Faith Life Commentaries?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/394382#Comment_394382

I just downloaded Faithlife and I noticed that there was a vast amount of information available as I was studying John.

That's good!

I am always cautious about study bible notes because we are not ignorant that not everyone views scripture from the same lenses. Therefore I am always proceeding with caution when it comes to commentaries.

That's very good! It helps to not simply trust Study Bibles and Commentaries, but to take their (usually helpful) notes with a "Berean spirit".

In this context it's often good to know from which theological tradition a Study Bible or commentary comes, to we aware of potential bias. The FSB claims to reflect a "general evangelical" point of view, which may be a bit vague and which may allow for difference of opinion between various contributiing authors and editors.

We have been told that the notes undergo an editing process with several people looking over them, which should preclude open heretical remarks but may not capture every disputable wording.

it seems that the writer is suggesting that John is writing from a rabinic midrash perspective? what I mean is that John was using the method of midrash to interpret Genesis 1:1 and Prov 8. From what I understand of midrash is that its a complex system of trying to interpret inconsistencies found in the Old Testament and Jewish Rabbi's have made up elaborate stories to try to make sense of these inconsistencies

For me, it seems (especially through the link to the LBD entry on Midrash) that the writer of the note is using Midrash only as a way of saying that John is making his point of introducing Christ by an accepted method: half-citing and thereby interpreting OT scripture and enlarging its historic-grammatic content. This of course treats only the human-side of "producing Scripture" (like when we look into Paul's argumentative structure or so), not the divine-inspirational aspect.

I don't feel this makes the note implying that there are inconcistencies in the OT text of Genesis or that John makes up out of thin air what he tells about Christ.

using Prov 8 is problematic because it is the very text Arius used to prove Jesus was a created being.

I've never encountered Prov 8 as a template for John 1 before and I think this needs a bit of additional clarification in the FSB note.

I am not a theologian or a scholar, I am simply a brother in Christ who is trying to be faithful to the text and trying to understand it from an orthodox position. So I am not sitting here in judgement of the writer, I just happen to see some things that concern me and was wondering what others thoughts were on this.

Two good news here:

FSB is not a once-published, set-in-stone-forever type of resource. Logos promised to concurrently update it. Its editor (John Barry) told us that they listen very intently to user comments and are eager to hear about suggestions as well as recommendations for further clarification.
We users may utilize Faithlife's technical features to voice and share our questions, remarks and concerns. There is a faithlife group dedicated to this task, where we start to exchange this kind of thoughts - some of FSB's editors even follow the group. Join us!

Paul Golder

The consideration also has to be made that the FSB is a ecumenical collaborative effort, so it will, by its very nature, have notes that reflect the theology of the contributors. Given this, the notes will be varied from a strict literal interpretation all the way to an allegorical one.

Alan Palmer (Logos)

Steve, I think it serves you well to read the note in good faith.

That said, your feedback is extremely valuable, and (as NB.Nick pointed out) the FSB is undergoing continual review and revisions. So your thoughts are well received by the editors of the FSB. Feel free to email them at editor@logos.com. At the very least they will probably want to clarify their statements to avoid any misconceptions.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/394368#Comment_394368

Thanks for your reply. This has caused me to do some deeper investigation and was fruitful. At least know I am aware of what midrash . I would personally avoid it and do not agree with the comment in the commentary even though it seems to be vague but at least it caused me to dig deeper and that is a good thing.

Also agree that the notes should be explained in a deeper way regarding Prov 8 regarding Wisdom as it does SEEM to appear that the author is sugggesting this is what John had in mind in 1:1. I am glad to hear that the editor is open to comments, that is a very good thing!!!

Just a note that I do like many of the features of the faith life study bible!!

Thanks again!

Steve

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/394535#Comment_394535

As far Paul Godler's comments I agree that this seems to be a wide theological pool. It would be nice to see Faith Life with different versions aimed at attracting specific groups? Then again maybe not!

I kind of like the Faith Life Calvin is my Homeboy Edition

Doug Mangum (Lexham)

1. It seems that the writer is implying (IT SEEMS) I want to be careful not to accuse if I am reading this wrong. But it seems that the writer is suggesting that John is writing from a rabinic midrash perspective? what I mean is that John was using the method of midrash to interpret Genesis 1:1 and Prov 8. From what I understand of midrash is that its a complex system of trying to interpret inconsistencies found in the Old Testament and Jewish Rabbi's have made up elaborate stories to try to make sense of these inconsistencies. Such as Abraham smashing his fathers idols to name one.

Also using Prov 8 is problematic because it is the very text Arius used to prove Jesus was a created being.

So it seems that the writer is suggesting that John and the New Testament writers were products of rabbinic midrash interpretation and their writings were influenced by such. To me that is problematic because midrash interpretation is whatever the interpreter sees in the text or makes of the text which is subjective.

Steven,

Let me try to quickly clarify that note, or at least set your mind at ease. We weren't suggesting John wrote from a rabbinic perspective, but scholarship on the NT has begun to draw more on the ways Jewish methods of interpreting the Bible may help throw new light on what the NT writers were doing. The note itself defines how it's using "midrash":

[quote] A midrashic interpretation typically begins with a text from the Pentateuch and explains it through links to a text from the Prophets or the Writings.

At its core, "midrash" is simply a Jewish method of using Scripture to interpret Scripture. I admit that rabbinic midrash often leads into speculative and imaginative biblical interpretations, but we're not trying to head there or suggest that the NT writers were either. The point was simply that for John's NT audience the phrase, "In the beginning was the Word" would have had numerous cultural and literary resonances that it doesn't have today. If you haven't seen it already, the FSB sidebar I wrote on "The Logos in John's Prologue" might help explain the topic even more.

We appreciate your feedback on FSB. As we continue to update and revise the notes, we are taking all feedback we receive into consideration for clarifying and expanding notes. You can send any other feedback you have to us directly at editor@logos.com if you wish.

By the way, we do have an official statement of faith affirming our belief in the inspiration and authority of Scripture. We adhere to the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association Statement of Faith (available here).

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/394585#Comment_394585

By the way, we do have an official statement of faith affirming our belief in the inspiration and authority of Scripture. We adhere to the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association Statement of Faith (available here).

My apologies, I did not realize that you adhere to the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association’s Statement of Faith. I was under the assumption that there where members of the editorial staff that held to the Roman Catholic Faith.

Again my apologies.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/394585#Comment_394585

Doug,

Thanks for clarifying this. Just still not sure I agree with that concept of midrash 100% but there are many things I do not agree with in some of my favorite commentaries.

Another question. How does your commentary handle texts that have either a Reformed or Arminian interpretation? I am sure you have both groups represented on your team? Take for instance Romans 9. Would your commentary give both sides of the position or would it lean toward one side more than another? I personally am Reformed and do love to see both side represented. Just wondering where Logos stands on this in their commentary on the Faith LIfe.

Thanks

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/395020#Comment_395020

Doug,

This issue has caused me to do some research and study on this issue of midrash. Some very interesting information has surfaced and it seems to cast some suspicion on my part as to the content of the commentary in Faithlife. I would like to know your thoughts on the following.

It seems that some of the commentaries that are recommended for deeper reading that are locked are not solid "Evangelical" in their content. For instance the John commentary when clicked goes to

Sheffield New Testament Guides: John by Barnabas Linders

Given all the wonderful commentaries that are on Logos that hold to a very strong Evangelical position it seems Faithlife has chosen one where the author believes that the Apostle John was irresponsible in his quoting of the Old Testament in his letters.

Here is a quote by D.A. Carson (who by the way was a student of Linders)

"At the surface level, Psalm 2:7 warrants none of these conclusions. Indeed, the disparity prompts many scholars to conclude that the NT writers frequently use the OT in an irresponsible proof-texting way that badly rips texts out of their contexts (e.g. B. Lindars)"

http://beginningwithmoses.org/bt-articles/219/systematic-theology-and-biblical-theology

Here is another review by Andy Naselli

Lindars’s major argument is that after the NT authors embraced Christianity (i.e., they believed that the crucified and resurrected Jesus was the Messiah), they searched the OT to prove it (i.e., to provide a “New Testament apologetic” for Christianity); they used OT proof texts, however, in an eisegetical manner, twisting them out of their historical-grammatical context (cf. pp. 283–86). Lindars acknowledges (pp. 13–14)

Analysis

Lindars’s NTA is thoughtful and insightful, technical yet readable. Its thesis, however, is demonstrably false, not to mention irreverent to those with a high view of Scripture (myself included).

I. Howard Marshall cites “two assumptions” in NTA that “need greater justification than he provides.” (“An Assessment of Recent Developments,” in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF, ed. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988], pp. 8–9. Cf. J. M. Owen, review of Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, Reformed Theological Review 21 [1962]: 86.)

Lindars assumes rather than proves that “the earliest use of OT texts was apologetic rather than anything else.” The NT uses the OT in ways other than a polemical apologetic, including explanation, “still-valid teaching,” and “the form and content of its own praise and prayer to God.”
Lindars assumes that “resurrection-apologetic” was “the very earliest apologetic.” Marshall finds this assumption “puzzling” because “it was by no means the only form of apologetic, and it is a strange assumption that every text used in the earliest days of the church must have had an initial reference to the resurrection.”

Furthermore, Lindars rejects what I believe to be the most compelling view, namely, that reading the OT and NT through a salvation-historical grid reveals that the NT’s use of the OT is warranted because of the person and work of Christ and the unitary nature of the canon. D. A. Carson’s critique of Peter Enns‘s Inspiration and Incarnation(“Three Books on the Bible: A Critical Review,” TJ 27 [2006]: 44-45) applies to a heightened degree to Lindars’s NTA:

http://andynaselli.com/review-of-barnabas-lindarss-new-testament-apologetic

Doug, again with all the Great Commentaries on John that are available in Logos why would you choose an author who, as Andy Naselli rightly states, has a view that is irreverant to those who do hold to a strong Evangelical view of innerancy of Scripture.

I could post more on this but I think these two articles show that this probably was not the best commentary to make available. Not everyone is a scholar or professional theologian. Why would Logos want to introduce this kind of material to an unsuspecting and young Christian who would read Lindar and come away saying "The new testament writers twisted scripture and took it out of context". That is absurd!

So though I do believe you hold to an Evangelical statement of faith, in my opinion, I believe you missed this one and probably should think about replacing John with a more conservative commentary where the author is not leaning toward a liberal approach to scripture.

Thanks

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/395048#Comment_395048

This thread is quite interesting. Kind of like a cat digging his way out of the bag. (The 'cat' being the inevitability of theological disagreements.)

Wilson Hines

Not trying to be controversial, but only affirming that I've come across the theory of John alluding to Gen 1 and Prov 8 on many occasions in various of the more scholarly commentaries and monographs.

I don't know the contents of your Logos Library or your physical library, but the more scholarly and technical commentaries are going to work through various points of view and concepts. That's the value in those works.

Me myself, I don't see a theological problem with the idea that John was alluding to those texts and in fact, I think it's an amazing concept.

Michael Grigoni

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/395054#Comment_395054

Steven, thanks for your comments. This is precisely the kind of feedback we've been hoping to receive on the FSB study notes. While this has been discussed elsewhere on the forum, I'd like to mention again that our aim is to present the broad range of interpretive options in our commentary. Given this, I especially appreciate your detailed response regarding our analysis of this particular part of John's Gospel. Given that the FSB is a digital publication, we have the advantage of addressing issues like this in response to reader feedback in a timely manner (especially compared to print publications).

I encourage you to look at our expansion of our notes for John 1:1 when we release our next update of the FSB. Please let us know at editor@logos.com whether you feel we've addressed your concerns. There is also a great Faithlife group titled "FSB Users" that is committed to discussing the note content of FSB. Several of the contributing editors are members of the group and it's a great place to dialogue about issues like the one you've raised.

Thanks again.

Doug Mangum (Lexham)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/395048#Comment_395048

Steven,

First, let me answer your first question: how do we deal with Reformed/Arminian interpretations over disputed passages? The short answer is that we attempt to explain the options and arguments for both sides as fairly as possible. I can't vouch for whether we succeeded at all places and we're continually enhancing our notes to make sure they present the options and don't overemphasize one side. I'm sure that will be a continual process as more readers draw our attention to notes that need more balance.

Second, the same philosophy--options and presenting opposing views--also explains how the links cover a wider range of perspectives than just "strong Evangelical." The links on that first note in John's gospel also point to the Word Biblical Commentary and the New Int'l Commentary on the NT. The link is not an endorsement of the resource, simply an indication of what else there is to read on the subject. Often links will point to a wide variety of resources from a broad range of scholars from all areas of Christianity-evangelical, mainline Protestant, and Roman Catholic. If it's in our library, readers might like to know about it.

Regarding the issue with Lindars in particular, the volume linked to is not his New Testament Apologetic. It's part of a series of very short introductions from Sheffield. I've read the book that was linked to and it's really surface level and introductory. Yes, it's not "evangelical" but it gives a good basic explanation of scholarly approaches to the gospel of John. It's not an endorsement of Lindars in general. But I've found that series from Sheffield to be fairly balanced and informative by and large. I've read many of their short OT and NT guides.

Finally, you've presented a bit of a conundrum here. On the one hand, you seem sympathetic to our attempt to cover a variety of perspectives (Reformed vs Arminian), but at the same time, you are concerned when a writer might offer a liberal perspective that we should avoid them and prevent our readers from coming across something that might challenge their thinking. On many issues, there's no clear line between an acceptable interpretation and a out-of-bounds one. There are evangelical interpretations of passages that set off the red alert of heresy for other evangelicals. We try to present the information fairly and let readers decide for themselves.

Steven, I understand your concern for the new Christian or less educated Christian coming in touch with some of these resources. In this case, I'll take another look at what was linked to and make sure this introductory guide from Lindars is appropriate.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/395083#Comment_395083

Mike and Doug,

Thanks for your response. Understand that I am not trying to go to war and split hairs here. I really LOVE the concept of the Faithlife Study Bible. Let's be honest though, the majority of the people that are going to use this resource are those who are looking to study the bible more. I don't think those who are well versed in Theological issues will have a problem reading people like Lindars. I am well aware that there are theologians who are studied by main stream evangelical scholars who are even borderline heretical but are read for the purpose of interacting with their positions. Can someone who in one area is way off have anything good to say in other areas? Of course.

Doug, using your own words, maybe you should put a note on a link to an author who you admit is not "evangelical" so that unsuspecting people who just bought Faithlife and want to study the bible are not caught off guard and come away saying that the Apostles misquoted OT Scripture.

Gentlemen, I am struggling to get people I know who are confessing Christians and who really do not know how to read the bible or who do not have good study tools to read and study the bible. I have Logos Platinum and a large resource of commentaries and biblical theologies that I study and I am so grateful for Logos! But most of these people would be lost in Logos . But I think the Faithlife Study Bible could be a very powerful tool for them. The whole idea of having a group and bible study seems like a really great idea. But I am also very protective over those I am trying to influence and want to make sure they are not led down some wrong trails that could cause confusion and doubt that God's Word is actually GOD"S WORD and not flawed man's words. The bottom line, in my opinion, anyone that makes claims as does Linders is not someone I want these people I am trying to help read.

You admit that he is not "evangelical" so you should at least have a note stating that.

As far as your statement about "conundrum". I think this is apples and oranges Doug. Arminian and Reformed are THOROUGHLY EVANGELICAL and hold to the verbal, plenary, infallible, inerrant, inspired Word of God.

So to compare my comment to see both sides of the "in house" debate represented with someone who says that the Apostles were twisting Old Testament Scripture and taking it out of Context and pretty much attacking that Word of God, is not really a valid comparision.

Do I think you should avoid a liberal perspective? ABSOLUTELY! Why would we want to cast shadows on the Word of God and stand in judgement of God's Word? The fact that you suggest a Liberal interpretation is a good thing is one of the reasons I am addressing these issues Doug. Maybe in a Seminary that is something that should be tackled. But in a Bible Software that you are advertising to the CHURCH is a whole different ball game. Instead of challenging people's faith you might end up destroying their faith. I know that is not your's or Logos' desire. But I also think Logos needs to be more responsible and realize that not everyone (And I would argue MOST) who will pick up and use Faith LIfe are those who do not have a Seminary Degree and do not have the skills to rightly divide and decipher theological issues in a sound biblical way.

I am grateful for the interaction and hope you are open to my comments, as you seem to be. I find that refreshing. Again, I think Faithlife has some really great potentials to become a tool that Churches and small groups can use to study the bible, but remember that these are people gathering in the community of the Church and not in the halls of Seminaries and many will simply believe everything they read in your commentary notes. That should cause Logos to use EXTREME caution and stay within the boundaries of "evangelical". And when you do not, at least have a well grafted explanation and footnote letting the reader know that Logos does not agree with this position and it is not "evangelical" so proceed with caution.

Thanks!

Steve

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/395103#Comment_395103

Sorry, one more think. Doug I understand that the quotes from Carson and Nasselli are not from John, but the author is the same author and it would be hard pressed for me to believe that his view on scripture does not influence his commentary. That's all!

Doug Mangum (Lexham)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/395103#Comment_395103

Steve, the fact that "many will simply believe everything they read in your commentary notes" is why the notes themselves are evangelical in perspective. The links, however, may take people beyond the boundaries of that perspective, but only if they own or purchase the resource. The core content--notes, articles, Bible dictionary--is written from an evangelical perspective engaged in dialogue with other traditions including secular critical scholarship. We do have a cautious, theologically-evangelical approach to what we publish. We take our responsibility to our readers very seriously (heeding the warning of James 3:1). If you have further concerns or a desire to dialogue further on this issue, send an email to editor@logos.com. One of us will be happy to continue the conversation via email.

Again, thanks for your feedback. Rest assured it will be taken into account as we update Faithlife Study Bible in the future.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/395103#Comment_395103

maybe you should put a note on a link to an author who you admit is not "evangelical" so that unsuspecting people who just bought Faithlife and want to study the bible are not caught off guard and come away saying that the Apostles misquoted OT Scripture.

Steven, the forum periodically has discussions as to why labeling the stance of a book appear to be simple but becomes nearly impossible to do in practice. (see last page or two of http://community.logos.com/forums/p/44253/395008.aspx#395008) I'd be willing to bet that I could find 20 evangelicals active on the forums that would take 20 different positions on the interpretation of the first section of John ... and that I could do so in less than 20 minutes. It is important to give feedback to Logos as you did. It is even more important to teach the users to read critically.

Note: this diversity is not limited to evangelicals ... I could probably do it with early church fathers as well.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/395130#Comment_395130

Doug any other comments I have I will email. But I do beg to differ regarding your notes.

The comment on John 1:1 regarding Prov 8 is not clear at all and does seem to suggest Prov 8 a direct reference to Christ as N.B. Mick even noticed in his below quote

"I've never encountered Prov 8 as a template for John 1 before and I think this needs a bit of additional clarification in the FSB note."

David Mullens

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/395151#Comment_395151

I'm very knew to FLB, but not to Logos. I really feel for the folks at Logos, especially if they are required to make sure the church folk using FLB to not freak out over comments, notes, etc. Given the discussion on the commentary of John 1, I started wondering how will Logos deal with textual variance such as Acts 9:5. Most commentaries, liberal or otherwise, will try to deal with the variance, but I believe there are some Christians who would have troubles over such issues. How is Logos going to make everybody happy?

I, for one, see it as an opportunity for conversation, prayer, and further study within my community group.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/395151#Comment_395151

"I've never encountered Prov 8 as a template for John 1 before and I think this needs a bit of additional clarification in the FSB note."

c. The logos of the Prologue and Jewish Wisdom Speculation. The closest conceptual parallels to the use of logos in the hymn from the Prologue of John are to be found in Jewish wisdom literature (Proverbs, Sirach, Baruch, and the Wisdom of Solomon). The various attributes and activities ascribed to wisdom in Jewish wisdom literature are ascribed to the logos in the hymn in the Prologue. The following table lists the more important of those parallels (Rochais 1985b: 175–80):

In the beginning was the word (logos) (1:1)
The lord created me (sophia) at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginnings of the earth. (Prov 8:22–23)
From eternity, in the beginning he created me (wisdom), and for eternity I shall not cease to exist. (Sir 24:9)

And the Word was with God (1:1)
When he established the Heavens, I (wisdom) was there, (Prov 8:27)
When he marked out the foundations of the earth, then I (wisdom) was beside him. (Prov 8:29–30)
With thee (God) is wisdom, who knows thy works and was present when thou didst make the world. (Wis 9:9)

All things were made through him (1:3)
For wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me (Solomon). (Wis 7:22)
With thee (God) is wisdom, who knows thy works and was present when thou didst make the world. (Wis 9:9)

That which came to be in him was life (1:3–4)
For he who finds me (wisdom) finds life. (Prov 8:35)
Because of her (wisdom) I shall have immortality. (Wis 8:13)

And the life was the light of men (1:4)
Wisdom is radiant and unfading. (Wis 6:12)
For she (wisdom) is a revelation of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness. (Wis 7:26)

The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it (1:5)
Compared with the light she (wisdom) is found to be superior, for it (light) is succeeded by the night, but against wisdom evil does not prevail. (Wis 7:29–30)

He was in the world (1:10)
And I (wisdom) was his delight, rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the sons of men. (Prov 8:30–31)
She (wisdom) made among men an eternal foundation, and among their descendants she will be trusted. (Sir 1:15)
She (wisdom) reaches mightily from one end of the earth to the other, and she orders all things well. (Wis 8:1)

Yet the world knew him not (1:10)
No one knows the way to her (wisdom), or is concerned about the path to her. (Bar 3:31)

He came to his own (1:11)
Then the Creator of all things gave me (wisdom) a commandment, and the one who created me assigned a place for my tent. And he said, “Make your dwelling in Jacob, and in Israel your inheritance.” (Sir 24:10)
Afterward she (wisdom) appeared upon earth and lived among men. She is the book of the commandment of God and the law that endures forever. (Bar 3:37–4:1)

And his own received him not (1:11)
You (Israel) have forsaken the fountain of wisdom. (Bar 3:12; see also Prov 1:20–30)

But too all who receive him, … He gave power to become the children of God (1:12)
Though she (wisdom) is but one, she can do all things, and while remaining in herself, she renews all things; in every generation she passes into holy souls and makes them friends of God, and prophets. (Wis 7:27)

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (1:14)
Then the creator of all things gave me (wisdom) a commandment, and the one who created me assigned a place for my tent. (Sir 24:8)
Afterward she (wisdom) appeared upon earth and lived among men. (Bar 3:37)

Both the logos of the hymn in the Prologue and wisdom in Jewish wisdom literature are with God in the beginning; both are involved in the creation of the world; both seek to find a place among humankind; both are within a Jewish tradition of speculation about the deeper meanings of the early chapters of Genesis. In addition, many of the parallels between the logos in the hymn and the figure of wisdom are found in passages which like the hymn are poetic in character (Prov 8:22–31; Sir 24). The parallels are not simply conceptual but also stylistic.

Thomas H. Tobin, "Logos", in , vol. 4, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman, 353-54 (New York: Doubleday, 1992).

Okay the original is in 2 columns hence easier to read but I think you'll be able to decipher the gist.

===========

Re; Proverbs

8:22 His eternal generation: “The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His way.” We must not understand the word “possessed” as implying that Christ ever had a beginning. God never existed without the quality or attribute of wisdom, and neither did He ever exist without the Person of His Son. The meaning here is exactly the same as in John 1:1: “In the beginning … the Word was with God …”

William MacDonald, Believer’s Bible Commentary: Old and New Testaments, ed. Arthur Farstad, Pr 8:22 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995).

================

This insight of Augustine reminds us that in Jesus Christ are found “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3). The NT as a whole shares in the general movement of early Judaism toward a sapiential understanding of revelation (1 Tim. 3:15–16). For the NT, the Redeemer of all things is the incarnate Word or Wisdom, through whom the Father created all things (John 1:1–18; cf. Prov. 8; Col. 1:15–20; Heb. 1:1–14; 1 Cor. 1:24, 30). Moreover, the life and teaching of Jesus embody and advance the principles of OT wisdom.

Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Craig G. Bartholomew, Daniel J. Treier and N. T. Wright, 850 (London; Grand Rapids, MI: SPCK; Baker Academic, 2005).

================

The key to any determination of the story order of 1:1–18 is the history of religions parallels. There is widespread agreement that the background against which the prologue should be read is the Wisdom myth of ancient Judaism (cf. Appendix). A list of specific parallels is instructive.
(1) Preexistence is common to both the Johannine Logos and Jewish Wisdom (John 1:1: “In beginning was the Word” // Proverbs 8:22; “The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old”; Sirach 1:4: “Wisdom was created before all things”; 24:9: “From eternity, in the beginning, he created me”).

(2) Both are said to be “with God” (John 1:1: “and the Word was with God” // Proverbs 8:30: “then I was beside him, like a master workman”; Wisdom of Solomon 9:4: “the wisdom that sits by thy throne”).

(3) Both are said to be divine (John 1:1: “and the Word was God” // Wisdom of Solomon 7:25–26: “For she is a breath of the power of God, and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty; … she is a reflection of eternal light, … and an image of his goodness”).

(4) Both are described as the instrument of creation (John 1:3: “All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made” // Prov 8:30: “I was beside him like a master workman”; 3:19: “The LORD by wisdom founded the earth”; Wisdom of Solomon 7:22: “wisdom, the fashioner of all things”; 9:1–2: “who hast made all things by thy word, and by thy wisdom hast formed man”).

(5) Both are called the source of life (John 1:4: “In him was life” // Prov 8:35: “he who finds me finds life”; Baruch 4:1b: “All who hold her fast will live”) and light (John 1:4: “and the life was the light of men” //Wisdom of Solomon 7:26: “she is a reflection of eternal light”; Sirach 24:27: “It makes instruction shine forth like light”; Baruch 4:2: “walk toward the shining of her light”).

(6) Neither can be overcome by darkness/evil (John 1:5: “And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness cannot overcome it” // Wisdom of Solomon 7:29–30: “Compared with the light she is found to be superior, for it is succeeded by the night, but against wisdom evil does not prevail”). The parallels settle the translation problem of 1:5. In this context katelaben means “overcome,” not “comprehend.”

(7) Both continually come into the world (John 1:9: “The true light which enlightens every person was continually coming [present tense, periphrastic participle] into the world” // Wisdom of Solomon 6:13, 16: “She hastens to make herself known … she goes about seeking those worthy of her”; 7:27: “in every generation she passes into holy souls and makes them friends of God”; Sirach 24:6–7: “in the whole earth, and in every people and nation, I have gotten a possession. Among all these I sought a resting place; I sought in whose territory I might lodge”; 1 Enoch 42:1: “Then Wisdom went out to dwell with the children of the people”) and are in the world (John 1:10: “He was in the world” // Wisdom of Solomon 8:1: “She reaches mightily from one end of the earth to the other”). The parallels, together with the present tense (continually coming) in 1:9, point to a general revelation to all people. This idea would be compatible with other early Christians from Paul (Rom 1:19–20) to Justin (1 Apology 5).

(8) Both are rejected by humans generally (John 1:10b: “He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not”; 1:11b: “and his own people received him not” // 1 Enoch 42:2: “but she found no dwelling place. So Wisdom returned to her place and she settled permanently among the angels”; Baruch 3:20–21: “they have not understood her paths, nor laid hold of her. Their children have strayed far from her way”).

(9) Both create a relation with God among those who are receptive (John 1:12–13: “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” // Wisdom of Solomon 7:27: “she renews all things; in every generation she passes into holy souls and makes them friends of God, and prophets, for God loves nothing so much as the man who lives with wisdom”; “because of her I shall have immortality”), saving humans (Wisdom of Solomon 9:18: “and were saved by wisdom”).

(10) Both appeared on earth and lived among humans, tabernacling among them (John 1:14a: “The Word became flesh and tabernacled among us” // Baruch 3:37: “she appeared upon earth and lived among humans”; Sirach 24:8, 11–12: “Then the Creator of all things gave me a commandment, and the one who created me assigned a place for my tent. And he said, ‘Make your dwelling in Jacob’… in the beloved city he gave me a resting place. So I took root in an honored people”).

(11) Both possess glory as monogenēs/unique (John 1:14, 18: “we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only son [monogenēs] from the Father … the only [monogenes] Son/God who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known” // Wisdom of Solomon 7:22, 25: “Wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me. For in her there is a spirit that is … unique [monogenēs] …. For she is … a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty”).

(12) Both know God and make him known (John 1:18: “No one has ever seen God; the only Son/God who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known” // Wisdom of Solomon 8:4: “For she is an initiate in the knowledge of God”; 9:9–10: “With thee is wisdom, who knows thy works and was present when thou didst make the world, and who understands what is pleasing in thy sight and what is right according to thy commandments. Send her forth … that she may be with me … and that I may learn what is pleasing to thee”).

Charles H. Talbert, Reading John: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles, Rev. ed., Reading the New Testament Series, 71-73 (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2005).

================

<Prov 8> NEAR <John 1> This search came up with 409 results in 137 articles in 70 resources in my library. MY ONLY complaint would be that the search took 284.88 seconds.[:)]

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/396230#Comment_396230

Thank you, MJ! *smile* Very much indeed! You are appreciated!

I look forward to studying this intensely and making it the subject of some deep meditation!

Peace to you! ... and .... Always Joy in the Lord!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/396230#Comment_396230

Thank you for this lot of material.

<Prov 8> NEAR <John 1> This search came up with 409 results in 137 articles in 70 resources in my library. MY ONLY complaint would be that the search took 284.88 seconds

408 results in 129 articles in 45 resources, but only 52,61 seconds - and it seems to me, Logos is running much faster on my machine since 4.6 [:)]

However, these hits are often just long lists of bible references where creation or word or wisdom are mentioned in the bible. And although I must have read over it too sloppily in the past, of course all commentators on John 1 refer Prov 8 in passing, but on a less technical level this reads more like this:

"More generally in the Old Testament the Word of God is God in his powerful and effective action in creation (Ps. 33:6), deliverance (Ps. 107:20), and judgment (Ps. 29:3f.; Is. 55:11). It is the ‘Word of God’ who gives understanding to the prophets concerning the mind and will of God (cf. Is. 38:4; Je. 1:4; Ezk. 1:3). This thought of God’s illumination is developed and personified in the concept of ‘wisdom’, particularly in the book of Proverbs; cf. ‘The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works,… I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began.… I was there when he set the heavens in place,… I was the craftsman at his side.… rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind’ (Pr. 8:22–23, 27, 30, 31). - Bruce Milne "The Message of John" from BST Series

The specific claim from FSB was ""This first section of the prologue (vv. 1–5) functions as an interpretation of Gen 1:1–5 read through the framework of Prov 8:22–31." which in my opinion is something different and may have been informed by the AY article you cited.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/396256#Comment_396256

The specific claim from FSB was ""This first section of the prologue (vv. 1–5) functions as an interpretation of Gen 1:1–5 read through the framework of Prov 8:22–31." which in my opinion is something different and may have been informed by the AY article you cited.

Fortunately, I stay out of evangelical theological debates generally. What had caught my attention in this thread was the seeming surprise at what the FSB said and the reaction regarding the midrashic method - right or wrong the statement strikes me as reasonable. I agree that one still needs to test reasonable statements for truth or falsity. My goal was simply to show that the FSB concept was broadly available and hope by examples to weaken the negative evaluation of midrash. I would now also add the goal of observing that the FSB does not make an exclusive claim i.e. it does not claim that the prologue functions SOLELY as an interpretation ...so I would lean towards a three way cross-reference relationship between Genesis, Proverbs and John. Unfortunately, Logos notes don't even permit paired links let alone triplets.[:(]

Gary Osborne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/395020#Comment_395020

Another question. How does your commentary handle texts that have either a Reformed or Arminian interpretation? I am sure you have both groups represented on your team? Take for instance Romans 9. Would your commentary give both sides of the position or would it lean toward one side more than another? I personally am Reformed and do love to see both side represented. Just wondering where Logos stands on this in their commentary on the Faith LIfe.

I downloaded FLB last night and went to some of my favorite "proof texts" to see if the notes would take a centric approach on the Arminian/Reformed issues. I'm sorry to report that was not the case at all. Every one of the passages I looked up leaned heavily Reformed. Most were not even close to even-handed. Don't get me wrong. I know it's nearly impossible to divorce oneself from such things, but honestly a few of the notes were over the top biased in that respect. IMO, there wasn't even an attempt at some points to present both sides.

One of the worst, just as an example:

Heb 6:4-6

"There is no indication that the type of people depicted in this passage had a relationship with Christ prior to falling away from Him."

Wow! Really? NO indication at all? That's just extremely biased. And there is no counter-point to the Weslyan-Arminian position present at all, either there in chapter six or in the equally important Heb 3:12 passage.

As I said, I checked a half dozen key passages where Arminians would stake out important soteriological ground and almost none of it was given equal space.

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/396003#Comment_396003

How is Logos going to make everybody happy?

FSB editors are not going to be able to make everyone happy, but this is a new venture and I think their openness to feedback is the right approach.

I share some of the OP's concerns. FSB is great for me, where I am at in my maturity in Christ and being able to deal with more liberal commentary, but I wouldn't recommended ti to a lot of Christians I know, this material wouldn't be helpful to them if they choose to unlock some of these resources - curiosity always makes you want to find out whats in the wrapped box (and I think there is some marketing strategy behind this to get people to unlock more books; its not just about provided links to dig deeper; call my cynical if you like, maybe I am a little.) I even think the LBD is a little bit to academically or scholarly inclined at times for me to recommended it to the average person sitting in the church pew - its great for me, but I don't see how some of the material in LBD is going to be beneficial for them. So unless I know a person is inclined to dig deeper into the scriptures, really knows how so sort the chaff from the wheat when it comes to the liberal stuff , I wouldn't recommend FSB and LBD to them.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/403873#Comment_403873

Gary, how in the world did you find a quote like that? What an interesting gem.

You don't even have to know any theological background or read the NT text to say 'Huh?'

(I've no interest in the various 'theological' positions, though the Damascus Document does speak to these verses.)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/403873#Comment_403873

I downloaded FLB last night and went to some of my favorite "proof texts" to see if the notes would take a centric approach on the Arminian/Reformed issues. I'm sorry to report that was not the case at all

Gary,

we have seen the editors of FSB are open to suggestions and may change or expand their notes in updates to the FSB. One way to tell them is sharing these notes and your concerns in Faithlife group FSB users. We know that FSB editors such as Mike Grigoni actively interact there. I have raised the problematic wording of this sentence, and I would like you to share your concern for other passages, too.

I checked a half dozen key passages where Arminians would stake out important soteriological ground and almost none of it was given equal space.

This is very unfortunate, as FSB claims to adhere to a general broad evangelical consensus view and not follow reformed partisanship. Surely all of the writers have their own confessional view, but we have been told that the editor's panel would straighten out such things.

Mick

Gary Osborne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/403893#Comment_403893

Never mind. I may have been reading it wrong thinking there had been a quick update. Now I'm not as sure. Perhaps it's the same.

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/403893#Comment_403893

we have seen the editors of FSB are open to suggestions and may change or expand their notes in updates to the FSB.

Quite true. For example, I made a suggestion related to the treatment of Genesis 6 from merely one perspective, and the article was trimmed back quite a bit and the alternative included as an alternative, but fairly represented (IMHO).

I recently wrote to them about their interpretation of Genesis 9:22 (the sin of Ham), which seems to me to be, while thoughtfully written, still somewhat idiosyncratic. I expect that someone in Logos will look at my comments. I don't pretend to know what they will do with them, but I'm confident that they'll look at them.

The FSB wants to be more inclusive than it is, but needs and welcomes feedback from users. Sometimes authors are not aware of the assumptions they bring to the text, even when it might seem obvious to one who takes care to be theologically precise.

If you want to write a thoughtful and respectful suggestion regarding incorporating alternate interpretations of these key texts, you can do so at this email address: editor [at] logos dot com (address intentionally obscured to prevent spam bots from stealing it). (BTW, you can also write a philippic diatribe against what you've found and send it to the same email, but it's not as likely to get positive results [;)].)

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/403901#Comment_403901

Well-written, Richard!! Thank you! *smile*

Peace to all! .. and Joy in the Lord!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/403901#Comment_403901

we have seen the editors of FSB are open to suggestions and may change or expand their notes in updates to the FSB.

Quite true. For example, I made a suggestion related to the treatment of Genesis 6 from merely one perspective, and the article was trimmed back quite a bit and the alternative included as an alternative, but fairly represented

We may see an example of this in this thread. the discussion of John 1 now reads: This first section of the prologue (vv. 1–5) functions as an interpretation of Gen 1:1–5 read through the framework of Prov 8:22–31 (see note on Prov 8:22). This exegetical technique resembles a method of Jewish exegesis called midrash. A midrashic interpretation typically begins with a text from the Pentateuch and explains it through allusions to a text from the Prophets or the Writings. John begins with a quotation that invokes the context of Gen 1:1–5 with its imagery of creation by divine word and opposition between light and darkness. His interpretation centers on the Word as Creator and bearer of divine light. Genesis 1:1 and Proverbs 8:22 both use the Hebrew word reshith (usually translated “beginning”), and the larger context of both passages is God’s creation of the universe.

The "resembles" is reworded from a passage the OP bolded to focus his critique. The last sentence has been added for clarification. We see that the "interpretation read through the framework" sentence, which probably carries a lot of the idea of the whole 2nd level explanation here has not been changed. The whole interpretation is on the second level, but on first level we'll see a link to "Jesus as Wisdom" - this thematic article by Michael Heiser explicitly discusses the John 1 and Prov 8 controversy with the Arians at the Nicean Council.

Michael Grigoni

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/403907#Comment_403907

Gary, thanks for your comments. We’ll look at the note you’ve brought to our attention. I encourage you to send any additional feedback you may have to editor [at] logos [dot] com.

Richard and NB.Mick, thank you both for your comments as well. Gary, my hope is that the examples they’ve cited demonstrate our efforts as editors to continue enhancing and improving the FSB note content based on user feedback. We look forward to hearing from you.

Michael Grigoni

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/403917#Comment_403917

And Richard, yes, we have received your email on the note at Genesis 9:22. We didn't have time to address your feedback prior to the release of last week's update, but we certainly will for the next one.

For those wanting more information, you can read about the recent update to FSB here.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/396230#Comment_396230

There are numerous things that have come up in this thread that warrant comment...I will focus on just a couple. First, and briefly (I spoke to this in a post from about a year ago), "midrash" is a Hebrew word that has a meaning of its own--essentially it means "to study".That word, like many concepts in Judaism, has been hi-jacked by rabbinical use (which can easily be called misuse). Judaism, which is NOT the religion of the OT, has a specific thing in mind when the word is used, and it is far more limited than the word's simple dictionary definition. To summarize, rabbinic midrash is a rigid methodology for developing commentary...commentary which can unearth occasional gems and produce many stink-bombs.

I find it humorous...and sad...that the OPer keeps referring to "Evangelical" as though the word itself is sacrosanct. When I encounter comments such as, "I don't think that perspective is Evangelical", my initial reaction is to say, "Maybe it isn't, and perhaps that's because it's TRUE!"

In a similar vein is the "is it Arminian or is it Reformed" argument. Again, if it's TRUE, the answer is probably "neither". I don't know if Logos gave FSB as much thought on the so-called "negative" side as was warranted...but I certainly hope they did. They have unquestionably opened up a massive can of worms. Frankly, I think that might be a good thing, and for one 900-pound-gorilla of a reason: the Bible is a book that suffers fools poorly.

If you can't face up to and deal squarely with the Himalayan difficulties of Scripture on the one hand and the absurdly fanciful reptilian-Jesus-from-Mars conspiracy theories on the other (not to mention the Jesus Seminars, Coptic scraps, archaeological "proofs", and scientific "evidences"), YHWH has no interest in you. Not so different is running from a different perspective of Scripture than the one you've coddled in blissful seclusion. In His sight, that is akin to Saul staying in his tent while Goliath taunted outside. The Bible is HARD and DIFFICULT for a REASON! It is written in prophetic code to cull the half-hearted and those who want to dodge the struggle this whole recipe called life is designed to provide. That mentality results in "rapture" theology...the desire to be told smooth things...and avoid tribulation. It results in Bart Ehrmans...who managed to make it to post-graduate adulthood without having to come face-to-face with "bible contradictions" and "serious textual controversies"...and as a result lost his faith.

If a person is chased away from Truth by a lie...YHWH says the one telling the lie AND the one told the lie will die. That means something--YHWH HOLDS THOSE WHO DON'T FIND TRUTH GUILTY EVEN IF THEY WERE MISLED. Isa. 9:16-17 So guess what...allowing ANYTHING to push you off the path of truth and righteousness is YOUR fault...whoever "you" happens to be.

But wait!!! Scripture says there's "simplicity in Christ"!!! Yes, and simpletons will interpret that however they see fit...but they ought to keep Prov. 1:32 in the forefront of their mind. Also, if the Bible is so simple even a child can understand it, why is there such dispute about its contents? The truth is, YHWH spoke His will CLEARLY...then said He was going to send false prophets that teach lies to see if people really do love Him. The man of lawlessness and the "strong delusion" are the prime fulfillment of that promise. Absurdities like "once saved, always saved" are the result. It allows people who have no clue what happened on the cross to say "what you say doesn't change what happened on the cross". The people to whom Yeishuu`a replies "I NEVER KNEW YOU" call themselves Christians...and they think they are. Some own Logos software, and some will never read a Bible...because they don't have to--they've been told they have eternal security.

My point here is that one person's Evangelical Truth is another person's rank heresy. In the end the only opinion that matters is YHWH's. That means that rather than run from "different opinions" about what the Bible says, we boldly engage and destroy what is false. Midrash is one extremely useful tool in that endeavor. If you don't know that, it isn't midrash's fault. FSB will force people to come to terms with the unfamiliar. Plenty will be rabbinic (or protestant or catholic or adventist or mormon) mush. On rare occasion that unfamiliar thing that you've never heard before in your creed-coddled life...may be Truth.

1 Cor. 14:29 "...let folks speak, THEN JUDGE."