I really, really wish that I could give this study Bible a better rating. Really. Because I believe with all my heart that a "literary" (synchronic) approach to Scripture is the ultimately proper and most fruitful way to interpret this sacred Book and avoids many of the pitfalls of the typical scholarly "historical" (diachronic) approach.

However, I must be honest: I found most of the study notes in this Bible pretty unhelpful overall. First, they were too broadly "literary"; I felt very often like most of these notes could have been placed in an edition of Shakespeare's plays without many modifications. It seems the "Bible" was missing in their overall "Bible as literature" approach. Furthermore, the notes were annoyingly repetitive. Finally, and this probably can't be helped, but the study notes showed definite theological bias. I suppose if I were more Reformed in my theology, this might be a strength rather than a weakness, but since I am NOT Reformed, there were a few remarks that made me grind my teeth.

Most enraging: The assertion that the book of Romans is the most systematized theological statement in all of Scripture and is, therefore, perhaps the greatest biblical book (if the authors must choose one). First, that comment completely ignores the "occasional" nature of Romans (a feature of epistolary writing they constantly emphasize with every OTHER epistle). Second, and much more important, this really seems to "betray" the literary approach to Scripture. Basically, the gist of the claim is this: "This book is the most important/best book in the Bible because it fits best with our Western rationalist assumptions." Unfortunately (or fortunately), systematic theology has never been and never will be "great literature." That books like Job or Genesis or Psalms or the Gospels got "passed over" for the "best book in the Bible" designation in a book dedicated to a LITERARY appreciation of the Bible is absolutely inexcusable. ( )

This wasn't as good as I hoped it would be. Thomas Nelson's Chronological Study Bible is actually more satisfying to my curiosity about literary genres and styles (at least through Joshua, which is as far as I have gotten). The commentary in the Literary ESV seemed kind of dry and obvious. ( )