Bias in choosing a commentary

[70thWeek]

Do you have a bias when you look for a commentary? In other words, do you look for someone with whom you will agree or do you read a wide range of materials? Do you show a bias in the type of commentary: devotional, critical? Do you show a bias in the author?

I admit my bias. Because of the nature of my work and schooling, my bias is not so much on theological grounds. I'll read what Methodists say, Baptists, Reformed, and yes, even Roman Catholics (who are finally starting to really get involved in writing decent commentaries). I am biased towards critical commentaries written by authors with solid credentials.

I'm just interested in other people's opinions on this.

[antsinmypants]

I am biased only in that I feel the commentary should support and explain what is happening in the scripture, not their doctrinal stance, and why this isn't done today.

I like to know what the words mean, the how and why, and what the deeper understanding from the studying of scripture and fleshing it out with scripture against scripture means; and I love picking commentaries that do the same (wesley, geneva bible notes, clark, barnes, gill.. as an example).

[pilgrimian]

I am biased only in that I feel the commentary should support and explain what is happening in the scripture, not their doctrinal stance, and why this isn't done today.

Yes, I agree. Taking the phrase "Israel of God" and working off the assumption of what it means from the get-go (as I seem to recall Sproul doing in his commentary) irritates me. I don't agree with his assumption.

At the same time I don't always agree with Ryrie (the commentary I often use because it just happens to be my NASB, which I prefer). Nevertheless, Ryrie and I part ways on some minor issues.

I like to know what the words mean, the how and why, and what the deeper understanding from the studying of scripture and fleshing it out with scripture against scripture means; and I love picking commentaries that do the same (wesley, geneva bible notes, clark, barnes, gill.. as an example).

I agree here, too...though I hesitate at the deeper meanings. Sometimes it just is what it is. Going "deeper" can cause us to get away from what the Scripture is initially and specifically teaching or communicating.

Do you show a bias in the author?

I peruse other authors...but have not the time or patience to read the full books of some. VanTil's Apologetic is as close as I'll get to reading Bahnsen in any totality. If I was a theology major I might be able to find the time, but as a student of the Word I'll just have to get my bites here and there. So, yes, I am biased. I am not interested in reading someone who I will likely disagree with because their general understanding and outlook differs from mine. I own one book by Gregory Boyd...that's enough (his open-theism is practically heretical in my opinion). Also, I agree with Sproul on some issues, but the severity of his TULIP view is unbalanced in the face of Scripture, I believe. If I had more time...perhaps I'd read people I disagree with.

I admit my bias. Because of the nature of my work and schooling, my bias is not so much on theological grounds. I'll read what Methodists say, Baptists, Reformed, and yes, even Roman Catholics (who are finally starting to really get involved in writing decent commentaries). I am biased towards critical commentaries written by authors with solid credentials.

Roman Catholics...involved in writing "decent commentaries"? What exactly denotes a "decent commentar[y]"???

[70thWeek]

Roman Catholics...involved in writing "decent commentaries"? What exactly denotes a "decent commentar[y]"???

The quality and methods of the material assembled. Catholics lagged behind Protestants for a long time (they still do), but are putting together some good material. The New Jerome Commentary is one of the better 1 volume commentaries, and the Sacra Pagina series is pretty good as well.

I don't agree with the RCC interpretation on most things, but the quality of the work in the two previously mentioned commentaries is good. I can say the same thing about Reformed commentaries though. Should a theological bias completely override otherwise quality work? I'll say "no," at least to a certain extent. Again, my position as a Ph.D. student and research librarian means that I have to be familiar with most everything available. For others though, the theological bias might be stronger.

[joyttw]

When I was more fascinated with end times, at first I only read people I knew I'd agree with, including J. Vernon McGee and Jon Courson commentaries, which we already owned. I used to watch Jack Van Impe, John Hagee, and Hal Lindsey a lot, with whom I agreed at the time.

I then decided to research and get more input. I remember watching Jack Van Impe and writing down every single scripture reference he used to support his position. Then I'd look up the reference and think, "Boy, he sure took that out of context!" I remember listening to a Walter Martin tape on the tribulation, expecting him to be pretrib, and he was not.

Then, after getting confused on all the different views, I decided to just read any scripture passage on end times I could find to figure out what I believed. Didn't know many others who had the same view that I had after my Bible research, so I searched the Internet.

I found lots of stuff, including Rapture Ready's Rapture Doctrine Discussion forum.

Needless to say, I changed my rapture view about three times before I settled on one!

Nowadays I'm not looking at commentaries so much, but reading and listening to the whole discussion going on between the emerging church folks (which I do like SOME points they make) and the non-emerging church folks (James McDonald, John MacArthur).

Pilgrimian, which Gregory Boyd book did you read? I read Repenting of Religion, and while I disagreed with A LOT of what he said, his main message has made a huge impact on me -- about turning from judgment to love.