My “Review” of Leithart

I am really at a loss to know why the FV types are reacting so violently to my “review” of Leithart’s book. First of all, my “review” said that I still hope to derive much profit from the book. DID YOU HEAR THAT, FV???? That comment seems to have been utterly and completely ignored by Xon, Douglas Wilson, and several others. Secondly, my comments were directed at the bibliographical nature of the commentary, something which with I am always concerned. Thirdly, I have made no comments directed to the substance of what was written. My critics here have forgotten that it was not a full book review, nor did I claim it to be so. I very clearly stated that it was not a full book review. My point was merely that, for a commentary, there were some significant gaps in the bibliography. Wilson’s points are not to the point, since the books of which he is speaking (Lewis and Chesterton) are not commentaries.

The upshot is that I am frustrated with the critics at this point, since they are assuming that I meant to give a full book review, when it clearly was not.

Xon’s points are way off the point. I have no objections whatsoever to the writing of a systematic-theological commentary. The Brazos project as a whole is a great idea. Whether every volume will fulfill the mandate required of them is another matter. But I believe that a theological commentary that doesn’t take into account every exegetical insight available is lacking something. My point is limited to that, and to that only. What I believe it shows is a sharp dichotomy between systematics and exegesis that should never have been allowed into theology, ever. Exegetical commentaries should reference systematic theologies, and theological commentaries should reference the exegetical commentaries. Period. That’s my point.