H.C. Leupold (OT commentaries)

[Mayflower]

Who has read H.C. Leupold ? Can you compare him with Lenski, and it is more a technical commentary ?

 

[py3ak]

Leupold is perhaps a little more technical than Lenski, but I have to admit I like him better. I have a complete set of Lenski, and have used him pretty faithfully for some years; but the more I used him the less I liked him. He makes lots of assertions and doesn't back them up, doesn't show why what he says is true. Which leaves one always wondering if Lenski is a sufficiently good authority to take his word for it. And when he disagrees with other commentators one is left feeling that he probably isn't.
I really liked Leupold on Ecclesiastes: on the Psalms he was OK. On Genesis I haven't used him much, but it seemed pretty good. I don't think money spent on him would be regretted; but his commentaries by themselves are not sufficient. You would have to supplement him with Matthew Henry, for instance.

 

[Mayflower]

Originally posted by py3ak
Leupold is perhaps a little more technical than Lenski, but I have to admit I like him better. I have a complete set of Lenski, and have used him pretty faithfully for some years; but the more I used him the less I liked him. He makes lots of assertions and doesn't back them up, doesn't show why what he says is true. Which leaves one always wondering if Lenski is a sufficiently good authority to take his word for it. And when he disagrees with other commentators one is left feeling that he probably isn't.
I really liked Leupold on Ecclesiastes: on the Psalms he was OK. On Genesis I haven't used him much, but it seemed pretty good. I don't think money spent on him would be regretted; but his commentaries by themselves are not sufficient. You would have to supplement him with Matthew Henry, for instance.

Thanks Ruben for the information, that was helpful!