After looking through the various commentaries available I noticed a sad trend. Because the geneologies in the first chapter of Matthew mention a Rachab in Matthew 1:5, it has been assumed by those who failed to really study the subject that Rahab the harlot of Joshua 2 and 6 is being referred to. Since she is mentioned in the New Testament, specifically by the name ‘Raavb (Rhaab, hrah-abí #4460), as well as the fact that the timeline would mean that four to five successive generation had to be at or over 100 year old when the next generation was born, it obviously is not the same person. Some argue that the geneologies are innacurate, which would allow for missing names, and a lower age of father when their sons were born, but this means the Bible is wrong, because it very specifically says that the father begat the son. The only motive for claiming that Rachab is Rahab is simply because her name appears and it is felt she must have been someone important, and mentioned. This assumes the Old Testament mentions every person that the New Testament makes note of, which is a really weak argument.
In the end I could find only two out of the numerous commentaries that didnít repeat this error. I myself generally do not use commentaries, finding them often less than useful. I have a set of Nicolís Expositorís Greek Testament, which I use on the rare occasion that I think I might find more depth in a passage, but by and large find that it explains what is already apparent from a thorough word study.
Therefore I really see no benefit of adding commentaries to phpBible.org that would outweight the time spent including them.