This is going to sound like the other thread a little...
When you say "complete", what will satisfy? I can't think of
any one-man work that covers the whole Bible, Gen-Rev, in true commentary fashion. Maybe John Gill? There are consice, multi-volume works by multiple authors (and therefore bound to be somewhat uneven, both in style and in doctrinal commitment), and available in loss-cost paperback editions--such as the Tyndale set.
So, you are left with more-or-less old standbys, executed in days gone by when there were some men of truly prodigious learning and capacity for work. Praise God so much is Reformed in theological orientation.
Matthew Henry's full commentary (18th century) is basic--the full text can be gotten in 6 volumes; mine is from Hendrickson Pubs, and is probably available at a fairly good discount from CBD (I'm guessing here). Is also available in a one-volume (hefty) full-text version, minus the biblical text, and in very small print. Although Henry lived only to complete through the gospels, the balance (though lacking) nicely rounds out the set.
Matthew Poole's 3 volume commentary (17th century; modern pub. Banner of Truth) is more concise, but still very rich, and more "commentary-like" than Henry, in that, Henry rigorously teaches his way through the text, over against Poole's "basic-thrust" approach. Poole also did not live to complete his work, but his like-minded fellows did.
Jamieson-Faucett-Brown commentary (19th century; # of vols may vary, 3-6, or so I think) is generally reliable.
Others, but I wouldn't rush out and get them:
John Gill's (18th cent; probably a
prrrrricey set;
at least 5 rather large volumes with tiny print). Spurgeon's predecesor.
"Lange's" (19th cent) is complete, but is generally too massive for a basic library, in addition to being price-prohibitive--but if you found it in a bargain basement... It also (unfortunantly) shows effects of German criticism, especially in the later contributions. Lange (German) was basically conservative, and P. Schaff the American editor showed his awareness of American theology's more conservative bent by his choices of American translators/appenders of notes, who were non-radical.
Further thoughts:
Wm Hendriksen/S Kistemaker (sp?) on the New Testament. 20th Cent. Reformed stuff. Might have a hard time getting all these at one time. They are propably still under copyright, and in print, therefore pri$$$$ey, even in a used market.
My thoughts on the value of Keil and Delitzsch for OT--I have elsewhere on the PB
commended them for the serious student. You might need to "read around" some of the more technical stuff and the insertion of some Hebrew or Greek fonts if you are not (yet!) a reader, but it really is a benchmark in OT studies. My modern set is from Hendrickson. It is valuable for its updated typeface and better layout than the old. But there is a reason why these "hardbacks" (and the others like them) are so cheap these days--because these are not heirloom books, these glorified paperbacks. Nevertheless, we praise their contents (and their readability) rather than the packaging...
Some thoughts on Calvin:
Calvin's commentaries
do not skip anything within books. He died in the middle of Ezekiel (I believe), and he did not complete either the OT or NT. His NT lacks 2 & 3 John and Revelation; the OT has more gaps, particularly in the histories (post Pentateuch) and wisdom other than Psalms. I think T.H.L. Parker errs suggesting that Calvin was suspicious of Revelation (and the other two John letters), given the paucity of extant reference he made to it. I am of the view that Calvin planned (d.v. he should live) to complete the NT with a final commentary (of however many volumes) dealing with Revelation, with the letters thrown in. I think he recognized the utter
mastery of the OT necessary to complete the work, given the
stupendous amount of allusion to the OT--in particular the Prophets--found in Revelation.
Having Calvin, in part or in whole, seems to me ought to be the avowed intent of every Puritanhead
