Jerome Biblical Commentary?
I realize that this commentary is not currently being offered by Logos. But has it been in the past? Reason for my question is that reference to it from Raymond Brown's Introduction to the New Testament is linked to a resource ID of LLS:JBC which opens up a pane that states that I don't have a license to view the resource and shows a preview! Clicking on the web link takes me to a resource page that doesn't exist of course.
EDIT: I found my answer here (http://community.logos.com/forums/p/9951/78837.aspx#78837) after searching the forums - maybe I should have done this before I opened my mouth 
, or rather started typing. I would surely love to have this commentary if it's offered again. Like the Ancient Christian Commentary, does anyone know if there's a Logos edition on a CD for sale somewhere? Thanks
Comments
-
fgh 'cruelly' pointed out just weeks ago that a JBC was available in February (and I missed it completely).
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
"No man is greater than his prayer life. The pastor who is not praying is playing; the people who are not praying are straying." Leonard Ravenhill
0 -
Slava Novik said:
From this blog, in the comments, Phil Gons tells:
Phil GonsMay 26, 2009 at 1:06 pm # (Direct Link)
... we lost the rights to the Jerome Biblical Commentary, and the Vatican II Documents were in a third-party product from Liturgical Press in 1997 that has since been retired. We’re looking into resurrecting both of these at some point, but no guarantees that that will happen.
I'm fortunate to have purchased the Jerome Biblical Commentary prior to this change from Logos so I still have full use of it within my Logos software.
Using adventure and community to challenge young people to continually say "yes" to God
0 -
Ok, Bruce, I'm not sure just how much 'cruelty' we are asked to bear on this forum. Soon enough people will casually mention their AF-morphed Lexham OT. Probably that may become the breaking point for many.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Denise said:
Ok, Bruce, I'm not sure just how much 'cruelty' we are asked to bear on this forum. Soon enough people will casually mention their AF-morphed Lexham OT. Probably that may become the breaking point for many.
I'm sorry, I didn't post this to be cruel. Rather I wanted it to serve as a reminder than any resource could change status at any point. I have missed the opportunity for other resources in the past.
Using adventure and community to challenge young people to continually say "yes" to God
0 -
Slava Novik said:
From this blog, in the comments, Phil Gons tells:
Phil GonsMay 26, 2009 at 1:06 pm # (Direct Link)
... we lost the rights to the Jerome Biblical Commentary, and the Vatican II Documents were in a third-party product from Liturgical Press in 1997 that has since been retired. We’re looking into resurrecting both of these at some point, but no guarantees that that will happen.
Well, at least the other one is back: Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents (2 vols.). Moving embarrassingly slow, though, so if you haven't added your order yet, please do so.
Mac Pro (late 2013) OS 12.6.2
0 -
fgh said:
Well, at least the other one is back: Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents (2 vols.).
Does anyone know whether the restriction (present on some Catholic resources) about being only available in the USA applies to these resources?
There is nothing on the product page suggesting it but I would like to be sure.
Thanks, Graham
0 -
FYI, The Jerome Biblical Commentary that was offered by Logos years ago was the 1968 version, not the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, the extensively rewritten version copyright 1990. Here's hoping the latter one finds its way into Logos!
0 -
Graham Criddle said:
Does anyone know whether the restriction (present on some Catholic resources) about being only available in the USA applies to these resources?
There is nothing on the product page suggesting it but I would like to be sure.
I doubt it. The restriction is because copyright rests with the various episcopal conferences. I see no reason why that would be the case with these books, and there is nothing in the printed volumes to suggest it either (though admittedly mine are slightly older editions).
Besides, so far buying 'restricted' books before Logos discovered they were 'restricted' has worked perfectly fine.[:)]
Mac Pro (late 2013) OS 12.6.2
0 -
-
Don Awalt said:
FYI, The Jerome Biblical Commentary that was offered by Logos years ago was the 1968 version, not the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, the extensively rewritten version copyright 1990. Here's hoping the latter one finds its way into Logos!
I was not aware that there was an extensive revision. Can you provide more detail as to what is different?
Using adventure and community to challenge young people to continually say "yes" to God
0 -
Don Awalt said:
FYI, The Jerome Biblical Commentary that was offered by Logos years ago was the 1968 version, not the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, the extensively rewritten version copyright 1990. Here's hoping the latter one finds its way into Logos!
You are right but it must have had a minor update in the I noticed a few times in the English Bible section 1970 is mentioned a few times as a release date for a particular translation or portion. So it must have had some minor updates after the initial 1968 publication.
-Dan
0 -
Everything I Have always read, there were only two versions - it seems that dates for each version go across 2 -3 years. This link backs that up, as do others.
As for the revisions, the INtro to the new one (I have in hardback) quotes Raymond Brown, editor of both, saying "2/3 of the material is new". If you compare the two table of contents, they are totally different. It's very comprehensive though!
0 -
Bruce Dunning said:
I was not aware that there was an extensive revision. Can you provide more detail as to what is different?
I know it was a partial revision, i believe 2/3 was revised. I remember looking in Romans seemed to be fairly significantly revised and expanded over the 1968 edition.
-Dan
0 -
Don Awalt said:
If you compare the two table of contents, they are totally different. It's very comprehensive though!
Does anyone have a link or can post the two of these for comparison?
Using adventure and community to challenge young people to continually say "yes" to God
0 -
Excellent question. Anyone?Bruce Dunning said:Don Awalt said:If you compare the two table of contents, they are totally different. It's very comprehensive though!
Does anyone have a link or can post the two of these for comparison?
0 -
Here are photos of the New Jerome Biblical Commentary table of contents:
0 -
Here is the old Jerome Commentary that is in Logos:
0 -
Thanks for posting these Don. Did you reach any conclusions when you compared the two?
Using adventure and community to challenge young people to continually say "yes" to God
0 -
I am no theologian, but given Raymond Brown's involvement as editor of both, I think the benefit of having the newer one in Logos would be tremendous!
0 -
Don Awalt said:
I am no theologian, but given Raymond Brown's involvement as editor of both, I think the benefit of having the newer one in Logos would be tremendous!
I would have to agree with your logic but it would also be nice for someone who has both to comment more specifically.
Using adventure and community to challenge young people to continually say "yes" to God
0 -
I am no professional theologian either. Talking about Romans it is very clear the same person (or a reviser choose to start off with the current text). It was a very fine work but ignored Martin Luther , the New edition on this remained the same but added lines (think it was an entire paragraph) discussing how the Agustinian Monk ML was inspired by it to start reform.
-Dan
0 -
Dan Francis said:
the New edition on this remained the same but added lines (think it was an entire paragraph) discussing how the Agustinian Monk ML was inspired by it to start reform.
Would you be able to point me to that discussion? I'm reading through again on this particular commentary and note a very brief mention of Luther in paragraph 12.
0 -
It's been close to 15 years since i compared it…. but i will go grab my NJBC and start up Logos….
0 -
Dan Francis said:
It's been close to 15 years since i compared it…. but i will go grab my NJBC and start up Logos….
Missend Sorry.
And as you see in JBC: Romans paragraph 21;
21 17. God’s uprightness is disclosed: The gospel now manifests, as never before, God’s basic attitude toward men—or better, God’s activity in reconciling men to himself in Christ. Apart from this gospel only divine wrath is revealed (1:18ff.). This contrast of “uprightness” and “wrath” suggests that Paul is speaking of a quality in God. This is the sense of dikaiosynē theou elsewhere in Rom (3:5, 21, 22, 25, 26; 10:3), although it is not always such in Paul’s letters (cf. Phil 3:9; 2 Cor 5:21, where it refers to something communicated to men). It is the gospel that reveals the salvific uprightness of God (→ Pauline Theology, 79:37). from faith to faith: This literal translation reveals the problem of a much-debated phrase. Certainly inadequate are the interpretations of Tertullian, Origen (“from faith in the Law to faith in the Gospel”), and of Ambrosiaster (“from God’s faithfulness to man’s faith”), since the use of the two prepositions (ek…eis) with the same word usually supposes the identical meaning of the word so governed (cf. 2 Cor. 2:16; 3:18; Ps 83:8). Two interpretations are current: (1) “from a beginning faith to a more Perfect faith” (Lagrange, Huby). This exploits the notion of progress often associated with these prepositions. God’s economy of salvation is shared more and more by man as his faith grows. (2) “Through faith and for faith.” This interpretation follows the development in 3:21-22 where a similar progress of thought is found. “Through [ek] faith” would express the means by which man shares in salvation; “for [eis] faith” the purpose in the divine plan, when man’s reaction is considered. In either case, salvation is a matter, not of the Law, but of faith from start to finish. as it is written: In Scripture. Paul introduces his OT quotations by using current Jewish introductory formulas (see J. A. Fitzmyer, NTS 7 [1960-61] 297-333). the upright shall live by faith: Hab 2:4, quoted neither according to the MT (“The upright shall live by his fidelity”), nor according to the LXX (mss. B, S: “The upright will live by my faithfulness”; mss. A, C: “My upright one will live by faith”). In the original, the coming Chaldean invaders, whose god is their might, are contrasted with Judah, whose deliverance lies in fidelity to Yahweh. Habakkuk is ordered to record Yahweh’s message: He who is puffed up (with confidence) will fail, but the upright will live by his fidelity (to Yahweh). Paul omits the possessive pronoun, and adopts the LXX translation of the Hebr ’emûnāh (fidelity, faith), i.e., pistis, which, of course, he understands in his own way. The “life” promised to Judah was temporal deliverance from the invader. But Paul extends the sense of both “life” and “faith” in terms of Christian destiny and salvation. Some NT exegetes (e.g., Kuss) link “by faith” to “upright” (i.e., he who is justified through faith [NEB]). This agrees with Paul’s thought, but it really forces the meaning of the phrase in Hab.
The NJBC is much more detailed. NJBC has the phrase "as Luther the monk once understood it." The paragraph as you can see in the original is roughly only 1/3 the length of the current one. I realize I misspoke in my emphasizing an important place for Martin Luther in the NJBC, to me at the time mentioning him and identifying him as a monk rather than the excommunicated reformer, was a way of acknowledging the important role verse 17 played in Luther's theology (and indeed leading to catholic understanding in the eventual counter-reformation, in my mind).
Paragraph 12 in the introduction is identical from my quick scanning over of the two. I may get my scanner out and scan the paragraph if it's desired but I don't have the time now.
-Dan
0 -
Dan Francis said:
The NJBC is much more detailed, has the phrase "as Luther the monk once understood it."
Thanks, I do see that in the text. Historically correct, Luther was a monk. I'm not sure from the text above that Fr. Fitzmeyer uses the term "execumincated reformer", notwithstanding the historical accuracy of that also. He may, I'm just not seeing that. Is Fr. Fitzmeyer the author of the JBC article also?
I would have to do more work understanding the impact of verse 1:17 on Luther's theology. Could very well hold a siginificant place. I'm less certain on its application to the counter-reformation. Lot's of different things going on in the period of time.
Could you point me to some resouces on that subject?
0 -
Steve said:
I'm not sure from the text above that Fr. Fitzmeyer uses the term "execumincated reformer",
I am quite sure he would't use it, I am saying it was worded in such a way as not to deny or even offer objected to Luther's theology.
Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification - Wikipedia
Should offer you a brief but good outlook on things, you can read the original declaration with links from there.
-Dan
PS: I meant to include
Preface to Romans by Martin Luther as well...
PPS:http://www.logos.com/product/7148/the-reformation-roots-and-ramifications may help as well… I own this work but have not read it or really even referred to it yet.
0 -
Thanks for the links. This should keep me busy for a while.
0 -
Steve said:
Historically correct, Luther was a monk.
Actually, while in his time he was viewed as a monk and spoke of himself as a monk, he technically was a friar - but that is probably serious nitpicking to point that out.
Steve said:Could you point me to some resouces on that subject?
You have already been pointed to JDDJ. See the Appendix to that document for additional resources.
It is debatable how much of a "breakthrough" it is. The actual document doesn't claim to settle everything, and both sides show tension with it. See http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_01081998_off-answer-catholic_en.html for the Vatican side, From the Lutheran side the LCMS has in English a critique that seems to give a summary of many concerns from many sources... (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=lcms%20joint%20declaration&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lcms.org%2FDocument.fdoc%3Fsrc%3Dlcm%26id%3D339&ei=NfxrUYrvEoqEyAHO_IBA&usg=AFQjCNG2hMn5J5qL6shJgOyOhJsikWZmwQ&cad=rja) Logia, a Lutheran Theological journal, devoted an issue to the document about 4 years or so ago. - but all these can get rather technical from the theology and church history side of things.
Probably of more interest to Logos users would be Rereading Paul Together, ed. David Aune, published by Baker, and the US Lutheran Catholic support volume, Righteousness in the New Testament. Already in Logos is Juengel's book long response to this - Justification, but it is quite pricy.
For your actual question, the booklet of Hans Iwand "The Righteousness of Faith According to Luther" was translated into English rather recently. (The German original is from 1941). It was originally available as articles in the Lutheran Quarterly, but seems to have been gathered together by Wipf and Stock. I was a subscriber to Lutheran Quarterly and so only read those articles (with GREAT interest) and have never bothered with the book form.
By Faith Alone, a Festschift for Gerhard O. Forde, has many essays that would be of interest on this topic as well.
I suppose I should mention Kung's book comparing Justification in Trent and Karl Barth, as well as the extensive Historical work done by the late George Tavard as well, for how this text influenced the Counter-Reformation.
SDG
Ken McGuire
The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann
L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials
L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze
0 -
Thank you Ken for the additional links.
0
... we lost the rights to the Jerome Biblical Commentary, and the Vatican II Documents were in a third-party product from Liturgical Press in 1997 that has since been retired. We’re looking into resurrecting both of these at some point, but no guarantees that that will happen.