Unfortunately, Moore's commentary is a victim to its age and the priorities of biblical scholarship when it was written. Moore suggests an--in my own estimation--unnecessary amount of layers of redaction; he proposes three major layers, all of which are in themselves pieces of redaction, tying together other sources and narratives. He dismisses explanatory verses as editorial glosses (i.e. Judg 4:5, a verse that sits fine in context but is apparently not relevant enough for Moore to count as original). Of course, if you are looking for critical study of Judges, it is almost a requirement to at least look back at Moore's work (as is the case for much of the ICC). But, to put it simply, biblical scholarship is not where it was a century ago. Source criticism is not nearly as important as it once was, so this commentary which is almost entirely consumed by it shows it age in the worst way possible.

Edit Review