Classic Revelation and Daniel Commentaries-to keep or not to keep?

These are set to ship in November, but I am trying to decide whether or not I want to keep them. I originally pre-ordered them on community pricing because I thought it would be good to have sort of a "history of interpretation" for these two books. I don't normally buy older commentaries, simply because the newer commentaries should take into account any older points of view. I find that some of the Daniel commentaries/works are in the bibliography of Collins' Hermeneia commentary, but in the short time I looked, I don't seem to find many of the Revelation commentaries/works referenced in many newer commentaries. I have them both now for just $80 if I want them, but I can't decide. I am just not that familiar with any of the authors.

What is your reason for getting these two sets? Do you recognize any pivitol works in them?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Wilson Hines

My reason is simple.

I've read several of Arthur Pink's books and he cites Stephen Charnock a whole bunch. Now, when I tried to buy the works of Stephen Charnock on eBay used it was a ridicules price and it was insane shipping. Now, logos has Charnock's works and I own them via Logos and the pre-pub system - actually through the Community Pricing system, I think.

Previously, if I searched my library for specific passages by Charnock I would only get scant results, even with Pink's works in Logos as well. Now, of course, I get full bore results.

The same is with these sets. If you are working on either of these books of the Bible, Rev or Daniel, you need all the resources which you can get. There isn't a whole lot out there specifically on Daniel and these books are going to fill a needed gap, IMHO. For the monetary investment, you really can't lose.

Into Grace

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/400350#Comment_400350

I did not order the Daniel collection. I look forward to reading/studying the classic commentaries on Revelation. One of my areas of interest is eschatology, especially the timing of the rapture. What a day that will be! [:)]

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/400430#Comment_400430

When you do a study do you only use a few ‘trusted’ commentaries [One or two hours of reading] or do you use all that you can get your hands on [One or two MONTHS of research]? Do the NEW ones reference the OLD ones or just reject them outright? Without the OLD ones you may never know! [I skipped all of the other sets when they were on CP to get these two]

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/400585#Comment_400585

When you do a study do you only use a few ‘trusted’ commentaries [One or two hours of reading] or do you use all that you can get your hands on [One or two MONTHS of research]? Do the NEW ones reference the OLD ones or just reject them outright? Without the OLD ones you may never know! [I skipped all of the other sets when they were on CP to get these two]

For Revelation I have Beale, Osborne, Aune, Mounce, and Keener. I would think that these would interact will all scholarship that is still considered important or original. In the little time that I spent, I did not find many of the classic works cited. The situation is similar in Daniel, even though Collins seems to cite more of them than anyone else.

Admittedly, I did not spend a lot of time looking through bibliographies, which is why I was curious as to why others were getting them. I certainly like to be able to follow a citation to a completed work, but I am just wondering how many of these works are still cited in modern scholarship.

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/400430#Comment_400430

I did not order the Daniel collection. I look forward to reading/studying the classic commentaries on Revelation. One of my areas of interest is eschatology, especially the timing of the rapture. What a day that will be!

Agreed, this seems to be a strength considering the time of writing for most of them, as I would imagine that the rapture would be a "hot topic." I too am interested in seeing the progression of thought.

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/400350#Comment_400350

For the monetary investment, you really can't lose.

I think that this will end up being the reason that I keep them! You can't beat $40 per set!

Dean J

These are set to ship in November, but I am trying to decide whether or not I want to keep them. I originally pre-ordered them on community pricing because I thought it would be good to have sort of a "history of interpretation" for these two books. I don't normally buy older commentaries, simply because the newer commentaries should take into account any older points of view. I find that some of the Daniel commentaries/works are in the bibliography of Collins' Hermeneia commentary, but in the short time I looked, I don't seem to find many of the Revelation commentaries/works referenced in many newer commentaries. I have them both now for just $80 if I want them, but I can't decide. I am just not that familiar with any of the authors.

What is your reason for getting these two sets? Do you recognize any pivitol works in them?

They won't take into account the older works because the eschatological viewpoints of the older works (historicism for the most part) isn't followed.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/401162#Comment_401162

I certainly like to be able to follow a citation to a completed work, but I am just wondering how many of these works are still cited in modern scholarship.

Works get a citation if the author agrees with the stand or if the author wants to dispute the stand. If the stand is seen as 'old' it might just be ignored. But it also just might have been the one true stand. [did I say might??] Authors do not make make money just for saying the prior author was correct. They have to come up with something new. [even if it is WRONG] (I don't know as I have not yet read them)