Best one volume commentary
Comments
-
Thank you Dan for your great assessment. I have Jerome's and had already made sure New Jerome's could still compete with Jeromes (the two top 1-volume commentaries being Jeromes and New Jeromes with a few others I can't remember).
The reason I like Jeromes (old and new) is their approach to honesty. They'll go a lot further down the rabbit trail, compared to their protestant brothers, and then at the last moment jump through a special theological hole and land back in solid Catholic territory.
I like that. Most of my commentaries waffle badly (the one Michael just mentions is a great waffler trying to figure out child birth in the Pastorals, but delicious waffles are their specialty). Jeromes just cuts to the chase, lays the data on the table, smiles, and then whoosh, they're back in safe territory.
Refreshing.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
In class last Sunday the question arose of why an "image" or an "idol" would be in David's house allowing Michal to use it to fool Saul's men. Inspired by this thread, I generated a Passage Guide report on 1 Sam 19:13 to see which of my commentaries would point out the impropriety of the idol. I intended to use the results of my study to "tune" my resource priorities.
On the one hand, I was pleased that the NBC addressed the issue head on: "It is surprising to find that there was an idol in David’s house. The Hebrew word translated ‘idol’ is thought to mean a household idol of some sort, but possibly it relates in some way to the worship of Yahweh; certainly there is no suggestion elsewhere that David was ever guilty of worshipping other gods."
Carson, D. A., France, R. T., Motyer, J. A., & Wenham, G. J. (Eds.). (1994). New Bible commentary: 21st century edition (4th ed., p. 315). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press.However, they were the only commentary to suggest that the "image" may relate in some way to the worship of Yahweh. That just seems to fly in the face of Levitical Law.
I was also pleased that the Faithlife Study Bible had a very helpful entry and was the only commentary to refer to the prior verse where Saul had considered Michal a "snare" to David. Based on their entry I bumped FSB to be just under my ESV Study Bible.
Since someone on this thread pointed out that The Moody Bible Commentary is now available on Vyrso, I thought I should point out that its "type" is Monograph. Thus, even though it had a decent entry on the designated verse, it did not show up in my passage guide report! Furthermore, I added it to my Commentaries collection and then reran the passage guide with the "Commentaries" setting. It still did not find content for The Moody Bible Commentary. Next, I chose an earlier verse which had a singular reference and ran a new search unsuccessfully. I conclude that the lack of tagging will keep us from fully exploiting this Moody commentary.
0 -
D.A. specializes in exegetical waffles. Yummy.
But FSB is indeed pretty brazen (in a world of waffle makers).
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
I believe David F Payne wrote that entry on 1 Samuel you are referring to.
Denise said:D.A. specializes in exegetical waffles. Yummy.
But FSB is indeed pretty brazen (in a world of waffle makers).
0 -
I believe the FSB entry is a little bit of conjecture. I found this Zondervan Background Commentary entry to be useful
"Michal took an idol and laid it on the bed (19:13). The nature of Michal’s “idol” (terāpîm) is somewhat mysterious. Attempts to clarify the character of “teraphim” etymologically have not proved successful. More fruitful has been a phenomenological approach, focusing on the apparent function of teraphim in their fifteen biblical occurrences. The general consensus that teraphim must have been “household gods” has been challenged recently by van der Toorn, who prefers the notion that teraphim were “ancestor statues.”
The latter theory may help to explain the Bible’s somewhat ambivalent attitude toward teraphim, but a definitive answer to the question of what the teraphim were remains elusive. Even their size seemed to vary considerably. While Rachel was able to conceal Laban’s teraphim in the camel’s saddle on which she was sitting (Gen. 31:34–35), Michal’s teraphim are apparently large enough to simulate a reclining David. About all that can be said with relative certainty is that teraphim figured more prominently in “folk religion” than in the official cult."
Walton, J. H. (2009). Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (Old Testament): Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel (Vol. 2, p. 354). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.David A Egolf said:In class last Sunday the question arose of why an "image" or an "idol" would be in David's house allowing Michal to use it to fool Saul's men. Inspired by this thread, I generated a Passage Guide report on 1 Sam 19:13 to see which of my commentaries would point out the impropriety of the idol. I intended to use the results of my study to "tune" my resource priorities.
On the one hand, I was pleased that the NBC addressed the issue head on: "It is surprising to find that there was an idol in David’s house. The Hebrew word translated ‘idol’ is thought to mean a household idol of some sort, but possibly it relates in some way to the worship of Yahweh; certainly there is no suggestion elsewhere that David was ever guilty of worshipping other gods."
Carson, D. A., France, R. T., Motyer, J. A., & Wenham, G. J. (Eds.). (1994). New Bible commentary: 21st century edition (4th ed., p. 315). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press.However, they were the only commentary to suggest that the "image" may relate in some way to the worship of Yahweh. That just seems to fly in the face of Levitical Law.
I was also pleased that the Faithlife Study Bible had a very helpful entry and was the only commentary to refer to the prior verse where Saul had considered Michal a "snare" to David. Based on their entry I bumped FSB to be just under my ESV Study Bible.
Since someone on this thread pointed out that The Moody Bible Commentary is now available on Vyrso, I thought I should point out that its "type" is Monograph. Thus, even though it had a decent entry on the designated verse, it did not show up in my passage guide report! Furthermore, I added it to my Commentaries collection and then reran the passage guide with the "Commentaries" setting. It still did not find content for The Moody Bible Commentary. Next, I chose an earlier verse which had a singular reference and ran a new search unsuccessfully. I conclude that the lack of tagging will keep us from fully exploiting this Moody commentary.
0 -
Geo, D.A. was the editor. Let's not play like it's an honorary position. (Though in many cases as this one, it may appear that way.)
But again thank you for yet another yummy waffle. I think the author dug himself even deeper with ancestor worship. And 'folk religion' not as bad as 'cults'. That's tasty strawberries on the waffle.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
For a different point of view,
"Then in an act that revealed as much about her spiritual condition as it did about her commitment to her husband, Michal “took a teraphim” (“idol”) and used it to deceive Saul’s cohorts.
The reference here to a teraphim, apparently a large anthropomorphic idol,75 is the second one in 1 Samuel. Ominously, the prophet Samuel previously had suggested that Saul’s rebellious acts were equitable to the “evil of teraphim” (15:23). Through the present compelling scene and without the intrusion of didactic commentary, the writer suggests that Michal was as much a spiritual rebel as her father. This observation foreshadows an outcome for Michal’s life that is the feminine counterpart to Saul’s. Michal’s father lost his opportunity to establish a dynasty; Michal lost her opportunity to establish a family (2 Sam 6:23). When read in connection with Psalm 59,76 Michal’s action creates a strong contrast with those of her husband; whereas Michal trusted in a teraphim to save David, David trusted in the Lord (cf. Ps 59:9–10, 16–17).
In spite of the negative implications of the teraphim, the sequence of actions performed by Michal creates links between her and those of previous biblical heroines. In each case these allusions identify David in particularly favorable comparisons. Jacob too was saved by a woman who had possession of teraphim and deceived her father during a desperate search (cf. Gen 31:19–35). Moses also was saved through the efforts of the daughter of a wicked ruler (cf. Exod 2:6–10). Furthermore, David’s escape echoed that of the spies saved by Rahab, who were let down through a window at night by a woman who lied to a king (Josh 2:2–15)."
Bergen, R. D. (1996). 1, 2 Samuel (Vol. 7, p. 208). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.0 -
I prefer chicken and waffles myself.
Denise said:Geo, D.A. was the editor. Let's not play like it's an honorary position. (Though in many cases as this one, it may appear that way.)
But again thank you for yet another yummy waffle. I think the author dug himself even deeper with ancestor worship. And 'folk religion' not as bad as 'cults'. That's tasty strawberries on the waffle.
0 -
According to Carson: "One-volume commentaries are too brief to be useful in detailed exegesis and exposition, but they have the advantage of providing at least something on every book of the Bible—an advantage when the student or minister is young or able to maintain only a very small library. The New Bible Commentary (IVP/Eerdmans, latest revision 1994) is condensed, evangelical, and brief. It is primarily exegetical, but a little space is devoted to discussing critical theories and occasionally to ongoing application of the text. In its various editions it has become something of a standard around the English-speaking world among evangelical readers of single-volume commentaries. Several other volumes have aimed for more or less the same evangelical market. Some of them deserve honorable mention: A Bible Commentary for Today (Pickering and Inglis/ 1979) = The New Layman’s Bible Commentary (/Zondervan 1979) is a product of the Christian Brethren. Based on the RSV, its focus is sometimes on exegesis, sometimes on exposition. On the whole it is lighter than the New Bible Commentary. One should not overlook the latest revision of International Bible Commentary (/Zondervan 1986), edited by F. F. Bruce. The Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, edited by Walter A. Elwell, is useful (/Baker 1989). The Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary is in two volumes, but its second volume is devoted to the NT (/Zondervan 1994). With one fat volume devoted to the last quarter of the canon, inevitably it offers a little more comment per line of text than the one-volume commentaries on the whole Bible."
D. A. Carson, New Testament Commentary Survey (6th ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 29–30.0 -
Michael Childs said:
I too have the old Jerome Biblical Commentary, and have had it since the old CDWORD program that was bought out by Logos in ancient times.
CDWord Bible Software from Dallas Theological Seminary
A blast from the past...
-Dan
0 -
Dan Francis said:
That was quite the advanced interface for a DOS application back then. IBM's Common User Access (CUA) guidelines were the way to go.
... wow ... I almost forgot.
Thanks, Dan.
0 -
David A Egolf said:
In class last Sunday the question arose of why an "image" or an "idol" would be in David's house allowing Michal to use it to fool Saul's men. Inspired by this thread, I generated a Passage Guide report on 1 Sam 19:13 to see which of my commentaries would point out the impropriety of the idol. I intended to use the results of my study to "tune" my resource priorities.
On the one hand, I was pleased that the NBC addressed the issue head on: "It is surprising to find that there was an idol in David’s house. The Hebrew word translated ‘idol’ is thought to mean a household idol of some sort, but possibly it relates in some way to the worship of Yahweh; certainly there is no suggestion elsewhere that David was ever guilty of worshipping other gods."
Carson, D. A., France, R. T., Motyer, J. A., & Wenham, G. J. (Eds.). (1994). New Bible commentary: 21st century edition (4th ed., p. 315). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press.However, they were the only commentary to suggest that the "image" may relate in some way to the worship of Yahweh. That just seems to fly in the face of Levitical Law.
I was also pleased that the Faithlife Study Bible had a very helpful entry and was the only commentary to refer to the prior verse where Saul had considered Michal a "snare" to David. Based on their entry I bumped FSB to be just under my ESV Study Bible.
Saul's family were never gung-ho and faithful where YHWH was concerned--they weren't meant to be.
I am always surprised that people are surprised that evidence of idolatry exists in Israel...whether in the Book or the archaeological record. How could that surprise anyone??
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Denise said:
D.A. specializes in exegetical waffles. Yummy.
But FSB is indeed pretty brazen (in a world of waffle makers).
Are you sure that is not one of those Exegetical Fallacies? [;)]
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
Dan Francis said:Michael Childs said:
I too have the old Jerome Biblical Commentary, and have had it since the old CDWORD program that was bought out by Logos in ancient times.
CDWord Bible Software from Dallas Theological Seminary
A blast from the past...
-Dan
Thanks Dan! That really brings back memories. CDWORD was the reason that I bought my first computer. It convinced me that I needed / wanted one. It was a great program in its day!
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
I had a CDROM at the time (1990 was when I got it), but using a mac then too... but I do remember hearing about it and wanting it, but not a High Priority for a High School student... But like I said I had seen it discussed in a Christian Magazine and remember thinking how cool it would be to have it.
-Dan
0
