Reasons why you (should) want ... the "Journal of Biblical Literature" Pre-Pub

I thought those of us who have already put an order in for the Journal of Biblical Literature Pre-pub, http://www.logos.com/products/prepub/details/3625 could give the reasons why we are keen to get it, so that some of those who haven't ordered it, may be encouraged to do so.

Here are just six of my reasons:

1. Papers in top quality journals, like the JBL, are peer-reviewed. That means, they are checked by other academics to ensure that they have their facts right, and that their reasoning is good. This makes them a top-quality resource.

2. Papers are bite-sized, tackling a subject in depth but not so voluminously that you don't have time or energy to read them.

3. Papers in journals like JBL are written by some of the best Christian academics around.

4. Papers always provide good references, allowing one to follow up the paper with further reading, and to know the source of any claims made.

5. Journals don't come with a better academic reputation than the JBL in Christian circles.

6. Journals in Logos are much easier to access than at your local (or not so local) theological library.

I would so love to see the other major academic journals in pre-pub on Logos, and those from the main seminaries not covered by the Galaxie journal product ... for example, there are important Reformed and Catholic journals I'd like to see.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Lynden O. Williams

Placed a prepub order a long time ago. I have to agree with you on all six points. (See signature)

7. Journals are very current on the topics being discussed. Only wish we had more top level journals avialable for Logos. I would also like to see publishers update their journals annually.

NetworkGeek

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/100450#Comment_100450

I placed a prepub order too!

Ben

" Papers in journals like JBL are written by some of the best Christian
academics around."

And by some of the best Jewish and non-Christian academics too [6] It's generally top-notch academic stuff.

T MacLeod

I ordered this, too, about nine months ago. It hasn't gained much since then. It's a shame that the top journal in the field isn't available.

Alan Macgregor

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/100544#Comment_100544

Okay! Okay! I cancelled my PrePub for this in January when I spent all my pennies upgrading to Platinum. But you chaps have just pulled the old heart-strings and I'm just a big old softie! [:'(]

Seriously, I would like to see this in publication and I would be green if I missed out! [+o(]

Stephen Paynter

Just a post to bring this thread ... or rather, this potential product to everyone's attention again.

It is so so near to going into development. Surely there are some new people who might have missed this pre-pub, who will want to jump on board, or perhaps some "old" forum readers who have gotten wiser ... or who want to get more erudite ...

Mark Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/146590#Comment_146590

OK. I put in my pre-order.

BTW: A one year subscription (4 issues) for non-members of SBL (which is probably most of us) is $180.00 for the print-only version. The Logos offering is for 26 years of past issues at $149.95.

Mathew Voth

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/146594#Comment_146594

I've pre-ordered it...how could you not????!!!!!

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/146609#Comment_146609

I wouldn't mind ordering...but I have reservations...simply this:

Bart Ehrman is part of SBL...and basically he's agnostic...he spends his time tearing down the truth of the bible....

Here is my question: Is this the type of thing I can expect in the JBL? A bunch of Agnostics writing articles that drag the word of God down while being "academic" and "thinking themselves wise"?

don't attack me...I'm just asking.

Steve Adams

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/146614#Comment_146614

as a member of SBL, for there is a wide variety. Some good, some liberal (aka bad). Not all sit in their "ivory towers" but some are actually doing a good work. Since my school has open membership of SBL I have access to the journals so I'll save my pennies for when Logos decides to do the entire Geneva Series of Commentaries. (hint hint)

nancy

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/146614#Comment_146614

Bart Ehrman is part of SBL...and basically he's agnostic...he spends his time tearing down the truth of the bible....

Here is my question: Is this the type of thing I can expect in the JBL? A bunch of Agnostics writing articles that drag the word of God down while being "academic" and "thinking themselves wise"?

My apologies but you attack Bart Ehrman and consider it an appropriate non-theological forum statement because you add "don't attack me ... I'm just asking"?

I believe you are accurate in stating that Mr. Ehrman has moved from his Evangelical background to a personal agnosticism. However, Ehrman is at most 1/8500 of the Society of Biblical Literature - historically much less than that. If you reword your question, I'll actually answer it.

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/146640#Comment_146640

Martha,

I didn't attack Bart Ehrman...I spoke the truth.

He's agnostic and spends his time tearing down God's word,

I will not take that back. If you don't want to answer, I have no problem with that.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/146652#Comment_146652

I'd love to have the JBL. Period.

Ben

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/146652#Comment_146652

What you can expect from JBL is top-notch scholarship.

Regardless of his presuppositions (or anyone else's for that matter), Ehrman does good scholarship
that merits to be read and grappled with.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/146652#Comment_146652

He's agnostic

Factual

spends his time tearing down God's word,

Opinion stated as if it were truth - exactly the type of "fighting words" we are asked to avoid. You might find James P. Carse's The Religious Case Against Belief to be an interesting exploration as to why we disagree on the matter. Carse, by the way, has very carefully given specific definitions as to what he means by "knowledge" and "belief" - so don't let the title scare you off. From the Amazon page for the book:

"In seeing the unknown everywhere—what he calls “higher ignorance”—Carse
says, lies the beginning of wisdom, and the act of belief “is highly
complicated and richly nuanced behavior.” Masterfully combining
scholarly research and thoughtful commentary, he distinguishes religion
from belief systems. Using the lives of such disparate figures as Jesus,
Galileo, Luther, and Lincoln, he illustrates the various kinds of
ignorance that confront the world, not only higher ignorance but also
ordinary ignorance and willful ignorance. At its core, belief carries
within it a strong element of the unknown and therefore requires risk,
not certainty. With that in mind, he discusses the line between
knowledge and belief, explores the complicated issue of authority,
considers the notion of communitas, and declares that religion in its
purest form is a type of poetry, relative to which, he interprets a
Dickinson poem on death as revealing the thin line between the known and
the believed. He also attempts to define evil to determine where it
fits into the overall religious experience. A bracing consideration of
religion, knowledge, and belief. --June Sawyers"

Ben

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/146662#Comment_146662

There was a great article in BAR talking to Ehrman and some others (Schiffman, Dever, Strange) about the intersection between faith and scholarship. Copy online at http://creation.com/images/pdfs/other/5106losingfaith.pdf

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/146662#Comment_146662

Edited: I deleted the top half of my post in hopes that MJ and others may not be distracted or discouraged.

To answer the original post I agree with Stephen's second point:

2. Papers are bite-sized, tackling a subject in depth but not so voluminously that you don't have time or energy to read them.

I would add to that: The Logos price makes it a value you can't ignore. I bought the related The Review of Biblical Literature (9 Vols.) http://www.logos.com/products/details/4214 when it was on Pre-Pub. I wouldn't think of missing out on the JBL.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/146676#Comment_146676

Thank you Matthew.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/146664#Comment_146664

Copy online at http://creation.com/images/pdfs/other/5106losingfaith.pdf

Thanks for the reference.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/146614#Comment_146614

Here is my question: Is this the type of thing I can expect in the JBL? A bunch of Agnostics writing articles ... while being 'academic" ...?

You can expect academic in the best sense of the word - articles by individuals doing their best to understand some aspect of Scripture and wanting to share their work with us. JBL is relatively unbiased theologically - authors come in a variety of flavors. JBL does demand reasonable academic standards but that is also true of respectable denominational journals - Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly comes to mind. I find journals the best source for detailed studies especially because they teach me the various possibilities rather than the answers.

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/146662#Comment_146662

He's agnostic

Factual

Martha,

Are you expressing doubt that he's Agnostic? (not quite sure what you are saying)

If that is; you are asking me to provide proof, then I'd suggest you listen to his debates.

spends his time tearing down God's word,

Opinion stated as if it were truth

Ok..I'll restate it.

He's written at least a couple of books where his premise is that the bible text is not reliable and we cannot know what it said. He has also (and still does) give lectures, and will debate where his stance is that the bible cannot be trusted as a document of truth.

That's a more accurate statement, I was just typing shorthand before.

Are you familiar with his debate with James White: "Does the bible misquote Jesus?"

Another good one is his debate with Daniel Wallace on the reliability of the NT documents.

He's a radical skeptic. Period.

that was the crux of my original point...is this type of thing representative of what I can expect from authors who belong to the JBL collection or is he an aberration?

Edited to add:

Here are his latest books and the "blurb" about them on his site:

God's problem

In times of questioning and despair, people often quote the Bible to
provide answers. Surprisingly, though, the Bible does not have one
answer but many "answers" that often contradict one another.

Jesus,
Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why
We Don't Know About Them)

Picking up where Bible expert Bart Ehrman’s New York Times bestseller
Misquoting Jesus left off, Jesus, Interrupted addresses the larger
issue of what the New Testament actually teaches—and it’s not what most
people think. Here Ehrman reveals what scholars have unearthed:

The authors of the New
Testament have diverging views about who Jesus was and how salvation
works
The New Testament
contains books that were forged in the names of the apostles by
Christian writers who lived decades later
Jesus, Paul, Matthew,
and John all represented fundamentally different religions
Established Christian
doctrines—such as the suffering messiah, the divinity of Jesus, and the
trinity—were the inventions of still later theologians

And i could go on but you get the idea. Is this the kind of "Scholarship" that I can expect? Jesus' divinity is AN INVENTION of later theologians?

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/146789#Comment_146789

Martha,

Here is part of the story in Bart's own words:

About nine or ten years ago I came to realize that I simply no longer
believed the Christian message. A large part of my movement away from
the faith was driven by my concern for suffering. I simply no longer
could hold to the view—which I took to be essential to Christian
faith—that God was active in the world, that he answered prayer, that he
intervened on behalf of his faithful, that he brought salvation in the
past and that in the future, eventually in the coming eschaton, he would
set to rights all that was wrong, that he would vindicate his name and
his people and bring in a good kingdom (either at our deaths or here on
earth in a future utopian existence).

We live in a world in which a child dies every five seconds of
starvation. Every five seconds. Every minute there are twenty-five
people who die because they do not have clean water to drink. Every hour
700 people die of malaria. Where is God in all this? We live in a world
in which earthquakes in the Himalayas kill 50,000 people and leave 3
million without shelter in the face of oncoming winter. We live in a
world where a hurricane destroys New Orleans. Where a tsunami kills
300,000 people in one fell swoop. Where millions of children are born
with horrible birth defects. And where is God? To say that he eventually
will make right all that is wrong seems to me, now, to be pure wishful
thinking.

As it turns out, my various wrestlings with the problem have led me,
even as an agnostic, back to the Bible, to see how different biblical
authors wrestle with this, the greatest of all human questions.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/146703#Comment_146703

You can expect academic in the best sense of the word - articles by individuals doing their best to understand some aspect of Scripture and wanting to share their work with us

In Michigan and Massachusetts the neighborhood pubs are where that takes place. And in the Midwest farmers meet at the local diner for breakfast and share their thoughts with each other. They call it "chewing the fat." I'm sure you've heard that one even though Angus are leaner. (Don't worry folks, MJ gets it.)

Here is my question: Is this the type of thing I can expect in the JBL? A bunch of Agnostics writing articles that drag the word of God down while being "academic" and "thinking themselves wise"?

Robert, I certainly don't embrace everything in my library. But I think some things have enough significance in the arena of ideas they should be addressed. The problem of suffering is a question humans have always grappled with. Bart Ehrman’s late conclusion is one many college freshman settle on because it is an easy answer. But if it is true, then God is unable to save innocents from suffering and violence and the human condition is hopeless and miserable. But Ehrman is just one mind and is challenged by many more in academic circles. The Journal of Biblical Literature http://www.logos.com/products/prepub/details/3626 is a vast repository of different ideas. Another upcoming resource you may enjoy is Themelios (99 Issues) http://www.logos.com/products/prepub/details/5121 I would recommend getting both. And for the various theologically based musings you MUST get the Theological Journal Library http://www.logos.com/products/details/3582 It is a de-facto pigeonholing of various ideas from the schools that churn out all the "academics."

One thing I will agree with Ehrman on; We must come to God by faith. We are sure not going to get there by our intellect. (Didn't God say the same thing in different words? I have doubt that Bart would reciprocate my agreement though. [^o)] )

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/146789#Comment_146789

Martha,

Are you expressing doubt that he's Agnostic?

Discussion moved into MVP forum.

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/146789#Comment_146789

that was the crux of my original point...is this type of thing representative of what I can expect from authors who belong to the JBL collection or is he an aberration?

The publication description contains a list of scholars who have contributed to JBL. You could do a Google search on some of them and see what type of scholars have written. I followed that procedure and decided to save my money.

Stephen Paynter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/146953#Comment_146953

Of course, everyone must decide for themselves what resources in Logos they need, or would use. And as we all have different needs, interests, and uses to which we put Logos, the resource we decide we need is bound to vary. I suppose it would be helpful, however, - given the above discussion - if those with a "conservative" faith who have decided to purchase the JBL pre-pub, would list their reasons for doing so.

I'll happily kick-off:

1) The papers in the JBL are from a variety presuppositions, and use a varity of methodologies; however they are (mostly) well argued and well informed. As an evangelical I want to be interacting with the best scholarship around, even when I find the conclusions ultimately unconvincing because I don't agree with the presuppositions or methodology. Of course, there are also conservative scholars publishing in the JBL.

2) Many matters in biblical scholarship are very technical, and much can be learnt even from those who have totally different faith from one's own.

3) Many conservative scholarly books, articles and papers in my Logos library quote or interact with papers in the JBL; it will be very helpful to be able to quickly look up these references. Even conservative scholars have been known to quote out of context, and should be checked.

4) Evangelicals ought to do top-notch scholarship, and they can only learn how to do that by interecting with the best.

5) Evangelicals should be exposured to the best "sceptical scholarship" if only to show them that this work is often nowhere near as frightening and intimidating as some conservatives appear to think it is.

I'm sure I could think of more reasons if I tried.

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/147186#Comment_147186

Of course, there are also conservative scholars publishing in the JBL.

Would it be possible to name a few of them? The ones I checked from the publicity cannot be placed in that category. I would be interested if I were convinced that the journal represents balanced scholarship. I have heard declarations that it does, but no hard evidence.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/147207#Comment_147207

Stephen,

I've got another reason. With the potential of, what, 8500 authors (is what I think I heard), I would expect opinions to range across the board, and frankly would be a bit disappointed if they didn't.

If one is so challenged by having an article written by someone that they don't like even being printed in the journal, then don't buy the resource.

But here's another suggestion:.If you see an article by someone you don't like, don't read it. But do read and learn from the really spot-on, scholarly articles that will make up the overwhelming majority of most of the articles covering the quarter century of the publication.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/147207#Comment_147207

I've got another reason. With the potential of, what, 8500 authors (is what I think I heard), I would expect opinions to range across the board, and frankly would be a bit disappointed if they didn't.

I agree with your basic statement but the "8,500" is the approximate number of Society of Biblical Literature members. They are not all authors but most could be self-defined "scholars." [;)] Whatever the actual number of authors is, there will definitely be a variety of content and approaches.

Of course, there are also conservative scholars publishing in the JBL.

Would it be possible to name a few of them? The ones I checked from the publicity cannot be placed in that category. I would be interested if I were convinced that the journal represents balanced scholarship. I have heard declarations that it does, but no hard evidence.

Jack, The JBL resource is certainly not designed as a ministry resource or sermon preparation tool. Although I don't have TV at home I will sometimes tune in elsewhere to see how our culture has changed since the last time I checked. [6] JBL focuses on matters a bit higher than Hollywood but include "fringe" elements as well as the mainstream. (Granted, there is not overwhelming conservative input.) I like to at least know what the new ideas and terminology are so I will be able to recognize them when my friends, family or local church are confronted by them.

I do not want JBL to preach to me and I don't want my pastor preaching from JBL. I do not get my doctrine from academics. But I also do not get the latest musings of "free-thinkers" from the pulpit. If I do, it is because they have already influenced a generation of seminary graduates without intellectual challenge. Asking JBL to cover only what we like (I probably prefer the same content you do,) and asking them to be inclusive is a fair request but an unrealistic expectation. You may find this page about the SBL's International Cooperation Initiative interesting: http://www.sbl-site.org/InternationalCoopInitiative.aspx . Especially the three links regarding the "Future of the Society."

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/147242#Comment_147242

I do not want JBL to preach to me and I don't want my pastor preaching from JBL

That is not what I asked for.

Asking JBL to cover only what we like (I probably prefer the same content you do,)

Nor is this what I asked for

asking them to be inclusive is a fair request but an unrealistic expectation.

Why should balance be an unrealistic expectation? There have been assertions in this thread that JBL covers the entire spectrum of Biblical Scholarship, but I would not consider even one author listed in the publicity as conservative.

Personally, I see no reason for me to purchase this resource. I can be aware of current theological thought without it.

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/147498#Comment_147498

Thank you to everyone who chimed in, I think your comments and answers have helped me greatly.

I do apologize for my bluntness (and probably naivete also) in not being precise in what I meant in my comments about Dr. Ehrman. I should have been specific and wasn't and for that, I apologize.

But thank you anyway, it was helpful.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/147207#Comment_147207

Of course, there are also conservative scholars publishing in the JBL.

Would it be possible to name a few of them? The ones I checked from the publicity cannot be placed in that category. I would be interested if I were convinced that the journal represents balanced scholarship. I have heard declarations that it does, but no hard evidence.

Well, there's Bruce Waltke, for one. I found one article of his to be commonly cited all over the web: “Superscripts, Postscripts, or Both” (JBL 110/4 [1991], 583-596). Other Regent College profs have published in it too, and they're all evangelicals (Gordon Fee, Iain Provan).

Interestingly, there are those who feel SBL has lost its scholarly moorings and become too open to evangelicals and other conservatives who prefer not to set aside their faith in doing their scholarship. (BTW, I say "amen" to doing biblical scholarship from a consciously acknowledged faith perspective. But I'm not averse to reading articles by those who have a different faith perspective than I have, or who intentionally leave their faith perspective to one side when doing their biblical scholarship.)

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/147511#Comment_147511

Well, there's Bruce Waltke, for one. I found one article of his to be commonly cited all over the web: “Superscripts, Postscripts, or Both” (JBL 110/4 [1991], 583-596). Other Regent College profs have published in it too, and they're all evangelicals (Gordon Fee, Iain Provan).

That is the kind of information I was seeking! Thank you, Rosie. Perhaps, I should do some more investigating. Time for Church!

Ted Hans

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/147502#Comment_147502

Thank you to everyone who chimed in, I think your comments and answers have helped me greatly.

I do apologize for my bluntness (and probably naivete also) in not being precise in what I meant in my comments about Dr. Ehrman. I should have been specific and wasn't and for that, I apologize.

But thank you anyway, it was helpful.

I was not going to participate on this thread until I read this post from you! Bob what are you speaking of here! You made a legitimate request to know about the Scholarship of JBL in order to make an informed decision on if you should make a purchase or not. From what I have read of this Ehrman fellow, he is as way off as you have described.

If you and Jack do not want to read scholars who spend their time tearing down the word of God I don't see anything wrong in that. You have not called for the JBL resource to be excluded from Logos neither have you said others should not purchase it. So I really do not see what you are apologising for or if it is needed.

I have placed my order for the resource but I respect your right not to want the resource for yourself and I think others should. Not everyone needs what others may want. I am hoping the JBL is not so full of politely put critical musings to be of no use to me. I do not know for sure but if it is that bad I have the option to ask for a refund!

Like you and Jack I do have concerns about this resource & IMHO do think some of these critical scholarship do not help to promote ones faith in the Word. Others may disagree and I respect their right to do so.

Ted

Ehrman: Theodicy is the question of how God can be righteous, given the amount of suffering in the world. The issue as it’s
usually put today is that if God is all-powerful and is able to prevent suffering, and is all-loving so that he wants to prevent
suffering, why is there suffering? This problem isn’t ever expressed that way in the Bible, but Biblical authors do deal with the
problem by asking: Why does the people of God suffer? In teaching this course, the thing that struck me is just how different
the answers are. Depending on what part of Job you read, you get one set of answers. If you read the Prophets, you get a
different set of answers. If you read apocalyptic literature, you get still a different set of answers.
This made me think more deeply about my own understanding of why there’s suffering in the world. Finally, because I
became dissatisfied with all the conventional answers, I decided that I couldn’t believe in a God who was in any way
intervening in this world, given the state of things. So that’s why I ended up losing my faith.

Ehrman: Yeah, I do. It seems to me that Christianity—Christian faith—has always been grounded in certain historical claims,
for example, about Jesus. One thing that scholarship did for me: It led me to question historical claims that Christians have
made about Jesus.

Shanks: What historical claims?
Ehrman: For example, that he was raised from the dead. That’s a historical claim. I mean either he was raised from the dead
or he rotted in his grave. The kind of Christianity I was in believed in an active physical resurrection of Jesus. That was part of
what it meant to be Christian. You had to believe that.

Ehrman: If Jesus hadn’t been crucified, if he grew up to be an old man and died and was buried in a family plot outside of
Nazareth, then for me, when I was a Christian, that would’ve destroyed my faith.
In other words, the faith is rooted in certain historical claims. As historical claims, they can be shown as either probable or
improbable. And I got to a point where the historical claims about Jesus seemed implausible, especially the resurrection. Not
the crucifixion—I think Jesus was crucified like a lot of other people were crucified, and I think that, like a lot of other people,
he stayed dead. And so, for me, that had a damaging impact on my faith.

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/147542#Comment_147542

Ted,

It was rightly pointed out that it's not the factual claims of Ehrman (which I posted after the fact) but it was my quickly worded "spends his time tearing down the word of God" description.

I should have taken the time to do what you did and say..."In light of the following statements from Dr. Ehrman who's clearly taking this position, how would you characterize the majority of published members of the SBL?" And then go on to list those statements like you have.

More factual less "opinion" as was pointed out to me.

I made the mistake of assuming that everyone who uses Logos bible software is Christian and holds to Orthodox Christian doctrine...that's clearly not the case....that's where I was naive.

Ted Hans

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/147547#Comment_147547

Thanks Bob for the response on "scientific accuracy" [;)]. I have read a lot more that would fit your description above about the Doc than has been mentioned in this thread. Anyway i understood the spirit in which you asked for more info, leaving "factual claims" aside[:)]. Blessings.

Ted

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/147207#Comment_147207

Would it be possible to name a few of them? The ones I checked from the publicity cannot be placed in that category. I would be interested if I were convinced that the journal represents balanced scholarship. I have heard declarations that it does, but no hard evidence.

I couldn't find many. D. A. Carson has four articles on John's Gospel. Fee has three articles on textual criticism. Several of the authors of the WBC series had a few articles.

I'm not sure anyone's claiming the journal represents 'balanced' scholarship. It's fair to say that many (but not all) of the authors are not writing believing that the Bible is the Word of God. Articles are more likely to be helpful for background studies, than for preparing individual sermons. For those doing academic study it's a must at this price. Those who are looking to apply the Word of God to others would be better served by Themelios or the TLJ collection. That said, if you have TLJ and have ordered Themelios, the price for JBL might still make it worthwhile. The beauty of an electronic edition is it's integration, and you never know what helpful tidbits you might find unexpectedly.

Below is the table of contents for the current issue. It will give you a pretty good idea of what to expect. If nothing in this TOC interests you, save your dollars.

Poetic Forms in the Masoretic Vocalization and Three Difficult Phrases in Jacob's Blessing
Richard C. Steiner

Ἐξιλάσασθαι: Appeasing God in the Septuagint Pentateuch
Dirk Büchner

The Composition of Nathan's Oracle to David (2 Samuel 7:1-17) as a Reflection of Royal Judahite Ideology
Omer Sergi

"Going Down" to Bethel: Elijah and Elisha in the Theological Geography of the Deuteronomistic History
Joel S. Burnett

A "Diagnostic" Note on the "Great Wrath upon Israel" in 2 Kings 3:27
Scott Morschauser

Invoking the God: Interpreting Invocations in Mesopotamian Prayers and Biblical Laments of the Individual
Alan Lenzi

Josephus's Essenes and the Qumran Community
Kenneth Atkinson and Jodi Magness

Instability in Jesus' Galilee: A Demographic Perspective
Jonathan L. Reed

The Name "Iskarioth" (Iscariot)
Joan E. Taylor

The Narrator as "He," "Me," and "We": Grammatical Person in Ancient Histories and in the Acts of the Apostles
William Sanger Campell

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/147547#Comment_147547

I made the mistake of assuming that everyone who uses Logos bible software is Christian and holds to Orthodox Christian doctrine...that's clearly not the case....that's where I was naive.

To be honest, I'm a bit stunned by this statement. It almost sounds like you are saying that people who aren't aligned the way you want/expect them to be, isn't Christian. I sincerely hope that's not the case.

Ted Hans

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/147570#Comment_147570

To be honest, I'm a bit stunned by this statement. It almost sounds like you are saying that people who aren't aligned the way you want/expect them to be, isn't Christian. I sincerely hope that's not the case.

There are many Jewish users of Logos.

Ted

Edit

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/147572#Comment_147572

Thank you Al and Ted. We all need reminding occasionally that Logos not only has a wide range of Christians, it also has a strong contingent of Jews.

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/147572#Comment_147572

Al,

I wasn't targeting Jewish users, I had in mind what the bible would call "unbelievers."

I'm not trying to draw that little circle of acceptance around where I'm standing.

this fact was pointed out to me, so I'm just acknowledging it.

I'm guessing this thread is better left dead at this point.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/147511#Comment_147511

Interestingly, there are those who feel SBL has lost its scholarly moorings and become too open to evangelicals and other conservatives who prefer not to set aside their faith in doing their scholarship. (BTW, I say "amen" to doing biblical scholarship from a consciously acknowledged faith perspective. But I'm not averse to reading articles by those who have a different faith perspective than I have, or who intentionally leave their faith perspective to one side when doing their biblical scholarship.)

I'm not so sure that anyone can leave his faith perspective behind (even if that faith perspective is a "lack of faith"). I'm not certain that it would be a very good idea to attempt to do so. That said, Ehrman is a top-notch scholar who generally manages to get the facts straight yet does this in the most incendiary manner possible. You will rarely catch him in an outright error, but beware of the implications of some of his sweeping generalizations such as "Misquoting Jesus." Other than what we have in the gospels we really know nothing about Jesus. Sometimes the gospels seem to be contradictory in certain respects, but they are gospels and not histories. I tend to agree with Bultmann that the gospels are the product of the church which were written to set forth a particular perspective. If taken as histories, they are fairly demonstrably incorrect, but as a statement of commitment to the position that God was in Christ I would heartily agree.

The alternative to entering into dialogue with those with whom we disagree is to form a "Christian" ghetto from which we periodically exclude those who violate our standards. This seems contrary to the parable regarding the servants who came to inform the landowner that an enemy had sown weeds in his field and requesting whether they should remove the weeds to which he replied that they should let them grow until the harvest time. Sometimes we seem too intent on keeping the purity of OUR GROUP.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/147585#Comment_147585

The original topic still has a lot of merit, if we can return to it. Here it is again:

I thought those of us who have already put an order in for the Journal of Biblical Literature Pre-pub, http://www.logos.com/products/prepub/details/3625 could give the reasons why we are keen to get it, so that some of those who haven't ordered it, may be encouraged to do so.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/147570#Comment_147570

To be honest, I'm a bit stunned by this statement. It almost sounds like you are saying that people who aren't aligned the way you want/expect them to be, isn't Christian. I sincerely hope that's not the case.

To be fair, that's not what Robert was saying. He was merely acknowledging that not everyone who studies the Bible would consider themselves Christians. As well as Jews, there will be a number of Logos users who are agnostics or even atheists and who study the Bible as literature. There'll also be some non-Christians who use Logos to study things like Judaism or Early Church History.

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/147562#Comment_147562

I couldn't find many. D. A. Carson has four articles on John's Gospel. Fee has three articles on textual criticism. Several of the authors of the WBC series had a few articles.

I'm not sure anyone's claiming the journal represents 'balanced' scholarship.

Thank you, Mark. You and Rosie have given me the type of information I was seeking, and I have made my decision. Whether I decided to purchase or not is irrelevant. What is important is the availability of decent information upon which to base a decision.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/147645#Comment_147645

A few others must have ordered it after seeing this thread. It has gotten so incredibly close to going over the top. Looks like 90-95%. Maybe it'll make it before the end of the summer, in time for the start of the next academic year, when seminarians will be hitting the books again and having this journal in Logos format will come in handy.

While there might not be a huge number of articles of interest to me, just having that one article I'm looking for which I can't get any other way except by joining SBL (for $40 - $85 per year) can sometimes be worth it. If this happens just a few times in my study, the collection will have paid for itself. And there's also the value of being able to search this collection along with my other journals to find articles I might not otherwise have known existed. I'm not expecting to sit there and read each issue of JBL as if it were a magazine. But I'm an avid researcher and when I'm digging into a topic, I want to see what everyone who has written seriously on it says, regardless of what their faith stance is. They might have access to some ancient documents I don't have or be able to read Akkadian, or be able to shed light on it from their knowledge of linguistics or their expertise in Ancient Near East military history, or whatever. Yes, it would be nice if they also believed that the text they were studying was the Word of God, but their contributions are valuable even if that isn't the case.

Ted Hans

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/147621#Comment_147621

To be fair, that's not what Robert was saying. He was merely acknowledging that not everyone who studies the Bible would consider themselves Christians. As well as Jews, there will be a number of Logos users who are agnostics or even atheists and who study the Bible as literature. There'll also be some non-Christians who use Logos to study things like Judaism or Early Church History.

Thanks Mark I was seriously struggling to find a way of expressing what you have written above. You have captured my thoughts exactly, much appreciated.

Ted

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/147829#Comment_147829

He was merely acknowledging that not everyone who studies the Bible would consider themselves Christians. As well as Jews, there will be a number of Logos users who are agnostics or even atheists and who study the Bible as literature. There'll also be some non-Christians who use Logos to study things like Judaism or Early Church History.

There are also those who consider themselves Christians but whom someone else here might not consider Christians because their definitions of what makes one a Christian differs, and one must be careful to avoid denigrating such people on the forum. That's part of why we don't get into theological disputes here. Different people come from different perspectives, all share one common goal which is studying the Bible or related topics using Logos. We need to respect that one shared purpose with each other even if we differ on other things.

Lynden O. Williams

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/147836#Comment_147836

There are also those who consider themselves Christians but whom someone else here might not consider Christians because their definitions of what makes one a Christian differs, and one must be careful to avoid denigrating such people on the forum. That's part of why we don't get into theological disputes here. Different people come from different perspectives, all share one common goal which is studying the Bible or related topics using Logos. We need to respect that one shared purpose with each other even if we differ on other things.

Well said Rosie. I am an individual who has had his beliefs in one instance indirectly criticized in the news group. That has not stopped me from participating in the forum. There is a lot of material published in Logos that I do not agree with. That does not stop me from buying or reading it. The older I get, the more I am likely to read material that I do not agree with, if just to find out what someone else believes, and see the approach that they bring to a subject.

When conducting serious research, you are expected to read widely. I agree with George on this one. "I do not need anyone to tell me what I believe"

P.s. See my signature. "Everything written or spoken in Religion and Theology published in Logos."

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/147854#Comment_147854

Well said Rosie. I am an individual who has had his beliefs in one instance indirectly criticized in the news group. That has not stopped me from participating in the forum.

I'm sorry to hear that, but I'm glad it didn't scare you off. Sadly one of our earliest MVPs stepped down because someone had questioned whether people of his theological persuasion are really Christians. It was a loss to the forum, in my opinion. We benefit from having a wide diversity of theological experience. If someone asks a question about lectionaries, it's wonderful that we have Martha (MJ Smith) around who knows so much about various ones form different traditions, for example. Someone like you could recommend resources from your tradition (which I happen to know but won't mention here) that others wouldn't know about, so I'm glad you're here. [:)]