So, when I'm reading the Masoretic Text, I give a full and solid reading. Only in circumstances where the text in incomprehensible or ludicrously bizarre (it happens) will I check other versions for possible clarification. Not so with Boling, and it really bothers. me.

The thing to understand is that once you get out of the Pentateuch, the texts can be somewhat less than well preserved, and figuring out what the supposed original is a whole field unto itself. There is a place for that approach, just like all of the other approaches. Boling, though takes it to another level.

Rather than just giving the MT a solid reading, then filling in the holes with notes, Boling has attempted to recreate an ur text in English of what the original might have said based on readings from other early sources. There doesn't seem to be any consistent criteria for additions or alterations either; he makes changes to the MT wherever he feels like it. Some might appreciate this all-out single-minded willy-nilly approach, but for my purposes this arbitrary ur texting rendered the commentary almost completely useless.

All is not lost, though. Boling, despite he massive ur text faux pas, does provide in his notes some quality material. It's not enough on it's own, but as a supplemental resource to a better commentary it would work just fine. Juts be sure to use a library copy or, if you must add it to you collection, get a used copy. ( )