Here is another review of Ephesians by E. Best: http://evepheso.wordpress.com/2007/1...y-ernest-best/
Summary of the review:
What's surprising is that it has only two halves of pages examining textual criticism. I quote: "Best’s textual commentary within the commentary proper are generally excellent and valuable"
"[The] introduction provides an excellent survey examining the thought and theology of the letter."
Another quote: [E. Best] also view this unknown author rather negatively on other points:
“[The] A[uthor of] E[phesians fails] to understand the true nature of the households in his communities … His failure to understand correctly life around him is seen also in the way in which he describes the secular world”
In 2006 Gordon Fee wrote an article on Ephesians 5, giving an excellent explanation of why such a “failure” might have occurred.
Another quote: "it is also very helpful for everyone to see the unique contribution that Ephesians makes to the New Testament as a whole."
E. Best thinks that Ephesians was a homily later transformed into a letter.
My opinion of it: the commentary seems to be of high quality/accurate! I think that he is for example right about the authorship-issue! And it's well-divided.
I found a commentary by a Catholic: http://www.logos.com/product/7070/ep...s-a-commentary
... but I'm not considering it because I don't think I would get additional value for money. I don't think there is any difference between the 1991 and the 2001 -editions. It is listed as second best on: http://regulafide.blogspot.se/2011/0...mentaries.html