Kyle: type Bible Commentary rather than Monograph

Because I've run into commentaries that cover only a chapter or two, my criteria is that it is covers a block of text, in sequence, close to completely, and the passages are given in the text or index so you don't have to research it. These appear to be Bible Commentary rather than Monographs.

Pell, Patty. Esther: Character under Pressure: 9 Studies for Individuals or Groups: With Notes for Leaders. A LifeGuide Bible Study. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Connect: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2002.

Ford, William A. God, Pharaoh and Moses: Explaining the Lord’s Actions in the Exodus Plagues Narrative. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2007.

Bergen, Wesley J. Elisha and the End of Prophetism. Vol. 286. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

Gunn, David M. The Fate of King Saul: An Interpretation of a Biblical Story. Vol. 14. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989.

Noll, K. L. The Faces of David. Vol. 242. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.

Beers, Holly. The Followers of Jesus as the “Servant”: Luke’s Model from Isaiah for the Disciples in Luke-Acts. Edited by Chris Keith. 1 Edition. Vol. 535. Library of New Testament Studies. London; New Delhi; New York; Sydney: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015.

Somers, Gayle, and Sarah Christmyer. Genesis, Part I: God and His Creation (Genesis 1–11). Hearts Aflame Scripture Study. Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road Publishing, 2004.

Somers, Gayle, and Sarah Christmyer. Genesis, Part II: God and His Family (Genesis 12–50). Hearts Aflame Scripture Study. Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road Publishing, 2005.

Syrén, Roger. The Forsaken First-Born: A Study of a Recurrent Motif in the Patriarchal Narratives. Vol. 133. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.

Johnson, Dan G. From Chaos to Restoration: An Integrative Reading of Isaiah 24-27. Vol. 61. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988.

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

Kyle G. Anderson

Thanks for bring these up. I've started taking a look at these and they pose an interesting dilemma.

The majority of them are a monograph within the field of Biblical Theology. They're not really a "Bible Commentary" in the way people generally think of a Bible commentary.

That being said many of them have a consistent and predictable structure, the Bible ranges are logical and easily identified, provide valuable scholarship on specific Biblical passages. It seems to me we'd absolutely want to expose these texts via the Passage Guide. In our current system converting these to a Bible Commentary and adding Bible milestones would be our only option at this point.

It also seems to me that these aren't isolated cases and there are others that would probably be in a similar situation. I'm going to take this under advisement and work to a solution to better expose content like this. In the short term it might mean doing as you suggested: change them to a Bible commentary.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1064277#Comment_1064277

I'm going to take this under advisement and work to a solution to better expose content like this.

Thank you - this is my primary goal and I'll gladly accept whatever solution works best for you.

The majority of them are a monograph within the field of Biblical Theology.

[:O] That's a category I'd never think of for them ... and have a bit of trouble getting my mind around how that would fit. However, I'd never heard of Biblical Theology until the section was added to Logos -- and I've never quite grasped why it is separate from Christian theology which by definition is Biblical.

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1064277#Comment_1064277

It also seems to me that these aren't isolated cases and there are others that would probably be in a similar situation. I'm going to take this under advisement and work to a solution to better expose content like this. In the short term it might mean doing as you suggested: change them to a Bible commentary.

That would be an excellent enhancement. [Y]

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1064354#Comment_1064354

I agree that this would be a good enhancement.

My workaround for this has been to tag all of my resources like this as Bible Commentaries and by specific book so that they don't fall off the radar when I want to look at a specific passage.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1064358#Comment_1064358

My workaround for this has been to tag all of my resources like this as Bible Commentaries and by specific book so that they don't fall off the radar when I want to look at a specific passage.

I was doing exactly the same thing when I hit upon asking that they be Bible Commentaries as I had seen more and more "non-traditional" commentaries labeled as such.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1064425#Comment_1064425

I was doing exactly the same thing when I hit upon asking that they be Bible Commentaries as I had seen more and more "non-traditional" commentaries labeled as such.

And then I will tag those Commentaries as "Notes" (should they somehow come into my Library!).

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1064465#Comment_1064465

I was doing exactly the same thing when I hit upon asking that they be Bible Commentaries as I had seen more and more "non-traditional" commentaries labeled as such.

And then I will tag those Commentaries as "Notes" (should they somehow come into my Library!).

Am I to assume that you have done so for the resources that had already been switched? That was what prompted my request. More seriously, may I ask why "notes" as these are normally more in-depth analysis than commentaries, not less?

Personally, I think in the following categories and would like to see some variant implemented in Logos/Verbum:

introductions and overviews ... coverage ranges from books to entire Bible, rarely highly indexed to Bible references
commentaries and studies - highly tied to Bible references in sequence with some subsets excluded (see below)
lectionary studies - highly tied to Bible references in lectionary sequence and frequently dealing with a set of readings
study guides - topical or tied to Bible references with study questions provided
topical Bible studies - academic Bible studies not tied to Bible references in sequence

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1064291#Comment_1064291

The majority of them are a monograph within the field of Biblical Theology.

That's a category I'd never think of for them ... and have a bit of trouble getting my mind around how that would fit. However, I'd never heard of Biblical Theology until the section was added to Logos -- and I've never quite grasped why it is separate from Christian theology which by definition is Biblical.

My understanding is that "Biblical Theology" is a categorization that fills in the lacuna introduced by having "Scripture Scholars" who aren't theologians--or who don't see themselves as doing theology as such when studying Scripture. Most modern/contemporary "academic" Scripture commentaries have been written by such scholars. When biblical exegesis is not understood as per se theological, you need a label for the work of theologians studying the Bible theologically. This distinction (I think) fits more naturally in Protestant contexts than in Catholic or Orthodox ones.

His dictis, the well-known contemporary Catholic theologian to whom the label "biblical theologian" seems to me to apply best is Dr. Scott Hahn, while Dr. Matthew Levering is also a noteworthy Catholic theologian who has produced a number of valuable works that could be labelled "Biblical Theology." See also this advertisement by Verbum partner the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology for a 2019 conference (now passed) on "Aquinas the Biblical Theologian: A Conference on Biblical Theology" featuring Drs. Hahn and Levering as its keynote speakers.

Kyle G. Anderson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1064516#Comment_1064516

The majority of them are a monograph within the field of Biblical Theology.

That's a category I'd never think of for them ... and have a bit of trouble getting my mind around how that would fit. However, I'd never heard of Biblical Theology until the section was added to Logos -- and I've never quite grasped why it is separate from Christian theology which by definition is Biblical.

My understanding is that "Biblical Theology" is a categorization that fills in the lacuna introduced by having "Scripture Scholars" who aren't theologians--or who don't see themselves as doing theology as such when studying Scripture. Most modern/contemporary "academic" Scripture commentaries have been written by such scholars. When biblical exegesis is not understood as per se theological, you need a label for the work of theologians studying the Bible theologically. This distinction (I think) fits more naturally in Protestant contexts than in Catholic or Orthodox ones.

His dictis, the well-known contemporary Catholic theologian to whom the label "biblical theologian" seems to me to apply best is Dr. Scott Hahn, while Dr. Matthew Levering is also a noteworthy Catholic theologian who has produced a number of valuable works that could be labelled "Biblical Theology." See also this advertisement by Verbum partner the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology for a 2019 conference (now passed) on "Aquinas the Biblical Theologian: A Conference on Biblical Theology" featuring Drs. Hahn and Levering as its keynote speakers.

I don't want to sidetrack things too much but please don't get too hung up on my terminology. My main point was that these weren't "Bible Commentaries" like they're normally thought of. i.e. they probably wouldn't be sold in the Bible Commentary section of a store or marketed as such. They're academic monographs within the realm of biblical theology and exegesis (that we should absolutely do a better job of exposing!). But that might just be my protestant bias speaking. [:P]

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1064518#Comment_1064518

They're academic monographs within the realm of biblical theology and exegesis (that we should absolutely do a better job of exposing!

I totally agree with you!

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1064468#Comment_1064468

Personally, I think in the following categories and would like to see some variant implemented in Logos/Verbum:

introductions and overviews ... coverage ranges from books to entire Bible, rarely highly indexed to Bible references

commentaries and studies - highly tied to Bible references in sequence with some subsets excluded (see below)

I think of "Notes" as more akin to type "Bible Notes", with coverage as per your "introductions and overviews". And that includes many with type Bible Commentary. Some may be "in-depth study notes" or your "study guides". I also include strict commentaries that lack in depth of explanation (which includes "historical" commentaries that tend to eulogize the text) . But I also rate and prioritize them, so that I can access the potentially useful ones in a Collection. My "Notes" include Catena Aurea, Early Church Fathers, Horae Homileticae, Matthew Henry, For Everyone Bible Study Guides (Wright), Opening Up Commentary, Spurgeon Commentary Series, Lexham Textual Notes (and other "Textual" commentaries).

What is left are my "Main Commentaries", also rated and prioritized. They are not tagged or categorised as many do. My top 6 are BKC, Expositor's Bible Commentary, Tyndale Commentaries, NAC, Charles Hodge Commentary, JPS Tanakh Commentary.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1064581#Comment_1064581

Thanks Dave. Your system makes perfect sense.

Colin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1064596#Comment_1064596

Hi Kyle,

If you're still following this, could the 'Exalting Jesus in ... 'commentaries be counted as commentaries too? Though they have been upgraded into Logos Research Editions they are still monographs.

Thanks,

Colin

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1139518#Comment_1139518

Though they have been upgraded into Logos Research Editions they are still monographs.

The relevant thing missing for them to be bible commentaries is the bible index. Actually I believe someone just renamed the type prematurely - I opened "Exalting Jesus in Ephesians" and the links to other books and commentaries have not been put in either, so regardless of the edition field it still has the functionality of an eBook.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1139520#Comment_1139520

Actually I believe someone just renamed the type prematurely - I opened "Exalting Jesus in Ephesians" and the links to other books and commentaries have not been put in either, so regardless of the edition field it still has the functionality of an eBook.

Probably a metadata update in advance of the resource being updated whenever the next batch of resource updates is slated for.