What are some of the best resources Logos has for in-depth study on Biblical Backgrounds. I have many but wanted to get other users feedback in this area. TIA
Of course there are many that could be mentioned. Although not super in-depth, I like these because they are laid out as a commentary on every passage in the Bible so it is easy to find out information quickly.
https://www.logos.com/product/18658/ivp-bible-background-commentary-old-testament
https://www.logos.com/product/18657/ivp-bible-background-commentary-new-testament
It all depends on exactly what you want:
Cheapest resources are the ones you already own. Use the Background information contained in commentaries. NAC, BECNT, EBC, PNTC, College Press NIV and other commentaries already give you great background information. The IVP commentaries are awesome, but without the pictures of the Zondervan volumes, but still, use what you already have and you'll be surprised with the information you'll find and the money you'll save.
Let me ask you: What's included in the "Many" that you have? What are some of the volumes you own for Background Studies? Do you use them all to their full potential, if not what else are you looking for? Do you need more if you barely use what you already have?
Anyway, there's a lot of good volumes out there, but try using what you already have and if you're not happy, then you can choose to always add more. [:)] [Y]
DAL
I agree with Bruce on the value of the IVP Background references. You should use a Bible Dictionary such as NBD or ISBE.as well, but you can find yourself on first base with the IVP references.If the background is very significant, spend more time digging around. What you find out will dramatically improve your understanding.
Question:
How do the following works differ and which one would you choose if you'd buy just one of them?
Of the two Apocrypha/Pseudepigrapha books, there's no competition. Buy Charlesworth over Charles. Charles is dated and over-priced. Charlesworth has better essays, more text-critical and other notes, and is more comprehensive. Charles only has two advantages: (1) it's included in some base packages (2) It includes apocryphal books (but you probably have most of these in your library already, from other sources).
ANET vs COS is more difficult. COS is much more comprehensive (but also more expensive). ANET is older, but it's a really standard reference work that's cited in many other resources. This search will tell you how many ANET references you have in your library (I have 14,770 excluding internal links). COS is a newer work, and therefore referenced less (I have 3,606 excluding internal links). Unfortunately, only a handful of resources cite both ANET and COS, so if you want the benefit of linking from other resources you really need both. That's a shame because there's little in ANET that's not in COS. But if you just want access to the primary sources, then COS is much more comprehensive (although the price reflects that).
Interesting search results, Mark.
I get 7,342 for ANET and 6,289 for COS. I get 2,357 hits for a combined search looking for both in the same resource. So, as I'd expect and you suggest, you really would need both if you want to look up the references.
Did you subtract the links from one volume of COS to the other? I did, as I felt that wasn't a fair comparison otherwise?
Doing that I get 2612 hits for COS.
I should note that I don't own ANET so wouldn't have any internal hits in the ANET count I gave.
Thanks Mark, this is helpful information!
How do I do these searches?
This search will tell you how many ANET references you have in your library (I have 14,770 excluding internal links). COS is a newer work, and therefore referenced less (I have 3,606 excluding internal links).
Ok, it worked now. First it just opened another tap in internet explorer because it couldn't find Logos. I'm working with different operating systems at the same time.
Available Now
Build your biblical library with a new trusted commentary or resource every month. Yours to keep forever.
