Merrill F. Unger (1909–1980)

In terms of contents, this volume is an excellent mix -- a one-volume complete Bible library, with an overview, a (tiny) historical section, a brief survey of the books of the Bible, a fairly substantial Bible dictionary, and a fairly good concordance (derived from Cruden's concordance) to the important words in the King James Bible.

Which is most of the problem. The King James Bible. The inaccurately translated, based on late and imperfect copies of the Biblical texts King James Bible. A show more good reference guide would be based on something newer -- at the time this was published, the Revised Standard Version or perhaps the New English Bible.

There is also the matter of outlook. The summary of the Biblical books gives five pages to Genesis, five to Isaiah, three to Luke, twenty to the Apocalypse. Forget the fact that the Revelation to John is shorter by far than any of those books. Forget the fact that it is just barely canonical, is not in the early church's lectionary, and the number of manuscript copies is less than 10% the number of copies of the gospel. But, in this reference, it gets all the press.

That particular data point should give you most of what you need to know about this book. It's a conservative, eschatological, non-scientific, non-historical introduction. Unger admitted in another of his books that his main basis for understanding the Bible is [what he thinks] the Bible says about itself, even if that conflicts with outside evidence. If that's what you want, go for it. If, instead, you believe "be babes in evil, but in thinking be mature," and want to look at all the available information, this book probably isn't meant for you. show less

This is an impressive book if it doesn't drive you crazy. On the other hand, it might be much better if it did drive you crazy. And I'm not talking about the overuse of passive voice.

This is a commentary in brief, and as such is a nice thing to carry around to Bible groups. But it is very conservative -- e.g. its explanation for the fact that there are two endings of Mark (or, rather, one ending and one non-ending) is that the book started to circulate before Mark had finished it. But the show more consensus of modern scholars is that Mark 16:9-20 are not by Mark. Similarly, it mentions but fails to emphasize that John 7:53-8:11 are not in the earliest manuscripts (and are not by John). It implies a non-evolutionary creation. In general, the results of science and history are downplayed.

Also, far more emphasis is placed on the New Testament than the Hebrew Bible -- about three times as much space per chapter. Of course, the New Testament is the more important to Christians. But the disproportion is so great that the Old Testament portion is hardly worth having even if you are a believer in its tendencies.

This sounds like a negative review. For me, it is: I do not like this book. But I want to emphasize that it is not a bad example of what it is. If you agree with Unger, it's a good book. It's just that I don't agree with Unger, presumably because I have a strong background in both science and history. show less

One of the first books about the Bible that I read and studied seriously. It was a high school interest in religion and then beyond. This is a good, short, helpful introduction to the Bible.

I found this book during a used book sale in the ‘for a quarter’ bin, and bought it for a laugh. This book made my eyes roll. Same old stereotypical 70s and 80s feel of
Satanism is all around us’ and ‘we are under attack from all sides and oppressed.’ If someone really wants to believe every other religion are actually worshipping ‘demons’ then that’s prerogative, but in my view this book stinks.