This was the assigned textbook for my Old Testament 1 and 2 courses. I liked what one reviewer said "drier than Sanai" (although my dyslexic brain read it as "drier than a snail" which I liked more, haha) and this is true. But, there were some interesting things here and there.
I appreciated that Longman and Dillard were coming from a distinctly Evangelical perspective. However, what I didn't appreciate was the amount of ink devoted in each chapter to going through the eye-rolling history of textual-critical ideas about the given book (and the ideas were legion and often quite contradictory, which just shows how bankrupt the whole textual-critical enterprise is). Half of the chapter was often devoted to discussing these ideas. Why are we wasting so much time on them? I do believe that they should be discussed to some extent, but can we handle with some disdain, rather than the respect of devoting so much of this textbook to them? I joked with my cohortmates that it should also have section devoted to the thoughts Richard Dawkins, because why not? And speaking of disdain, they reserved all their ire for the ideas of Theonomy (found on page 76):
"Approaching the New Testament. Attempts like those of a movement called theonomy to impose the laws and penalties found in the Book of the Covenant to contemporary society (Bahnsen 1977; Rushdoony) are ill-founded and dangerous (Longman 1990 and 1997). They simply do not take into account the radically different cultural and, more importantly, redemptive-historical differences between Old Testament Israel and contemporary society. Theonomy used to be an attractive lens through which to read Scripture for many Christians, particularly in Reformed and Pentecostal circles in the 1970s and into the 1990s, among those who looked with horror at the secularization of society and longed for a more powerful Christian influence. Fortunately, as we begin the twenty-first century this movement has lost significant influence."
Ill-founded and dangerous? "Yeah, we hate God's law." Where is all that passion when unbelievers and supposed believers are trampling on the inherency and authority of the Bible?
But I get it, they're a different generation of Evangelical that was constantly seeking (but never really finding) respectability and the approval of the secular academy, and that really comes through. However, as the whole field of textual-critical Biblical study dies, to a Christian in 100 years, this book is going to seem very odd for how long they devote to discussing the sophistry of modernists who couldn’t countenance the idea of miracles, or something not attested outside of the historical words Scripture (something they are unwilling to do for any other work in antiquity, for example, they don’t question the existence of Alexander the Great despite the lack broader attestation of his existence, they hold the Bible to a greater standard because of their prejudice).
Skip this one if you plan to read it all the way through, or just use it as a reference work.