To abridge, or not to abridge, that is my EBC question…

I shall let Spurgeon speak for me on this! Ted

"We do not believe in abridgments of a book which is good throughout. Think of twelve large volumes condensed into one small one! An ox in a gallipot is nothing to it."
Spurgeon, C. H. (2009). Lectures to my Students, Vol. 4: Commenting and Commentaries; Lectures Addressed to the students of the Pastors' College, Metropolitan Tabernacle. (117). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

"We do not admire abridgments, and especially those which make alterations and additions; still it is likely that many have read Macdonogh’s Manton who might never have fallen in with Manton’s Manton."
Spurgeon, C. H. (2009). Lectures to my Students, Vol. 4: Commenting and Commentaries; Lectures Addressed to the students of the Pastors' College, Metropolitan Tabernacle. (178). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Alain Maashe said:

Ted,

Funny but so true

Alain

Blessing Alain, glad you found it funny.

Ted.

See the additional notes from the EBC - Genesis 1:2,5,7 for example missing for the abridge version below. Hope this helps. Ted

2 The English translation of T.OH WFBOH (tohu wabohu) as "formless and empty" (NIV), or "without form and void" (RSV), often leads to an understanding of the description of the earth as a chaotic, amorphous mass, rather than calling to mind an uninhabitable stretch of wasteland, a wilderness not yet inhabitable for man, as is suggested in the first chapter. The translation often stirs up images of the earth and the universe in a primeval stage of existence, much like the view of the origin of the universe in the physical sciences, a mass of cooling gases, not yet in its present spherical shape, whirling aimlessly through space (e.g., "an original formless matter in the first stage of the creation of the universe," The New Scofield Bible, p. 1). Though such a picture could find support in the English expession "without form and void," it is not an image likely to arise out of the Hebrew tohu wabohu.
          The origin of the English translation is apparently the Greek version (LXX) that translates tohu with a)o/ratov (aoratos "unseen") and bohu with a)kataskeu/astov (akataskeuastos "unformed"). Since both terms play an important role in the Hellenistic cosmologies at the time of the LXX translation, it is likely that the choice of these terms, and others within the LXX of Genesis, was motivated by an attempt to harmonize the biblical account with accepted views in the translators' own day rather than a strict adherence to the sense of the Hebrew text (Armin Schmitt, "Interpretation der Genesis aus hellenistischem Geist," ZAW 86 [1974]: 150-51). It is of special interest then that the later Greek versions—e.g., Aquila ("empty and nothing"), Symmachus ("fallow and indistinct")—decidedly move away from the early Greek version (LXX). It is also important to notice that the early Semitic versions have no trace of the concepts found in the LXX: e.g., Neophyti I appropriately paraphrases tohu wabohu with "desolate without human beings or beast and void of all cultivation of plants and of trees." The Vulgate ("inanis et vacua ") also shows little relationship to the LXX.
          Within the EVs the influence of the LXX is at least as old as the Geneva Bible ("without forme and void," 1599), reflecting Calvin's own translation: "informis et inanis" (p. 67). However, his understanding of informis et inanis is quite different from the image suggested to the modern reader in the English equivalent "formless and void," as his commentary on these words shows: "Were we now to take away, I say, from the earth all that God added after the time here alluded to, then we should have this rude and unpolished, or rather shapeless chaos" (p. 73). In the days of the early EVs, the terms "formless" and "void" would not have suggested the same cosmological images as those same terms do in a scientific age such as our own.

5 YOWM )EXFD (yom 'ehad lit., "one day") should not be read as if it were "first day" (Exod 12:15-16; Lev 23 passim), as the uses of yom 'ehad elsewhere in Genesis demonstrate (27:45; 33:13; cf. 1 Sam 27:1; Isa 9:13; Jonah 3:4). Cassuto's (with Nachmanides) explanation is forced—"There was only one day for the second had not yet been created" (p. 30)—since he has to make an exception to his rule immediately for $"M HF)EXFD (shem ha'ehad "name of the first") in 2:11. Why would the writer have avoided the use of yom 'ehad in this chapter? There are two possible solutions.
          First, the grammatical construction of Gen 1 allows potentially for two "first days" at the beginning of the chapter. The day that begins in v.3—WAY:HI)-gOWR (wayehi-'or "and there was light")—and the day that begins in v.1—B.:R")$IYT (bere'shith). In his conception of the narrative of chapter 1, the author may not have wanted to convey the idea that the day that begins in v.3 was actually YOWMRI)$OWN (yom ri'shon "the first day"). He may have wanted to reserve the notion of "the first day" for the day that began with bere'shith in v.1. Thus yom 'ehad could have been used to avoid the misconception. In the same way the author does not say "the first river" (HAN.FHFR HFRI)$ON [hannahar hari'shon]) in 2:11 (the NIV doesn't bring out this distinction) but rather "one (river)" (HF)EXFD [ha'ehad]), because the river (nahar 2:10) that divides into four heads has already been mentioned.
          A second possible motive for avoiding the mention of a "first day" is that throughout the Torah YOWM RI)$OWN (yom ri'shon) is used to denote the "first day" of a special feast, a day in which there is to be no M:LF)KFH (mela'kah "work"; cf. Exod 12:16; Lev 23:7, 35, 39; Num 28:18). The use of yom 'ehad may have been intended to avoid a possible objection to the work (mela'kah) of God on one such yom ri'shon in chapter 1. The well-known textual problem in 2:2 (q.v.) is centered on a similar objection.

7 The MT reads WAY:HIK"N (wayehi-ken "and it was so") at the end of v.7, but in the LXX its equivalent, kai\ e)ge/neto ou(/twv (kai egeneto houtos), occurs at the end of v.6. Throughout the rest of the chapter, wayehi-ken occurs between God's spoken word—WAYOO)MER ):EHIYM (wayyo'mer 'elohim "and God said")—and the narration of God's action—WAYOA(A ):EHIYM (wayya`as 'elohim "and God made"; cf. vv.9b, 11b, 15b, 24b, 30b). In the two places where the MT does not follow that scheme, vv.6 and 20, the LXX reads kai\ e)ge/neto ou(/twv (kai egeneto outos "and it was so"), suggesting that the LXX readings are an attempt to correct the imbalance of the MT. In keeping with that tendency, the LXX also reads kai\ ei)=den o( qeo\v o(ti kalo/n (kai eiden ho theos hoti kalon) in v.8, filling in the lack of the expression "and God saw that it was good" for the second day. The overall impression given by the LXX in these instances is of a secondary attempt to provide a balanced, consistent text. Thus the MT is to be taken as the more original.