I wouldn't go so far as saying that a commentary written by one person (note: on a portion of the Bible, not on the entire Bible) reflects only that persons theology and interpretation. For example the Mt 8-20 commentary by Ulrich Luz, it lists the history of interpretation in the Catholic church and in a few of the largest protestant denominations, for many of the verses. So there's enough to read about that in it, IMHO. There's also about redaction of the actual Mt text starting as early as the post-easter Church (which I don't know when it was since I don't trust books such as Acts at all, by the way Acts is excluded from
Updated Bible Version 2.15-.16, so might go further back in time and be of more interesting consideration than facets of faith of the Church fathers? Is there such discussion in the Haydock? Note: the Ulrich Luz commentary doesn't put many verses in question that way, so far I've been reading to Mt chapter 11 and one there's been about the redaction history of just one verse divisive in matters of faith/theology. But that's not insignificant...
Discussing commentaries is a bit funny sometimes, as one proponent hasn't read the commentaries as the other purpots and vice versa. But it's important, to make a good choice and to be able to make recommendations, to be aware of many commentaries. Which I am.
Do You say that the whole scope in the Bible of the Haydock, is good? I would say it's better to limit first the scope. I really haven't yet found anything more to recommend. Now I would like to also rest from the search.
If a commentary has appealed to a great deal of people, is no proof of it's quality. Rather, noting the competition between the commentaries, and now the internet that gives results too, it's not odd if the best commentaries are actually not among the best known.
The author's theology is of great importance. For example for the commentary of Jn I suggested, the author can be traced after 1977/'78 when the commentary came out, so notions are hinted at in the publication and education.
To conclude, I think that what You are implying on, StThomasMore, is that self-made experts should be avoided. You're right about that to some extent. From another point of view, whether a scholar is renowned is to very great extent exactly that: just buzz in the academic world (subjective), and as we know the Magisterium is not actually promoting a specific commentary-series.
The Navarre series has an intention (a self-taken position as it includes the whole text of the Nova Vulgata which preasts have to learn (I'll not discuss whether Latin, Hebrew or Greek is the most important for us or the seminarians)), but it's not the "official" one, because there is no such thing when it comes to series. At best, some things Ratzinger said might be taken as a Magisterium official commentary on some concepts. That has helped me personally, I started to really believe in the Trinity from reading that.
Theology is so much about erasing some input and remembering other. But the amount of fluctuation You are suggesting StThomasMore with the Haydock commentary, is just too much. I don't want my head filled with facets, I rather go with a bit more straightforward commentaries, still trusting the ones I've chosen to have been made by the author best prepared for each task/portion of the Bible.
You might retort that that's exactly what the Haydock commentary did, select for us those who were best prepared. But I disagree a bit, not believing we have to search that far back in time.
I'm not saying new is in any way better. As can be seen from my choices, not all of them are the fresh notion of today.
But I can't find the Truth/trust by reading the select bits of works that are at display in the Haydock commentary, because to me, those bits have undergone so much of a process to have been selected, that that sifting is suspicious to me in itself.
Rather I trusted on my own sifting of works.
Works=commentaries.
