Commentary and Reference Survey: A Comprehensive Guide to Biblical and Theological Resources

Our Price $ 21.99   Retail Value $ 24.99   You Save $ 3.00  (12%)   Item Number 49386

Buy New Item Quantity: 1 ABOUT TRUST ONLINE

This survey has some strong points and weak points and I will list both. A lot of my comparisons will be made with D.A. Carson's "New Testament Commentary Survey" and Longman's "Old Testament Commentary Survey".

Strengths:
1) He has a conservative bias. This is generally listed as a weakness below but for us conservative people this is exactly what we are looking for. It is true that less-conservative commentaries are often helpful and indeed, Glynn recommends some. Nevertheless, it is for this very reason that we are buying this survey, so we can be steered in direction we find orthodox.

2) He lists the author's bias. Glynn lists authors as Evangelical (E), Evangelical yet slightly critical (E/cr), Conservative/Moderate (C/M) or liberal critical (L/cr). This is very helpful when choosing commentaries and is not listed in either Carson's or Longmen's commentaries. True, it is often spelled out in their descriptions but not always(!)

3) He covers both the new and old testament, as well as a whole host of other fields such as systematic theology, end times, church history, NT/OT/Biblical theology; all of which we may also seek recommendations.

4) He gives some information on future volumes which is often interesting.

5) He often gives a one liner that may help categorize the position on controversial subjects (for example, post-trib: Revelation, complimentarian:Pastorals, charismatic:1 Corinthians, etc.)

Weaknesses

1) He doesn't rank his commentaries on either an absolute scale (1-5 stars) or relative to one another. This is quite frustrating as sometimes he seems to like almost every commentary in the field. Also, it leaves out commentaries he doesn't recommend quite in the cold, with no hint as to whether it just barely missed the list or is out right heresy. This can be really frustrating when it is a commentary you happen to think IS good.

2) He doesn't really add any discussion on the commentaries. On selected commentaries he does, but this is the exception rather then the rule. This is once again frustrating when he lists many commentaries or doesn't list those you might expect.

3) He defines two categories of commentaries, technical and semi-technical, with the distinction that semi-technical leaves its technical discussion to the footnotes. But then he goes on to list both of these types of commentaries under one heading and doesn't differentiate between the two. This was the most frustrating aspect to me since this is the very distinction I am looking for in a commentary(!)

All in all, I find Carson's and Longmen's work more helpful but I am glad I have this second voice (in both the OT and NT) to compare these two with.

I think a combination of the three approaches used by Carson, Longman, and Glynn would be most helpful. List the books in order that you recommend them (Carson), have detailed discussion about whom the book is for (Longman/Carson), give an absolute rating (Longman), list the authors bias (Glynn), summarize controversial stances (Glynn), include future predictions (Glynn) ,differentiate between technical and semi-technical (nobody), and finally WRITE LONG AND MEANINGFUL DISCUSSIONS ABOUT EACH COMMENTARY.

A previous reviewer criticized Glynn's recommendations as being biased towards conservative commentaries and not recommending any of the Interpretation series in the Old Testament. This is NOT TRUE. Glynn oftentimes recommends a liberal commentary over a conservative one (for example, Houtman on Exodus, Japhet on Chronicles, Fox on Esther, Clines on Job, Clifford on Proverbs, Fox on Proverbs, Seow on Ecclesiastes, etc.). He also recommends a couple of volumes from the Interpretation series; for example, Mays on Psalms and Dobbs-Allsopp on Lamentations.

I find that Glynn is even-handed in his recommendations. Sometimes he will recommend a liberal commentary; othertimes, he will recommend moderate or conservative commentaries.

In Glynn's earlier editions of this wonderful guide, he listed the commentaries in order of quality; the best first and the worst last. Now, however, he lists them alphabetically, with the recommended commentaries in bold. The problem is that the reader has no way to know which books "just missed" getting a recommendation. These "just missed" books are grouped together with some of the worst books on the list, listed in alphabetical order and with no way to tell them apart. I hope that future editions revert back to Glynn's earlier method of listing the books; that is, in order of quality.