Opinions on buying awesome, but OLD commentaries?

[Dirk1540]

Hello all. I don't want to debate personal taste of specific commentaries, I just wanna get a better understanding of why some reviewers will say "Well it's a bit dated now." Of course I know what that means, I'm just not totally clear on all the ramifications beyond there being better archaeological discoveries since date of production. I like everything I read about NICOT series (The New International Commentary on the Old Testament). I've had the Deuteronomy by Peter Craigie in my Amazon cart for awhile but it's from 1976. Leviticus by Wenham as well but it's 1979. The one on Ezra (1983), and Jeremiah by Thompson (1980) would be the oldest ones.

Again, not trying to debate if they are the best, let's just assume they are hands down the best for my taste! I'm not made of money, and I have some runner ups in my Amazon cart on those Biblical books that I don't want as much, but I like their date of publication more! Here's something else, I already own a nice little stack of very up to date books, Old Testament intro books geared towards the latest discoveries, the most insanely detailed current Biblical atlas (The Sacred Bridge, 2015), various current Israel history books by technical authors, etc.

So would owning those up to date books make it unnecessary to worry about buying 35-40 year old commentaries, should I just buy the old ones that I want? Or are there other reasons that would make it much better to buy a 5 year old commentary over a 40 year old commentary, regardless of me having current complimentary material?

These commentaries are STILL being praised by a lot of people as the best of the best even today...but then again I'm not 100% clear on the "They are now dated" warnings.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Hello all. I don't want to debate personal taste of specific commentaries, I just wanna get a better understanding of why some reviewers will say "Well it's a bit dated now." Of course I know what that means, I'm just not totally clear on all the ramifications beyond there being better archaeological discoveries since date of production. I like everything I read about NICOT series (The New International Commentary on the Old Testament). I've had the Deuteronomy by Peter Craigie in my Amazon cart for awhile but it's from 1976. Leviticus by Wenham as well but it's 1979. The one on Ezra (1983), and Jeremiah by Thompson (1980) would be the oldest ones.

Again, not trying to debate if they are the best, let's just assume they are hands down the best for my taste! I'm not made of money, and I have some runner ups in my Amazon cart on those Biblical books that I don't want as much, but I like their date of publication more! Here's something else, I already own a nice little stack of very up to date books, Old Testament intro books geared towards the latest discoveries, the most insanely detailed current Biblical atlas (The Sacred Bridge, 2015), various current Israel history books by technical authors, etc.

So would owning those up to date books make it unnecessary to worry about buying 35-40 year old commentaries, should I just buy the old ones that I want? Or are there other reasons that would make it much better to buy a 5 year old commentary over a 40 year old commentary, regardless of me having current complimentary material?

These commentaries are STILL being praised by a lot of people as the best of the best even today...but then again I'm not 100% clear on the "They are now dated" warnings.

I have a set of commentaries written by John Calvin and I find what he said way back in the 16th Century is still just as valid today. Some more modern commentaries could be influenced by modernist thinking and there might not be as reliable as the ones written as far back as the 2nd or 3rd Centuries when the Early Church was in a much holier state than what the Church is in now. I have works by Augustine and Eusebius, a number of 17th Century Puritan writers, Jonathan Edwards, Spurgeon's Expository Encylopedia. These works have provided solid foundations for my theology. So I have no problem with "old" commentaries at all.

 

[Winken]

I gave up reading the "old" stuff when I was convicted of, and complied with, the Holy Spirit doing the teaching.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

While I read older and more historic commentaries which may express doubts about the continuance of the supernatural gifts of the Spirit, I accept that these are men of their times. But they don't actually teach cessationism. For example, Calvin believed that the supernatural gifts petered out because of the misuse of them. Others said that they ceased because of the decline of purity and holiness in the Church. It is interesting that the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches do not hold with cessationism. In later times the gifts were just neglected and fell away through non-use and then no one knew how to kick start them again. I think the attitude has been that if God wants to do a miracle, He will and so it is left up to Him.

I don't hold too much with the bulk of Church Histories because the editors are cessationists and so they have deliberately left out historical references to the use of the supernatural gifts of the Spirit through the centuries. But there are some histories that have included them and have not discriminated between factual miracles and legends. Also, movements that arose that practiced the gifts of the Spirit and advocated greater holiness were outlawed by the Catholic Church and its literature destroyed. The only accounts we have are the court transcripts and through them much can be read between the lines. We have to realise that these movements are only treated as heresies because the Catholic Church said they were; not necessarily because they were in actual fact. There are a couple of good histories that say that some of these "heretical" movements were very similar to modern Charismatics. Of course, some modern opponents of the Charismatic movement would agree with the Catholic Church concerning those movements - stands to reason.

The most reliable commentary that I have on 1 Corinthians is the one written by Gordon Fee. He is unbiased concerning the use of the gifts of the Spirit and bases his views on what the Scripture says and not what some hockey puck theologians who misuse the fragment verse where it says "when the perfect has come", thereby violating the most simple rule of Hermaneutics.

 

[Dirk1540]

I have a set of commentaries written by John Calvin and I find what he said way back in the 16th Century is still just as valid today. Some more modern commentaries could be influenced by modernist thinking and there might not be as reliable as the ones written as far back as the 2nd or 3rd Centuries when the Early Church was in a much holier state than what the Church is in now. I have works by Augustine and Eusebius, a number of 17th Century Puritan writers, Jonathan Edwards, Spurgeon's Expository Encylopedia. These works have provided solid foundations for my theology. So I have no problem with "old" commentaries at all.

I will definitely mark you down then for a 'Yes' vote on older commentaries! That's not a bad idea to reach way back like that. The reason I said that I really like NICOT for Old Testament (and BECNT for NT) is because they are known to present multiple viewpoints, and to represent even opposing viewpoints with their strongest reasoning (not straw man arguments). They are also as technical as I can handle, lots of original language tid bits and explanations without having to know the language (of course you'd probably get more out of it if you did, I really wish I was smarter and knew Hebrew/Greek). So more along the lines of expanding my technical learning curve with the context and situation surrounding each Biblical book, that's my primary goal. I can not stress for instance how much technical help I could use with the prophets.

Truthfully I never really even thought about the continuance of miracles. I am a huge fan of Dr Michael Brown, what an articulate teacher. I once heard him say in passing that he witnessed miracle healings. Hmm I didn't know exactly how to take that??

I gave up reading the "old" stuff when I was convicted of, and complied with, the Holy Spirit doing the teaching.

The commentaries that I am checking out would only enhance your appreciation for the Bible. Would give you a lot of 'Ah Ha' moments!

 

[Dirk1540]

I pulled the trigger on the older commentaries! They just sound too good. As I said for current up to date research I have other materials to fill the gaps.

Some more modern commentaries could be influenced by modernist thinking .

I was also thinking however that the modern commentaries will get into countering modern liberal arguments. And it's the modern liberal assaults that I've lived my whole life around.

 

[bdmulneaux]

The most reliable commentary that I have on 1 Corinthians is the one written by Gordon Fee.

Well...Gordon Fee was affiliated with Assemblies of God (and he is a great commentator).