Commentaries

Your school must have a library? I would suggest getting familiar with books first before spending alot on something you know nothing about. I would also suggest checking out community pricing as this will be the best way to build your collection while spending little. http://www.logos.com/products/search?Status=Community+Pricing

Evan Boardman said:

Your school must have a library? I would suggest getting familiar with books first before spending alot on something you know nothing about. I would also suggest checking out community pricing as this will be the best way to build your collection while spending little. http://www.logos.com/products/search?Status=Community+Pricing

This is a good idea. Choose a few difficult passages and compare they way various technical commentaries deal with them.

The above in combination with reading reviews should allow you to establish a list of the most useful commentaries.

As some have noted, your theological persuasion (conservative, moderate, liberal) should dictate what series you prioritize as you begin to build your library .  

Joshua Peeler said:

I am a seminary student and I wanted some advice on which commentaries to buy and why. 

Buying print volumes readily allows you to cherry pick the best works in select books of the Bible. I have always liked doing that. However there are problems with this approach. When you study a given book, you will repeatedly come across cross references throughout the canon. So you will find the need to verify each reference in a commentary to see if it really says what the commentator implies. It might sound good, but it may not prove their argument. 

My recommendation is to have a base series, the Expositor's Bible Commentary from Zondervan is a fine beginning and has more than a couple of all-star works among it, such as Carson on Matthew. Beyond that, you might as well enjoy the overall economy of buying full series in Logos--you get the most bang for the buck electronically by investing in those series that are most helpful to you. WBC is excellent and not horribly expensive.

I still value my print books that were cherry picked. At the same time, I am going to suggest this: More than any commentary, you need to sit there with the text and read. Read it, read it, read it. You can't really exegete a single verse in a given book until you have read that book in its entirety, preferably more than once. If you are working in Revelation, you need to have an in-depth understanding of the Gospel of John and the Letters of John and then read Revelation over and over. The same is true of the Pentateuch. Every verse/passage comes back to Genesis and the whoie Torah is intricately woven.

Now if you think that I believe the Bible is its' own best commentary, you'd be absolutely correct. When I find a good commentary, it's usually because they know precisely where the Bible reinforces that understanding.

http://www.logos.com/product/8803/new-interpreters-bible is a critical commentary with pastoral/devotional reflections for each section covered. This is one of the most respected sets out there. Other good critical ones are anchor and hermenia although none of the sets i have mentioned have many individual volumes for sale and in my experience the quality of anchor varies wildly. Word Biblical commentary while done from a slightly more conservative perspective is also a fine critical series.

-dan

Jack Caviness said:

Dan Francis said:

Word Biblical commentary while done from a slightly more conservative perspective

Why is it that some posters on these forums seem to equate conservative with stupid? It seems that the prevailing opinion is that no conservative can possibly exhibit scholarship. My first year out of the Navy was spent in a seminary filled with intellectual bigotry, and this has irritated me ever since.

I do not consider conservative works stupid, i own many conservative works, SOME maybe less scholarly but not most in m experience. I do not know the theological bent of the person asking. He asked about critical commentaries  which are generally done by more liberal scholars. Every commentary series varies greatly. NIB goes from moderate evangelical to moderate liberal. I personally like commentaries best when they raise difference sides before defending their own. The Irenic approach is most respectful and scholarly in my mind. I dislike any commentary that takes such a rigid position as to equate the other side is either stupid or unfaithful. I do not believe any school of thought has a lease on the truth. Which is why i often read commentaries i know will challenge what i hold true, they do not usually change my mind but they help me hone down why i believe what i do. 

-dan

Jack Caviness said:

Why is it that some posters on these forums seem to equate conservative with stupid?

That would be because it's not infrequently true.  It isn't necessary that all conservatives are stupid, but a good many seem to be such.  A resistence to even the thought that there might be a different view is unacceptable.  All views which have any claim to legitimacy must be considered and not simply rejected because they are the "Old Time Religion."  You may end up with that conclusion, but you should first examine the views carefully.

George Somsel said:

Jack Caviness said:

Why is it that some posters on these forums seem to equate conservative with stupid?

That would be because it's not infrequently true.  It isn't necessary that all conservatives are stupid, but a good many seem to be such.  A resistence to even the thought that there might be a different view is unacceptable.  All views which have any claim to legitimacy must be considered and not simply rejected because they are the "Old Time Religion."  You may end up with that conclusion, but you should first examine the views carefully.

One must be especially naïve to believe that conservatives are
the only ones who are reticent to operate outside the framework imposed by
their own theological and philosophical presuppositions (it would also be
beyond naivety to think that liberals do not have theological and philosophical
presuppositions of their own). How else would one explain that the historicity
of many biblical accounts is often summarily dismissed merely because of the
presence of miracles/supernatural causation without even a discussion as to the
validity of such anti-supernaturalistic presuppositions?  

 Is rejecting an interpretation because it requires acknowledging
the supernatural or the existence of a God who is active in the universe any
better than rejecting something because it does not fit what you call the “Old
Time Religion”?

The man who is aware of his own prejudices can be helped;
the man who is oblivious to his own prejudices has no hope to overcome them
but can only glory in his “objectivity” as he uncritically accepts and applies the methodological skepticism that was handed down from generations (ironic indeed).

 I attended conservative seminaries and we had to consider
the views and arguments from liberals, read and interact with the relevant
literature (the diversity of my library reflects my academic training). From what I know of most liberal seminaries, the favor is seldom
returned (why waste time with the rambling of “stupid” people?). My point being
that at a similar level of education, the “stupid” conservatives are usually
more acquainted with the views of the opposite side than their liberal
counterparts. Maybe someone could explain to me how you can consider other views when you are barely aware they exist.

Alain Maashe said:

One must be especially naïve to believe that conservatives are the only ones

Greetings Alain.  If there's anything that is certain, it is that you will be around to criticize anything I post.  It's nice to know that I can count on my Moriorty.

Unix said:

I need actual answers to my actual questions!

Francis said:

There is no part of Scripture that is not for you or anyone else. The Scriptures form a whole which is the context of all its parts. If it is compartimentalized, it will result in tunnel vision applications. I say this on the basis of how I understand your question. I hope I have not misunderstood you.

Unix,

IMHO, and not to be a jerk, but only you can provide answers to your questions as it relates to scripture.

In this post I don't mean to give direct advice, I just tell what I'm doing. Ignore this post if You don't need personal explanations and go to the questions I had on page 1 of this thread!

First I bought some individual volumes, some in print and some in Logos. After that there wasn't much of a choice which set to buy. I'm not going to buy additional sets so my questions may differ a bit from the OP's question. If I would be very interested in different sets I would sneak into the biggest university theological library in the Nordic (soon a local area ticket is enough to get there) and read in some commentaries (but they don't necessarily have the sets I'm interested in as they theologically differ from my beliefs and since ICC is old for most parts) - but I would still have the problem that most sets in Logos have not been split up. So because of such reason my focus is now on which Hermeneia -volumes are worth to read (have bought), and what the ICC -commentaries on Ep (1998) and 2 Cor 1-7 (1994) contain (have not bought).

I just want to make an informed purchase, I feel much better that way. What I'm trying to say, is that the first stage is choosing and buying, the second stage is perhaps choosing, the next stage is reading, and the last stage is making use of the commentaries. So I'm aware of how this goes down.

Commentaries are not necessarily easy to read, but as I'm highly aware that I'm probably not going to study much theology (it's really hard to find any university or college over here in the Nordic that skips the filler classes and goes to the core and which I agree with theologically), I'll just read through while learning Gk and then read again after having gained skills in Gk. But I want this ahead start because I can't wait to read theology and I feel that some parts of the Bible I want to use for a very long time, starting soon. A book that is hard to read (the Bible, or a commentary) gives me a feeling that I don't know what it's all about or what the theological implications of it are, but at the same time the difficulty keeps me aware of that while I may not know yet I will know better in a few years.

Like I explained in my previous post, I'm allready closer to the point where I don't need more books anymore, than I was 3½ months ago.

When I'm done with the purchasing of commentaries (that'll be soon), most of the choosing I'll do will be regarding what parts of the Bible to focus on, therefore the questions in my first post in this thread.

tom collinge said:

only you can provide answers to your questions as it relates to scripture.

Jonathan Pitts said:

When I approach a book of the Bible, I tend to read the introductory chapters to about three different commentaries (which are well regarded on bestcommentaries.com and are in my Logos library) and the first pericope in each. This gives a variety of views on the broader critical questions [...] Commentaries are gradually discarded, until I find one or two that I will read from cover to cover.

I have found this in all fields that I have studied in, there is no point in dragging yourself through a book that others claim to be the best or is the most comprehensive if you don't find it easy to read.

No, I'm not gonna do that because of 2-reasons:
1) I don't want to be forced to read it through with comprehension immediately
2) I've promised myself not to because I would be very tempted to keep it anyway regardelss if it has the content I want
Better option to go to the biggest university library and have a look there.

Jack Caviness said:

Unix said:

I just want to make an informed purchase,

You could take advantage of Logos' 30-day money-back policy.

Here is someone who recommends Thrall (ICC) or Furnish (AB) first:
http://www.amazon.com/Epistle-Corinthians-International-Testament-Commentary/product-reviews/0802823939/ref=cm_cr_dp_qt_hist_three?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addThreeStar&showViewpoints=0
on July 11. 2005.

On Nov 19. 2011, in:
http://community.logos.com/forums/p/41036/306796.aspx#306796

... Mark Smith is saying that the Ro Cranfield -volume is one of the few volumes in ICC he'd be glad to have in Logos, but I'm not going to buy that one, I allready have a Ro -commentary that I'm fully pleased with (Paideia by Frank J. Matera, 2010, as printed matter, I have only that volume).

Unix said:

Do You recommend the ICC 2 Cor 1-7 (by Thrall, M.) [...] -volume?

Mark Smith said:

selected ICC volumes,