Technical Commentary Question

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791558#Comment_791558

I don't own Baylor so my pattern is:

Hermeneia
ICC of which I only own part
Anchor

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791562#Comment_791562

Thanks for the feedback! What I am primarily looking for is how it treats the Biblical languages as that is my primary goal with needing better technical commentaries. I have a wealth of commentaries that deal with the "theology" of the text from sound Biblical expositors, plus I have sermon collections, etc., I can search from sound expositors.

I will be picking up a couple of the Baylor handbooks for my Hebrew class since they are required. I could look into getting the set.

Between ICC, Word Biblical, Hermeneia, and Anchor, which commentary do you feel would be the most solid overall? If you were stranded on a deserted island and could only have one with you, which one would you want to have with you? Please don't respond: I'd rather have my iPad or laptop with me so I could have ALL of Logos! :-)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791569#Comment_791569

Sections with primary language concerns

Amos 6:5 in Hermeneia

5* The sumptuous banquets are accompanied by the strains and tunes of appropriate background music—dining to the lilt of musical airs.58 The precise activity referred to by the hapax legomenon verb פרט is still open to question. Some understand it to be the manner by which one plays the musical instrument, that is, “plucking”59—“They pluck on the strings of the lute.” Others, relying on V60 and a Samaritan root,61 translate, “They sing songs to the sound of the lute.” A variant line of exegesis interprets this verb to mean “to howl.”62 A tradition recorded in the works of some of the medieval exegetes defines the root to mean “to improvise”; compare also Arab. fāriṭ:63 “They improvise or extemporize melodies to the tune of the lute.”64
Another problem of exegesis arises in the second colon. The prophet continues to satirize their penchant for musical diversions and says that “Like David (כְּדָוִיד),65 they חָשְׁבוּ לָהֶם musical instruments” (כְּלֵי־שִׁיר).66 But what is the exact nuance of the Hebrew expression חשב ל־? Although several suggestions have been offered, the most commonly accepted is “They invent67 musical instruments like David.” There is no reason to reject the veracity of this tradition connected with David,68 even though it appears outside Amos only in postexilic sources; see Neh 12:36*, בִּכְלֵי־שִׁיר דָוִיד (“with the musical instruments of David”); 1 Chr 23:5*, בַּכֵּלִים אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי לְהַלֵּל (“with instruments I devised for singing praises”); and 2 Chr 29:26*, 27*, כְּלֵי דָוִיד (“the instruments of David”).
Other proposals are: “They think that their musical instruments are like David’s”;69 “they account themselves musicians like David”;70 “they highly esteem musical instruments like David”;71 and, if the preposition עַל (“upon”) in the first colon functions as a double-duty word implicit in the second colon, “They improvise for themselves [on or upon] instruments like David.”72 According to the last interpretation, Amos is charging the revelers with devising new songs with instrumental accompaniment.73 It is also possible, moreover, to attach כְּדָוִיד metrically with the first colon (against the Masoretic division) with the same meaning. Despite the difficulties inherent in this verse, the intent of the prophet is clear. He is heaping scorn upon the reputed musical accomplishments of those who would compare themselves with David, “the sweet singer of Israel” (2 Sam 23:1*).

%T Amos: a commentary on the book of Amos
%A Paul, Shalom M.
%A Cross, Frank Moore
%C Minneapolis, MN
%I Fortress Press
%D 1991
%P 206–207

Amos 6:5 in Anchor

5. This verse is unusual in its structure. There is apparently a superfluous word in the middle of the bicolon (kdwyd). It is not clear whether it qualifies the preceding colon or the following one. Although the punctuation of the MT places it in the second colon, thus associating “David” with the latter clause, it may be regarded as modifying both (the so-called double-duty modifier described by Dahood 1970b:439–44). Without it the two cola match precisely (3 : 3 stresses and 8 : 8 syllables), and it has been targeted by most scholars for deletion as secondary. They may be correct, but it is a curious gloss (admittedly the spelling is relatively late, corresponding to the practice in Chronicles rather than that in Samuel-Kings) and may have been included by the prophet or the first editor of these oracles. It may also be noted that we would normally expect a waw (conjunction) at the beginning of the second colon, but if kdwyd is suspended between the cola then the waw would be excessive and its omission required. The preposition ʿl would apply to both compound nouns, py-hnbl in the first colon and kly-šyr in the second. The meaning of the first colon is unclear chiefly because the root prṭ is very rare, and the sense of the participle here is obscure. Whether the action involved is singing or dancing, whether it is carefully orchestrated or carelessly improvised are matters of speculation. Certainly, activity typically associated with instrumental music is involved, and traditionally it has been regarded as either singing or perhaps humming. The phrase py-hnbl can be rendered “the music of the lyre” or the “sound of the stringed instrument.” Note the usage with kĕlî: in Ps 71:22, kĕlî-nebel is parallel to kinnôr; in 1 Chr 16:5, the plural form kĕlê nĕbālîm is parallel to kinnōrôt. We may assume either that the same instruments are meant in both cola or that kly-šyr is the more general term, encompassing a wider variety. The second colon can be rendered “they devise [compose] for themselves on musical instruments,” in other words, they improvise songs to the accompaniment of musical instruments (or compose music with the instruments). It is most unlikely that musical instruments were frequently or even rarely invented at such gatherings, though anything is possible. Amos is referring to typical, not unique, behavior; finally, David is chiefly noted in the Bible as a gifted musician and composer, but Ps 151:2 (LXX and Qumran) also credits him with inventing or at least making a lyre. In Genesis 4 the origins of music and musical instruments are traced back to antediluvian times, and their invention is credited to the offspring of Cain.
The creation of songs, lyrics and melodies, is attributed to the vocalists and instrumentalists at these parties. Whether members of the musical guilds were involved as entertainers or whether these participants were amateurs demonstrating skills and training received in formative years is not clear. No doubt the musicians of temple and court belonged to the elite of Israelite society along with members of other professions and guilds, such as scribes, wise men, artisans, and the like. So they, along with their lords sacred and secular and the other managers and manipulators of society, are targets of prophetic attack and denunciation.
5b. David. Compare 2 Chr 5:11–13, 7:6.
instruments. (See Finesinger 1926.) The Chronicler continually mentions the patronage of David in connection with temple music and provides many descriptions. Here the antecedent could be either “instruments” or “song(s).” The expression bkly dwyd (2 Chr 29:26) suggests the former; bkly šyr dwyd (Neh 12:36) suggests the latter. Amos has split up one of the standard expressions. His inversion also achieves chiasmus with šr and nbl (both plural) in 5:23. The concentration of references to David as the organizer of temple music in the work of the Chronicler throws some doubt on the solitary occurrence of the same idea in Amos. At least it strengthens our suspicion that the phrase kdwyd, if nothing more, may be an intrusive gloss from that source.
In the LXX v 5b reads, “Like those who estimate that they are standing and not like those who flee.” It seems to have no connection at all with the MT, and we can hardly speculate where it may have come from or how it got into the text.

%T Amos: a new translation with introduction and commentary
%A Andersen, Francis I.
%A Freedman, David Noel
%C New Haven; London
%V 24A
%I Yale University Press
%D 2008
%P 563–564

Amos 6:5 in ICC

5. הפרטים] G ἐπικροτοῦντες; GB ἐπικρατοῦντες; Gr. התֹּפפים, or הטפפים.—פי] Gr. פני.—הנבל] G τῶν ὀργάνων; S ܘܶܢܪܐ V psalterii; T נִבְלָא.—כדויד] G ὡς ἑστηκότα, which Cappellus explained as due to confusion with דּוּר, and Vol. as a reading of כדָם from דּום, while Hirscht sugg. that there may have been a corruption of ΩΣΔΑΥΙΔ into ΕΣΤΩΤΑ. Gr. כַּדִּים. In any case the phrase is probably a gloss, since it has no place in the metrical structure of either the preceding or following line; cf. את־מלך וגו׳, Is. 8:7; so Peters (Hebr II. 175), Che. (EB.), Löhr., et al.—חשבו להם] V putaverunt se habere; G ἐλογίσαντο. BSZ., s.v. המה, sugg. that in להם lies a derivative from הָמָה, cf. הֶמְיָה.—כלי־שיר] G καὶ οὐχ ὡς φεύγοντα, according to Vol. = כלי שְׁוַר, but according to Hirscht, due to a reading from שׂוּר = סוּר. Gr. ככלי שׁיר. Now. כֹּל שׁיר; so Oort (Em.). Elh. מִלֵי שׁיר, since tradition does not ascribe to David the making of musical instruments. Che. (Exp. T., 1898, p. 334), restores the entire v. thus:—
          הַמְּזַמְּרִים על־תף וְנֵבֶל
            וישמחו לקול שׁיר
          Who play on timbrel and harp,
          And rejoice at the sound of song.
(Cf. Jb. 21:12b.) Marti reads v. 5b, בדויד נֶחְשְׁבוּ לְחַשְׂכִּיל בְּשִׁיר.—6. במזרקי יין] G τὸν διυλισμένον οἶνον = מְזֻקָּק יין; cf. Is. 25:6, Ps. 12:7 (Vol.); so S ܝܰܡܪܳܐ ܡܨܰܠܐܐܳ V vinum in phialis; T adds דּכְסַף = כֶּ֣סֶף. Oort בְּמוּרְקֵי יין (so Val.), or בְמוּרַק י׳ (cf. Je. 48:11). Gr. במזרקים (so Elh., Hal.).—נחלו] Gr. חלו(?), from היל; cf. Je. 5:8. Löhr. places 6a before 5, while Marti transposes 6b to follow 13.

%T A critical and exegetical commentary on Amos and Hosea
%A Harper, William Rainey
%C New York
%I C. Scribner’s Sons
%D 1905
%P 147

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791588#Comment_791588

Thanks for these comparisons. Seems ICC is the most language driven, followed by Heremenia. Anchor seems the least of the three.

How do these compare with Word Biblical?

Clifford B. Kvidahl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791591#Comment_791591

For me, the value of WBC is the bibliography. I find that section in the commentary to be very useful for further research and paper writing.

Put me on a an island and I would take the ICC above the rest.

Cliff

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791591#Comment_791591

How do these compare with Word Biblical?

Sorry, I don't have it.

Dustin Pearson

WBC:

The First Shall Be First (6:1–7)

Bibliography

Clifford, R. “The Use of Hôy in the Prophets.” CBQ 28 (1966) 458–64. Dahmen, U. “Zur Text- und Literarkritik von Am 6,6a.” BN 31 (1986) 7–10. Dahood, M. “NĀDâ ‘to Hurl’ in Ex 15, 16.” Bib 43 (1962) 248–49. Daiches, S. “Amos VI:5.” ExpTim 6 (1914–15) 521–22. Eissfeldt, O. “Etymologische und archäologische Erklärungen alttestamentlicher Wörter.” OrAnt 5 (1966) 165–76. Elhorst, H. “Amos 6:5.” ZAW 35 (1915) 62–63. Freedman, D. N. “But Did King David Invent Musical Instruments?” Bible Review 1 (1985) 48–51. Holladay, W. L. “Amos 6:1bβ: A Suggested Solution.” VT 22 (1972) 107–10. Iwry, S. “New Evidence for Belomancy in Ancient Palestine and Phoenicia.” JAOS 81 (1961) 27–34. Pope, M. “Notes on the Rephaim Texts from Ugarit.” Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of J. J. FinkeLstein. Hamden: Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1977. Wanke, G. “אוי und הוי.” ZAW 78 (1966) 215–18. Williams, J. “The Atlas-Oracles of the Eighth-Century Prophets.” HUCA 38 (1967) 75–91. Wolff, H. W. “Form-Criticism of the ‘Woe-Cries.’ ” Hosea, 242–45.

Translation

Announcement/summons to mourning

^6:1 Woe to those comfortable in Zion,

And who feel secure on Mount Samaria,

Preeminent persons of the leading nation,

To whom the family of Israel come!

Call to react/direct address to the fallen

² Travel to Calneh and take a look;

Go from there to the great Hamath^a;

Then go down to Gath of the Philistines.

Are you^b better than these kingdoms?

Is their territory larger than yours?

Description of the tragedy

³ Those who are forecastinga^a bad day

And divining^b a harmful week,^c

⁴ Who sleep on ivoried beds

And are sprawled out on their couches,

Who eat lambs picked^a from the flock

And young bulls selected^a from the fattening-pen,

⁵ Who improvise to the sound of the harp, like David,^a

Who invent for themselves all sorts of^b songs,

⁶ Who drink from basins of wine

And anoint themselves with first-quality oils,

And are not bothered by the ruin of Joseph;

⁷ Therefore now:

They will go into exile at the front of the exiles;

The celebrating of those sprawled out will cease,^a

Notes

2.a. MT vocalizes חמת “Hamath” as the constr (cf. Joüon, Grammaire, 131 n.), though syntactically this is hardly a necessity.

2.b. Or possibly “they,” in which case “these kingdoms” would refer to Israel and Judah.

3.a-b. MT מנדים probably reflects Akkadian nadû, to “(fore)cast.” Likewise נגש, hiphil, has the sense of “produce via divination.”

3.c. Vocalizing שַׁבָּת rather than שֶׁבֶת “seat.” On notes 3.a,b,, c., cf. Dahood, “NĀDÂ,” 248–249; and Iwry, “New Evidence,” 27–34.

4.a. This sense is implicit in the context. The food is “choice” food.

5.a. Counted syllabically, the meter suggests that כדוד “like David” ends v 5a rather than begins v 5b.

5.b. MT is not impossible. However, making up songs in one’s idle time seems far more likely in the context than designing musical instruments; thus we vocalize כָּל “all” rather than כְּלֵי “instruments of.”

7.a. The Heb. is much more alliterative than the translation can suggest.

Form/Structure/Setting

Two themes dominate the passage: self-indulgence and self-confidence. These are reflected both in v 1 (“comfortable … secure … preeminent”) and v 7 (“at the front … celebration … sprawled out”). Verse 1 announces the woe, and v 7 provides the punishments in fulfillment of covenant curses (see Comment). The passage is clearly self-contained and rhetorically unified. It follows to a substantial degree the structure expected in funerary laments (cf. 5:1–17). In this connection, the second-person plural speech of v 2 makes the most sense as a combination of direct address to the fallen and call to react, rather than either a quote placed on the lips of the complacent nobles (E. Sellin, J. C. Mays) or a later interpolation. The passage is entirely poetic, in mixed longum meter with a predominance of synonymous parallelism.

It cannot be dated precisely, except that since Calneh, Hamath, and Gath all came under Assyrian control via the Western campaigns of Tiglath-Pileser III between 738–734 b.c., the references in v 2 predate 738 b.c. (Properly understood, v 2 does not imply that these city-states had already fallen to Assyria.) The reference to Gath, a region under Judean domination from about 800 until 734 b.c., obviates the suggestions that somehow “Zion” does not belong in v 1. While the woe oracle centers on Israel as evidenced by the explicit reference to “Joseph” (cf. 5:15), it certainly seeks to condemn south and north alike for the materialistic decadence of their leading citizens.

Comment

1 Amos, like his eighth-century contemporaries Hosea, Isaiah, and Micah, was given a message which at points involved both Judah and Israel. The present oracle speaks of Zion, i.e., Jerusalem, even before it mentions Samaria, perhaps because to be “comfortable in Zion” (השאננים בציון) had a ring of decadence to it beyond what being “secure on Mount Samaria” (בהר שמרון בטחים) would connote. Jerusalem enjoyed a long history as a sacred place (Gen 14:18; Gen 22; etc) compared to Samaria, which had been founded only a century and a quarter by Amos’ time, and which had no comparable religious traditions associated with it. Both Jerusalem and Samaria were crown property, separately obtained (2 Sam 5:6–9; 1 Kgs 16:24) and governed outside of the tribal traditions and administration. As these capitals grew in importance with the fortunes of their respective nations, they became centers of conspicuous wealth as well as of substantial political power. Association with the monarchy, whether by birth, marriage, or employment, or even proximity, afforded the opportunity for gaining wealth and prestige, but at the risk of abandoning the old original values of the covenant. With regard to Samaria, Amos’ primary audience, her leading citizens undoubtedly enjoyed respect and even adulation. Those in government had the power, for example, to assign tax liabilities, to control public works projects, and to influence the distribution of wealth obtained both externally and internally. “The family of Israel,” i.e., people from all over the country, came to them as the preeminent people of the “leading nation” (ראשית הגוים), which in that region Israel indeed was by now. Jeroboam II had, by God’s design, even subdued Syria, Israel’s often more powerful rival to the north (2 Kgs 14:25). And yet to this prestigious, materially powerful group Amos sings a funerary lament.

2 Leading Samaritans and Jerusalemites may have thought themselves important, but the oracle reminds them that they were no better or no worse than nearby nations whom they had subjugated. Calneh and Hamath were Aramean city-states under Israelite influence and were perhaps often mentioned together because they were major cities of eastern Syria (cf. Isa 10:9). Gath, one of the five major Philistine cities, was at this time under Judahite control (and thus is not mentioned in 1:6–8). It is not necessary to emend “their” to “your” and vice versa at the end of the verse. The two rhetorical questions Amos’ oracle poses make the point of equality between those nations and Israel (and, implicitly, Judah). Israel/Judah is no better than they, and they are no more impressive than Israel/Judah. Nations have no right to give themselves priority as Israel had done. By thinking themselves first among the nations, the Israelites had gravely misinterpreted their situation in respect to Yahweh.

3 The description of the tragedy of Israel’s decadence begins with an excoriation of two kinds of sins, both apparently frequent enough to constitute an appropriate characterization of the style of life in Samaria. (Awareness of Judah now recedes, though nothing in the remaining verses would not apply to Jerusalemite society as well.) These sins are practice of the occult (Lev 19:26, 31; Deut 18:10–11) and laziness (Prov 25:14–16). The rich were able to avoid work because of their wealth. They apparently justified this lazy behavior at least sometimes by claiming that divination told them to stay at home for a period of time (“a bad day … a harmful week”). As with some modern horoscopes, ancient predictions of doom could be avoided by an individual’s not venturing forth at all (cf. Prov 22:13).

4 The idle rich lay around the house a lot and ate the finest foods. Their “ivoried beds” (מטות שן) were couches whose wooden frames were inlaid with ivory decorations (J. W. and G. M. Crowfoot, Early Ivories from Samaria [London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1938]; ANEP, figs. 125–32; R. Barnett, A Catalogue of Nimrud Ivories and Other Examples of Ancient Near Eastern Ivories [London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1957]).

Many Israelites probably ate meat as infrequently as three times a year—only at the festivals (Deut 12:17–18) and even less often if they were poor. By contrast, the leading citizens could command choice meats, and all they wanted, so excessive was their selfishly gotten wealth (cf. 2:8; 5:11).

5 These people were living like royalty. The reference to David, rather than being a late interpolation as some have suggested, adds to the flavor of high living in an idle lifestyle. Even prior to his becoming king, David was a member of a leading Judahite family and was therefore able to indulge his musical talents. With plenty of time on their hands, the urban upper classes of Amos’ day could also improvise and create music, their output rivaling that of the past master.

6 Amos’ words caricature debauchery and wastefulness. Instead of drinking their wine from a cup (כוס; cf. 2 Sam 12:3; Prov 23:31: Jer 25:17; etc), these folk were drinking straight out of the storage basins! (On מזרק “basin,” see A. Honeyman, “The Pottery Vessels of the Old Testament,” PEQ 71 [1939] 76–90; cf. 1 Kgs 7:40). Anointing was a common practice of personal hygiene, since oil kills lice. But demanding the highest quality of refined oil (ראשית שמנים) for this purpose was simply an excess. And all the while, the ruin (שבר; cf. the use of the root in Lev 26:13, 19, 26) of Joseph (Ephraim) as guaranteed by the covenant curses (esp. type 9, desolation: cf. Lev 26:31–35; Deut 29:23) was coming closer.

7 Again לכן (“therefore”) introduces the judgment sentence concluding the lament (cf. 5:11, 13, 16). Twice already the passage has featured the word ראשית (“first, leading,” vv 1 and 16) in connection with the preeminent citizens of Samaria and Jerusalem. These leaders will now lead the nation into exile, at their “front” (ראש). Thus the major covenant curse of exile (type 13) is to be fulfilled against them. The concluding line of the oracle is alliterative: סר מזרה סרוחים, sar mizrah seruhim lit., “the celebrating (-house) of those sprawled out will turn aside.” Alliteration makes statements memorable. Amos’ audience is left with the clear message that the present high living simply will not be allowed to last. Though מרזח can mean funerary celebrating or the place thereof (as in Jer 16:5), it also refers to general revelry, particularly that involving extremes of feasting, drinking, etc (P. Miller, “The Mrzḥ Text,” The Claremont Ras Shamra Tablets, ed. L. Fisher, AnOr 48 [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1971]; M. Pope, Song of Songs, ab 7C [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977] 214–29; O. Eissfeldt, Etymologische … OrAnt 5 [1966] 165–76).

Explanation

Yahweh would not tolerate the dissolute luxury, that prevailed among the Israelite urban rich, both North and South, in the mid-eighth century B.C. Such conspicuous degeneracy witnessed to exploitation of the poor, unconcern for moral and spiritual values and practices, and an outright lack of fear of God. Jesus’ severe warning that no one can serve both God and wealth, in part because one’s heart will always pay attention to one’s treasure (Matt 6:19–24), did not represent a pronouncement without precedent. To fall prey often to materialism is a serious enough fault; to give oneself over to materialistic hedonism is an outrageous offense. Those whom God through Amos excoriated in this passage had gained the world, but they would lose their very lives (cf. Luke 9:25). Since the royalty, nobility, and leading citizens were presumably taken captive first, i.e., prior to the general citizenry, by both the Assyrians and the Babylonians (cf. 2 Kgs 24:11–16; 25:11–12, 18–21; ANET, 284–85; 2 Chr 36:5–7; Jer 24), there came eventually a literal fulfillment of the warning that the first among the people would be the first of the exiles.

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

BN Biblische Notizen

Bib Biblica

ExpTim The Expository Times

OrAnt Oriens antiquus

ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

VT Vetus Testamentum

JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society

ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual

^a 2.a. MT vocalizes חמת “Hamath” as the constr (cf. Joüon, Grammaire, 131 n.), though syntactically this is hardly a necessity.

^b 2.b. Or possibly “they,” in which case “these kingdoms” would refer to Israel and Judah.

^a 3.a-b. MT מנדים probably reflects Akkadian nadû, to “(fore)cast.” Likewise נגש, hiphil, has the sense of “produce via divination.”

^b 3.a-b. MT מנדים probably reflects Akkadian nadû, to “(fore)cast.” Likewise נגש, hiphil, has the sense of “produce via divination.”

^c 3.a-b. MT מנדים probably reflects Akkadian nadû, to “(fore)cast.” Likewise נגש, hiphil, has the sense of “produce via divination.”

^a 4.a. This sense is implicit in the context. The food is “choice” food.

^a 5.a. Counted syllabically, the meter suggests that כדוד “like David” ends v 5a rather than begins v 5b.

^b 5.b. MT is not impossible. However, making up songs in one’s idle time seems far more likely in the context than designing musical instruments; thus we vocalize כָּל “all” rather than כְּלֵי “instruments of.”

^a 7.a. The Heb. is much more alliterative than the translation can suggest.

MT The Masoretic Text [of the Old Testament] (as published in BHS)

n. note

MT The Masoretic Text [of the Old Testament] (as published in BHS)

3.a,b, 3.a-b. MT מנדים probably reflects Akkadian nadû, to “(fore)cast.” Likewise נגש, hiphil, has the sense of “produce via divination.”

c. 3.c. Vocalizing שַׁבָּת rather than שֶׁבֶת “seat.” On notes 3.a,b,, c., cf. Dahood, “NĀDÂ,” 248–249; and Iwry, “New Evidence,” 27–34.

MT The Masoretic Text [of the Old Testament] (as published in BHS)

ANEP J. B. Pritchard (ed.), The Ancient Near East in Pictures (2nd ed. with supplement. Princeton: Princeton UP, rev. 1969)

PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly

lit. literally

AnOr Analecta orientalia

ab Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday)

OrAnt Oriens antiquus

ANET J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts (3rd ed. with supplement. Princeton: Princeton UP, rev. 1969)

Stuart, D. (2002). Hosea–Jonah (Vol. 31, pp. 356–361). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791594#Comment_791594

WBC for you:

The First Shall Be First (6:1-7)

Bibliography

Clifford, R. “The Use of Hôy in the Prophets.” CBQ 28 (1966) 458–64. Dahmen, U. “Zur Text- und Literarkritik von Am 6,6a.” BN 31 (1986) 7–10. Dahood, M. “NĀDâ [vol. 31, p. 357] ‘to Hurl’ in Ex 15, 16.” Bib 43 (1962) 248–49. Daiches, S. “Amos VI:5.” ExpTim 6 (1914–15) 521–22. Eissfeldt, O. “Etymologische und archäologische Erklärungen alttestamentlicher Wörter.” OrAnt 5 (1966) 165–76. Elhorst, H. “Amos 6:5.” ZAW 35 (1915) 62–63. Freedman, D. N. “But Did King David Invent Musical Instruments?” Bible Review 1 (1985) 48–51. Holladay, W. L. “Amos 6:1bβ: A Suggested Solution.” VT 22 (1972) 107–10. Iwry, S. “New Evidence for Belomancy in Ancient Palestine and Phoenicia.” JAOS 81 (1961) 27–34. Pope, M. “Notes on the Rephaim Texts from Ugarit.” Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of J. J. FinkeLstein. Hamden: Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1977. Wanke, G. “אוי und הוי.” ZAW 78 (1966) 215–18. Williams, J. “The Atlas-Oracles of the Eighth-Century Prophets.” HUCA 38 (1967) 75–91. Wolff, H. W. “Form-Criticism of the ‘Woe-Cries.’” Hosea, 242–45.

Translation

Announcement/summons to mourning

6:1 Woe to those comfortable in Zion,

And who feel secure on Mount Samaria,

Preeminent persons of the leading nation,

To whom the family of Israel come!

Call to react/direct address to the fallen

2 Travel to Calneh and take a look;

Go from there to the great Hamatha;

Then go down to Gath of the Philistines.

Are youb better than these kingdoms?

Is their territory larger than yours?

Description of the tragedy

3 Those who are forecastingaa bad day

And diviningb a harmful week,c

4 Who sleep on ivoried beds

And are sprawled out on their couches,

Who eat lambs pickeda from the flock

And young bulls selecteda from the farthing-pen,

5 Who improvise to the sound of the harp, like David,a

Who invent for themselves all sorts ofb songs,

6 Who drink from basins of wine

And anoint themselves with first-quality oils,

And are not bothered by the ruin of Joseph;

7 Therefore now:

They will go into exile at the front of the exiles;

The celebrating of those sprawled out will cease,a

Notes

2.a MT vocalizes חמת “Hamath” as the constr (cf Joüon, Grammaire, 131 n), though syntactically this is hardly a necessity.

[vol. 31, p. 358]

2.b Or possibly “they,” in which case “these kingdoms” would refer to Israel and Judah.

3.a-b MT מנדים probably reflects Akkadian nadû, to “(fore)cast.” Likewise ‏נגש, hiphil, has the sense of “produce via divination.”

3.c Vocalizing ‏שַׁבָּת rather than שֶׁבֶת “seat.” On notes 3.a,b,*, c.*, cf Dahood, “NĀDÂ,” 248–249; and Iwry, “New Evidence,” 27–34.

4.a This sense is implicit in the context. The food is “choice” food.

5.a Counted syllabically, the meter suggests that כדוד “like David” ends v 5a rather than begins v 5b.

5.b MT is not impossible. However, making up songs in one’s idle time seems far more likely in the context than designing musical instruments; thus we vocalize ‏כָּל “all” rather than כְּלֵי “instruments of.”

7.a The Heb is much more alliterative than the translation can suggest.

Form/Structure/Setting

Two themes dominate the passage: self-indulgence and self-confidence. These are reflected both in v 1 (“comfortable . . . secure . . . preeminent”) and v 7 (“at the front . . . celebration . . . sprawled out”). Verse 1 announces the woe, and v 7 provides the punishments in fulfillment of covenant curses (see Comment). The passage is clearly self-contained and rhetorically unified. It follows to a substantial degree the structure expected in funerary laments (cf 5:1–17). In this connection, the second-person plural speech of v 2 makes the most sense as a combination of direct address to the fallen and call to react, rather than either a quote placed on the lips of the complacent nobles (E. Sellin, J. C. Mays) or a later interpolation. The passage is entirely poetic, in mixed longum meter with a predominance of synonymous parallelism.

It cannot be dated precisely, except that since Calneh, Hamath, and Gath all came under Assyrian control via the Western campaigns of Tiglath-Pileser III between 738–734 BC, the references in v 2 predate 738 BC (Properly understood, v 2 does not imply that these city-states had already fallen to Assyria.) The reference to Gath, a region under Judean domination from about 800 until 734 BC, obviates the suggestions that somehow “Zion” does not belong in v 1. While the woe oracle centers on Israel as evidenced by the explicit reference to “Joseph” (cf 5:15), it certainly seeks to condemn south and north alike for the materialistic decadence of their leading citizens.

Comment

1 Amos, like his eighth-century contemporaries Hosea, Isaiah, and Micah, was given a message which at points involved both Judah and Israel. The present oracle speaks of Zion, ie, Jerusalem, even before it mentions Samaria, perhaps because to be “comfortable in Zion” (‏השאננים בציון‎) had a ring of decadence to it beyond what being “secure on Mount Samaria” (‏בהר שמרון בטחים‎) would connote. Jerusalem enjoyed a long history as a sacred place (Gen 14:18; Gen 22; etc) compared to Samaria, which had been founded only a century and a quarter by Amos’ time, and which had no comparable religious traditions associated with it. Both Jerusalem and Samaria were crown property, separately obtained (2 Sam 5:6–9; 1 Kgs 16:24) and governed outside of the tribal traditions and administration. As these capitals grew in importance with the fortunes of their respective nations, they became centers of conspicuous wealth as well as of substantial political [vol. 31, p. 359] power. Association with the monarchy, whether by birth, marriage, or employment, or even proximity, afforded the opportunity for gaining wealth and prestige, but at the risk of abandoning the old original values of the covenant. With regard to Samaria, Amos’ primary audience, her leading citizens undoubtedly enjoyed respect and even adulation. Those in government had the power, for example, to assign tax liabilities, to control public works projects, and to influence the distribution of wealth obtained both externally and internally. “The family of Israel,” ie, people from all over the country, came to them as the preeminent people of the “leading nation” (‏ראשית הגוים‎), which in that region Israel indeed was by now. Jeroboam II had, by God’s design, even subdued Syria, Israel’s often more powerful rival to the north (2 Kgs 14:25). And yet to this prestigious, materially powerful group Amos sings a funerary lament.

2 Leading Samaritans and Jerusalemites may have thought themselves important, but the oracle reminds them that they were no better or no worse than nearby nations whom they had subjugated. Calneh and Hamath were Aramean city-states under Israelite influence and were perhaps often mentioned together because they were major cities of eastern Syria (cf Isa 10:9). Gath, one of the five major Philistine cities, was at this time under Judahite control (and thus is not mentioned in 1:6–8). It is not necessary to emend “their” to “your” and vice versa at the end of the verse. The two rhetorical questions Amos’ oracle poses make the point of equality between those nations and Israel (and, implicitly, Judah). Israel/Judah is no better than they, and they are no more impressive than Israel/Judah. Nations have no right to give themselves priority as Israel had done. By thinking themselves first among the nations, the Israelites had gravely misinterpreted their situation in respect to Yahweh.

3 The description of the tragedy of Israel’s decadence begins with an excoriation of two kinds of sins, both apparently frequent enough to constitute an appropriate characterization of the style of life in Samaria. (Awareness of Judah now recedes, though nothing in the remaining verses would not apply to Jerusalemite society as well.) These sins are practice of the occult (Lev 19:26, 31; Deut 18:10–11) and laziness (Prov 25:14–16). The rich were able to avoid work because of their wealth. They apparently justified this lazy behavior at least sometimes by claiming that divination told them to stay at home for a period of time (“a bad day . . . a harmful week”). As with some modern horoscopes, ancient predictions of doom could be avoided by an individual’s not venturing forth at all (cf Prov 22:13).

4 The idle rich lay around the house a lot and ate the finest foods. Their “ivoried beds” (‏מטות שן) were couches whose wooden frames were inlaid with ivory decorations (J. W. and G. M. Crowfoot, Early Ivories from Samaria [London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1938]; ANEP, figs. 125–32; R. Barnett, A Catalogue of Nimrud Ivories and Other Examples of Ancient Near Eastern Ivories [London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1957]).

5 These people were living like royalty. The reference to David, rather [vol. 31, p. 360] than being a late interpolation as some have suggested, adds to the flavor of high living in an idle lifestyle. Even prior to his becoming king, David was a member of a leading Judahite family and was therefore able to indulge his musical talents. With plenty of time on their hands, the urban upper classes of Amos’ day could also improvise and create music, their output rivaling that of the past master.

6 Amos’ words caricature debauchery and wastefulness. Instead of drinking their wine from a cup (‏כוס‎; cf 2 Sam 12:3; Prov 23:31: Jer 25:17; etc), these folk were drinking straight out of the storage basins! (On ‏מזרק‎ “basin,” see A. Honeyman, “The Pottery Vessels of the Old Testament,” PEQ 71 [1939] 76–90; cf 1 Kgs 7:40). Anointing was a common practice of personal hygiene, since oil kills lice. But demanding the highest quality of refined oil (‏ראשית שמנים‎) for this purpose was simply an excess. And all the while, the ruin (‏שבר‎; cf the use of the root in Lev 26:13, 19, 26) of Joseph (Ephraim) as guaranteed by the covenant curses (esp type 9, desolation: cf Lev 26:31–35; Deut 29:23) was coming closer.

7 Again ‏לכן‎ (“therefore”) introduces the judgment sentence concluding the lament (cf 5:11, 13, 16). Twice already the passage has featured the word ‏ראשית‎ (“first, leading,” vv 1 and 16) in connection with the preeminent citizens of Samaria and Jerusalem. These leaders will now lead the nation into exile, at their “front” (‏ראש‎). Thus the major covenant curse of exile (type 13) is to be fulfilled against them. The concluding line of the oracle is alliterative: ‏סר מזרה סרוחים‎, sar mizrah seruhim lit, “the celebrating (-house) of those sprawled out will turn aside.” Alliteration makes statements memorable. Amos’ audience is left with the clear message that the present high living simply will not be allowed to last. Though מרזח can mean funerary celebrating or the place thereof (as in Jer 16:5), it also refers to general revelry, particularly that involving extremes of feasting, drinking, etc (P. Miller, “The Mrzḥ Text,” The Claremont Ras Shamra Tablets, ed L. Fisher, AnOr 48 [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1971]; M. Pope, Song of Songs, AB 7C [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977] 214–29; O. Eissfeldt, Etymologische . . . OrAnt 5 [1966] 165–76).

Explanation

Yahweh would not tolerate the dissolute luxury, that prevailed among the Israelite urban rich, both North and South, in the mid-eighth century B.C. Such conspicuous degeneracy witnessed to exploitation of the poor, unconcern for moral and spiritual values and practices, and an outright lack of fear of God. Jesus’ severe warning that no one can serve both God and wealth, in part because one’s heart will always pay attention to one’s treasure (Matt 6:19–24), did not represent a pronouncement without precedent. To fall prey often to materialism is a serious enough fault; to give oneself over to materialistic hedonism is an outrageous offense. Those whom God through Amos excoriated in this passage had gained the world, but they would lose their very lives (cf Luke 9:25). Since the royalty, nobility, and leading citizens were presumably taken captive first, ie, prior to the general citizenry, by both the Assyrians and the Babylonians (cf 2 Kgs 24:11–16; 25:11–12, 18–21; [vol. 31, p. 361] ANET, 284–85; 2 Chr 36:5–7; Jer 24), there came eventually a literal fulfillment of the warning that the first among the people would be the first of the exiles.

Douglas Stuart, Hosea–Jonah, vol. 31 of Word Biblical Commentary. Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 356-361.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791593#Comment_791593

For me, the value of WBC is the bibliography. I find that section in the commentary to be very useful for further research and paper writing.

Put me on a an island and I would take the ICC above the rest.

Cliff

Good point on WBC's Bib's. They are beneficial from the few volumes of it that I have worked with.

Sounds good about ICC. One question though: How "old" is ICC? My professors harp a bunch on ensuring my scholarly sources are "current", so would ICC be considered "current" enough or something I would need to consider looking at other commentaries?

Thanks!

Thanks to those who posted the WBC samples as well!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791609#Comment_791609

For Textual Study Aland in his Book (1989) mentioned

https://www.logos.com/product/9847/critical-and-exegetical-commentary-on-the-new-testament

Second would be ICC

Sascha

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791615#Comment_791615

About the Age.

Kurt Aland give these Commentaries a Place because "Textual Study is no longer a main Point in modern Commentaries and you find Thought and Discussions you would not find anywhere else."

Sascha

He also Sayed that man Modern Commentaries have there Whisdom from these old Commentaries...so as only Commentaries in Textual Study no but absolutly yes as deeper search.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791615#Comment_791615

For Textual Study Aland in his Book (1989) mentioned

https://www.logos.com/product/9847/critical-and-exegetical-commentary-on-the-new-testament

Second would be ICC

Sascha

I've got the one you linked to above. Excellent! I need to start using it more.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791618#Comment_791618

About the Age.

Kurt Aland give these Commentaries a Place because "Textual Study is no longer a main Point in modern Commentaries and you find Thought and Discussions you would not find anywhere else."

Sascha

He also Sayed that man Modern Commentaries have there Whisdom from these old Commentaries...so as only Commentaries in Textual Study no but absolutly yes as deeper search.

True. I'll look at ICC while it's on sale but even then it's more than I wanted to spend. I guess I could put $500 down and spread the rest out on a payment plan if I really wanted to go for it.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791620#Comment_791620

I'm more in NT so I look for the NT ICC...but it's still expensive. Haven't found him yet in a Bundle and Base Pack. are more expensive.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791622#Comment_791622

I'm more in NT so I look for the NT ICC...but it's still expensive. Haven't found him yet in a Bundle and Base Pack. are more expensive.

I can do NT ICC in Cloud Premium for about $50/month or ICC OT/NT in Cloud Professional for $100/month, but still paying $50-100/month ongoing for ICC would be a little hefty (although I'd get a ton of other books to boot).

Matt Hamrick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791609#Comment_791609

ICC spans over 100 years. 1895 to 2014 is the date Faithlife has listed on the product page. The more current dates are revisions to earlier works I would guess.

Rick Brannan (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791623#Comment_791623

On the NT, if you don't have it already, give Lenski serious consideration.

https://www.logos.com/product/3911/lenskis-commentary-on-the-new-testament

It's in the Christmas sale too.

Wayne Clarke

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791620#Comment_791620

I have all of the above mentioned technical commentaries and they are all great. Another that I think is often overlooked is the Concordia Commentary Series. An extract from the "Textual Notes" section for Amos 6:5 follows:

From the Concordia Commentary:

6:5

הַפֹּרְטִ֖ים עַל־פִּ֣י הַנָּ֑בֶל—The exact meaning of the hapax legomenon verb פָּרַט is open to debate. Its Qal participle הַפֹּרְטִ֖ים is variously understood as meaning "those who pluck [stringed instruments]," "those who improvise [music]," "those who sing songs," or "those who howl." The LXX renders the phrase οἱ ἐπικροτοῦντες πρὸς τὴν φωνὴν τῶν ὀργάνων, "those who are clapping/applauding to the sound of instruments," while the Vulgate has qui canitis ad vocem psalterii, "you who sing to the sound of a stringed instrument." The translation above reflects general idea of making songs by improvising tunes.

The prepositional phrase עַל־פִּ֣י, literally, "according to the mouth of," means "according to the sound of" an instrument (see BDB, s.v. פֶּה, 2 e; cf. 6 d (1)). The stringed instrument נֵבֶל, "lyre," is sometimes incorrectly translated "harp" (e.g., RSV). A harp does not employ a neck, whereas a lyre does. The Psalms and Chronicles often refer to playing the נֵבֶל for religious festivals and services, as in Amos 5:23. The context of 6:5–7 indicates that Amos is describing a marzēaḥ feast that had religious implications; see the second textual note and the commentary on 6:7.

כְּדָו֕יד חָשְׁב֥וּ לָהֶ֖ם כְּלֵי־שִֽׁיר׃

—The simile כְּדָוִ֕יד, "like David," indicates that the musical innovators compared themselves to Israel’s greatest psalmist. The grammar of this clause can be understood in three different ways. First, in this context, the verb חָשַׁב may mean "to invent" (BDB, 5) and take the direct object כְּלֵי־שִֽׁיר, literally, "instruments of song/music." חָשַׁב conveys artistic talent to "invent, devise" artwork in, for example, Ex 31:4; 35:32; 2 Chr 2:13 (ET 2:14). For accounts of David’s connections with musical instruments see, for example, Neh 12:36; 1 Chr 23:5; 2 Chr 29:26–27. A second possibility is to understand חָשַׁב in its more common sense of "to think, consider," and translate the clause as "they think regarding themselves that [their] musical instruments are like David’s." However, David probably did not invent new musical instruments. Instead, he composed new music on kinds of instruments that already existed in Israel. Therefore the third possibility is most likely: חָשַׁב means "to compose (music)" and כְּלֵי־שִֽׁיר is an accusative of means: "like David they compose [music] for themselves [using] musical instruments." This is the direction taken by NIV ("improvise on musical instruments") and NASB ("have composed songs for themselves"). As with נֵבֶל "lyre," in the preceding clause, שִׁיר, "song, music," in this clause frequently is associated with worship and liturgy, as in the superscriptions to Psalms 120–134, each of which is called a "song [שִׁיר] of ascents" for pilgrims traveling up to the Jerusalem temple. The Israelites described in Amos 6:5 (wrongly) imagine that they too are composing God-pleasing worship music.

Veli Voipio

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791615#Comment_791615

For Textual Study Aland in his Book (1989) mentioned

https://www.logos.com/product/9847/critical-and-exegetical-commentary-on-the-new-testament

I am not competent expert, but I recently came across this:

The results of the great papyrological finds that alerted New Testament scholars to this truth were widely disseminated only at the end of the past century. That means technical commentaries on the New Testament Greek text written much before the end of the past century are unreliable on many grammatical points.

Carson, D. A. (1996). Exegetical fallacies (2nd ed., p. 66). Carlisle, U.K.; Grand Rapids, MI: Paternoster; Baker Books.

Meyer's commentary is from around the 1880s, and Lenski's is from around 1930s, thus according to this quotation from Carson's book Lenski should be more reliable?

I am curious to hear more opinions about this Meyer's commentary. I have been seriously considering buying it.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791625#Comment_791625

On the NT, if you don't have it already, give Lenski serious consideration.

https://www.logos.com/product/3911/lenskis-commentary-on-the-new-testament

It's in the Christmas sale too.

Lenski is ok, but with the advances on Greek studies there are better commentaries. Carson is not the final authority but he may be right when he says that Lenski is amateurish in his handling of the Greek since he only had so much knowledge when he wrote his commentaries.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791648#Comment_791648

Carson is not the final authority but he may be right when he says that Lenski is amateurish in his handling of the Greek since he only had so much knowledge when he wrote his commentaries.

I would question anyone who calls the likes of Heinrich August Jäschke or Richard C. H. Lenski "amateurish" ... I would question the individual's knowledge of philology, the academic discipline behind their works - formally or informally as it was the standard for "exotic" languages. One may rightly say that they pushed the discipline to its limits so that newer methods were needed but their work is often fundamental to understanding later work. Remember that the current giants stand on the shoulders of prior giants who stand on the shoulders of still earlier giants who stand ....

Ken McGuire

All commentary series are uneven. In the ideal world you can get a few select commentaries on each passage. Marketing, however, loves to put things into series and collections, and wise stewardship of your resources says you may want to take advantage of this.

That said, it is surprising to me that your seminary is not making clear what would be an acceptable technical commentary. In my experience, this is often covered in the intro classes, is certainly in the syllabi for the advanced classes, and often the bible faculty have a list of recommendations for everything for graduates. I would not depend on BestCommentaries.com because from glances I have made at it, it is quite dominated by what is best for pastors - not for an academic setting.

That said, the old CD's of WBC are one of the best deals out there for technical commentaries in Logos. Very good bibliographies, as mentioned, and in general good summaries of the information out there on the passages. The format is not the most friendly to just read, but if you learn the format, you learn where to go for the specific questions you may have.

The Classic volumes of the ICC set a high bar - but are classic. They still have value, are dated. The new volumes are amazing and need to be consulted by anyone in an academic setting, IMHO.

Lenski? I come from a church body that uses him a LOT and am actually quite sympathetic to those who want to open people up to the fact that there is more out there. That said, he does have a LOT of very good information on the greek text. He is not as good with the context though. He did, after all, write before the DSS and Nag Hammadi were discovered...

Herm was described as the "Cadillac set both in quality and price" when I was in seminary. It has many great volumes and few weak ones.

Anchor is all over the map. The one consistent thing about it is that it does all (or any) original languages in transliteration. That said, there are some very good volumes, and it seems that the newest volumes are getting more dependable.

You mention you are taking a class on John. Unfortunately this is one of the briefer volumes in the WBC set, and so the bibliographies are definitely the most useful part of this. It is also one of the older volumes, even if it was updated since then a bit... The Herm volumes on John are uneven, since the scholar writing them died while writing them. The early chapters are good, but the later ones a bit thin. Raymond Brown on John in Anchor is a classic - but is 50 years old at this point. He was rewriting it when he died, but, well, we will have to enjoy the fruits of that after the grave...

There is no ideal solution. But if you can get your hands on one of those "cheap" WBC cd's, it could be a decent core for you.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791678#Comment_791678

All commentary series are uneven....

There is no ideal solution. But if you can get your hands on one of those "cheap" WBC cd's, it could be a decent core for you.

Everything he said.

At the post-grad level, professors may insist that the student gets a hold of everything available. Of course not literally everything, but peeping into the seminary library or talking to the prof may reveal a few clues.

If "going back to the language" is a strong emphasis, you would not want to miss scholarship of the last thirty years. For Hebrew, you would almost certainly need to interact with non-evangelical sources if full academic rigour is required. For Greek, not so much.

Rick Brannan (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791650#Comment_791650

Carson is not the final authority but he may be right when he says that Lenski is amateurish in his handling of the Greek since he only had so much knowledge when he wrote his commentaries.

I would question anyone who calls the likes of Heinrich August Jäschke or Richard C. H. Lenski "amateurish" ... I would question the individual's knowledge of philology, the academic discipline behind their works - formally or informally as it was the standard for "exotic" languages. One may rightly say that they pushed the discipline to its limits so that newer methods were needed but their work is often fundamental to understanding later work. Remember that the current giants stand on the shoulders of prior giants who stand on the shoulders of still earlier giants who stand ....

Just to chime in on Lenski and the notion of it being an older work — in the area of textual criticism; I agree. The new finds have a lot to do with the establishing of the text. And I don't recall much in Lenski regarding textual criticism.

But put it in perspective: The first volume of Moulton's grammar was published in 1906. Deissmann's stuff was published in German in the early 1900s and was translated into English by the mid-1920's. Moulton & Milligan's Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, usually pointed to as bringing recent papyrological data into the realm of NT lexicography, was published in 1930 though fascicles were available before (articles going back to 1908; first fascicle published in 1914). Lenski died in 1936. If these guys could be aware of it, so could Lenski (a naturalized American, born in Germany, even if only through their German or English work).

What is most important is how is one's understanding of the original languages is reflected in one's handling of the text. In this, Lenski shines. I have been amazed multiple times at his understanding of how the text is segmented and structured and how conjunctions and particles contribute to the flow of the text. The question was about "technical commentaries". I took this to mean commentaries that work with the original languages (here Greek) with the expectation that the reader have some knowledge on the topic.

If you're looking for a good NT commentary set that handles the Greek text well, then Lenski should be a top contender. Especially if budget is a concern.

Regarding Ken's take, which I do appreciate: "[Lenski] did, after all, write before the DSS and Nag Hammadi were discovered...". And Lenski wrote on the NT, where the DSS has little bearing, and the Nag Hammadi finds shed insight more on Coptic (lexical/grammatical) than Greek. There is value in both Nag Hammadi and DSS in the context of handling the Greek of the NT; but I'd argue it is minimal and not a reason to discount Lenski — unless you're specifically looking for interaction with 2nd-5th century gnostic sources in your commentary series.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791650#Comment_791650

Carson is not the final authority but he may be right when he says that Lenski is amateurish in his handling of the Greek since he only had so much knowledge when he wrote his commentaries.

I would question anyone who calls the likes of Heinrich August Jäschke or Richard C. H. Lenski "amateurish" ... I would question the individual's knowledge of philology, the academic discipline behind their works - formally or informally as it was the standard for "exotic" languages. One may rightly say that they pushed the discipline to its limits so that newer methods were needed but their work is often fundamental to understanding later work. Remember that the current giants stand on the shoulders of prior giants who stand on the shoulders of still earlier giants who stand ....

So you question DA Carson? Like I said, he's not the final authority, but he's right to a certain degree. I find Lenski useful at times, but not so useful at others.

DAL

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791683#Comment_791683

Regarding Ken's take, which I do appreciate: "[Lenski] did, after all, write before the DSS and Nag Hammadi were discovered...". And Lenski wrote on the NT, where the DSS has little bearing, and the Nag Hammadi finds shed insight more on Coptic (lexical/grammatical) than Greek. There is value in both Nag Hammadi and DSS in the context of handling the Greek of the NT; but I'd argue it is minimal and not a reason to discount Lenski — unless you're specifically looking for interaction with 2nd-5th century gnostic sources in your commentary series.

Just to clarify my point. In looking at Lenski (who actually was a member of my current parish when he landed as a teenager to this country) instead of people complaining about him, I see he is quite aware and conversant with the Lexical and Grammatical revolution in Koine Greek that was happening during his lifetime - more so than some who write today, unfortunately. This is one of his strengths actually. That said, he is a bit less aware and conversant with scholarship about the Classical world, and especially of the various Judaisms of the 1st century. In spite of the differences in language, this world view brought to us by the DSS is relevant to New Testament studies, and NagHam too with caution.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791707#Comment_791707

So you question DA Carson?

Of course. I read nothing without questioning it ... except the Holy Scripture which I question in a very different manner[;)]. I suspect that since my thesis adviser was a philologist, I know more about that particular topic than he.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791625#Comment_791625

On the NT, if you don't have it already, give Lenski serious consideration.

https://www.logos.com/product/3911/lenskis-commentary-on-the-new-testament

It's in the Christmas sale too.

I do have this one in my library and will check it out. Thanks for mentioning it!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791627#Comment_791627

I have all of the above mentioned technical commentaries and they are all great. Another that I think is often overlooked is the Concordia Commentary Series. An extract from the "Textual Notes" section for Amos 6:5 follows:

From the Concordia Commentary:

6:5

הַפֹּרְטִ֖ים עַל־פִּ֣י הַנָּ֑בֶל—The exact meaning of the hapax legomenon verb פָּרַט is open to debate. Its Qal participle הַפֹּרְטִ֖ים is variously understood as meaning "those who pluck [stringed instruments]," "those who improvise [music]," "those who sing songs," or "those who howl." The LXX renders the phrase οἱ ἐπικροτοῦντες πρὸς τὴν φωνὴν τῶν ὀργάνων, "those who are clapping/applauding to the sound of instruments," while the Vulgate has qui canitis ad vocem psalterii, "you who sing to the sound of a stringed instrument." The translation above reflects general idea of making songs by improvising tunes.

The prepositional phrase עַל־פִּ֣י, literally, "according to the mouth of," means "according to the sound of" an instrument (see BDB, s.v. פֶּה, 2 e; cf. 6 d (1)). The stringed instrument נֵבֶל, "lyre," is sometimes incorrectly translated "harp" (e.g., RSV). A harp does not employ a neck, whereas a lyre does. The Psalms and Chronicles often refer to playing the נֵבֶל for religious festivals and services, as in Amos 5:23. The context of 6:5–7 indicates that Amos is describing a marzēaḥ feast that had religious implications; see the second textual note and the commentary on 6:7.

כְּדָו֕יד חָשְׁב֥וּ לָהֶ֖ם כְּלֵי־שִֽׁיר׃

—The simile כְּדָוִ֕יד, "like David," indicates that the musical innovators compared themselves to Israel’s greatest psalmist. The grammar of this clause can be understood in three different ways. First, in this context, the verb חָשַׁב may mean "to invent" (BDB, 5) and take the direct object כְּלֵי־שִֽׁיר, literally, "instruments of song/music." חָשַׁב conveys artistic talent to "invent, devise" artwork in, for example, Ex 31:4; 35:32; 2 Chr 2:13 (ET 2:14). For accounts of David’s connections with musical instruments see, for example, Neh 12:36; 1 Chr 23:5; 2 Chr 29:26–27. A second possibility is to understand חָשַׁב in its more common sense of "to think, consider," and translate the clause as "they think regarding themselves that [their] musical instruments are like David’s." However, David probably did not invent new musical instruments. Instead, he composed new music on kinds of instruments that already existed in Israel. Therefore the third possibility is most likely: חָשַׁב means "to compose (music)" and כְּלֵי־שִֽׁיר is an accusative of means: "like David they compose [music] for themselves [using] musical instruments." This is the direction taken by NIV ("improvise on musical instruments") and NASB ("have composed songs for themselves"). As with נֵבֶל "lyre," in the preceding clause, שִׁיר, "song, music," in this clause frequently is associated with worship and liturgy, as in the superscriptions to Psalms 120–134, each of which is called a "song [שִׁיר] of ascents" for pilgrims traveling up to the Jerusalem temple. The Israelites described in Amos 6:5 (wrongly) imagine that they too are composing God-pleasing worship music.

Thanks for the suggestion. I don't have Concordia and can check into it as well.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791678#Comment_791678

All commentary series are uneven. In the ideal world you can get a few select commentaries on each passage. Marketing, however, loves to put things into series and collections, and wise stewardship of your resources says you may want to take advantage of this.

That said, it is surprising to me that your seminary is not making clear what would be an acceptable technical commentary. In my experience, this is often covered in the intro classes, is certainly in the syllabi for the advanced classes, and often the bible faculty have a list of recommendations for everything for graduates. I would not depend on BestCommentaries.com because from glances I have made at it, it is quite dominated by what is best for pastors - not for an academic setting.

That said, the old CD's of WBC are one of the best deals out there for technical commentaries in Logos. Very good bibliographies, as mentioned, and in general good summaries of the information out there on the passages. The format is not the most friendly to just read, but if you learn the format, you learn where to go for the specific questions you may have.

The Classic volumes of the ICC set a high bar - but are classic. They still have value, are dated. The new volumes are amazing and need to be consulted by anyone in an academic setting, IMHO.

Lenski? I come from a church body that uses him a LOT and am actually quite sympathetic to those who want to open people up to the fact that there is more out there. That said, he does have a LOT of very good information on the greek text. He is not as good with the context though. He did, after all, write before the DSS and Nag Hammadi were discovered...

Herm was described as the "Cadillac set both in quality and price" when I was in seminary. It has many great volumes and few weak ones.

Anchor is all over the map. The one consistent thing about it is that it does all (or any) original languages in transliteration. That said, there are some very good volumes, and it seems that the newest volumes are getting more dependable.

You mention you are taking a class on John. Unfortunately this is one of the briefer volumes in the WBC set, and so the bibliographies are definitely the most useful part of this. It is also one of the older volumes, even if it was updated since then a bit... The Herm volumes on John are uneven, since the scholar writing them died while writing them. The early chapters are good, but the later ones a bit thin. Raymond Brown on John in Anchor is a classic - but is 50 years old at this point. He was rewriting it when he died, but, well, we will have to enjoy the fruits of that after the grave...

There is no ideal solution. But if you can get your hands on one of those "cheap" WBC cd's, it could be a decent core for you.

Thanks for the info. I looked around, and my seminary does produce a video that explains about how to choose commentaries for academic research. Here is the video if anyone is interested in seeing it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTsxA0y06wk

The take away from it was that they seem to recommend Word Biblical as one of the main ones, but they're also recommending to shy away from purchasing sets when possible. They were still a little "oblique" about exactly what is acceptable.

I agree that if I could find an old CD of WBC it would be a good starting point at least and an "affordable" use of funds.

Are the new volumes of ICC available in Logos?

What are your thoughts on Herm vs WBC vs new ICC?

For John, he's requiring Pillar which I have as the main textbook. I probably will be writing an exegetical paper on John this upcoming semester as well since Turabian Manual is required as well.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791755#Comment_791755

By the way, here's a currently list of every commentary series plus individual commentaries in my library (some of the series you can see I don't have complete series on). Before I go investing in new commentaries, are there any hidden gems in my library I've overlooked?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791627#Comment_791627

By the way, how good is NICOT/NICNT? I'm seeing it heavily recommended on Best Commentaries, and it was in the list of books shown on my seminary's website as well.

Additionally, "Herm" is available a little bit less from another Bible software vendor at the moment. Does Logos ever offer "price matching" of another Bible software vendor, or if I decided on "Herm", would I have to go with the other vendor (not saying I'd get "Herm", just curious)?

Thanks!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791812#Comment_791812

By the way, how good is NICOT/NICNT? I'm seeing it heavily recommended on Best Commentaries, and it was in the list of books shown on my seminary's website as well.

Additionally, "Herm" is available a little bit less from another Bible software vendor at the moment. Does Logos ever offer "price matching" of another Bible software vendor, or if I decided on "Herm", would I have to go with the other vendor (not saying I'd get "Herm", just curious)?

Thanks!

As sets go, NICOT/NICNT are considered one of the finest. As Ken McGuire pointed out, however, even in a fine set there are relatively weaker volumes.

Logos does not usually match prices in that manner.

You might be able to find Hermenia Libronix CDs for cheap on eBay. If you buy from a reputable seller, the CD will be brand new, and can be activated for your use by contacting Logos customer support.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791820#Comment_791820

If someone from Today like Aland who works for Years on the Text of the Greek New Testament and give out NA28 told me "also have a look to this old Commentaries of Meyer" why should I not trust him?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791832#Comment_791832

Is there anything in the New Commentaries what say:" we understand everything wrong, the Text is complily different as we thought bevor 1950 and we have to create a New Christianity on the Facts we now know?

Or dit the new Commentaries, on the Foundation on the New Papyri and Archelogical Discofferies, just explain better what we actely know since 2000 Years?

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791678#Comment_791678

He was rewriting it when he died, but, well, we will have to enjoy the fruits of that after the grave...

Or buy this.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791838#Comment_791838

Or dit the new Commentaries, on the Foundation on the New Papyri and Archelogical Discofferies, just explain better what we actely know since 2000 Years?

[Y]

Mike Childs

I personally rank the commentary sets as follows:

1. New International Commentary OT / NT

2. Word Biblical Commentary

3. ICC

4. Pillar Commentaries

5.. New Interpreters Bible Commentary

Just my opinion, but that is the order I would follow in general. But all the sets have weaker and stronger volumes, no exception to that at all. Word is by far the best commentary for some of the OT book such as Genesis, Psalms, etch. Actually the NAC is outstanding on Samuel and Kings.. And nobody touches the NICOT on the book of Isaiah. There is no best set as such. What really matters is what is the best commentary for the book you are studying.

Mike Childs

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791838#Comment_791838

Is there anything in the New Commentaries what say:" we understand everything wrong, the Text is complily different as we thought bevor 1950 and we have to create a New Christianity on the Facts we now know?

Or dit the new Commentaries, on the Foundation on the New Papyri and Archelogical Discofferies, just explain better what we actely know since 2000 Years?

My rule of thumb is read two old books for every new book that you read. All books, in one way or another, are colored by the biases of their time. Contrary to popular opinion, our time is just as biased by our present culture - probably more so - as the past generations.

That is one reason that I highly value the church fathers. While it is not a technical commentary, The Ancient Christian Commentary edited by Tom Oden, is invaluable.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791854#Comment_791854

[Y]

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791853#Comment_791853

What really matters is what is the best commentary for the book you are studying.

That is very true, but very subjective at the same time as "the best" may be based on how popular the author is (e.g. Carson on John vs. Andreas Kostenberger or Lenski vs Keener). I'm glad in heaven we'll understand it all and will have no need for commentaries

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791820#Comment_791820

By the way, how good is NICOT/NICNT? I'm seeing it heavily recommended on Best Commentaries, and it was in the list of books shown on my seminary's website as well.

Additionally, "Herm" is available a little bit less from another Bible software vendor at the moment. Does Logos ever offer "price matching" of another Bible software vendor, or if I decided on "Herm", would I have to go with the other vendor (not saying I'd get "Herm", just curious)?

Thanks!

As sets go, NICOT/NICNT are considered one of the finest. As Ken McGuire pointed out, however, even in a fine set there are relatively weaker volumes.

Logos does not usually match prices in that manner.

You might be able to find Hermenia Libronix CDs for cheap on eBay. If you buy from a reputable seller, the CD will be brand new, and can be activated for your use by contacting Logos customer support.

NICOT/NICNT looks good and is even one of the suggestions from my seminary, but it is heart attack worthy price-wise.

I can find WBC Libronix CD's for a decent price on eBay. They also say new. Should I chance it if the seller has a 100% positive rating? I could activate the code with Logos Support, then if I need the rest of the set, buy the remaining volumes from Logos (would run me about $100-150 extra).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791839#Comment_791839

He was rewriting it when he died, but, well, we will have to enjoy the fruits of that after the grave...

Or buy this.

Since I'll be writing an exegetical paper on John coming up, will this benefit me?

Thanks!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791853#Comment_791853

I personally rank the commentary sets as follows:

1. New International Commentary OT / NT

2. Word Biblical Commentary

3. ICC

4. Pillar Commentaries

5.. New Interpreters Bible Commentary

Just my opinion, but that is the order I would follow in general. But all the sets have weaker and stronger volumes, no exception to that at all. Word is by far the best commentary for some of the OT book such as Genesis, Psalms, etch. Actually the NAC is outstanding on Samuel and Kings.. And nobody touches the NICOT on the book of Isaiah. There is no best set as such. What really matters is what is the best commentary for the book you are studying.

Good insights. Thanks for sharing!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791971#Comment_791971

I can find WBC Libronix CD's for a decent price on eBay. They also say new. Should I chance it if the seller has a 100% positive rating? I could activate the code with Logos Support, then if I need the rest of the set, buy the remaining volumes from Logos (would run me about $100-150 extra).

If the rating is very good, I would take the chance. There is always a risk involved when buying software on eBay though. I wouldn't want to mislead you.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791854#Comment_791854

Is there anything in the New Commentaries what say:" we understand everything wrong, the Text is complily different as we thought bevor 1950 and we have to create a New Christianity on the Facts we now know?

Or dit the new Commentaries, on the Foundation on the New Papyri and Archelogical Discofferies, just explain better what we actely know since 2000 Years?

My rule of thumb is read two old books for every new book that you read. All books, in one way or another, are colored by the biases of their time. Contrary to popular opinion, our time is just as biased by our present culture - probably more so - as the past generations.

That is one reason that I highly value the church fathers. While it is not a technical commentary, The Ancient Christian Commentary edited by Tom Oden, is invaluable.

I try to balance my reading and read both old and new books for personal research. Especially in terms of Theology (my major). I read Theology books from a wide variety of theological "biases", denominations, and date ranges (some old, some new). While I obviously don't agree with everything I read in all the books, it gives me at least a balanced view of the major viewpoints so I am aware of them.

I've been interested in getting ACC and doing more with the church fathers. I "guess" I could use ACC in papers for seminary but would double check with my professors. Some of my professors are on this "current" kick and balk anytime we mention any type of "old" sources in our papers, but I would hope that the church fathers are a major exception to that.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791901#Comment_791901

What really matters is what is the best commentary for the book you are studying.

That is very true, but very subjective at the same time as "the best" may be based on how popular the author is (e.g. Carson on John vs. Andreas Kostenberger or Lenski vs Keener). I'm glad in heaven we'll understand it all and will have no need for commentaries

DAL

Good points. That and once Logos completes EEC, it will probably be the first "go to" commentary I use for studies and the one I recommend most for students to get, mainly because it'll be in-depth, current, and compared to other technical commentaries, affordable (the set runs about $700ish for students for the complete set, or one can purchase individual volumes, plus Logos sometimes gives away volumes or does a 99 cent sale on them, plus Logos Cloud offers access to EEC starting around $9/month, so students could even rent EEC on Cloud at an affordable rate then cancel if they no longer need it). I'm sure even EEC will have its "weaknesses", but in general, what Logos is doing with EEC has been truly remarkable, and it makes for a serious choice once it's fully complete.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/791901#Comment_791901

Thanks for the feedback everyone! I wanted to throw in a couple more points into the mix so you can see where I'm headed.

1. This semester I won't be taking my final semester of Greek and Hebrew since it's been postponed until summer, so I can "buy some time" and do more research on commentaries.

2. The course I am taking this semester is Gospel of John. Chances are I will be doing an exegetical paper on the Gospel of John. The required textbook is Pillar, which I have. If there are any additional recommendations on commentaries/resources on the Gospel of John that I could get or see if I have already to aid in my research for the paper, I'd love to hear your suggestions. This is something I can look into now since I know I'll be writing a paper this semester.

3. In the summer is when I'll be taking my Greek and Hebrew exegesis classes. During Intermediate Greek and Hebrew, I was asked to look up information on assignments in some technical critical/commentaries, and since many of my commentaries aren't technical/critical, I did struggle through those assignments. I was able to give some applicational insights but not really be able to give the professors what they needed in terms of the text (my professors showed me abundant grace though in grading). I did substitute in some areas and went to books like TWOT or TDNT and get some discussion on the underlying words so show I at least tried my best. So what I'm basically looking for is having enough well-rounded information in technical/critical commentaries so I can complete assignments for Greek and Hebrew exegesis come summer.

4. My major moving forward once I complete my M Div will be Systematic Theology, so while strengthening my commentaries to complete my M Div program are a goal, I don't want to go overboard and spend too much money on commentaries since I want to put more of my investment for the future into Systematic Theologies and books on theological/doctrinal subjects I would use for PhD research, for teaching, etc. I have the master journal bundle plus the old TJL library, so in terms of journals, I'm well stocked to carry me through my M Div, PhD, etc.

Thanks!