AYBC Sale... help picking some

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

Posts 460
Brad | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Feb 12 2019 9:32 PM

Thanks, Remington!  Good find.  I had overlooked that one.

Posts 1397
Rick Ausdahl | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 13 2019 8:51 AM

J. Remington Bowling:

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

Does anyone know how this shorter commentary by Koester on Revelation compares with his Anchor commentary?  I.e. At 226 pages, is it basically a highly summarized version of the 923 page Anchor commentary?

I have a pre-pub order placed for his shorter commentary, but at the Anchor sale price, I'm interested in his Anchor commentary and am wondering if there's much value in keeping the order for the shorter commentary.  If anyone is familiar with both, do you see much benefit in having the shorter version if one owns the Anchor version? 

Posts 199
Roy | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 13 2019 10:53 AM

Rick,

I found that I have his (Koster's) 1st edition in Logos.

An example, the section for Rev 3:14-22 on Laodicea is 4 paragraphs long about 2 pages.
The Anchor Yale edition is some 10 pages long and includes a couple photos of some period coins.

If you would like a specific example I can try to provide it for you.

Roy

Posts 1397
Rick Ausdahl | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 13 2019 3:39 PM

Roy:

Rick,

I found that I have his (Koster's) 1st edition in Logos.

An example, the section for Rev 3:14-22 on Laodicea is 4 paragraphs long about 2 pages.
The Anchor Yale edition is some 10 pages long and includes a couple photos of some period coins.

If you would like a specific example I can try to provide it for you.

Roy

Thank you, Roy!

I can probably get by without a specific example, but I do have a question.  Does the shorter (non Anchor) version provide verse-by-verse coverage or is it more of a section-by-section coverage?

Posts 199
Roy | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 13 2019 6:49 PM

Honestly, it appears to be more of a section by section. When he is writing about something from a specific verse, the verses address is handled parenthetically given at the end of his discussion.

e.g. 

The Kingdom of the Lord (11:15–19)
John prefaces the blowing of the seventh trumpet with the warning that “woe” is coming; but in predictably unpredictable fashion he follows that warning of woe with a song of celebration rather than a lament. John raises readers’ expectations by announcements of things to come, but as soon as he establishes a pattern, he alters it so that readers cannot be confident of their own abilities to anticipate what God will do next. Earlier, John said that three “woes” would come, one at the sound of each remaining trumpet (8:13). When the fifth trumpet blew and a horde of locusts appeared, John indicated that the first “woe” had occurred (9:12). Therefore, when the sixth trumpet leads to the deaths of a third of humanity, readers might expect John to announce that the second “woe” has occurred, but John does not do so. Instead, he strangely delays the announcement of the second “woe” until a lesser judgment has occurred and humanity gives glory to God (11:13–14).

Hope this helps.

edit: emphasized the verse references in red...

Posts 1397
Rick Ausdahl | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 13 2019 7:46 PM

Thank you, Roy!  Great example.

The short version looks like it could be good for use in a group Bible study where the goal is to get a good handle on the big picture with some interesting details thrown in, or even as a good launching point for a personal study where a person wants to clearly see the forest before examining the trees.

Posts 373
Wilson Hines | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Feb 14 2019 5:37 AM

It gets exciting when you get a pre-pub transaction notification on AYB Amos for $29.95 during a AYB sale month of $19.99! :)

Not complaining...just say'n.

Wilson Hines

Posts 373
Wilson Hines | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Feb 14 2019 5:51 AM

Mattillo:

So there is an AYBC sale going on at the moment.  I don't have any AYBCs and I've had people tell me to stay away from them because they tend to lean on the liberal side.  Anyone have any thoughts on "must haves"?  There are quite a few ranked high on Best Commentaries but I know that rating system isn't the best at times.  Thanks in advance

https://www.logos.com/anchor-yale-bible-sale 

First off, I haven't read this entire thread yet, so I'm almost certain somebody has said essentially the same thing I'm about to say.  So, bear with me, I guess. 

Second, I'm conservative.  In fact, I imagine for most people in here, I would be right there with the fundamentalist crazies, even though I don't associate with what has come to be known as fundamentalism in the past 10 years or so.  I'm a Baptist, used to be Independent Fundamental Baptist, but now I'm more Southern Baptist in doctrine, Calvinist, etc.  I'm pretty picky about books.  

Third, in regards to the AYB, the general consensus is some volumes are not worth the time it takes to throw them in the trash.  However, some are standards in Biblical research and should be treated as such.  The AYB Leviticus Milgrom volumes are not going to be replaced in the level of scholarship in the world of commentaries for the foreseeable future, but maybe even ever.  With that being said, Milgrom was lost.  He was a Rabbi.  So, what can we get from those commentaries.  Do your research, there is a reason those three volumes are the 900 pound gorilla in the room of commentaries.  There is 2,700~ pages in those three volumes commenting on the "Levitical cult" from the point of view of a very conservative research Rabbi.  Think about it.  No, he's not going to show you Jesus in the Tabernacle, but think about it.  We still have other great conservative Leviticus commentaries to get what we need where we need it.  With all this being said, if you told me I would spend money to buy these three volumes and the commentator was not even born-again, I would scoff and call you insane.  Have some balance.  Buy the three Leviticus commentaries and learn something you could not learn anywhere else.  

I'm certain there are other commentaries in the AYB series which are nearly as or even as seminal as the AYB for their respective book.  I know the Amos commentary that just came out (1,024 pages for a 10 page book of the Bible), is supposed to be a respected as the Milgrom volumes, but I don't know that personally.  

I tend to buy commentary sets.  Just like I tend to buy albums of music and not individual songs.  But, with the AYB, I will step aside from my habits and buy a la carte.    

Wilson Hines

Posts 3238
Mattillo | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Feb 14 2019 5:55 AM

Thank you Wilson. You and I have similar thoughts. I bought the Leviticus commentaries and I'm excited to learn more about Judaism through them

Posts 373
Wilson Hines | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Feb 14 2019 6:06 AM

Kiyah:

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

I'll get specific.  Liberal is a very, very (and I don't like using the word very) overused word.  

Liberal is denying the fundamentals of the faith.  Don't overcorrect and read "fundamentalism," as the connotation of these words have changed, especially in the past 20 years.  

The blood atonement.  The trinity.  Virgin birth.  The miracles in the Bible.  The resurrection.  The Ascension of Christ.  Jesus Christ was 100% God and 100% man.  The inspiration (verbal, plenary for me, but maybe not for you) of the Scriptures. Salvation by Faith alone. etc.  I could get a WHOLE lot more detailed than that, but when you get off this basic reservation, then you're liberal in my opinion.  Liberal is not whether or not you let your kids go to a movie theater.  

I think it's safe to say Jacob Milgrom (AYB Leviticus) was a liberal and thusly produced a liberal work.

Wilson Hines

Posts 1222
Mike Tourangeau | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Feb 14 2019 1:08 PM

Jonathan Ray:

  • Leviticus (Milgrom)
  • Jonah (Sasson)
  • Habakkuk (Anderson)
  • Luke (Fitzmyer)
  • Acts (Futzmyer)
  • John (Brown)
  • Romans (Fitzmyer)
  • 1 Corinthians (Fitzmyer)
  • Philemon (Fitzmyer)
  • Ephesians (Barth)
  • 1-3 John (Brown)
  • Revelation (Koester)

Can anyone point to any "stand outs" in the Prophets? I have picked up Hebrews and will pick up 2 Samuel but I could use some other voices in the Prophets. Thanks

Posts 246
Puddin’ | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 15 2019 12:58 AM

Wilson, you stated, “The blood atonement.  The trinity.  Virgin birth.  The miracles in the Bible.  The resurrection.  The Ascension of Christ.  Jesus Christ was 100% God and 100% man.  The inspiration (verbal, plenary for me, but maybe not for you) of the Scriptures. Salvation by Faith alone. etc.  I could get a WHOLE lot more detailed than that, but when you get off this basic reservation, then you're liberal in my opinion.”

Interesting, for me, I would classify someone liberal that denies or rejects the plain declarations of God-breathed Scripture on any given dogma.  But, I am a sola-scriptura fella’.  

In light of your post above and based upon the actual words of Scripture itself, there is a WHOLE lot that I could point out...but since this is not a debate forum I will digress.

My point:  I guess, just as we stated earlier, the label “liberal” is in the eye of the beholder.  Conversely, I equally think that labels do not foster mutual and honest consideration of opposing views.

Regarding the soteriological views of Rabbi’s (i.e., Leviticus) and the author not being born-again, this is something that I have spent a ton of time thinking about.  However, at some point I would imagine that all serious students of the Bible have consulted Thayer...who openly rejected the supreme divinity of Christ and His second coming.  Walter Bauer had some very esoterical views.  Robert Funk led the Jesus Seminar...and on & on I could go.  For me personally, I teach the church that I pastor to have a Berean spirit and rigorously analyze the assertions of anyone or anything they read....which I think was your point actually 😊.  

Just some midnight ramblings 🤓.

Posts 26540
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 15 2019 1:36 AM

Wilson Hines:
Liberal is denying the fundamentals of the faith.  Don't overcorrect and read "fundamentalism," as the connotation of these words have changed, especially in the past 20 years.  

Wilson Hines:
I think it's safe to say Jacob Milgrom (AYB Leviticus) was a liberal and thusly produced a liberal work.


I do not think it is at all safe to misrepresent Jacob Milgrom by labeling him "liberal". I am reminded of a quote I sent my daughter recently for similar reasons. It is from the philosopher Humpty Dumpty quoted in Alice in Wonderland:

When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.

In standard theological terminology liberal is:

Theology: Regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.

There is no reason to assume "traditional beliefs" even includes "fundamentals of faith". The real rub is whether you think theology of the last two centuries is "traditional beliefs" as many do, if you think five hundred years is long enough to be "traditional", if you think two thousand years is long enough, or if, like Jacob Milgrom you think tradition requires four thousand years. [numbers are all rough estimates]. It is also unsafe to assume that a scholar's personal views are what is reflected in his academic works - academic works require a certain level of evidence and reproducible thought. Personal views require internal consistency and best fit with facts as known to the person.

The point is that a conservative Lutheran means something quite different than a conservative Coptic means something quite different from a conservative Jew. And it makes no sense to apply the standards applied to the Jew to the Lutheran. What you can appropriate say is that Jacob Milgrom was a Conservative Jew (https://www.haaretz.com/1.5132805 ) which is a moderate not liberal movement. From Wikipedia:

Conservative Judaism (known as Masorti Judaism outside North America) is a major Jewish denomination which views Jewish law, or Halakha, as both binding and subject to historical development. The Conservative rabbinate therefore employs modern historical-critical research, rather than only traditional methods and sources, and lends great weight to its constituency when determining its stance on matters of law. The movement considers its approach as the authentic and most appropriate continuation of halakhic discourse, maintaining both fealty to received forms and flexibility in their interpretation. It also eschews strict theological definitions, lacking a consensus in matters of faith and allowing great pluralism.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 10178
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 15 2019 5:27 AM

MJ. Smith:

standard theological terminology liberal is:

Theology: Regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.

What a great definition. Quite seriously, the good apostle Paul was a liberal. And Jesus eating with IRS taxmen and sinners was the ultimate liberal (ok, nor IRS). But if Peter had trouble with James' church reps, Jesus had to have been the lifetime shocker. Liberal! Burn Samaria! Hmmm, sounds familiar. 

I mentioned before, but in our conservative church (Bible only), I told the pastor I'd have to withdraw membership. They had those creeds that Wilson listed. Not Biblical. The pastor smiled ... no problem. The next Sunday, the creeds were gone (I suspect coincidence).  Creeds are for the arguers.


Posts 373
Wilson Hines | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 15 2019 5:33 AM

You and I are just opposite.  That is totally fine.  I'm not being critical, I'm just observing.  

There are some things people have fought for and some they have died over and I'm fine with fighting for and dying for them as well.  No problem that you're not.  Those things are my things.  They may not be your things.  

Wilson Hines

Posts 942
Paul Caneparo | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 15 2019 6:04 AM

Wilson Hines:

You and I are just opposite.  That is totally fine.  I'm not being critical, I'm just observing.  

There are some things people have fought for and some they have died over and I'm fine with fighting for and dying for them as well.  No problem that you're not.  Those things are my things.  They may not be your things.  

Wilson

I haven't read this forum in its entirety, but I suspect we may be on a similar page. I'm preparing a sermon and will be starting with the Augustine of Hippo quote below. There are some things that are essential. Whilst at times we'll beg to differ on the non-essentials. However, where we depart from the essentials, we're departing from the fundamentals of the faith. My sermon is on the divinity of Christ, which I believe is an essential.

“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”

Posts 3238
Mattillo | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 15 2019 6:12 AM

Paul Caneparo:

Wilson Hines:

You and I are just opposite.  That is totally fine.  I'm not being critical, I'm just observing.  

There are some things people have fought for and some they have died over and I'm fine with fighting for and dying for them as well.  No problem that you're not.  Those things are my things.  They may not be your things.  

Wilson

I haven't read this forum in its entirety, but I suspect we may be on a similar page. I'm preparing a sermon and will be starting with the Augustine of Hippo quote below. There are some things that are essential. Whilst at times we'll beg to differ on the non-essentials. However, where we depart from the essentials, we're departing from the fundaments of the faith. My sermon is on the divinity of Christ, which I believe is an essential.

“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”

This reminds me of a book my pastor quoted once. There are things that we can die, divide, debate or decide over... Trying not to confuse them is the key

Posts 373
Wilson Hines | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 15 2019 6:19 AM

Paul Caneparo:

Wilson Hines:

You and I are just opposite.  That is totally fine.  I'm not being critical, I'm just observing.  

There are some things people have fought for and some they have died over and I'm fine with fighting for and dying for them as well.  No problem that you're not.  Those things are my things.  They may not be your things.  

Wilson

I haven't read this forum in its entirety, but I suspect we may be on a similar page. I'm preparing a sermon and will be starting with the Augustine of Hippo quote below. There are some things that are essential. Whilst at times we'll beg to differ on the non-essentials. However, where we depart from the essentials, we're departing from the fundaments of the faith. My sermon is on the divinity of Christ, which I believe is an essential.

“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”

What a great quote!  

Look, I know I'm a radical guy.  I read the History of Baptists by John T. Christian and I get very convicted.  Foxes Book of Martyrs details how people have died for the faith, the fundamentals, but HoB details how men and women have died for the mode of Baptism.  

I say this because our church seems to be making some concessions on Baptist ideals.  I'm distinctly Baptist and I'm Baptist by conviction, if that makes sense.  I'm not going to argue with a pedo-baptist and I'm not going to be belligerent about it in general, but I feel as though I owe it to those who have gone ahead of me and shed their very blood in death to hold to some ideals and concepts with our faith that are not even considered by most or me as a fundamental of the faith, ie., I don't believe you've got to be baptized at all to be saved.  With that being said, I'm not for hiring a staff member who is not distinctly and by conviction a Baptist, even if it is for the Christian School, not the church.  

Am I willing to die for credobaptism?  Under certain circumstance, you bet your bottom dollar.  But, I'm not going to get in an argument in a forum such as this either.  I'm talking about situations more under government control and regulation.  I know I just jumped the shark for a lot of folks; that's okay.

Wilson Hines

Posts 638
Michael S. | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 15 2019 7:09 AM

Is this sale over in February?

Posts 373
Wilson Hines | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 15 2019 7:10 AM

Michael S.:

Is this sale over in February?

Yes

Wilson Hines

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