ECC: Eerdmans Critical Commentary on Sale

Normally, I'd post the Logos.com link, but after scrolling thru 60 'ecc's I gave up. That pony's in there somewhere ... and typing out the full name, sorry, pony. You're another victim of Logos.com!

I aleady had 'random' volumes from this set ... collected one at a time over the years. I never really took a look. I should have.

I'd propose ECC is Hermeneia on steroids. I'm not a big supporter of 'wild' commentaries, but I do like commentaries that discuss the obvious, even if not traditionally doctrinal. I like to see the rationale.

As an example, in the Johns commentary, right off the bat, there's a 'Johnine community' (in opposition to the Petrine community!). And 3 editions of John. And so on. Basically, the commentators just start off, at a fast pace.

So. If you sometimes get frustrated at Hermeneia (AYB's a bit more staid), try out ECC. The full set is discounted (not the individuals). And a few more hours of 'summersavings' code is available today.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Christian Alexander

I'd propose ECC is Hermeneia on steroids.

Agreed 100%. ECC is very good for a scholarly treatment. I own the ECC on John's Gospel in print and it is wild but very good. Whether subsequent scholarship follows von Wahlde’s processing and argument is immaterial. What is important is that he has laid out a sumptuous study his academic colleagues. The pace is very fast and eclectic. The person reading will feel like they are sitting across from the author and receiving personal instruction but it is very hard to grasp some of his perspectives as an Bible believing Christian.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1304227#Comment_1304227

as an Bible believing Christian.

For some reason I've been thinking about the use of this term in the forums. Isn't it just another way of saying the author and I differ in our hermeneutics?

Christian Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1304235#Comment_1304235

In my case no. In some other cases possibly yes but I’m not the one to judge any of the forum members. I am a follower of Jesus Christ and want to be able to exemplify His teachings and His wisdom.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1304237#Comment_1304237

Okay, if you identify as a Bible-believing Christian as I believe nearly all of us do, who are the not-Bible-believing Christians? or is the Bible-believing part simply redundant?

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1304239#Comment_1304239

I got the two missing volumes on Matthew for $35 during Blue Friday Sale! Great set indeed 👍😁👌

DAL

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1304239#Comment_1304239

... who are the not-Bible-believing Christians? or is the Bible-believing part simply redundant?

That'd be me ... a literalist. Believing doesn't demand the Bible ... indeed early Christians had none and still believed. Jesus didn't mention that requirement ... nor Paul. Now, indeed the writers did witness. One can chose which witnesses ... the early Fathers had discussions on 'which'. Similarly, doctrines and denominations ... all later.

Not intending an argument ... only a 'theological' route.

Christian Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1304259#Comment_1304259

Sorry MJ. I have been having to explain myself. I say I am a Christian first before a "denomination". Christians are often called to posit a certain doctrine or denomination. I do not ever do that. I say I am a Bible believing Christian or just simply a "Christian." This is just a literalist perspective I take. I believe that the Bible contains the actual word of God and that these words are all factually correct and inspired by God alone. I agree with DMB on the perspective she takes.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1304259#Comment_1304259

That'd be me ... a literalist. Believing doesn't demand the Bible ... indeed early Christians had none and still believed. Jesus didn't mention that requirement ... nor Paul. Now, indeed the writers did witness. One can chose which witnesses ... the early Fathers had discussions on 'which'. Similarly, doctrines and denominations ... all later.

This is just a literalist perspective I take.

Thank you. I've spent years wondering about, and misinterpreting, the term. I also understand why the term is not used in my tradition - it is assumed.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1304227#Comment_1304227

I own the ECC on John's Gospel in print and it is wild but very good.

I had ECC-Johnines for a while, but didn't spend any time with them. Now, reading the intro volume, I can see the basis (I assume) for many of your queries.

I think there's 2 problems you're up against:

- Logos itself is its own 'theology'. I characterize it as '1950s church' ... what Readers Digest spoke to. Add early 1900s OL thinking and automate. So, the app is really not designed for getting much beyond hard searches. Tagging is Christian-bookstore 1950s.

- The forum coffee-table sort of forces questions to remain in-bounds (documentable discussions, etc). Going out of bounds, even explaining, gets messy. Leaves bad tastes.

I really wonder at the AI summarizings (not questioning their inclusion). But I'd assume the process has to satisfy the above issues, since that's how neural net pattern identification works (naive grouping).

Christian Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1304291#Comment_1304291

Glad I was able to explain it further MJ. I always like to help explain if needed. DMB I agree with the problems you see in my court. These are very aphoristic, rational and important. I am sorry that I never can get my explanations right. I do not use AI a lot. Do you think AI can help me any at all? If so where? Thanks again

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1304659#Comment_1304659

I am sorry that I never can get my explanations right. I do not use AI a lot. Do you think AI can help me any at all? If so where? Thanks again

Just my opinion, your explanations don't merit apology. It's just, your research is largely foreign to the audience ... and I've no solution (smiling).

I think MJ is the AI expert as regards the balance between AI searches to locate likely sources, vs analytics of those sources. Most of my work is using 'AI' against the sources.

Christian Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1304670#Comment_1304670

your research is largely foreign to the audience

Yes. I get that with a lot of people. Even some of my professors and scholar friends have told me that this line of thinking was way out of bounds, outlandish and or external to my fundamental understanding and denominational basis of the Bible. I understand the Bible well. I want to integrate Bible, theology, archaeology, textuality, sociology, rhetoric, etc. These forumities are very helpful and always pushing me to better myself and my work. I know I do ask too much as far as requesting resources.

I think MJ is the AI expert as regards the balance between AI searches to locate likely sources, vs analytics of those sources.

Hopefully MJ will chime in and give me a basis for AI and my request above. I am very worrisome and alarmed of using AI to help me. Bard gave me some incorrect citations once. I think that AI possibly can help with data collection and preparation of research sources but I want the best format and usage.

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1304685#Comment_1304685

I am not understanding fully about the term "Bible believing Christian" ---- But I do put myself in that category. To me, the means, I believe the bible to be the inerrant word of God today and that God has preserved His word so that we can understand it today.

To me, it means I only follow the bible and the only creed book and only authority in religious matters today. There is a term that was coined by the Catholic as "Sola Scriptura" which means "bible only" but they also add "Magistratum" and "Tradition"... and because of that the term they use "Solo Scriptura" is lost in the other two pillars they follow.

But, I am "bible only" and believe the proper understanding of the bible produces only Christians and Christians only.

I am open to this discussion.... I understand we shouldn't have it on Logos Forums... but if you wish to discuss it... let me know where and I'll make time. I just ask that we be civil with each other and look to facts and not feelings.

Thanks.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1304703#Comment_1304703

There is a term that was coined by the Catholic as "Sola Scriptura" which means "bible only"

Please use the term Catholic with a large C correctly. While the term was popularized by early Protestant reformers, I believe Huldrych Zwingli is the most likely candidate for "coining" (or at least popularizing) the term, although the concept precedes him and may have taken this exact form earlier. Note that the codification of sola scriptura as one of the "five solas" is a comparatively recent development in theological language AFAIK.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1304659#Comment_1304659

Do you think AI can help me any at all? If so where?

This is difficult to answer because AI can be very useful to a beginner who will only enter a few key words. For them, the process is very simple:

enter a few general word that you think may be keywords
read the results, learning more of the vocabulary used in discussions of the topic
refine your keywords and repeat the cycle

AI can be very useful to "experts" defined not by what they already know about the topic but rather by their ability to ask well-formed questions i.e. questions that describe precisely and completely the criteria that need to be met by the answer returned.

Where AI becomes dangerous is where you expect it to read your mind and accept its answer as if it has read you mind accurately. To give an apparently simple example: "who is Abraham's wife?" The following issues should immediately come to your mind:

what name do you want e.g. Sarah or Sarai?
which wife e.g Sarah or Keturah?
what is a wife e.g. does Hagar fit your definition of wife? or is Keturah actually another name for Hagar?
are there other names or persons in Islamic literature? Pseudepigrapha? . . .
what about rabbinic traditions such as Iscah?

Depending upon what you already know, these questions may come up when you ask the question or as you read the results. But if they don't come up, you can easily misinterpret the results.

The same problem is increased tenfold when you ask questions like "Which apostles did Jesus rebuke?" because defining what characteristics in the text are required for it to be a "rebuke" is not easy to define. AI will make a judgment call which may or may not be what you would make ... and it never tells you explicitly what it did. So, you have to be very slow to call something a "complete list of" as well as to quickly verify that cases you expect are included and those you don't expect are excluded.

The same issue arises when you ask questions that are not answerable e.g. "Why didn't Jonah want to go to Nineveh? The Bible provides hints but no definitive answer. Beware of assuming AI knows more than the text.

In short, the old adage garbage in garbage out applies. If your thought is sloppy AI will amplify the sloppiness. If your thought is clear and precise, AI can be a great time saver.

Christian Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1304711#Comment_1304711

Thanks this is very helpful. Have you determined that Bard or Chat GPT is better? I am looking forward to exploring how AI can help me grow in my faith and provide a running commentary of my exploration for my research analysis. At the same time, it will help me learn how to refine prompts and get more familiar with AI. I have concluded that AI is not inherently good or wicked, but it can be constructed and used for both good and bad reasons. We can use technology to glorify God and improve society, or we might use it to undermine the dignity of those made in God's image for wicked and twisted purposes.

Today, I asked Bard and Chat GPT this question: Provide a summary of different views of the significance of the perfect tense-form of the verb love in Galatians 2:20 using academic resources. Chat GPT provided a more robust and critical response with correct analysis from research whereas Bard provided unknown sources