Several people on the forum, myself included, are big fans of Jonathan Mitchell’s unique multi-valent translation of the New Testament, which builds in all kinds of various interpretative options for the grammar and context (often based on how words have different meanings) so that the reader can have the best chance of deciding among the all the options for translating the Greek.
In that book, JM rarely gave an opinion of his own on how best to interpret a passage; but now he has started releasing a set of books providing the same multi-valent translation scheme with commentary.
The first volume is Peter, Paul & Jacob: comments on First Peter, Philippians, Colossians, First Thessalonians, Second Thessalonians, First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus and Jacob (James).
I can’t give a review yet because I’ve barely cracked it; what I can say is that he doesn’t explain in his introductory page why he chose those texts for his first volume or why he presents them in the order he does (which mirrors the title order. Certainly it doesn’t match his presentation of the compositional chronology, because he follows JATRobinson on that; consequently 1 Peter is dated to around 65 CE shortly before Peter’s execution, and everything else is dated earlier.) Why not present them in canonical order for ease of cross-referencing?! Why this eclectic and apparently random selection of epistles? But since JM doesn’t much like what he calls “institutional and hierarchical mindsets”, maybe that was itself the reason, an overtly anti-organizational presentation. Whatevs (as the kids would say nowadays.)
Leaving that aside, the text (in a nice glossy trade-style paperback running about 245 pages), is crammed with interesting material: aside from giving the same translation schemes as from his main NT, he goes into much detail about why he presents the variant translations (on grammatic and various other technical grounds), quotes interpretative bits from numerous authors (mostly 20th century, including the Baptist universalist Barclay), and offers some interpretations of his own. Each text also comes with a brief introductory overview.
Jonathan Mitchell is on record elsewhere being a Christian universalist himself, and his interpretations do follow that line on their own exegetical grounds (which of course could be disputed, but in the few places I’ve already checked he isn’t simply reading his belief into those interpretations). So naturally this book (and his main NT translation) will be of interest to Kath members here on the forum.
I haven’t read enough to get a clear gist of his Patro/Christo/Pneumatology, other than he distinguishes between the Persons of Jesus and the Father (and identifies Jesus as the Son) so he certainly isn’t modalist. Whether he’s trinitarian, binitarian, bi-theist (tri-theist?!) or some type of unitarian, I can’t yet say. Not sure yet how much a preterist he is, either. (He regards prophecies as at least partially referring to the destruction of Jerusalem, but most Christians at least partially do, myself included.) From some of the things he says, I get the impression he might be annoyed that I’m even bothering to think such things might be important enough to wonder about. 
Anyway, his main NT translation is a hugely helpful tome that I strongly recommend to all students of interpretation and translation (regardless of doctrinal differences, with which his main translation isn’t involved); and fans of that method should at least find this first commentary volume of great interest, regardless of doctrinal differences.
