AYBC Sale... help picking some

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1032393#Comment_1032393

Thanks MM. I'm leaning towards the Leviticus ones but of course there is 3 so that is $60 right there!

Milkman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1032395#Comment_1032395

Yes, but if you can afford it that's a big savings. Especially if you "need" them for study. [who really NEEDS more books though?].

As for me? I don't need anymore books. I simply want them. Do I really need 15 or 20 commentaries/monographs etc on Romans? or 20 or so books on Genesis? No!

But alas, I am a confessing bookaholic [:(] [:D].

Now to wait for the next big sale on Commentaries and especially on John and the book of Revelation. Can't wait.

They are very scholarly and thorough commentaries that are helpful even if you personally are not "liberal" (whatever that means to you). They work in the original languages, provide their own translation, have extensive introductions with background and outlines, address all of the major issues in the text you need to be aware of, and have in-depth verse-by-verse discussion. And you can mine their very extensive bibliographies for more resources. They aren't for casual bible study but are great if you're doing in-depth research on a text.

As for must haves, I'd say the ones on Romans and 1 Corinthians by Joseph Fitzmyer would rank high, and anything by Luke Timothy Johnson. As you said, bestcommenaries.com will show you which ones are the best ones in the series. Since I'm studying Hebrews right now I'm thinking about getting that volume, which is ranked pretty high on bestcommentaries.com. Although I also want Luke Timothy Johnson's volume on James (I used that one in seminary for a paper and it was extremely helpful).

These commentaries are not just used by "liberals," they are for scholars and students in general (i.e. they are for academic use). Scholars that would identify as more "conservative" use them and site them in their own work. Seminary students are expected to consult this series for their exegesis papers since the series is so thorough, scholarly, and respected. It's a quality series, and of course you don't have to agree with everything you read. As has already been said, just read critically as you would/should read anything else. But they are excellent resources even if for the original translations, introductions, outlines, and bibliographies. But the commentary itself is extremely helpful. I'd recommend picking up a couple volumes from the NT and OT for you to get a good sampling. Try the OT volumes on Isaiah and Ezekiel, I've used those for school on two big exegesis papers and they were great.

https://www.logos.com/product/51762/anchor-yale-bible-new-testament

Actually, if you can afford it, the whole New Testament set is on sale for almost 50% off, whereas the whole series is not as big of a sale (only 20%). I own 4 NT volumes already and the price of the whole NT set is just $465.26 for me.

If I had the money I'd get the whole NT set, but alas I'll only be able to get 1 volume.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1032414#Comment_1032414

Wow thanks for that! I would agree it is good to read a broad range as well so I'll dip my toes in the aybc water.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1032414#Comment_1032414

Thanks! That helps

Lew Worthington

They are very scholarly and thorough commentaries that are helpful even if you personally are not "liberal" (whatever that means to you). They work in the original languages, provide their own translation, have extensive introductions with background and outlines, address all of the major issues in the text you need to be aware of, and have in-depth verse-by-verse discussion. And you can mine their very extensive bibliographies for more resources. They aren't for casual bible study but are great if you're doing in-depth research on a text....Scholars that would identify as more "conservative" use them and site them in their own work....

Well stated, Kiyah. I can conceive of some folks being against "critical" (an unfortunate term, perhaps) approaches in general; I even know some. I'm even related to some! But otherwise, many of these volumes do a good job of getting the academic conversation started.

Leviticus (Milgrom)

Jonah (Sasson)

Habakkuk (Anderson)

Luke (Fitzmyer)

Acts (Futzmyer)

John (Brown)

Romans (Fitzmyer)

1 Corinthians (Fitzmyer)

Philemon (Fitzmyer)

Ephesians (Barth)

1-3 John (Brown)

Revelation (Koester)

So Jonathan, would you recommend the volume on Hebrews (also by Koester)? Or is it at least worth the $20 sale price?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1032476#Comment_1032476

So Jonathan, would you recommend the volume on Hebrews (also by Koester)? Or is it at least worth the $20 sale price?

I can't say firsthand, but Don Carson talks this commentary up a lot in his commentary evaluation book. He says it rivals Attridge (Hermeneia) and Lane (WBC) and is much better than deSilva's socio-rhetorical commentary. That is pretty high praise. I am tempted to pick this up myself.

Great! Thanks, I'll be picking that one up then.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1032414#Comment_1032414

Just adding, AYB was selective in author choices, for specific (peculiar?) skills.

If you enjoy Andersen-Forbes, the 4 minor prophets were the usual, except Andersen highlights from his skill-set. In my mind, the Habbakuk was the best.

Nahum by Christensen went into considerable depth on logoprosodic analysis.

Another example was the Malachi volume by Hill, heavily illustrated, with critical hebrew depth (vs middle east).

'Liberal'? More along the lines of curious.

Friedrich

Leviticus (Milgrom)

I have seen a few people recommend this. What makes it good?

Puddin’

As for must haves, I'd say the ones on Romans and 1 Corinthians by Joseph Fitzmyer would rank high, and anything by Luke Timothy Johnson. As you said, bestcommenaries.com will show you which ones are the best ones in the series. Since I'm studying Hebrews right now I'm thinking about getting that volume, which is ranked pretty high on bestcommentaries.com. Although I also want Luke Timothy Johnson's volume on James (I used that one in seminary for a paper and it was extremely helpful).

Excellent review. Not sure if you’re aware or not, but William Varner recently put out an exegetical commentary on James (https://www.logos.com/product/16439/the-book-of-james-a-new-perspective). I have it and like it so far.

I am always dubious when I hear the term “liberal” inasmuch as this seems like a mere term of derision targeting anyone who doesn’t agree w. someone’s pet theology. I will be completely transparent and openly state that I identify as a Oneness Pentecostal theologically (& trust me, we’be endured our share of straw man attacks 🙄).

But, I am very interested in these works and really would like to spring for entire set (I never see it dip below ca. $1,500 though 😢).

Anyway, fair and balanced review 👍.

NB.Mick

Also, if you are studying the Apocryphal books, this set is one of the only ones to cover them in detail.

This was what got me thinking...

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1032518#Comment_1032518

Also, if you are studying the Apocryphal books, this set is one of the only ones to cover them in detail.

This was what got me thinking...

I use the Wisdom one quite a bit; Paul parallels.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1032498#Comment_1032498

Leviticus (Milgrom)

I have seen a few people recommend this. What makes it good?

I haven't looked at them yet but Denver seminary says: *Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 1-16. AB 3. Doubleday, 1991. Leviticus 17-22. AB 3A. Doubleday, 2000. Leviticus 23-27. AB 3B. Doubleday, 2001. The fruit of a life time of study by a major biblical scholar, this work provides the most detailed and thorough exegesis available, with full reference to comparative ancient Near Eastern, Qumran, Dead Sea Scroll, and Rabbinic sources.

https://denverseminary.edu/resources/news-and-articles/annotated-old-testament-bibliography-2018/

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1032567#Comment_1032567

Also, if you are studying the Apocryphal books, this set is one of the only ones to cover them in detail.

This was what got me thinking...

I use the Wisdom one quite a bit; Paul parallels.

Good point. I may have to look at the Wisdom one since I do find myself in Wisdom a lot in the course of studying the New Testament. A lot of stuff links back to Wisdom. Too bad I already bought the Hebrews volume and I'm trying to be disciplined. [:(]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1032501#Comment_1032501

I am always dubious when I hear the term “liberal” inasmuch as this seems like a mere term of derision targeting anyone who doesn’t agree w. someone’s pet theology.

Precisely. I don't think liberal/conservative are helpful categories when assessing academic works because those terms tell you nothing about the quality of the scholarship. Also, "liberal" does seem to be a convenient label people place on stuff as a means of justifying the easy dismissal without examination/engagement of perspectives they may disagree with. It also seems to be a way people "scare" other people away from reading different perspectives. The original poster said people said to "stay away" from AYB because they are liberal. That's a shame that people think that way.

I didn't want to get into all that and was trying to be more diplomatic, but since you brought it up I couldn't resist...pray for me. [;)]

J. Remington Bowling

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1032574#Comment_1032574

The terms "conservative" and "fundamentalist" are often used in the same way. And if "liberal" is really such a hard term to pin down then, logically, the same would have to be said for conservative or fundamentalist since the terms are understood in relation to one another. Yet I've occasionally seen people using these terms without much qualms.

In reality, it's not very hard to understand what these terms mean (and pretending otherwise is usually just a matter of rhetorical convenience). The terms tell you about the scholar's priors, "quality of scholarship" aside. Nor is it very hard to understand why someone in one camp might not be interested in spending a chunk of change and time on a resource coming from a perspective that they already know they disagree with. Yes, it's always good to hear the other side, but it's a bit of scholarly platitude to pretend as if we are or even can always do this. Sometimes one just wants a resource that they can have more trust in the author's priors. People who are new to certain areas of study generally should stay away from sources that are less trusted within their epistemic framework. That's just a common sense way in which we go about knowing. We start with those we know and trust and move out to the boundaries from there.

I, however, am very glad to be getting Fitzmyer's Romans commentary and some of the Deuterocanonical commentaries. Great sale! Wish Faithlife would spread these out more evenly throughout the year.

Michael S.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1032574#Comment_1032574

I cant speak for everyone else, but for me the label "liberal" means the author does not believe in the supernatural, and/or the divine inspiration of the Scriptures and/or that the Scriptures are infallible, inerrant and divinely preserved. So if a scholar is in that camp, then I define them as liberal.

This does not mean their work is compromised, but it does mean their conclusions, or their criticisms and applications of the truths are going to be filtered by their lens. One can be an excellent student and scholar of a subject, but if they believe the subject to be inherently fiction, it will affect the way they see that subject impacting their worldview and life's values.

So, it should not be a derogatory label, just a classification so one knows if the expert believes the subject matter to be authoritative or merely cultural.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1032600#Comment_1032600

The terms tell you about the scholar's priors, "quality of scholarship" aside. Nor is it very hard to understand why someone in one camp might not be interested in spending a chunk of change and time on a resource coming from a perspective that they already know they disagree with. Yes, it's always good to hear the other side, but it's a bit of scholarly platitude to pretend as if we are or even can always do this. Sometimes one just wants a resource that they can have more trust in the author's priors. People who are new to certain areas of study generally should stay away from sources that are less trusted within their epistemic framework. That's just a common sense way in which we go about knowing. We start with those we know and trust and move out to the boundaries from there.

I agree that it's good to know what perspective the scholar is coming from, and that definitely should not be ignored since it will help you read their works with greater understanding. My point was that liberal vs. conservative are not the most helpful in assessing the quality and usefulness (or lack thereof) of a work. And how would someone ever know how helpful the AYB series is for the specific purposes I mentioned in my first post if they took the advice of "staying away" from them because they've been labeled "liberal." Knowing something is liberal/conservative may help you be more efficient in how you read and use a resource (e.g. if you're conservative you may use AYB for the background/context/textual insights but may not be drawing as much from the author's exegetical conclusions if they don't fit your theology). However, I don't think it's helpful or healthy to write a resource off completely and consider them a waste of time, or even dangerous stuff to "stay away from" based on liberal and conservative labels.

And I just don't think it's a waste of time to read and learn from other perspectives that I disagree with. How do you even know what it is you're disagreeing with? Or how do you know that certain perspectives have even been accurately represented by the folks that told you to "stay away." You don't know unless you study things for yourself. It doesn't mean you have to read everything ever written that disagrees with your perspective. My point is simply that liberal and conservative are not the most helpful in gauging quality of scholarship and usefulness for particular purposes. Terms like academic, popular, critical, technical, pastoral, expository, devotional, or applicational are more helpful in assessing usefulness at least. Quality of scholarship may be less relevant with non-technical devotional resources since they aren't trying to be scholarly. But that's not to say that the liberal/conservative categories aren't relevant at all, it's just to say that those aren't the best categories to assess a resource's quality, usefulness, and whether one should spend time reading it or should "stay away." Liberal/Conservative become more relevant if you're looking for theological perspective and personal application. But you first had to decide what you're using the commentary for, then determine whether a liberal or conservative commentary would useful for that specific purpose.

The issue of "trust" for me is based on what I'm using the resource for, so I'm not sure how to respond there. And how will a person ever move out from their starting point to broaden their perspective if they're told to "stay away" from stuff that others have labeled "liberal" for them. And I personally know some folks who are so conservative that everyone who disagrees with them is called liberal (including people who identify themselves as conservative), so the usage of the terms liberal and conservative aren't as universal and as easy to nail down as you suggest, depending on who is using the terms, so I disagree with you there.

Michael S.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1032635#Comment_1032635

Knowing something is liberal/conservative may help you be more efficient in how you read and use a resource (e.g. if you're conservative you may use AYB for the background/context/textual insights but may not be drawing as much from the author's exegetical conclusions if they don't fit your theology). However, I don't think it's helpful or healthy to write a resource off completely and consider them a waste of time, or even dangerous stuff to "stay away from" based on liberal and conservative labels.

Agreed!

How do you even know what it is you're disagreeing with? Or how do you know that certain perspectives have even been accurately represented by the folks that told you to "stay away." You don't know unless you study things for yourself. It doesn't mean you have to read everything ever written that disagrees with your perspective.

Also Agreed! Good sound advice.

And I personally know some folks who are so conservative that everyone who disagrees with them is called liberal (including people who identify themselves as conservative),

Yes, words matter along with their context and connotations. This is a sad example, but I know people do it all the time. We are taught to fear that which is different from us. We are called to engage and weigh and think these things through. Of course, I am Berean on this issue- so thinking through according to the Scriptures is what is needed.

Great advice here.

J. Remington Bowling

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1032635#Comment_1032635

My point was that liberal vs. conservative are not the most helpful in assessing the quality and usefulness (or lack thereof) of a work.

That depends on if you think the liberal or the conservative priors are well-aimed at truth. If you think the priors of a fundamentalist are counter-productive at getting at the truth, then obviously whether or not someone is a fundamentalist will be helpful in assessing the quality and usefulness of the work. I say helpful, not that it will be a perfect rule for filtering out all that is not useful while allowing only that which is useful to get through.

And how would someone ever know how helpful the AYB series is for the specific purposes I mentioned in my first post if they took the advice of "staying away" from them because they've been labeled "liberal."

Right. Clearly at some point someone will need to read the resource or talk to the author to know what position the resource/author is coming from. Presumably this has already been done in the case of AYBC, as evidenced in part by the responses in this thread.

However, I don't think it's helpful or healthy to write a resource off completely and consider them a waste of time, or even dangerous stuff to "stay away from" based on liberal and conservative labels.

That may make perfect sense given your own theological, epistemic framekwork. But, to shift spheres for (I hope) a helpful analogy: Just as it may make perfect sense for, say, a political moderate to think we shouldn't write off, say, Kamala Harris or Donald Trump as a complete waste of time. But from the perspective of a hard leftist or a hard Trump supporter it makes much more sense to think they know enough about the opposition and the issues that they don't have to waste time reading Donald Trump's (or Kamala Harris's) latest book.

Please note: With my analogy I'm not trying to peg you as a moderate on the theological spectrum or imply that theological conservatives or liberals fall along the same entrenched sort of partisan lines as political activists. [:P] I'm simply using a more at-hand example to capture the abstract points that whether or not writing a certain resource off may make more or less sense depending on where you are standing in relation to that camp.

And how will a person ever move out from their starting point to broaden their perspective if they're told to "stay away" from stuff that others have labeled "liberal" for them.

Even if we take "stay away" as a universal rule, where the person is given a definite reading list that they can't move beyond, it would still be possible for the person to use their own rational faculties to assess the arguments. Granted, it would be much harder for the person to certain flaws in reasoning that may be presented to them. I'm just pointing out that it's possible for a person to be presented a certain claim or set of claims and reject them, having never studied others who made contrary claims.

However, I really don't think the OP was suggesting such a universal principle. Just as you aren't suggesting that, as a universal principle, liberal v conservative is not a helpful framework in any context.

so the usage of the terms liberal and conservative aren't as universal and as easy to nail down as you suggest, depending on who is using the terms, so I disagree with you there.

I didn't mean to imply that the terms were universal or universally easy to nail down. Obvious examples of the terms having different meanings would be politics and, then, which country's politics. But in this sense, almost no terms are universal or easy to nail down! Take for instance Wittgenstein's "game". I guess my point is that "liberal" and "conservative" theological positions among Western Christianity are no more uniquely difficult to define than other words we use quite effectively.

I basically agree with the rest of what you say and appreciate the clarity. I would just reiterate that the "you have to read all sides before you can know" platitude, as a universal rule, isn't realistic with what we can accomplish and it isn't realistic with how we actually go about knowing. There are circumstances where you can be expected to "read both sides" (to a certain extent) and should do so. Whether that applies to the person in this thread who originally asked the question... I have no idea.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1032572#Comment_1032572

Leviticus (Milgrom)

I have seen a few people recommend this. What makes it good?

It's worth knowing that Milgrom was a Conservative Jewish rabbi, and doesn't interpret the Old Testament christologically, or in the light of the NT.* He's not the only one, of course. Many of the Old Testament critical commentators take a similar stance.

If the purpose of all of Scripture is to point to Jesus Christ, Milgrom (and other exegetes who take a similar stance) miss the main point — however good their exegesis and understanding of cultic background and so on.

I'm not saying that it's therefore not useful at all — I own it, and use it — but it's worth knowing before purchase.

* As a comparison, in Gordon Wenham's NICOT volume on Leviticus, 22% of references to other parts of the Bible are to the NT. In Milgrom's three volumes it's 0.6%.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1032630#Comment_1032630

I cant speak for everyone else, but for me the label "liberal" means the author does not believe in the supernatural, and/or the divine inspiration of the Scriptures and/or that the Scriptures are infallible, inerrant and divinely preserved. So if a scholar is in that camp, then I define them as liberal.

This does not mean their work is compromised, but it does mean their conclusions, or their criticisms and applications of the truths are going to be filtered by their lens. One can be an excellent student and scholar of a subject, but if they believe the subject to be inherently fiction, it will affect the way they see that subject impacting their worldview and life's values.

So, it should not be a derogatory label, just a classification so one knows if the expert believes the subject matter to be authoritative or merely cultural.

Yes this is what I meant with the term liberal and pardon my ignorance in this matter. I'm just a layman who likes to study with no seminary training. I hope no offense was taken. For me, and how I've learned from others, I prefer to stick to the "conservative" side in my readings though this is not to say I don't read "the other side." With the money I have to spend I try to stick to the parameters mentioned above. There is more I'd like to say but then the forum police will smack my nose with a newspaper. 😄

This thread has been immensely helpful to me so thank you. I wound up taking the three Leviticus volumes in hopes to better understand Jewish customs and history.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1032641#Comment_1032641

* As a comparison, in Gordon Wenham's NICOT volume on Leviticus, 22% of references to other parts of the Bible are to the NT. In Milgrom's three volumes it's 0.6%.

Wow that is fascinating! How did you figure that out?

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1032501#Comment_1032501

Puddin’ (It feels weird calling you what your wife calls you 😂),

Anyway, check your upgrade price to Standard Portfolio. It might be cheaper to get it that way and you’ll get a ton more resources for the price 👍😁👌

DAL

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1032649#Comment_1032649

* As a comparison, in Gordon Wenham's NICOT volume on Leviticus, 22% of references to other parts of the Bible are to the NT. In Milgrom's three volumes it's 0.6%.

Wow that is fascinating! How did you figure that out?

I used the Concordance Tool.

Friedrich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1032649#Comment_1032649

* As a comparison, in Gordon Wenham's NICOT volume on Leviticus, 22% of references to other parts of the Bible are to the NT. In Milgrom's three volumes it's 0.6%.

Wow that is fascinating! How did you figure that out?

First, both of you thank you for your thoughts. Mark I had read he was a rabbi but wasn't aware of what flavor. Mattillo, if you hadn't just referred to Mark's last line I would have completely missed it. because it was italicized I think I just thought it was a signature line and skipped over it. Incidentally I have Wenham's work. I'll likely pass, for now, on Migrom, only because there are more pressing books I want to get. But Leviticus intrigues me and I would eventually like to do more work in it.

Puddin’

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1032655#Comment_1032655

Puddin’ (It feels weird calling you what your wife calls you 😂),

Anyway, check your upgrade price to Standard Portfolio. It might be cheaper to get it that way and you’ll get a ton more resources for the price 👍😁👌

DAL

Good idea. Thank you much. (BTW, I literally LOL when I read your post about Puddin’ 😜.)

Alan

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1032687#Comment_1032687

Which of the Deuteroconical volumes would you prioritize?

Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1032969#Comment_1032969

The Anchor Yale Bible (AYB) sale is an opportunity to pick up some good commentaries!

While I’ve already most of the AYB set, there’s one book in the series that seems not to be included in this sale:

W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann Matthew: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (Yale University Press, 1995)

It’s currently at $US55 and you can see it at:

https://www.logos.com/product/162594/matthew-introduction-translation-and-notes

I’d love to see this book included in this sale!

How about it Faithlife? Keep well Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1032969#Comment_1032969

Which of the Deuteroconical volumes would you prioritize?

Alan, not sure your query.

If prioritize in my library, I keep the AYB tops; my other commentary choices are much older (Deuterocanon)

If prioritize for purchase, it depends on your needs:

- Studying Paul, Wisdom of Solomon

- Jewish pre-1st century thinking: Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)

- Pre-1st-century history: Macabbees (though Josephus more common)

Alan

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1032987#Comment_1032987

Prioritize was probably a bad choice of words. I was thinking of prioritizing in terms of which ones would be first in terms of purchasing as far as quality/importance as a general study resource if only a couple could be purchased. Not so much as far as prioritize inside Logos.

Thanks

Alan

J. Remington Bowling

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1032989#Comment_1032989

Just noticed this, for anyone interested in picking up Koester's Revelation commentary: https://www.logos.com/product/156300/revelation-and-the-end-of-all-things-second-edition

Brad

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1033201#Comment_1033201

Thanks, Remington! Good find. I had overlooked that one.

Rick Ausdahl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1033201#Comment_1033201

Just noticed this, for anyone interested in picking up Koester's Revelation commentary: https://www.logos.com/product/156300/revelation-and-the-end-of-all-things-second-edition

Does anyone know how this shorter commentary by Koester on Revelation compares with his Anchor commentary? I.e. At 226 pages, is it basically a highly summarized version of the 923 page Anchor commentary?

I have a pre-pub order placed for his shorter commentary, but at the Anchor sale price, I'm interested in his Anchor commentary and am wondering if there's much value in keeping the order for the shorter commentary. If anyone is familiar with both, do you see much benefit in having the shorter version if one owns the Anchor version?

Roy

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1033421#Comment_1033421

Rick,

I found that I have his (Koster's) 1st edition in Logos.

An example, the section for Rev 3:14-22 on Laodicea is 4 paragraphs long about 2 pages.
The Anchor Yale edition is some 10 pages long and includes a couple photos of some period coins.

If you would like a specific example I can try to provide it for you.

Roy

Rick Ausdahl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1033449#Comment_1033449

Rick,

I found that I have his (Koster's) 1st edition in Logos.

An example, the section for Rev 3:14-22 on Laodicea is 4 paragraphs long about 2 pages.
The Anchor Yale edition is some 10 pages long and includes a couple photos of some period coins.

If you would like a specific example I can try to provide it for you.

Roy

Thank you, Roy!

I can probably get by without a specific example, but I do have a question. Does the shorter (non Anchor) version provide verse-by-verse coverage or is it more of a section-by-section coverage?

Roy

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1033519#Comment_1033519

Honestly, it appears to be more of a section by section. When he is writing about something from a specific verse, the verses address is handled parenthetically given at the end of his discussion.

e.g.

The Kingdom of the Lord (11:15–19)
John prefaces the blowing of the seventh trumpet with the warning that “woe” is coming; but in predictably unpredictable fashion he follows that warning of woe with a song of celebration rather than a lament. John raises readers’ expectations by announcements of things to come, but as soon as he establishes a pattern, he alters it so that readers cannot be confident of their own abilities to anticipate what God will do next. Earlier, John said that three “woes” would come, one at the sound of each remaining trumpet (8:13). When the fifth trumpet blew and a horde of locusts appeared, John indicated that the first “woe” had occurred (9:12). Therefore, when the sixth trumpet leads to the deaths of a third of humanity, readers might expect John to announce that the second “woe” has occurred, but John does not do so. Instead, he strangely delays the announcement of the second “woe” until a lesser judgment has occurred and humanity gives glory to God (11:13–14).

Hope this helps.

edit: emphasized the verse references in red...

Rick Ausdahl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1033558#Comment_1033558

Thank you, Roy! Great example.

The short version looks like it could be good for use in a group Bible study where the goal is to get a good handle on the big picture with some interesting details thrown in, or even as a good launching point for a personal study where a person wants to clearly see the forest before examining the trees.

It gets exciting when you get a pre-pub transaction notification on AYB Amos for $29.95 during a AYB sale month of $19.99!

Not complaining...just say'n.

So there is an AYBC sale going on at the moment. I don't have any AYBCs and I've had people tell me to stay away from them because they tend to lean on the liberal side. Anyone have any thoughts on "must haves"? There are quite a few ranked high on Best Commentaries but I know that rating system isn't the best at times. Thanks in advance

https://www.logos.com/anchor-yale-bible-sale

First off, I haven't read this entire thread yet, so I'm almost certain somebody has said essentially the same thing I'm about to say. So, bear with me, I guess.

Second, I'm conservative. In fact, I imagine for most people in here, I would be right there with the fundamentalist crazies, even though I don't associate with what has come to be known as fundamentalism in the past 10 years or so. I'm a Baptist, used to be Independent Fundamental Baptist, but now I'm more Southern Baptist in doctrine, Calvinist, etc. I'm pretty picky about books.

Third, in regards to the AYB, the general consensus is some volumes are not worth the time it takes to throw them in the trash. However, some are standards in Biblical research and should be treated as such. The AYB Leviticus Milgrom volumes are not going to be replaced in the level of scholarship in the world of commentaries for the foreseeable future, but maybe even ever. With that being said, Milgrom was lost. He was a Rabbi. So, what can we get from those commentaries. Do your research, there is a reason those three volumes are the 900 pound gorilla in the room of commentaries. There is 2,700~ pages in those three volumes commenting on the "Levitical cult" from the point of view of a very conservative research Rabbi. Think about it. No, he's not going to show you Jesus in the Tabernacle, but think about it. We still have other great conservative Leviticus commentaries to get what we need where we need it. With all this being said, if you told me I would spend money to buy these three volumes and the commentator was not even born-again, I would scoff and call you insane. Have some balance. Buy the three Leviticus commentaries and learn something you could not learn anywhere else.

I'm certain there are other commentaries in the AYB series which are nearly as or even as seminal as the AYB for their respective book. I know the Amos commentary that just came out (1,024 pages for a 10 page book of the Bible), is supposed to be a respected as the Milgrom volumes, but I don't know that personally.

I tend to buy commentary sets. Just like I tend to buy albums of music and not individual songs. But, with the AYB, I will step aside from my habits and buy a la carte.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1033624#Comment_1033624

Thank you Wilson. You and I have similar thoughts. I bought the Leviticus commentaries and I'm excited to learn more about Judaism through them

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1032574#Comment_1032574

I am always dubious when I hear the term “liberal” inasmuch as this seems like a mere term of derision targeting anyone who doesn’t agree w. someone’s pet theology.

Precisely. I don't think liberal/conservative are helpful categories when assessing academic works because those terms tell you nothing about the quality of the scholarship. Also, "liberal" does seem to be a convenient label people place on stuff as a means of justifying the easy dismissal without examination/engagement of perspectives they may disagree with. It also seems to be a way people "scare" other people away from reading different perspectives. The original poster said people said to "stay away" from AYB because they are liberal. That's a shame that people think that way.

I didn't want to get into all that and was trying to be more diplomatic, but since you brought it up I couldn't resist...pray for me.

I'll get specific. Liberal is a very, very (and I don't like using the word very) overused word.

Liberal is denying the fundamentals of the faith. Don't overcorrect and read "fundamentalism," as the connotation of these words have changed, especially in the past 20 years.

The blood atonement. The trinity. Virgin birth. The miracles in the Bible. The resurrection. The Ascension of Christ. Jesus Christ was 100% God and 100% man. The inspiration (verbal, plenary for me, but maybe not for you) of the Scriptures. Salvation by Faith alone. etc. I could get a WHOLE lot more detailed than that, but when you get off this basic reservation, then you're liberal in my opinion. Liberal is not whether or not you let your kids go to a movie theater.

I think it's safe to say Jacob Milgrom (AYB Leviticus) was a liberal and thusly produced a liberal work.

Mike Tourangeau

Leviticus (Milgrom)

Jonah (Sasson)

Habakkuk (Anderson)

Luke (Fitzmyer)

Acts (Futzmyer)

John (Brown)

Romans (Fitzmyer)

1 Corinthians (Fitzmyer)

Philemon (Fitzmyer)

Ephesians (Barth)

1-3 John (Brown)

Revelation (Koester)

Can anyone point to any "stand outs" in the Prophets? I have picked up Hebrews and will pick up 2 Samuel but I could use some other voices in the Prophets. Thanks

Puddin’

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1033630#Comment_1033630

Wilson, you stated, “The blood atonement. The trinity. Virgin birth. The miracles in the Bible. The resurrection. The Ascension of Christ. Jesus Christ was 100% God and 100% man. The inspiration (verbal, plenary for me, but maybe not for you) of the Scriptures. Salvation by Faith alone. etc. I could get a WHOLE lot more detailed than that, but when you get off this basic reservation, then you're liberal in my opinion.”

Interesting, for me, I would classify someone liberal that denies or rejects the plain declarations of God-breathed Scripture on any given dogma. But, I am a sola-scriptura fella’.

In light of your post above and based upon the actual words of Scripture itself, there is a WHOLE lot that I could point out...but since this is not a debate forum I will digress.

My point: I guess, just as we stated earlier, the label “liberal” is in the eye of the beholder. Conversely, I equally think that labels do not foster mutual and honest consideration of opposing views.

Regarding the soteriological views of Rabbi’s (i.e., Leviticus) and the author not being born-again, this is something that I have spent a ton of time thinking about. However, at some point I would imagine that all serious students of the Bible have consulted Thayer...who openly rejected the supreme divinity of Christ and His second coming. Walter Bauer had some very esoterical views. Robert Funk led the Jesus Seminar...and on & on I could go. For me personally, I teach the church that I pastor to have a Berean spirit and rigorously analyze the assertions of anyone or anything they read....which I think was your point actually 😊.

Just some midnight ramblings 🤓.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1033630#Comment_1033630

Liberal is denying the fundamentals of the faith. Don't overcorrect and read "fundamentalism," as the connotation of these words have changed, especially in the past 20 years.

I think it's safe to say Jacob Milgrom (AYB Leviticus) was a liberal and thusly produced a liberal work.

I do not think it is at all safe to misrepresent Jacob Milgrom by labeling him "liberal". I am reminded of a quote I sent my daughter recently for similar reasons. It is from the philosopher Humpty Dumpty quoted in Alice in Wonderland:

[quote]When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.

In standard theological terminology liberal is:

[quote]Theology: Regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.

There is no reason to assume "traditional beliefs" even includes "fundamentals of faith". The real rub is whether you think theology of the last two centuries is "traditional beliefs" as many do, if you think five hundred years is long enough to be "traditional", if you think two thousand years is long enough, or if, like Jacob Milgrom you think tradition requires four thousand years. [numbers are all rough estimates]. It is also unsafe to assume that a scholar's personal views are what is reflected in his academic works - academic works require a certain level of evidence and reproducible thought. Personal views require internal consistency and best fit with facts as known to the person.

The point is that a conservative Lutheran means something quite different than a conservative Coptic means something quite different from a conservative Jew. And it makes no sense to apply the standards applied to the Jew to the Lutheran. What you can appropriate say is that Jacob Milgrom was a Conservative Jew (https://www.haaretz.com/1.5132805 ) which is a moderate not liberal movement. From Wikipedia:

[quote]Conservative Judaism (known as Masorti Judaism outside North America) is a major Jewish denomination which views Jewish law, or Halakha, as both binding and subject to historical development. The Conservative rabbinate therefore employs modern historical-critical research, rather than only traditional methods and sources, and lends great weight to its constituency when determining its stance on matters of law. The movement considers its approach as the authentic and most appropriate continuation of halakhic discourse, maintaining both fealty to received forms and flexibility in their interpretation. It also eschews strict theological definitions, lacking a consensus in matters of faith and allowing great pluralism.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1033792#Comment_1033792

standard theological terminology liberal is:

[quote]Theology: Regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.

What a great definition. Quite seriously, the good apostle Paul was a liberal. And Jesus eating with IRS taxmen and sinners was the ultimate liberal (ok, nor IRS). But if Peter had trouble with James' church reps, Jesus had to have been the lifetime shocker. Liberal! Burn Samaria! Hmmm, sounds familiar.

I mentioned before, but in our conservative church (Bible only), I told the pastor I'd have to withdraw membership. They had those creeds that Wilson listed. Not Biblical. The pastor smiled ... no problem. The next Sunday, the creeds were gone (I suspect coincidence). Creeds are for the arguers.