Joshua: No Falling Words

I'm usually not impressed with commentaries that try to be humorous and "contemporary" in style. However, with Davis's commentary I was impressed by his ability to combine pithy remarks with powerful insights into the redemptive-historical doctrines contained in the book of Joshua. Perhaps the most refreshing aspect was Davis's humorous rebuttals to the higher criticism of liberal scholarship, without getting too bogged down in minutiae. This commentary provides excellent outlines of the biblical author's thoughts, including careful consideration of literary patterns. Unlike some who make use of literary structures, Davis doesn't get carried away with trying to fit everything into a tight chiasm or absolute structure, but allows the thought of the passage to dictate his decisions. The commentary is written from a Reformed perspective. Those who appreciate the Covenantal pattern of God's revelation will enjoy Davis's exposition of the text.

This is a well-written, informative commentary on a generally under-appreciated and ignored book of the Bible. Davis brings the text to life with his keen observations and engaging writing. Highly recommended for anyone who wants to understand the Bible better, but finds normal heady theological prose too inaccessible.

I have used all of Dale Ralph Davis' commentaries (Judges, Joshua, I Sam., II Sam., I Kgs) -- every one of them is consisently excellent. In fact, if I had just one commentary on each of thsoe books I'd select Davis. Davis is a former Old Testament seminary professor, with a PhD., but has also been a pastor (Presbyterian PCA) for many years. These are all non-technical, unfootnoted, homiletical treatments. They are theologically rich, always Christocentric (or at least Christo-telic), well-illustrated, and relentlessly practical. Davis can turn a clever phrase like no other commentator, often tweaking a cliche to turn it on its head. Indispensible. I was shocked that fellow PCAer Tremper Longman did not even include any Ralph Davis books in his survey of commentaries (though Longman analyzes lots and lots of inferior works). I have two copies of each of Davis' commentaries (one for home, one for the office). I have not really found other works on Joshua nearly as helpful. James M. Boice (1991) is solid but dry. Woudstra in teh fine NICOT series is scholarly, more technical, and reliable; Peter Jeffrey (1999 is decent, but somewhat moralistic; John A. Huffman (1986, Word Communicator's Comm.) was disappointing.