaureus biblicus*, before he wrote his *Summa*) Aquinas lectured on the Bible and wrote his own commentaries in addition to using the *Catena aurea* as well as Patristic commentaries available to him. **My question**: When Aquinas did his exegesis, did he have access to the Hebrew/Greek source (although he couldn't read Greek)? Apart from the Latin Vulgate, did he have access to other translations?

I am looking for a Bible gathering commentaries of the Church Fathers verse by verse. Is there such a book or website?

I've heard it claimed that St. Thomas Aquinas desired to obtain a manuscript of a biblical commentary (by St. John Chrysostom?) more than he desired to posses an entire kingdom. What is the source of this story?

I'm looking for a reference book on the 7 churches of Revelation. I thought that the title of the book was "What Happened to the Seven Churches of Revelation?"; but I cannot find anything with that title. The content of the book discusses the messages to each of the churches as written in Revelation and how to interpret each of those messages. But the book also discusses what happened to each of the churches after they received the letter (for example, the church of Laodicea took the warnings to heart, revived, and lasted until the 1500s). Any help would be appreciated!

I overheard someone talk about [Shepherd's Notes](https://www.olivetree.com/store/product.php?productid=77410) . They described it as Cliff's Notes for books of the Bible and will help you understand things you read in the Bible. However, to me it sounds like a commentary. If anyone has used Shepherd's Notes before, is it the same as a commentary? If it's the same as a commentary, why would someone use Shepherd's Notes? I [found them on Amazon](https://www.amazon.com/s?k=shepherd%27s+notes&crid=N5I6J0TBKDTZ&sprefix=shepherd%27s+note%2Caps%2C160&ref=nb_sb_noss_2) but there wasn't any sample pages for me to skim. Also my local libraries don't seem to have them either for me to look at either.

Thomas' statement at John 20:28 > "Thomas replied, “My Lord and my God!”" > Ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ “Ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου.” has been the subject of significantly different interpretations. Some, and now this seems the standard view, hold that Thomas is saying Jesus is both Thomas' Lord and God, where 'God' is understood in something like a Trinitarian sense. There are other interpretations , including calling Jesus a 'god', an exclamation of astonishment, or Thomas seeing the Father in Jesus because he now knows Jesus is the agent of the Father. What is the earliest known commentary on John 20:28? How does the commenter (or commenters if they are roughly contemporaneous) understand Thomas' statement?

There are lots of ancient commentaries on the book, most notably Origen's . However these seem to be chiefly interested in spiritual content (questions like what horses bridles/lilies may represent), I am unaware of any that concern themselves with the story of the book before the 12th century. By story of the book I mean, things like: who is saying each line, what the scene they are in is, how the narrative has developed from previous scenes. It seems unlikely to me that Christians (and Jews) would read the book for well over a millennia before anyone thought to ask questions about the narrative of the book.

I am quoting a bible commentator for a paper I am writing, and was wondering if I should say, "One scholar says..." or if I should just stick with "One commentator says..."

What is the oldest recorded commentary on the 12th chapter of Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians? Plenty of people have written commentaries on this chapter, many times biased by their own doctrinal views and assumptions regarding the gifts of the Spirit, but I'm especially interested in the content of the **oldest** recorded commentary on the chapter in the history of the Church.

Until reading the "Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew" by Origen Adamantius, I presumed (based on the teachings of Wikipedia) that the original manuscript of Matthew was written in Greek & that Mark was the earliest gospel. **In contrast to internet, early church scholars like Origen (around 246-248 AD) stated that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew & that Mark was the second gospel account written.**

Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a publican and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first; and that he composed it in the Hebrew tongue and published it for the converts from Judaism. The second written was that according to Mark, who wrote it according to the instruction of Peter, who, in his General Epistle, acknowledged him as a son, saying, "The church that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son." And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles. Last of all, that according to John.

Biblehub - Origen's Commentary on Matthew's Gospel **Regarding early church "Commentary of Matthew" by Origen, should Christians trust Matthew was the first Gospel written in Hebrew?**