Great conservative (reformed?) commentary sets

There's always Calvin's commentaries. 

DMB said:

No offense, papa-gowgow, but I'm just the opposite (and so MJ's logical dog nipping at me).  I suppose if I was a pastor, etc maybe I'd want to read the bad boys 'just one more time'. But I'm not.

If I've already concluded commentaries/authors are incapable of logical reasoning, it's into the 'Hidden Resources' they go (until the last days of course). Since I haven't accidentally purchased any problem commentaries, only 1 is presently 'hidden'. I don't know where it came from.

But before someone kills me (it's happened before), though I theologically sit to the far right of the OP, most of my commentaries are to the far left. The reason is 'data'. I'm a big believer that the more data goes on the table, the more one can confidently espouse the validity of 'the ancient writing'.  Most of my arguments with 'doubters of the word' involve simply pointing out 'data' that anyone can check for themselves.  It's far more effective than opinions.

Fair point, well made.

Ben Hein said:

Now, some of Calvin's commentaries are on discount. Would it be cheaper for me to get those and then would the larger set be discounted because I have some of the books in my library? Or should I just straight buy the set?

If you do intend to buy Calvin, you should start by looking at http://www.logos.com/upgrade, since his commentaries are included even in Bronze. I don't know what your upgrade price would be (make sure you're logged in!), but it's worth checking out, given how much cheaper books are in base packages.

Ben Hein said:

I have the old Logos 4 Scholars Silver (I also upgraded to the basic logos 5 w/ new datasets), thats interesting that Calvin is indeed part of the Bronze upgrade now. It would be an extra 70$ to get the upgrade, which I guess would only be worth it if either of these two were worth it:

The New American Commentary Series (NAC) (40 vols.)

The Pulpit Commentary (77 vols.)

Thoughts?

I don't find the Pulpit Commentary to be helpful, but the NAC is a different story. It is published by the SBC Convention publisher Broadman and Holman. As such, the commentators come from reformed and non-reformed baptist perspectives. Most commentators are Southern Baptist, but a few come from other Baptist denominations (e.g. Craig Blomberg on Matthew). Some of the volumes are steller (e.g. Schreiner on 1 & 2 Peter/Jude and Block on Judges/Ruth to name a few), but all are decent. If I did not own them, I would pay far more the $70 for this set alone. 

DMB said:

I suppose if I was a pastor, etc maybe I'd want to read the bad boys 'just one more time'. But I'm not.

DMB said:

though I theologically sit to the far right of the OP, most of my commentaries are to the far left.

DMB,

I am curious, so, with all respect, I ask: If you consider your theology "far to the right of the OP," but most of your commentaries "to the far left," then which are "the bad boys" you apparently choose not to read? A casual reading of your post could lead a person to decide you refuse to read most of your own commentaries!  [:P]

Be blessed,

Bill

Bill ... probably 99.9% of Logos forum participants define along the lines of 'theology' and I have no argument with that. Each person should persue how they think best.

'Bad boys' for me are authors who jump the logic track of what they're arguing, no matter their theology.

I'm a big fan of reading the Bible text literally. I'm not convinced writers write figuratively (else how would their readers/listeners know what they were talking about). I read the text as if it's presented hours after the ink dried.

That said, I enjoy today's author's contributions either in terms of literal data (e.g. archaeology) or along the lines of decent logic (if/then sequences, maintaining the agregate of confidence levels).  Bad boys almost always use a series of if/then statements but then agregate them in such a way as to increase their confidence, ignoring that their earlier propositions were proposals still demanding support.  Humans don't get a free ride, when they wish to speak for God.

And so my favorites are typically Catholic authors, who for some reason, tend to present both data, and tight logic. They move off into their theology, which is fine; I skip that. Ditto on jewish authors. 'Liberal' authors tend to be touch-and-go; one needs to follow the logic carefully. And evangelicals tend to assume their readership and simply skip to the theology.

That's how I end up with both extremes. I bought Dunn during March Madness.  His logic so far is loosey-goosey, but we'll see where he goes.

Ben Hein said:

fgh said:

Ben Hein said:

Now, some of Calvin's commentaries are on discount. Would it be cheaper for me to get those and then would the larger set be discounted because I have some of the books in my library? Or should I just straight buy the set?

If you do intend to buy Calvin, you should start by looking at http://www.logos.com/upgrade, since his commentaries are included even in Bronze. I don't know what your upgrade price would be (make sure you're logged in!), but it's worth checking out, given how much cheaper books are in base packages.

I have the old Logos 4 Scholars Silver (I also upgraded to the basic logos 5 w/ new datasets), thats interesting that Calvin is indeed part of the Bronze upgrade now. It would be an extra 70$ to get the upgrade, which I guess would only be worth it if either of these two were worth it:

The New American Commentary Series (NAC) (40 vols.)

The Pulpit Commentary (77 vols.)

Thoughts?

Only $70 for L5 Silver? Absolutely worth it. NAC is from the perspective you want and overall pretty good quality, plus you get Calvin's commentaries (and a whole bunch of other toys, e.g. apostolic fathers, creeds, etc.).

Ben Hein said:

I am coming from a Reformed Baptist perspective, so something conservative and preferrably Reformed would be excellent.

Anyone have any recommendations?

My theology is also Reformed Baptist. I note that you're not looking for Reformed Baptist commentaries, but commentaries that will be useful to a reformed baptist. Everything I'm going to recommend is conservative, most of it is reformed.

At the academic level, there's NICOT/NICNT, Baker Exegetical, NIGTC and Pillar. All three are excellent.

In addition to Calvin, at the intermediate level you have the New American Commentary series, and also the Tyndale Commentary series and Hendrikson/Kistemaker. The NAC is more baptist but less reformed than Tyndale. Hendrikson is more reformed than both, but stodgier too. With slightly more application, but of a similar vein you have Bible Speaks Today and Focus on the Bible. You might consider Expositor's - some superb volumes, others not so good.

At the level of applied commentaries you have Preaching the Word (which is just superb), Boice, Wiersbe and Welwyn. There's also MacArthur but you may find him leaning too far to dispensationalism for your tastes.

The advice you've had about looking at upgrading your package is good advice. You can see if a commentary series is in a base package by looking at right-hand column of it's product page. If it's in a base package, they'll be a 'Recommendations' section in that column, and the package will be listed there.

There are others, of course (e.g. Lenski, Leupold, Preacher's, Pulpit). Generally, I find them much less helpful than those I've listed. For value for money, it's hard to beat Bible Speaks Today.

Ben Hein said:

I'm pretty sure those resources I got in the minimal crossgrade are discounted from any other upgrade I might get.

They are, but the discount will only be what they're worth in the new package, not what you payed for them through the MC. The MC is $6/resource. Bronze is $1.50/resource. Resource value varies, but your discount is unlikely to be more than $1-2/resource. $3-4 if you're really lucky.

I'm a big fan of reading the Bible text literally. I'm not convinced writers write figuratively (else how would their readers/listeners know what they were talking about). I read the text as if it's presented hours after the ink dried.

-------

[Y]

[H] I was quoting someone that posted prior to me, and giving the thumbs up sign.

ALLLLL scripture is not literal (though most all is), but taking the literal approach first is your friend. As was stated - trying to read it like someone who would have had the chance to hours after the ink dried. Which means the nonsense about someone reading "you" as "me" and so forth doesn't really apply in this instance.

Even prophecy has an ancient/future (and sometimes ancient, less ancient) quality to it thats a little like being in the mountains. You might be able to see two peaks, one is immediately in front of you, and one a bit further out.

However as was stated, literal first. Unless scripture indicates otherwise (IE parable or something along those lines.

I'm the quotee. And the Daniel quote is probably one of the best examples you could give. 

After the 'ink dried' (versus 1000's of religion-ists later) what would someone think with the phrase 'the divine decrees are hidden and sealed up'. (LXX) And then the 'until' of course implies a reversal of hidden/sealed-up to identify 'the last times'.

So of course, in ones 'exegetical' paths, 'divine decrees' might need the same question that a person with ink-smudged fingers would ask.

But, by and large, non-literal is always needed to accomodate a much later theology.  Right now as I've mentioned, I'm in the NT apocrypha, and it's fairly obvious why 'baptism for the dead' would be highly valued in the 1st century.  And why a modern sect picked it up and embraced it.

abondservant said:

David Paul said:

Whatever, I suppose...but from all that I've seen it is clearer than crystal that YHWH views the figurative language of prophecy as being far more literal than history is. All the evidence I see in Scripture leads me to conclude that the "majority" hermeneutical principal of viewing the Bible as primarily historical (i.e. literal) is prophetically equivalent to blindness...and all that goes with it.

I'm surprised by the strong stance you are taking against a conservative hermeneutic on a thread about conservative and reformed commentaries.

If the bible is taken fully "figuratively" or as you like to say "prophetically" one can make anything out of anything. I want to know how the church at Ephesus would have read Ephesians. How they would have understood what was being written. I want to know how Paul would have intended the letter to be interpreted.

I want to have a solid foundation. Building a sermon out of Papier-mâché, and placing it on sand is a bad idea. Without something concrete, that is about the best one can hope for. However it is something being done increasingly these days and would have made calvin, spurgeon, luther, and company - roll over in their graves. They were some of the biggest proponents of the more literal hermeneutic. Even Rashi the acclaimed Jewish commentator of a similar (and maybe slightly older) vintage believed the Bible ought to be taken literally. He said if he had the chance to re-write his contributions, he would have been more literal.

I think you are misunderstanding me. In fact, I know you are--and you are basing your conflict with me on a common notion about prophecy that is fundamentally flawed. I hear all the time that prophecy is a changeling, an ephemeral bit of quicksilver that can be made into whatever one wills. That is simply not true. Sure, someone who doesn't know YHWH or His expressed will can look at prophecy and insist that X refers to reptilians and Y refers to Barack Obama...many, amazingly, do just that. But they do violence to numerous other parts of Scripture in making such preposterous claims.

On the other hand, I have encountered numerous passages (many dozens) in which the English said something that caused me to say "that can't be true", based upon nothing more than my understanding of prophecy. Sure enough, upon examining the Hebrew or Greek, I find that the plural is really a singular or vice versa, or I find that the universal practice of "emending" a particular text to resolve some supposed problem of syntax, number, history, or logic is in fact unnecessary and inadvertently covers up a critical prophetic concept.

Take 1 Sam. 13:1 -- Check all of the commentaries you have. That verse is irretrievably broken...so they say. The poor LXX is so ashamed of it, it pretends it doesn't exist. All logic says..."PROBLEM!" All...except for the logic of prophecy. That verse isn't broken. It says exactly what it is supposed to say.  Not only that, but it is confirmed elsewhere is numerous other prophecies that are routinely called "narrative", "poetry", "history", and of course, "prophecy".

What I am saying is this...there is ONLY ONE logic that can produce credible meaning in the Scriptures, and that is Prophetic Logic. It literally trumps history because history was DESIGNED to convey prophecy. There is NOTHING more concrete than the prophetic plan of YHWH. It trumps all other elements of interpretation. In fact, prophecy even explains why you think prophecy is papier-mâché placed on sand...and why all "hermeneutics" are irretrievably broken. You and I literally read a different book. It is like if we both looked up at the sky on a clear night. You would see stars--maybe, perhaps, even constellations. I would see hundreds of Bible verses portrayed in magnificent diorama.

You must have missed this discussion, but Paul's letters aren't "letters"--they are donkey rumps upon which numerous prophecy tails are intended to be pinned. The message to the Ephesians wasn't intended for the Ephesians...it was intended for those upon whom the end of the age is come--you and me. Trying to get into the head of an Ephesian is an exercise in vanity. Nothing could be less worth your time. Overlooking Gen. 1:1, in Gen. 4:3 is the first place where "at the end of days" is explicitly introduced as a concept, and that concept is repeated continuously in a variety of ways throughout the rest of the Book. The reason is because the timeless YHWH wrote the Bible as one large prophetic puzzle that was not intended to be comprehended until the time of the end. Dan. 12:4, 9, 10; Jer. 23:20, Jer. 30:24. What the "intent of His heart" is? Well, you can never fully know that by just reading literally.

Brother, we'll just have to agree to disagree