Posted 16 July 2014 - 12:54 PM
Sure, Enoch, happy to do so, so long as everyone realizes this is only my personal opinion. Commentary preferences vary widely from individual to individual. Also, I can only provide an overall impression of these as commentary series, since each set has individual volumes that simply shine.
The NICOT/NT commentaries have been my "default" commentaries for many years. In fact, they are still the standard by which I compare other commentaries. They are solid, trustworthy, and generally take the "scholarly consensus" position on most issues. Most of them have been around quite a while now and, that said, some of them are getting a bit dated.
The WBC OT/NT commentaries are generally newer, which allows them to take advantage of recent advances in scholarship. They are also a bit more technical than the NICOT/NT (which means they devote more attention to the original languages and their grammar). I like both of those things. Like the NICOT/NT, the authors in this series generally take commonly accepted positions.
Edited by Timothy Jenney, 16 July 2014 - 12:55 PM.
Timothy P. Jenney, Ph. D.
"Lighting the Lamp" Host and Producer
Academic Licensing Assistant
iMac: Late 2014 27" 5k display, 4.0 GHz quad core i7, 24 GB RAM, 500 GB SSD, AMD Radeon R9 M295X 4096 MB, macOS Sierra 10.13
MBP: Early 2011 17" MBP (8,3), 2.3 GHz quad core i7, 16 GB RAM, 480 SSD + 1 TB SSD, AMD Radeon HD 6750M, macOS Sierra 10.13
iPhone 7 plus: 128 GB, iOS 11.x