Digital Dead Sea Scrolls Online
Posted By MSH on September 26, 2011
Pretty cool – high resolution images of several of the most important scrolls are now online for free viewing / reading as part of the The Digital Dead Seas Scrolls project.
The Naked Bible
Biblical theology, stripped bare of denominational confessions and theological systems
Visitors to The Naked Bible
All Commentaries are Not Created Equal, Part 1
Posted By MSH on September 25, 2011
In my experience, most students who venture beyond just reading the Bible have heard of Bible commentaries. But in case someone reading this hasn’t heard the term before, I should explain. A Bible commentary is just what it sounds like — a book that provides comments on the Bible. Commentaries are most commonly written one a particular book of the Bible (e.g., Genesis), but they can actually span several books (e.g., a commentary on the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament) or the entire Bible. Commentaries that cover the entire Bible (all 66 books) are usually multi-volume sets that collectively run thousands of pages. However, there are actually one-volume commentaries on the Bible. Covering all 66 books in one volume, though, means you aren’t saying much about the Bible’s contents. The more detailed the analysis, the more pages and higher word count.
Aside from page count, there are many other differences between commentaries. All commentaries are not created equal. Not even close. I have had hundreds of students that simply don’t realize that. They presume that since the commentary exists and has lots of pages, it must be something that really digs into the biblical text. That’s a myth. The only thing it means for sure is that whoever wrote it used lots of words and spent a good bit of time on the task. It says nothing about the quality of analysis. To get an idea on how many different commentaries are available, you could peruse the results of this search on the Logos website. Keep in mind these are only the volumes and sets we have in our digital format. We have a lot, but there are many more that exist only in print (at least right now — we’re working on that).
In this post I aim to briefly sketch what makes commentaries different and, even better, to illustrate the chasm that exists between them when it comes to depth of analysis.
Commentaries basically break down into three categories (these are generalized categorizations; sometimes the lines blur):
1. Popular commentaries
* focused on the English text
* surface-level observations made on the basis of the English translation
* usually not verse-by-verse; tend to offer summary thoughts on sections
* comments not aimed at deep interpretation, but practical application of the biblical content to one’s spiritual life
* comments guide the reader toward an intended interpretation
* offers brief, general interpretations without analysis of other views
* no analysis of original languages or background context
* moderate cross-referencing
* little or no space devoted to introducing the book (date, author, occasion, structure, etc.)
2. Expositional commentaries
* focused on the English text, but will include comments related to the original languages
* original languages will be presented in transliteration
* original language content usually focused on word studies / meanings; little discussion of grammatical or literary issues, though that can be present (often in footnotes, not the running commentary)
* usually verse-by-verse exposition starting with a well-known English translation; can be word-by-word
* makes an attempt to take the reader through interpretive options
* offers non-technical introduction material
* will periodically include discussion of ancient cognate literature (e.g., rabbinic writings, Josephus, a word from another Semitic language) and background material
* periodic discussion of variant manuscript readings
* periodic discussion of literary features (e.g., parallelism, genre)
3. Scholarly commentaries
* the writer includes his or her own translation in the commentary
* verse-by-verse, word-by-word comments
* original language word presented in either transliteration or the actual Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic characters; English translations of phrases in the flow of the commentary usually translated, but not always (some don’t bother at all)
* detailed discussion of grammatical and syntactical observations in the text; original language competence is assumed (1-2 year level)
* detailed discussion of extra-biblical literature relevant to interpretation
* detailed analysis of relevant literary features and structures
* concerted effort at informing the reader of all interpretive options that have been published, with assessment of strengths and weaknesses
* discussion of critical issues relating to date, authorship, redaction (editing history of transmission), text-critical variants in other manuscripts
* used by scholars, graduate students, and pastors who have facility with biblical languages (and care to use them for sermon prep)
* SHOULD be used by seminary students who have facility with the biblical languages (at least a year)
I don’t want to make it a fourth category, but I ought to mention the church fathers. IVP has been publishing something called the Ancient Christian Commentary series for several years now. It’s interesting (though every time I look at it I get the feeling it’s only a curiosity). Sometimes the stuff the church fathers come up with in the way of interpretation is downright bizarre. More often it is just way off the mark as they spend their time allegorizing nearly every passage so that it spells Jesus. Many of them didn’t have Greek, and you could count the ones who knew Hebrew on one hand. Augustine is illustrative. He didn’t know Hebrew at all and confessed he hated Greek (he was a Latinist). They also had little or no access to ancient Near Eastern comparative material (they couldn’t read the languages – Egyptian, Akkadian, Ugaritic, etc., and most of what we know today was buried anyway). Their worldview was Greco-Roman and that of Late Antiquity.
Now for an illustration. This file contains several selections from commentaries in each of these categories on a fascinating passage — and one that gets theologically prickly: Exod 4:24-26:
24 At a lodging place on the way the Lord met him and sought to put him to death. 25 Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it and said, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!” 26 So he let him alone. It was then that she said, “A bridegroom of blood,” because of the circumcision.
As you read through the samples at the link above, I think the differences in resources will be dramatically clear. I also think that many of you will be able to get a lot more out of the higher-end commentaries than you might think. One hint: part of the problem with this passage is the ambiguity of just who is not circumcised. Keep a look out for that.
Again, the purpose of this is merely to expose you to the different types of commentaries. For even better treatments of the passage above (and many other subjects), you need to go beyond even scholarly commentaries to where the real exegetical meat is often found: journal articles. For next time.
Tools for Biblical Research, Part 1: Toward the End of Bible Study as Most Think of It
Posted By MSH on September 16, 2011
In addition to my day job at Logos I’m an adjunct distance ed professor of biblical studies at the seminary level. One of the more common questions I get from students is about sources for biblical research papers. Poor sources are the bane of both the student who wants to learn something about the text (as opposed to those who just want the credits) and anyone unfortunate enough to read the work produced through their use (that would be us professors). To give you an idea of the battle, here are some guidelines I have created over the years (based on real life experiences) that I have posted for online students.
1. Sources for the paper must be graduate level. This means that any source that has words like “introduction”; “survey”; “overview”; etc. are not allowed as sources. Additionally, I will not consider any source produced for use by lay people in the church or by undergraduates to be a graduate level source. Part of being in seminary means getting acquainted with academic resources. This isn’t Sunday School. By way of example, I do not want to see the following as a source in your paper: sermon anthologies, church bulletins, sermon notes, websites with no author attribution, your pastor, etc. Rule of thumb: if it’s sold in a local Christian bookstore, it isn’t a graduate level source.
2. Commentaries that do not engage the original languages of the biblical text in some way are not permissible sources. Sources that amount to only commenting on the English translation with no apparent interest in drilling down to the original text (e.g., examining the usage of a Greek or Hebrew word, making some observation of grammar or literary structure) are not allowed. By way of example, I do not want to see the following “commentaries” (loosely defined) in your paper: Matthew Henry, Everyman’s Bible Commentary, J. Vernon McGee’s notes, Warren Wiersbe’s commentaries, etc. Rule of thumb: if it’s sold in a local Christian bookstore, it isn’t an academic commentary and won’t be acceptable. These sources are homiletical and devotional in nature; they are not exegetical. They might help you think about some item in your English translation, but they won’t penetrate that translation to produce nuggets from the text in its original language.
One of the hardest lessons I’ve had to learn as a professor and in my role at Logos is that most Christians think Bible reading is Bible study. It isn’t. This is followed by the corollary that what most people do beyond Bible reading isn’t going to get them very far into the text, either. That is, what most people think of as Bible study isn’t real biblical research. That’s why seminary students occasionally get annoyed when I won’t accept the kinds of sources noted above. They actually believe they’re “digging into the word” when they read Chuck Swindoll. It’s part of my job to convince them otherwise. In fairness, I remember reading Swindoll’s character study on Joshua when I was a teenager and really liking it. But after one or two of those things, I realized I was just reading ABOUT the Bible. I wasn’t really penetrating its content. I wasn’t discovering anything that couldn’t be learned through only a close reading of my English translation. That was a step in the right direction, but soon failed to satisfy. My next step in high school was taking commentaries to study hall (that’s something I recall telling my wife about only after we were married). Looking back on that, it’s easy to see that those tools still barely scratched the surface (and that it was a truly nerdy thing to do). I wanted more.
If you claim to be serious about studying the biblical text or are responsible for teaching biblical content to others, you should be using grown-up tools. As indispensable as biblical language study is, even if you don’t know Hebrew or Greek there are many scholarly books and commentaries whose content is accessible. Lest I be misunderstood, it’s not a sin to use devotional and homiletical tools for personal Bible study if that’s where you’re at. I started out that way. Everyone does. But you should know that’s what you’re using — and not be misled into thinking that the content of those tools is really digging into the text and giving you a clear, coherent understanding of what the text means. That criticism is not designed to say that non-academic tools will lead you astray into bad exegesis and theology (at least not every time — simplistic would be more on target than heretical). Rather, it’s to say that you shouldn’t consider those tools to be more than they were intended to be by their authors. Resources aimed at lay people (and even some for pastors) are simply not designed for any real depth. The problem is that many people think they are because they don’t know better.
So, I hope to help a bit. I’ll be writing a series of posts that will hopefully illustrate the difference and show you what you’re missing with lay-level material. Stay tuned.
Some Links of Interest
Posted By MSH on September 13, 2011
Just wanted to pass on a couple of items that have been brought to my attention recently.
First, there is this post for those of you who have mobile devices:
25 Incredible iPad Apps Every Theology Student Should Have
Some nice stuff on there, but if you want my advice, you should all have Logos 4 (with the mobile app of course) and a collection that provides you with the reverse interlinear. Yes, I work at Logos, but that means I can tell you with authority that you haven’t seen anything yet, grasshopper.
Second, I came across a nice site that has some good articles on biblical theology topics:
Beginning with Moses
I recommend one in particular that I have had people read dozens of times:
The Divine Warrior: The New Testament Use of an Old Testament Motif
I always direct people who are struggling with the violence of the Old Testament to this — to disabuse them of the notion that the New Testament casts Jesus as Tiny Tim (okay, that reference will date me). The divine warrior motifs and images used of the God of the Old Testament are applied to Jesus in the New Testament. The Bible does not present us with two different portraits. (Aside from this article I’d recommend a serious study of grace in the Old Testament). God defends his people and decides when it’s time to judge evil. So will Jesus.
German Bible Society Greek and Hebrew Texts Online for Free
Posted By MSH on September 2, 2011
The German Bible Society (highly reputed in academia) have released their texts on their website for free use: the Greek NT (NA27), Hebrew Bible (BHS), and LXX.
Thanks to Mark Goodacre for this alert.
Courses in Hebrew, Greek, Ugaritic, & Biblical Theology
SBL Affiliate Biblioblog
