AYBC Sale... help picking some

Page 2 of 5 (81 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next >
This post has 80 Replies | 5 Followers

Posts 3311
Mattillo | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 9 2019 6:45 AM

Friedrich:

Jonathan Ray:
Leviticus (Milgrom)

I have seen a few people recommend this. What makes it good?

I haven't looked at them yet but Denver seminary says: *Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 1-16. AB 3. Doubleday, 1991. Leviticus 17-22. AB 3A. Doubleday, 2000. Leviticus 23-27. AB 3B. Doubleday, 2001. The fruit of a life time of study by a major biblical scholar, this work provides the most detailed and thorough exegesis available, with full reference to comparative ancient Near Eastern, Qumran, Dead Sea Scroll, and Rabbinic sources. 

https://denverseminary.edu/resources/news-and-articles/annotated-old-testament-bibliography-2018/ 

Posts 654
Kiyah | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 9 2019 6:49 AM

Denise:

NB.Mick:

Jonathan Ray:
Also, if you are studying the Apocryphal books, this set is one of the only ones to cover them in detail.

This was what got me thinking...

I use the Wisdom one quite a bit; Paul parallels. 

Good point. I may have to look at the Wisdom one since I do find myself in Wisdom a lot in the course of studying the New Testament. A lot of stuff links back to Wisdom. Too bad I already bought the Hebrews volume and I'm trying to be disciplined. Sad

Posts 654
Kiyah | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 9 2019 6:59 AM

Puddin’:
I am always dubious when I hear the term “liberal” inasmuch as this seems like a mere term of derision targeting anyone who doesn’t agree w. someone’s pet theology.

Precisely. I don't think liberal/conservative are helpful categories when assessing academic works because those terms tell you nothing about the quality of the scholarship. Also, "liberal" does seem to be a convenient label people place on stuff as a means of justifying the easy dismissal without examination/engagement of perspectives they may disagree with. It also seems to be a way people "scare" other people away from reading different perspectives. The original poster said people said to "stay away" from AYB because they are liberal. That's a shame that people think that way.

I didn't want to get into all that and was trying to be more diplomatic, but since you brought it up I couldn't resist...pray for me. Wink

Posts 491
J. Remington Bowling | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 9 2019 8:51 AM

The terms "conservative" and "fundamentalist" are often used in the same way. And if "liberal" is really such a hard term to pin down then, logically, the same would have to be said for conservative or fundamentalist since the terms are understood in relation to one another. Yet I've occasionally seen people using these terms without much qualms.

In reality, it's not very hard to understand what these terms mean (and pretending otherwise is usually just a matter of rhetorical convenience). The terms tell you about the scholar's priors, "quality of scholarship" aside. Nor is it very hard to understand why someone in one camp might not be interested in spending a chunk of change and time on a resource coming from a perspective that they already know they disagree with. Yes, it's always good to hear the other side, but it's a bit of scholarly platitude to pretend as if we are or even can always do this. Sometimes one just wants a resource that they can have more trust in the author's priors. People who are new to certain areas of study generally should stay away from sources that are less trusted within their epistemic framework. That's just a common sense way in which we go about knowing. We start with those we know and trust and move out to the boundaries from there.

I, however, am very glad to be getting Fitzmyer's Romans commentary and some of the Deuterocanonical commentaries. Great sale! Wish Faithlife would spread these out more evenly throughout the year.

Posts 640
Michael S. | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 9 2019 11:18 AM

I cant speak for everyone else, but for me the label "liberal" means the author does not believe in the supernatural, and/or the divine inspiration of the Scriptures and/or that the Scriptures are infallible, inerrant and divinely preserved.  So if a scholar is in that camp, then I define them as liberal.  

This does not mean their work is compromised, but it does mean their conclusions, or their criticisms and applications of the truths are going to be filtered by their lens.  One can be an excellent student and scholar of a subject, but if they believe the subject to be inherently fiction, it will affect the way they see that subject impacting their worldview and life's values.

So, it should not be a derogatory label, just a classification so one knows if the expert believes the subject matter to be authoritative or merely cultural.

Posts 654
Kiyah | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 9 2019 11:39 AM

J. Remington Bowling:
The terms tell you about the scholar's priors, "quality of scholarship" aside. Nor is it very hard to understand why someone in one camp might not be interested in spending a chunk of change and time on a resource coming from a perspective that they already know they disagree with. Yes, it's always good to hear the other side, but it's a bit of scholarly platitude to pretend as if we are or even can always do this. Sometimes one just wants a resource that they can have more trust in the author's priors. People who are new to certain areas of study generally should stay away from sources that are less trusted within their epistemic framework. That's just a common sense way in which we go about knowing. We start with those we know and trust and move out to the boundaries from there.

I agree that it's good to know what perspective the scholar is coming from, and that definitely should not be ignored since it will help you read their works with greater understanding. My point was that liberal vs. conservative are not the most helpful in assessing the quality and usefulness (or lack thereof) of a work. And how would someone ever know how helpful the AYB series is for the specific purposes I mentioned in my first post if they took the advice of "staying away" from them because they've been labeled "liberal." Knowing something is liberal/conservative may help you be more efficient in how you read and use a resource (e.g. if you're conservative you may use AYB for the background/context/textual insights but may not be drawing as much from the author's exegetical conclusions if they don't fit your theology). However, I don't think it's helpful or healthy to write a resource off completely and consider them a waste of time, or even dangerous stuff to "stay away from" based on liberal and conservative labels.

And I just don't think it's a waste of time to read and learn from other perspectives that I disagree with. How do you even know what it is you're disagreeing with? Or how do you know that certain perspectives have even been accurately represented by the folks that told you to "stay away." You don't know unless you study things for yourself. It doesn't mean you have to read everything ever written that disagrees with your perspective. My point is simply that liberal and conservative are not the most helpful in gauging quality of scholarship and usefulness for particular purposes. Terms like academic, popular, critical, technical, pastoral, expository, devotional, or applicational are more helpful in assessing usefulness at least. Quality of scholarship may be less relevant with non-technical devotional resources since they aren't trying to be scholarly. But that's not to say that the liberal/conservative categories aren't relevant at all, it's just to say that those aren't the best categories to assess a resource's quality, usefulness, and whether one should spend time reading it or should "stay away." Liberal/Conservative become more relevant if you're looking for theological perspective and personal application. But you first had to decide what you're using the commentary for, then determine whether a liberal or conservative commentary would useful for that specific purpose.

The issue of "trust" for me is based on what I'm using the resource for, so I'm not sure how to respond there. And how will a person ever move out from their starting point to broaden their perspective if they're told to "stay away" from stuff that others have labeled "liberal" for them. And I personally know some folks who are so conservative that everyone who disagrees with them is called liberal (including people who identify themselves as conservative), so the usage of the terms liberal and conservative aren't as universal and as easy to nail down as you suggest, depending on who is using the terms, so I disagree with you there.

Posts 640
Michael S. | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 9 2019 11:48 AM

Kiyah:
Knowing something is liberal/conservative may help you be more efficient in how you read and use a resource (e.g. if you're conservative you may use AYB for the background/context/textual insights but may not be drawing as much from the author's exegetical conclusions if they don't fit your theology). However, I don't think it's helpful or healthy to write a resource off completely and consider them a waste of time, or even dangerous stuff to "stay away from" based on liberal and conservative labels.

Agreed!

Kiyah:
How do you even know what it is you're disagreeing with? Or how do you know that certain perspectives have even been accurately represented by the folks that told you to "stay away." You don't know unless you study things for yourself. It doesn't mean you have to read everything ever written that disagrees with your perspective.

Also Agreed!  Good sound advice.

Kiyah:
And I personally know some folks who are so conservative that everyone who disagrees with them is called liberal (including people who identify themselves as conservative),

Yes, words matter along with their context and connotations.  This is a sad example, but I know people do it all the time.  We are taught to fear that which is different from us.  We are called to engage and weigh and think these things through.  Of course, I am Berean on this issue- so thinking through according to the Scriptures is what is needed.

Great advice here.

Posts 491
J. Remington Bowling | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 9 2019 12:32 PM

Kiyah:
My point was that liberal vs. conservative are not the most helpful in assessing the quality and usefulness (or lack thereof) of a work.

That depends on if you think the liberal or the conservative priors are well-aimed at truth. If you think the priors of a fundamentalist are counter-productive at getting at the truth, then obviously whether or not someone is a fundamentalist will be helpful in assessing the quality and usefulness of the work. I say helpful, not that it will be a perfect rule for filtering out all that is not useful while allowing only that which is useful to get through. 

Kiyah:
And how would someone ever know how helpful the AYB series is for the specific purposes I mentioned in my first post if they took the advice of "staying away" from them because they've been labeled "liberal."

Right. Clearly at some point someone will need to read the resource or talk to the author to know what position the resource/author is coming from. Presumably this has already been done in the case of AYBC, as evidenced in part by the responses in this thread.

Kiyah:
However, I don't think it's helpful or healthy to write a resource off completely and consider them a waste of time, or even dangerous stuff to "stay away from" based on liberal and conservative labels.

That may make perfect sense given your own theological, epistemic framekwork. But, to shift spheres for (I hope) a helpful analogy: Just as it may make perfect sense for, say, a political moderate to think we shouldn't write off, say, Kamala Harris or Donald Trump as a complete waste of time. But from the perspective of a hard leftist or a hard Trump supporter it makes much more sense to think they know enough about the opposition and the issues that they don't have to waste time reading Donald Trump's (or Kamala Harris's) latest book.

Please note: With my analogy I'm not trying to peg you as a moderate on the theological spectrum or imply that theological conservatives or liberals fall along the same entrenched sort of partisan lines as political activists. Stick out tongue I'm simply using a more at-hand example to capture the abstract points that whether or not writing a certain resource off may make more or less sense depending on where you are standing in relation to that camp.

Kiyah:
And how will a person ever move out from their starting point to broaden their perspective if they're told to "stay away" from stuff that others have labeled "liberal" for them.

Even if we take "stay away" as a universal rule, where the person is given a definite reading list that they can't move beyond, it would still be possible for the person to use their own rational faculties to assess the arguments. Granted, it would be much harder for the person to certain flaws in reasoning that may be presented to them. I'm just pointing out that it's possible for a person to be presented a certain claim or set of claims and reject them, having never studied others who made contrary claims.

However, I really don't think the OP was suggesting such a universal principle. Just as you aren't suggesting that, as a universal principle, liberal v conservative is not a helpful framework in any context.

Kiyah:
so the usage of the terms liberal and conservative aren't as universal and as easy to nail down as you suggest, depending on who is using the terms, so I disagree with you there.

I didn't mean to imply that the terms were universal or universally easy to nail down. Obvious examples of the terms having different meanings would be politics and, then, which country's politics. But in this sense, almost no terms are universal or easy to nail down! Take for instance Wittgenstein's "game". I guess my point is that "liberal" and "conservative" theological positions among Western Christianity are no more uniquely difficult to define than other words we use quite effectively.

I basically agree with the rest of what you say and appreciate the clarity. I would just reiterate that the "you have to read all sides before you can know" platitude, as a universal rule, isn't realistic with what we can accomplish and it isn't realistic with how we actually go about knowing. There are circumstances where you can be expected to "read both sides" (to a certain extent) and should do so. Whether that applies to the person in this thread who originally asked the question... I have no idea. 

Posts 13368
Forum MVP
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 9 2019 12:44 PM

Friedrich:

Jonathan Ray:
Leviticus (Milgrom)

I have seen a few people recommend this. What makes it good?

It's worth knowing that Milgrom was a Conservative Jewish rabbi, and doesn't interpret the Old Testament christologically, or in the light of the NT.* He's not the only one, of course. Many of the Old Testament critical commentators take a similar stance.

If the purpose of all of Scripture is to point to Jesus Christ, Milgrom (and other exegetes who take a similar stance) miss the main point — however good their exegesis and understanding of cultic background and so on.

I'm not saying that it's therefore not useful at all — I own it, and use it — but it's worth knowing before purchase.

* As a comparison, in Gordon Wenham's NICOT volume on Leviticus, 22% of references to other parts of the Bible are to the NT. In Milgrom's three volumes it's 0.6%.

Posts 3311
Mattillo | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 9 2019 1:18 PM

Michael S.:

I cant speak for everyone else, but for me the label "liberal" means the author does not believe in the supernatural, and/or the divine inspiration of the Scriptures and/or that the Scriptures are infallible, inerrant and divinely preserved.  So if a scholar is in that camp, then I define them as liberal.  

This does not mean their work is compromised, but it does mean their conclusions, or their criticisms and applications of the truths are going to be filtered by their lens.  One can be an excellent student and scholar of a subject, but if they believe the subject to be inherently fiction, it will affect the way they see that subject impacting their worldview and life's values.

So, it should not be a derogatory label, just a classification so one knows if the expert believes the subject matter to be authoritative or merely cultural.

Yes this is what I meant with the term liberal and pardon my ignorance in this matter. I'm just a layman who likes to study with no seminary training. I hope no offense was taken. For me, and how I've learned from others, I prefer to stick to the "conservative" side in my readings though this is not to say I don't read "the other side." With the money I have to spend I try to stick to the parameters mentioned above. There is more I'd like to say but then the forum police will smack my nose with a newspaper. 😄

This thread has been immensely helpful to me so thank you.  I wound up taking the three Leviticus volumes in hopes to better understand Jewish customs and history. 

Posts 3311
Mattillo | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 9 2019 1:21 PM

Mark Barnes:

* As a comparison, in Gordon Wenham's NICOT volume on Leviticus, 22% of references to other parts of the Bible are to the NT. In Milgrom's three volumes it's 0.6%.

Wow that is fascinating! How did you figure that out?

Posts 6571
DAL | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 9 2019 1:53 PM

Puddin’ (It feels weird calling you what your wife calls you 😂),

Anyway, check your upgrade price to Standard Portfolio. It might be cheaper to get it that way and you’ll get a ton more resources for the price 👍😁👌

DAL

Posts 13368
Forum MVP
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 9 2019 2:19 PM

Mattillo:

Mark Barnes:

* As a comparison, in Gordon Wenham's NICOT volume on Leviticus, 22% of references to other parts of the Bible are to the NT. In Milgrom's three volumes it's 0.6%.

Wow that is fascinating! How did you figure that out?

I used the Concordance Tool.

Posts 3767
Forum MVP
Friedrich | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 9 2019 4:47 PM

Mattillo:

Mark Barnes:

* As a comparison, in Gordon Wenham's NICOT volume on Leviticus, 22% of references to other parts of the Bible are to the NT. In Milgrom's three volumes it's 0.6%.

Wow that is fascinating! How did you figure that out?

First, both of you thank you for your thoughts.  Mark I had read he was a rabbi but wasn't aware of what flavor.  Mattillo, if you hadn't just referred to Mark's last line I would have completely missed it. because it was italicized I think I just thought it was a signature line and skipped over it.  Incidentally I have Wenham's work.  I'll likely pass, for now, on Migrom, only because there are more pressing books I want to get.  But Leviticus intrigues me and I would eventually like to do more work in it.

I like Apples.  Especially Honeycrisp.

Posts 312
Puddin’ | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 9 2019 7:00 PM

DAL:

Puddin’ (It feels weird calling you what your wife calls you 😂),

Anyway, check your upgrade price to Standard Portfolio. It might be cheaper to get it that way and you’ll get a ton more resources for the price 👍😁👌

DAL

Good idea.  Thank you much.  (BTW, I literally LOL when I read your post about Puddin’ 😜.)

Posts 37
Alan | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Feb 11 2019 2:22 PM

Which of the Deuteroconical volumes would you prioritize?

Posts 438
Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Feb 11 2019 4:13 PM

The Anchor Yale Bible (AYB) sale is an opportunity to pick up some good commentaries!

While I’ve already most of the AYB set, there’s one book in the series that seems not to be included in this sale:

W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann Matthew: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (Yale University Press, 1995)

It’s currently at $US55 and you can see it at:

https://www.logos.com/product/162594/matthew-introduction-translation-and-notes

 I’d love to see this book included in this sale!

How about it Faithlife?  Keep well  Paul

Posts 10311
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Feb 11 2019 4:25 PM

Alan:

Which of the Deuteroconical volumes would you prioritize?

Alan, not sure your query.

If prioritize in my library, I keep the AYB tops; my other commentary choices are much older (Deuterocanon)

If prioritize for purchase, it depends on your needs:

- Studying Paul, Wisdom of Solomon

- Jewish pre-1st century thinking: Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)

- Pre-1st-century history: Macabbees (though Josephus more common)


Posts 37
Alan | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Feb 11 2019 4:34 PM

Prioritize was probably a bad choice of words.  I was thinking of prioritizing in terms of which ones would be first in terms of purchasing as far as quality/importance as a general study resource if only a couple could be purchased.   Not so much as far as prioritize inside Logos.

Thanks :)

Alan

Posts 491
J. Remington Bowling | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Feb 12 2019 12:22 PM

Just noticed this, for anyone interested in picking up Koester's Revelation commentary: https://www.logos.com/product/156300/revelation-and-the-end-of-all-things-second-edition

Page 2 of 5 (81 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > | RSS