If you own and use ICC, compared to the other commentaries that you have, do you find you use ICC and is it worth the price, as a set. Or do you find just a few of the volumes useful, and if so which ones and why ?
I have several volumes in book form, and intend to buy it in Logos at some point. I use the ones I have.
It depends on the type of commentary you find most useful. It is a very technical commentary, not devotional or even pastoral. It assumes a good working knowledge of Greek or Hebrew, and without that it would be useless. Most of the volumes are not very evangelical in philosophy - although that is changing somewhat. Some of the newer volumes are more evangelical that the old school classical liberal volumes.
Some of the volumes are much better than others.
Yes, assuming a good working knowledge of original languages, it is worth the price - in my opinion.
The older volumes are available for free on the internet. You can take a look at a few and decide for yourself if it would be of value to you. They are in PDF format on line.
First one I looked at on-line was on the Gospel of John from just over a century ago (1902, MacEvilly). No Greek or Hebrew in that one, it seemed to focus on translation from the vulgate, which I found interesting given that was what led to the commentary author's perspective, along with his denominational traditions, which seemed to overwhelm the interpretation. So I can see what you mean by "old school classical.....". Based on that volume I thought that the ICC might be of more use in helping understand other people's old school perspectives rather than helping get to a deeper meaning from the Gospel author.
Anyone have an evaluation of some of the more modern volumes of ICC ?
Do you mind sharing the link to the older volumes in PDF format for ICC. Thanks
You can find many of them here... keep in mind that these are the older ones and many of the ones in the current Logos collection are updates and by different authors:
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=critical%20and%20exegetical%20commentary%20AND%20collection%3Atoronto&page=2
First one I looked at on-line was on the Gospel of John from just over a century ago (1902, MacEvilly).
I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I don't think that MacEvilly commentary was ever part of ICC. The set we sell includes J.H. Bernard's 2 volume treatment from 1929.
When I look at the title page for MacEvilly, the words 'critical' and 'exegetical' appear in the extended title, but that is the only similarity between this volume and the ICC titles. MacEvily is published in Dublin, not Edinburgh, and the full title page reads, "An Exposition of the Gospel of St. John, consisting of an analysis of each chapter and of a commentary, critical, exegetical, doctrinal, and moral, having the text, English and Latin, prefixed in full to each chapter..."
Vincent,
I think you are right.
Could be right, had just assumed it significantly pre-dated the 1929 version in the Logos set given it seemed to be placed with ICC volumes in the library archive. The author's preface is from 1884. The 1929 ICC commentary is of course NOT in the on line archive !! Any leads as to who might have contributed the volume on the Gospel of John before the 1929 version or do the records indicate that there was no such volume before 1929 ? (which might explain why other people's commentaries on the Gospel of John had crept in there to fill the void.... )
Interesting indeed that Bernard was from the University of Dublin........
In an 1896 impression on the ICC volume on the Gospel of Luke, there is no listing of anyone enganged to prepare a volume on the Gospel of John.
I see from a 1912 Impression of the ICC volume on the Gospel of Mark that they list the Commentary on the Gospel of John as "in the course of preparation", by Bernard with no existing version mentioned in the then 23 volumes of ICC. If indeed this was not published until 1929 then that would explain why other commentaries on the Gospel of John would have been acquired by libraries to fill the void, and became mixed in with ICC. Given the number of printings there were apparently quite a variety of cover designs and colors which could have added to the confusion perhaps.
Back on topic to the question...
If you own and use ICC, compared to the other commentaries that you have, do you find you use ICC and is it worth the price, as a set.
David,
my first exposure to ICC was probably with one of the best. I was preaching through Romans and got my hands on Cranfields two volume set on Romans. From that point I was hooked on the series. I've used (though not to the same level) the ICC for Matthew, Luke, 1 Timothy, and several other hit and miss passages.
In brief, I shelled out for ICC and I use it regularly. I have been very blessed to obtain some of the other price heavy commentaries (WBC, NICot/nt) and I benefit from them in conjunction with ICC. As with all commentary sets, the quality of the volumes will vary, and the age of the ICC series seems to be pretty broad (from 1896 with Plummer's Luke to Thrall's 2000 2 Corinthians). As such you'll find that the older commentaries don't wrestle with the same type of issues that more modern commentaries will.
Or do you find just a few of the volumes useful, and if so which ones and why ?
As I stated, I have used Romans in depth (love it), and Matthew and Luke to some degree, (quite useful), Lock's pastoral epistles volume also has been quite useful in it's turn.
Perhaps the best way to discover the value of the ICC would be to take advantage of the March Madness winner - Marshall's Pastoral Epistles in the series. It is regarded as one of the better ones. And it is a $130 book on sale for $32.50.
If you can swing the $32.50, you would know exactly how this set would or would not benefit you, and take advantage of a bargain.
Available Now
Build your biblical library with a new trusted commentary or resource every month. Yours to keep forever.
