I have recently acquired some just-published commentaries. Leithart on Kings, Williamson on Isaiah 1-5, Davids on 2 Peter-Jude, Lincoln on John, and Klein on 1 Chronicles.
Leithart disappoints me the most, though I have not read the work itself. Bibliographically, it is strangely lacking. He shows no knowledge of Cogan/Tadmor in the Anchor Bible, Devries in WBC, Montgomery/Gehman in ICC, Fritz in CC, Long in FOTL, House in NAC, Seow in NIB, Ellsworth in Welwyn, and does not even quote Gray (OTL) once, though he is listed in the bibliography. These are some of the regular standards in the literature. Now, if there were a massive number of commentaries available on Kings (such as is available on Romans or John), this might be excusable. One cannot read everything. However, Kings is notoriously lacking in solid exegetical material. One needs to make use of everything that is available. He listed some of the weaknesses of the commentary on pp. 13-14, but neglected to mention the bibliographical weaknesses. I still hope to derive profit from this work, but that is a lot of holes. I was also hoping for something a bit lengthier. 304 pages, including the indices, is not a very long commentary, when one considers that he is taking in both 1 and 2 Kings.
Bibliographically better is Davids on 2 Peter/Jude. Much better. He seems to have read everything of importance. Unfortunately, he comes down agnostic on the issue of the authorship of 2 Peter. He gives too much to Bauckham when he says that Bauckham’s position on authorship (that it is a pseudonymous author) is fully compatible with orthodoxy on Scripture. The letter claims to be from Peter. It’s one thing if the writing is anonymous (like Hebrews is, technically). It is quite something else when the letter claims authorship for itself. The early church made a habit of rejecting letters that were not from whom the letter purported to be from. So, the early church was not ignorant of forgeries. The liberals have never been able to answer this problem. I’m sure that Davids’s commentary is excellent is most other ways. It is quite long (348 pages, including indices) for just two short epistles. There will be much meat there, I’m sure.
Williamson on Isaiah looks to be a very interesting, meaty commentary. He produced an excellent commentary on Ezra-Nehemiah in the WBC, and has now produced this one in the ICC.
Lincoln on John also looks to be helpful. It is a much longer commentary than most of the commentaries in that series tend to be (584 pages, including indices). Plus, he is not nearly as liberal as Bultmann or Brown. He seems to have read everything of importance, as well (not easy, when commenting on John!).
Klein is quite an expert on Chronicles and that history, though he is a bit liberal. Nevertheless, this looks to be a full treatment in the venerable Hermeneia tradition.