Reading multiple commentaries on the same book?

[jhcampbell]

I’m looking to buy some commentaries on Galatians specifically focusing on exegesis, and covenant theology.

The few that I have picked out are
Calvin
Herman Ridderbos
John Brown
William Hendriksen

I plan on spending a long time in Galatians.

My question is, should I read them each verse by verse (so reading what they all have to say about this or that verse), one volume at a time (so read each entire commentary before moving on to the next), or what?

I’ve just never used multiple commentaries on the same book before and I would like to understand the best way to go about it

 

[Theoretical]

You definitely need to add Martin Luther on Galatians in there.

[Edit] I'm just a lay-person who periodically leads his small group's bible study discussions. I'd suggest treating your time in Galatians as planning for a full bible study and possibly even discussion. So chew on a passage yourself first, looking at different translations and trying to capture what the text is saying before you look into the commentaries. Then start working on the commentaries for the passage and where you agree or disagree with them in terms of questions you've got from your own study of the text, especially if there's anything that's thorny or you think might be a stretch on your part - or conversely where you disagree with the commentator's take.

 

[jhcampbell]

You definitely need to add Luther's in there.

I’ve read it before and like I said I’m focusing more on reformed covenant theology in this study

 

[DanSSwing]

I’d compare them by their various sections. For example, read comparable chapters about background issues. As you work into the text, they will usually break up the book into component pericopes (~15-20 verses), which you can compare as well.

 

[py3ak]

Whether to read them sequentially or in tandem depends on your emphasis. With either approach you get some of both benefits, but the proportion shifts.

Reading sequentially is likely to give you a clearer grasp of the commentator's overall approach, including idiosyncrasies.
Reading in tandem is likely to give you a sharper articulation of the range of interpretive possibilities with the text.

Unless you have an excellent system of note-taking or a wonderful memory, some details will become blurry as time goes by. The different reading tracks just shift which details are likelier to become blurry--details about the text, or details about the commentators.

Which is more valuable depends on your purpose, and to some extent on the choice of commentaries. Many commentaries are worthwhile to consult, including passage by passage until the end; but a select handful of commentaries deserve to be read, because they've achieved a comprehensive and satisfying shape of their own.

 

[Joshua]

Read them all simultaneously... I dare ya!

 

[jhcampbell]

Read them all simultaneously... I dare ya!

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

I would read them simultaneously, passage by passage. Verse by verse doesn't really allow you to see the big picture.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Calvin ...to. William Hendriksen

Man, that covers a lot of years.
Goog suggestions.all.

 

[1689owen]

I agree with @py3ak. I'd only add some small aspects and suggestions:

You might want to think about doing your own outline of the book (after reading it several times on your own without commentaries, and with some help from the outlines of all the commentaries which have one) and then set your own bible reading plan which will be supplemented by all of the commentaries. E.g., section first would be Gal 1:1-4; read all commentaries on this, section second would be ..., read all commentaries on this; and so on.

You might combine several approaches by:
- reading the introduction and the comments on the first three to four verses in one sitting
- doing this for each commentary before moving on to the next and at the end move on to verse by verse or passage by passage.

As an example in another direction, how one also could do it: I am reading James Haldane's commentary on Galatians on it's own from first to last page. My goal is to understand his aim and his theology, and to see how his covenant understanding is worked out through the flow of commenting the whole epistle. At the same time, I am a student of the Scriptures first; so whenever I am thinking about the bible passage/vers and it hits me, I dig deeper by studying this verse with other commentators (especially Calvin and Gill).

Also, be careful which text you pick first. Start with the bible. But also: Which commentary you start with will have some influence on how you read the others. There seems to be no right or wrong, but be careful.
[automerge]1780346883[/automerge]

Many commentaries are worthwhile to consult, including passage by passage until the end; but a select handful of commentaries deserve to be read, because they've achieved a comprehensive and satisfying shape of their own.

This especially.

Not to distract, but which commentaries on Galatians would fit the latter category? What would you say? Luther? Others?

 

[iainduguid]

Which commentary you start with will have some influence on how you read the others. There seems to be no right or wrong, but be careful.

There's a sense in which it doesn't matter which order you read in, of course, but it probably makes most sense to read in chronological order. After all, the later writers almost certainly read the earlier ones (especially Calvin), and so you may get the sense of diminishing returns if you read Calvin last, since much of his best thought will be reproduced in the others. Reading in historical order will help you see the growth and development (positively or negatively) of theology and the understanding of Galatians over the course of time, which could be obscured if you read them at random.

 

[jhcampbell]

There's a sense in which it doesn't matter which order you read in, of course, but it probably makes most sense to read in chronological order. After all, the later writers almost certainly read the earlier ones (especially Calvin), and so you may get the sense of diminishing returns if you read Calvin last, since much of his best thought will be reproduced in the others. Reading in historical order will help you see the growth and development (positively or negatively) of theology and the understanding of Galatians over the course of time, which could be obscured if you read them at random.

So in this case would it be Calvin then Brown then Ridderbos then Hendriksen?

 

[iainduguid]

So in this case would it be Calvin then Brown then Ridderbos then Hendriksen?

Correct. It seems to me that that order would highlight some interesting changes in emphasis over the course of time among commentators who would be broadly sympathetic to one another. Not that that is the only way to do it, but it seems a potentially profitable angle.

 

[DNM300]

Do you think that you could memorize the book entirely? If that’s at all possible for you, I would say do that. I know that’s not commentary help but it sounds like you will be meditating on it for a long time. Might as well take it with you.

 

[jhcampbell]

Do you think that you could memorize the book entirely? If that’s at all possible for you, I would say do that. I know that’s not commentary help but it sounds like you will be meditating on it for a long time. Might as well take it with you.

I thought about memorizing each passage as I studied it 3-4 verses at a time.

I have a pretty good memory. For example I memorized five psalms in five days, as well as Galatians chapter 1 I memorized previously. John 1:1-14 took me about 30 mins and I memorized Westminster Confession Chapter 1 verses 1-6 in about 25 minutes.

 

[Joshua]

Alright. You've had all day. You finished yet?

 

[RamistThomist]

I’m looking to buy some commentaries on Galatians specifically focusing on exegesis, and covenant theology.

The few that I have picked out are
Calvin
Herman Ridderbos
John Brown
William Hendriksen

I plan on spending a long time in Galatians.

My question is, should I read them each verse by verse (so reading what they all have to say about this or that verse), one volume at a time (so read each entire commentary before moving on to the next), or what?

I’ve just never used multiple commentaries on the same book before and I would like to understand the best way to go about it

Sort of. If I do that, it's usually with no more than three. Also, you'll find that a particular author is strong on one part of the book and weaker on the other.

 

[DNM300]

I thought about memorizing each passage as I studied it 3-4 verses at a time.

I have a pretty good memory. For example I memorized five psalms in five days, as well as Galatians chapter 1 I memorized previously. John 1:1-14 took me about 30 mins and I memorized Westminster Confession Chapter 1 verses 1-6 in about 25 minutes.

In light of this, I would say go for it!