Reumann_PhilippiansThe newest RBL update includes a review of Reumann’s 2008 Philippians commentaryby the incomparable James Dunn.  I too have posted my updated thoughts on Reumann’s work in my Annotated Philippians Commentary Rankings post.

Dunn and I generally agree in our evaluation of Reumann’s work.  We both find the format of the work frustrating with the commentary of each section divided into three different parts: Notes, A, and B (often with extensive overlap ).  Also, it can be quite difficult to track down full citations for footnotes.  However, this problem is alleviated to some degree by extensive use of the commentary.  Moreover, we agree in our overall assessment of Reumann’s commentary.   It is an in depth reference tool that can be frustrating to use.  I would add that this is a commentary geared for the specialist looking for an interaction with the most recent Philippians scholarship.  For the non-specialist I would recommend the fine commentaries by Fee or O’Brien.

Here are a few quotes from Dunn’s review, the entire review can be found here. 

The result is a somewhat lopsided treatment that is sometimes frustrating to use.”

“This is a volume that few will turn to for a gentle, stimulating read. It will be more like a reference work …”

Chasing up bibliography is also sometimes difficult, since it is often not clear whether the full details of a particular reference are to be found in the general bibliography or one of the many sectional bibliographies.”

More serious is the amazingly brief introduction—only eighteen pages, a significant proportion of them containing bibliography (in addition to a further twenty-eight page general bibliography).”