What's the line between Expository and Scholarly Commentaries?

Barnabas

For example, the Expositor's Commentary, Revised edition, seems to be written by scholars. MSH recommends academic commentaries and seems to be lukewarm at best for expository ones. Is there a clear line between them or not really? I think there isn't.

Richard Villanueva

If it's any help, Mark Barnes presents his definitions here: https://community.logos.com/forums/t/88829.aspx 

Mark Barnes said:

Background Commentaries — Get your copy

Background Commentaries don’t commentate on the overall meaning of a passage, but provide insights from the historical and cultural background wherever that’s appropriate.

...

Expository Commentaries — Get your copy

Typically, expository commentaries will discuss the meaning of the Bible text at a fairly simple level. They’ll be simple to read, with plenty of application and illustrations — a bit like a printed sermon. They’ll be hardly any footnotes, and hardly any Greek and Hebrew (which would be transliterated, if used at all).

...

Intermediate Commentaries — Get your copy

Typically, intermediate commentaries will discuss the meaning of the Bible text, in a serious but not overly-academic way. If they discuss Greek and Hebrew words, those words will be transliterated, and there will be little grammatical analysis. They may acknowledge different interpretations of a passage, but probably only in footnotes. There may be some application for the contemporary church, but that won’t be a main emphasis.

...

Technical Commentaries — Get your copy

Typically, technical commentaries will be detailed, fairly academic, and emphasise aspects of language and grammar (often using untransliterated Greek and Hebrew). They’ll frequently discuss several possible interpretations of a passage, weighing the different views. They’ll concentrate almost exclusively on what the text would have meant to the original readers, and won’t be concerned about contemporary application.

Joe McCune (Faithlife)

Theoretically, a "scholarly" commentary focuses only on bringing out the meaning of a text using various academic disciplines, while an "expository" commentary focuses on the meaning plus how to communicate or preach that meaning.  But these distinctions often get a bit blurry.  An expository commentary might also be very scholarly, or might not be.  A scholarly commentary might give advice on how to preach a passage.  And so forth...

Barnabas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1036713#Comment_1036713

Alright thanks guys.