Lenski Commentaries

Bob, et.al.

I am just wanting to understand how the approval from publishers happens.

I bought the RCH Lenski Bible Commentaries from Logos for version 3. I had no trouble getting them into my Leader version of Logos 4.

My question is regarding the iPhone portion of the app. Since it does not show up in my iPhone, I assume that it has not been approved for the iPhone.

But here is my issue: I have the application in my Olive Tree Software. So needless to say, they have received authorization to put Lenski on the iPhone, but has Logos not?

I am not trying to be cute (although that comes naturally).

Just wondering how one group would get it, but another does not.

Find more posts tagged with

Mobile App

Comments

Ryan Burns

Dan,

I'm not in our publisher relations department, but I do know that we're in communication with all our publishers and are trying to get as many book available for the app as possible. With over 10,000 titles in our format, it might take a little while.

As for the fact that another publisher has the title in their app and we don't, that shouldn't be taken as an indicator that it is easy for us (or them) to get the title.

I know that this isn't a whole lot of help, but we are working to get as much in as we can. We'll keep you posted.

_ryan

Kevin A. Purcell

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/48250#Comment_48250

Any chance you can share an ETA? Not asking for specific dates. But is it likely going to be in the next few weeks/months/or longer? And a percentage. Will there be 10% more or 100%.

I ask because this is a big factor in someone investing time and effort into using an app. If I know something is coming soon I can wait.

Ryan Burns

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/48286#Comment_48286

As I said, I'm not in Publisher Relations, so I can't comment about Lenski Bible Commentaries in particular. Right now we have about 20% of our titles available for the iPhone app and adding more all the time. Our goal, of course, is 100%. But as has been stated elsewhere, most of the hold up relates to working with the publishers. So, as far as overall ETA, I can't give that either. Sorry if that isn't much help. It is the best I've got right now.

davidphillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/48306#Comment_48306

Ryan,

I know in the past it has been mentioned that the desire is to allow off-line use of books. Is this a publisher relation issue as well, or would you be able to comment on whether that is a near future/far future feature, or whether it has been cancelled altogether?

Ryan Burns

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/48366#Comment_48366

I know in the past it has been mentioned that the desire is to allow off-line use of books.

Check around the forums and see if you can find who said it. If it was Bob, then you can trust it. Anyone else and I'd take it with a grain of salt.

Is this a publisher relation issue as well, or would you be able to comment on whether that is a near future/far future feature, or whether it has been cancelled altogether?

I could comment, but I'm not heading up the App development so my comments would be primarily speculation. Sorry.

Philip Gurgel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/48441#Comment_48441

Honestly, I'm surprised these licenses weren't obtained sooner. How long ago was it determined that there would be an Ipod app? Were people working on getting the publisher's approval already at that time?

And if they knew that they were only going to be able to offer 20% of the licenses (or less) when the program was initially offered, why wouldn't they be upfront about that from the start?

I know it seems a bit pointless to get frustrated about a free Ipod app. But, when an expensive (at least for me) upgrade is required to use the free app, I think clarity and being upfront about the product is important. I'll be honest in saying that the Ipod syncing capability is probably one of the prime reasons I decided to purchase the upgrade rather than just download the free Logos 4 engine. There were some decent books in the cross-grade but nothing that I desperately needed.

All that said, so I don't come across as only a complainer. Logos 4 (outside of the disappointing ipod app) is an awesome program and I am enjoying the creativity behind it. I really think it is a huge step forward.

Bob Pritchett

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/48789#Comment_48789

Honestly, I'm surprised these licenses weren't obtained sooner. How long ago was it determined that there would be an Ipod app? Were people working on getting the publisher's approval already at that time?

You'd be surprised... the decision to go ahead with the iPhone app was weeks before the release of Logos 4, and took an incredible last minute effort. It then took a separate team weeks just to dig up every contract (hundreds!) and draft addendums, which we were still sending out when the app shipped. And many publishers want to talk about what the new contract language means... it's a big job.

I'm sorry if it wasn't clear about which titles were available -- I thought we were up front that only certain titles were up. (We didn't say how many because it's changing daily, and we didn't even know the status moment to moment, with all the desktop 4.0 effort going on.)

We're still working hard on both the licenses and the code, though...

Dan Sheppard

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/55144#Comment_55144

I'm sorry if it wasn't clear about which titles were available -- I thought we were up front that only certain titles were up. (We didn't say how many because it's changing daily, and we didn't even know the status moment to moment, with all the desktop 4.0 effort going on.)

We're still working hard on both the licenses and the code, though...

Thanks for the efforts you folks make.

As originator of the message, I want to update everyone to the fact that I have now received the Lenski commentaries on the iPhone.

So suffice it to say, that there has been and continues to be, progress with the Logos iPhone app.

Thanks again!

Mike Aubrey

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/48306#Comment_48306

As I said, I'm not in Publisher Relations, so I can't comment about Lenski Bible Commentaries in particular.

I'll comment on them: they're exegetically irresponsible and attempt extract more meaning from the Greek text than Paul or Luke ever could.

Dan Sheppard

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/60990#Comment_60990

I'll comment on them: they're exegetically irresponsible and attempt extract more meaning from the Greek text than Paul or Luke ever could.

Considering you are wanting to work for Wycliffe, I am not surprised at your comments.

In the description Logos provides regarding Lenski, it says, "Thorough
as a student of Greek, R. C. H. Lenski interprets the books of the New
Testament with meticulous exegetical research while providing an
original, literal translation of the text. With his conservative
Lutheran perspective, he is unwavering in his high view of Scriptural
authority, probing deeply and passionately—arguing his conclusions
masterfully."

I always find it interesting, when examining the other credible sources, who are listed in the recommendations:

"My favorite New Testament commentary is that
of R.C.H. Lenski. I smile whenever this scholar stabbed the “chiliasts”
or those who reject infant baptism; yet I profit greatly from his sane
and spiritually sensitive exposition. You do not have to be a Greek
scholar to benefit from Lenski.”
—Warren W. Wiersbe, A Basic Library for Bible Students

I think enough said.

Mike Aubrey

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/61042#Comment_61042

I think enough said.

D. A. Carson:

"R. C. H. Lenski’s twelve-volume The Interpretation of the New Testament (/Augsburg Fortress, $29.99 per vol.—but most of the volumes are op [out of print]) aims to force the student to think through the Greek text and stimulate exegetical rigor, but his grasp of Greek is mechanical, amateurish, and without respect for the fluidity of Greek in the Hellenistic period."

D. A. Carson, New Testament Commentary Survey (6th ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 33.

"R. C. H. Lenski is notoriously unreliable in his treatment of the Greek article, frequently making appeal either to the presence (or absence) of the article in Greek to establish the corresponding pattern in English, or aligning the articular noun with a specific meaning"

D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (2nd ed.; Carlisle, U.K.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Paternoster; Baker Books, 1996), 80.

Richard A. Young:

Lenski often interprets the aorist as a point action, as in Romans 6:2, where the believer’s death to sin was one punctiliar act; and Romans 7:3, where the death of the husband was a “single brief act” (Lenski 1936:389, 446). Such information cannot be extracted from the aorist form.

Richard A. Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek : A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 121–122.

Daniel Wallace:

As for the participle’s aspect, it still functions for the most part like its indicative counterparts. There are two basic influences that shape the participle’s verbal side, however, which are almost constant factors in its Aktionsart.6 First, because the participle has embodied two natures, neither one acts completely independently of the other. Hence, the verbal nature of participles has a permanent grammatical intrusion from the adjectival nature. This tends to dilute the strength of the aspect. Many nouns in Hellenistic Greek, for instance, in a former life were participles (e.g., ἀρχιτέκτων, ἄρχων, γέρων, ἡγεμών, θεράπων, καύσων, τέκτων, χείμων). The constant pressure from the adjectival side finally caved in any remnants of verbal aspect. This is not to say that no participles in the NT are aspectually robust-many of them are! But one must not assume this to be the case in every instance. In particular when a participle is substantival, its aspectual force is more susceptible to reduction in force.
Secondly, many substantival participles in the NT are used in generic utterances. The πᾶς ὁ ἀκούων (or ἀγαπῶν, ποιῶν, etc.) formula is always or almost always generic. As such it is expected to involve a gnomic idea.7 Most of these instances involve the present participle.8 But if they are already gnomic, we would be hard-pressed to make something more out of them—such as a progressive idea.9 Thus, for example, in Matt 5:28, “everyone who looks at a woman” (πᾶς ὁ βλέπων γυναῖκα) with lust in his heart does not mean “continually looking” or “habitually looking,” any more than four verses later “everyone who divorces his wife” (πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ) means “repeatedly divorces”! This is not to deny a habitual Aktionsart in such gnomic statements. But it is to say that caution must be exercised. In the least, we should be careful not to make statements such as, “The present participle βλέπων [in Matt 5:28] characterizes the man by his act of continued looking.”10 This may well be the meaning of the evangelist, but the present participle, by itself, can hardly be forced into this mold.11

Note 10: Lenski, St. Matthew’s Gospel, 226.

Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Zondervan, 1999), 615–616; my emphasis.

Blanchard Jacobus

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/61834#Comment_61834

Many of the older commentaries and classroom books held that the aorist tense was a single point of action. Research during the last 50 years or so has shown that to be not necessarily true. Still, you do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Lenske's work is of serious scholarship and even if there are points with which you disagree you can certainly glean an enormous amount from what he wrote.

Mike Aubrey

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64304#Comment_64304

Many of the older commentaries and classroom books held that the aorist tense was a single point of action. Research during the last 50 years or so has shown that to be not necessarily true. Still, you do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

That may be true, but it's not just research in the past 50 years that have challenged that. Robertson & Moulton never would have said such a thing (and in their grammars, they never do!). The idea that the aorist represented a single point of action developed from a misunderstanding of how Moulton used the word punctiliar. Had commentaries such as Lenski actually understood him for what he actually said and meant, the research of the past 50 years never would have been needed at all.

Gary Shogren

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/60990#Comment_60990

I'll comment on them: they're exegetically irresponsible and attempt extract more meaning from the Greek text than Paul or Luke ever could.

Hey Mike, As you might have been able to infer from other posts of mine, Mike, I'm no fan at all of Lenski. "Amateurish" (D. A. Carson's term) is probably the best adjective. Yet, how many preachers are using him week after week? There are certain well-known preachers whom I hear on the radio, and too often I think, Oh boy, he got that from Lenski. In Bible College I was told he was the highest of the high for his study of the Greek.

What's the attraction? "Lenski gives you material you don't find in other commentaries!" That's right and that's the problem in a nutshell. It's not because Lenski had better eyesight, but because he saw stuff that isn't there.

There seems to have been this period of time, (let's say 1945-1970?) when you saw this sort off thing everywhere. You seem to have studied the history of Greek scholarship, if I'm remembering correctly from the other thread, maybe you can give me a sense of where things went awry for a while.

I just did some reading in Ernest Best on 1-2 Thessalonians (Black's), and he too was infected: once for all aorists, presents are always progressive, "they believe THE lie" must mean there is one ultimate lie (going on memory, here, I think that last one was Best....). It never goes away!!