First, the rant - one that you've seen many times before so it is "noncontroversial - I lost". The tagging of Genesis 1:1 uses, much to my annoyance "Holy Spirit". I object strenuously on several grounds:
- the concept of "Holy Spirit" was unknown at the time of the writing and hence is anachronistic
- there are significant segments of the population reading the passage as scripture who would disagree - Jewish and non-Trinitarians
- it is not what the text says - it is what we interpret the text to mean once we apply canonic criticism.
The problem is, as I see it, that when using the scripture in dialogue with others, I know I can always rely on reaching an agreement on the text itself but I cannot assume that will be reach the same conclusions when I start applying particular methods of interpretation e.g. canonic criticism. I can point you to examples of the early church fathers carefully sticking to the rabbinic canon for the conversion of Jews -- avoiding the issue of the emerging rabbinic canon and the LXX differences.
So, yes, I get angry when I see the LCC replace the word in the scripture "take" with their favorite "keep" because it avoids addressing a cultural difference. I get seriously annoyed when they step outside the method the commentary exhibits to promote a view of a former employee. I chuckle at their editing when they tell me that Joseph was the first righteous man ... without qualifying it to the book of Matthew. Or when two different things are identified as the first to bring the Gentiles into view. But other nnnnnnnnn authors give me deliberately erroneous quotes, quotes edited to change the meaning, misunderstood data ... so I have developed a healthy response of reading very carefully and very suspiciously. And, yes, I can give precise instances of all my "charges above". But my point is that many Logos readers likely don't read super-critically if they aren't holding their authors to a higher standard.
So why do I really like the Lexham Context Commentary?
- By sticking to a single form of criticism it highlights what that criticism can add to our understanding of the text.
- As a result it helps the reader make a clear distinction between the text itself and the interpretation of the text.
- When it slips, as in replacing the Biblical "take" with "keep", the slip is easy to catch as the reader is apt to be jarred by the change in language.
- Because it is not cluttered with many different types of criticism, it is easier to catch errors like two different things being "first"
- Therefore, this LCC not only illustrates one form of criticism but illustrates very well how the various Biblical criticisms highlight particular aspects of the text - both the mundane and those that give new insight into the text.
I would suggest that those who say "I have many commentaries that do that" are right in the sense that they have other commentaries that note the text structure and interrelationships. But they are wrong in that that is not the real strength of the product. Consider the product as a very long lesson in reading closely and accurately - reading the text that is actually there not the text that you remember.
