Scholars such as D.A. Carson, Geoffrey Bromiley, Edmund Clowney, etc., all contribute well in an academia minded way.
Of particular interest and enlightenment was the very well done essays by Spitz on "The Historian and the Ancient of Days" as well as "Phillp Johnson's "Modernist Impasse in Law."
Some revolve around classic Niebuhr's grid while others burn new cultural analysis paths.
Good read and reference.
One criticism: This is an extremely conservative text via-a-vis manuscript choice. It seems to be a translation done from the Textus Receptus, with reference to other Byzantine manuscripts. Verses not found in the older Alexandrian manuscripts are bracketted, but included in the translation.
In some cases this is good, as the NIV and RSV teams were often too quick to remove texts whenever they were missing from the Alexandrian manuscripts. However, some extremely obnoxiously scribal insertions have made it into this translation. John 5:4 is a good example. Not even the ultra-conservative NASB team kept this one. The NASB team threw it out.
While modern scholarship has sometimes been to quick to remove "in doubt" texts, this is not one of those instances. John 5:4 cannot be found in any other "Modern" Bible, and for good reason. It doesn't exist in any manuscript before 1000 A.D. It add confusion to the story being told. Worse, it even promotes confusion about the nature and charactor of God. Therefore it isn't the genuine article. It is a counterfeit Bible verse, and should be left out.
Their moto was "more acurate than the NASB and more readable than the NIV." That is a mighty tall order on both counts. Based on this sample alone, I doubt they've hit the mark. Nevertheless, it is a good work. I just wish they hadn't used the Textus Receptus.
List price: $12.95 (that's 20% off!)