Commentaries: conservative and Liberal
Comments
-
Wow, Paul, you have a good sized library! Including commentaries! I don't know if I skipped your response, but wondering if you did check out the recommended "best commentaries" website. I also enjoyed many comments, including Rosie's "Blackwell" reference and Martha's comment about reading creeds. And the other one referring to the denominations' history/distinctives.
I am wondering if you might find it helpful to start a thread well before you study a particular book on people's favorite commentaries on that book, and why they list it as favorite. That might give you some idea on holes you want to fill in your library. And it would narrow it down. Essentially you are asking a million logos people to make comments on commentaries that cover each of the 66 books of the Bible, which, to my calculation, results in 5,789,428,221,443.67 suggestions. [:P]
Be assured, however, that people LOVE sharing their opinion, and commentary discussion on this forum ranks just a hair below our beloved controversy threads. So you will, and have already, received input. [:D]Peace out.
Dan
I like Apples. Especially Honeycrisp.
0 -
Paul Terry said:
Just want to clarify one thing. I am not saying Matthew Henry's commentary is worthless and just one mans opinion.
I am saying that in the 1980s that was my view of it and as a result I never looked at commentaries again.
Now I own Logos 5 Portfolio and have a lot of commentaries. Also have WBC and others not included in the Portfolio collection.
What I find interesting is that Matthew Henry's was probably the first commentary I ever picked up and tried to read through when I was younger. It's a tough place to start with, and I think you've got to have some good mojo going with Puritan era writing to appreciate him.
There is something to the fact that his commentary set is the work of one man. I probably line up with MH's theology pretty well, but when I read through his commentary, I find myself disagreeing with him quite a bit. Sounds bad, but consider the benefit. You have to work through the text and draw conclusions to disagree with another man's thoughts. Perhaps MH would convince you of his interpretation, perhaps he will help convince you that your exegetical work is sound. Either way it forces you to wrestle through the text.
Another thing with it being the work of one man is that he won't have an evenly spread expertise on all the Scriptures. I really appreciate John MacArthur too (don't necessarily line up with his eschatology) and he has a lot of valuable things to say in his commentary set too. But in the end it is just one man. So I think there's value in having a collection of commentaries, from individual men, yes, but also commentary sets written by experts in their fields (e.g. WBC). I think you'll benefit from both types, even if you can't necessarily digest MH only.
There's been much advice given on how commentaries should interface with your work flow, so I won't make any additional comments on that. I just wanted to point out that one commentary may be of some value, but a collection could be of much value.
0 -
For me personally I would start with the New Interpreter's Bible as I consider it the best over all commentary. It is not all liberal or conservative, It has critical sections that are far from exhaustive but cover each topic fairly usually touching on other opinions. It's reflections offer great insight for devotion and preaching. This series should ship in a few months and would advise you to pre order it... THE WORSE CASE scenario is you have to call up Logos and tell tell them it is not for you after examining it for 2-3 weeks. It is not quite yet under contract with enough orders... Sorry to have reported what I thought was good news. But soon hopefully.
-Dan
0 -
Denise said:
And so a diverse opinion is of no value if it's wrong.
But, but ... wrong views can help you sharpen your correct view, find a new and better way to express your correct view, spark new ideas regarding the consequences of your view, and (shh we don't want to scare people off) make you think something new that you don't know if it's right or wrong (yet).[^o)]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I'm sorry MJ. Is your logic dog out having his dinner?
When someone is correct (knows the truth), then the most that can happen is to simply bask in the confident knowledge. Indeed, one must try to be humble in the face of everyone else being wrong.
Further, in any tiresome arguments with those not being correct (everyone else), one must simply remind them that if they knew the truth, they would simply agree. The very fact that they are arguing demonstrates just how bad their plight is.
This is why you can always tell when someone is not confident of simply being correct: they're reading commentaries (written by other people who might be corrrect but it's not likely).
Ok ... looks like logic dog is finished eating.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Hermeneia is a VERY liberal commentary series, just so you know...
0 -
Hermeneia is a VERY liberal commentary series, just so you know...
0 -
Troy Westmoreland said:
Hermeneia is a VERY liberal commentary series, just so you know...
You do realize that you’re replying to a 10 year old thread, don’t you? The OP probably already has his collection set up 😁
DAL
0
