What do You think of NT commentary compromises such as Anchor?

I'm 32 years old and starting to study Gk at uni in the Fall 2014. Self-tuition has not been very inspiring but I'll try to prepare before the class starts.

Anchor Yale Bible Commentary New Testament has all the original languages transliterated. Transliterated Hebrew is fine, but having all the Gk transliterated is a deficit.

What can AYBC NT be used for? From the A forum You can see a post where I list what books, for example commentaries, I have. If I would buy the AYBC NT, how would it complement what I have, or would it? Does it in any way complement Hermeneia or is it just a matter of quality and age of commentaries?
EDIT: I can see that practically no-one (maximally one did) follows my cross posting links and 48 persons have already viewed this thread, so here's the link to my post on the A forum: www.accordancebible.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=12127#entry56138 ... if You follow the links which I provide over there You will see my full disclosures. Layout-wise I would not want to insert all or much of those posts here.

I think the interesting books are: Mk (2 vols.), 1 Cor, Gal, Col, Philem, Jas, Jude - although if I would order printed matter I should put more consideration and get more advice about which volumes are good in which set out of the commentaries I have or that would be good additions either to my electronic or my print libraries.

I'm also wondering if the Jude commentary is so good that I don't need another (Peter H. Davids in Pillar)? I doubt.

Is Anchor fast to use? I notice it doesn't merely give an interpretation - that might be the way!

I just read this review: "AB - Anchor Bible Commentary

Technical vs Practical: 0
Liberal vs Conservative: 2

The Anchor Bible Commentary, published by Yale Press, is a project that started in the 1950s. It has over 100 volumes and is still incomplete. The series is part of a larger collection that covers a wide array of subjects in religion, sociology, and anthropology in the tradition of 19th- and 20th-century liberal arts scholarship. It is an extremely exhaustive and comprehensive series, but it is disliked by many evangelical scholars because as a whole it has no theological attachments and often arrives at conclusions contrary to orthodox Christian tradition. Some of the older volumes in the series are quite dated and should be supplemented by more contemporary commentaries."
... emphasis mine: that could be a good thing.
Source: http://upsem.libguides.com/content.php?pid=394922&sid=4298003

Maybe there are more reviews out there.

I don't think I want dedicated practical whole commentary sets.

So what are Your opinions on AYBC NT? I would not be able to read it on a handheld device unless I buy some of the volumes as printed matter instead - so how realistic is it to read from a computer monitor? Does the NT work well as a set? Are the Biblical text translations effectively usable or is it preferable to use Your English Bible version preference? Is it any idea to wait many years and then buy AYBC NT anticipating new volumes by then (I doubt that option)?

Are there other sets with a different touch that would offer more balance to my library and/or exciting corrections of misconceptions? (Find the A-forum post to see what kind of things I have in my library.)

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Adam Rao

I think the AYB NT volumes are all worthwhile (with the exception of Ford's commentary on Revelation; Koester's replacement volume, however, is sure to be outstanding).

Milford Charles Murray

Peace, Unix ...

You said, "Anchor Yale Bible Commentary New Testament has all the original languages transliterated. Transliterated Hebrew is fine, but having all the Gk transliterated is a deficit."

I studied Greek for many a year before I was privileged to own Commentaries with the original languages transliterated; and --- frankly -- in my opinion -- it doesn't make much difference one way or another ....

If one learns Greek well, one's mind easily and naturally makes the proper adjustment, methinks! *smile*

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/570766#Comment_570766

Unix, what are you looking for in a commentary? I mean in terms of methods - rhetorical? linguistic? socio-historical? theological? reader-response? I wouldn't be without Hermeneia and Anchor - but they need to be balanced by series such as Reading the New Testament Commentary or Socio-Rhetorical Commentary Series or The United Bible Societies' New Testament Handbook Series. One learns how to read a text by having resources at the word, sentence, pericope, rhetorical, social, historical levels - especially when you are reading original language texts. One learns little from commentaries you always agree with - a nod of the head may be good for your neck muscles but it doesn't help your brain. I suggest that you look at the gaps in your resources and knowledge and try to fill the gaps. I am assuming that you are not heading for ordination.

Ken McGuire

Anchor Yale Bible Commentary New Testament has all the original languages transliterated. Transliterated Hebrew is fine, but having all the Gk transliterated is a deficit.

The Anchor series started as something designed to be usable to intelligent lay readers - not as a technical commentary. It has developed into being more than this, but this feature remains. And while I understand that non-transliterated is better for those who can read the original, I fail to see why this is such an issue to you - especially since transliterating Greek into the Latin alphabet is more straightforward than Hebrew... Heck, the Latin Alphabet has the letter "Z" at the end because the Romans put it back in for Greek terms...

I am sorry that I don't feel like following your cross posting links. You are asking for free advice, and so you get what you pay for. There are many commentary review sites and books out there. In general, the Anchor series is viewed as inconsistant, especially in the earlier volumes. NT wise, I have been warned away from the first Mt, Mk, Acts, 1 Cor, General Epistles, and Rev volumes. Many have been replaced already, and I think the others will be. And many of the later volumes are standard treatments from their perspectives.

I do not have any of the commentaries in a digital format, and so cannot speak about how realistic it is to read them from a computer monitor. Much of that would depend upon how comfortable you are reading anything from a computer monitor.

In general, the Anchor series is a bit more readable than the Herm. or ICC, and probably Word - although Word is decent if you understand how it is organized and know to look for things in all the various places it hides them. It is normally a bit less technical than Herm. and ICC, although Matherlee on Thessalonians will tell you a LOT about the pagan background, for example.

You ask about the quality of the bible translation. I would not replace my standard translations with that from the Anchor series. The standard translations are the work of committees, often with an extensive review process. A commentary's English translation, however, is the work of one person - and there are advantages to many people getting together to collaborate on it, since different people have different strengths and weaknesses.

As far as your "interesting books" list, the new volumes on Mark have been well received. They are quite an improvement over the old one by Mann. I only have the 1st volume, but in limited use it seems useful. That said, I use the Black's/Harper volume more.

For 1 Cor, there is a new one by Fitzmyer. I do not have it, but my experience with Fitzmyer is that he is quite good at telling you the issues with the text, but a bit less good at drawing conclusions from this. If you want someone to tell you what it means - look elsewhere. But he is a quite useful guide at teaching you to wrestle with it yourself. And as frustrating as this can be, it also makes it quite useful for a commentary - as long as you don't need to teach a bible study on the passage in an hour...

The Galatians volume is pretty good, but it oddly seems to ignore the whole New Perspective debate. Since this has been a huge issue with interpreting Galatians lately, you should add another commentary that speaks about this. Personally I use Dunn and Luther in addition to this volume...

With Philemon, see above comments about Fitzmyer...

James I know nothing about in Anchor. I assume there is a new one, but don't know anything about it.

Jude seems decent from my very limited use of it, but probably the Word volume is more "standard". I have used the Pillar even less, and so cannot say.

SDG

Ken McGuire

BillS

Talk to your seminary profs re AYBC is a good fit with what they'll be teaching you. In the past, I bought the "top sets", but recently I've come around to share the view that it's much better to own the top commentaries for each Bible book than any number of complete sets whose costs prevent me from owning the top few commentaries.

I'd never make the size investment that AYBC would take without checking to see how valuable your profs feel it'll be in supporting your academic papers. If you can't cite it, don't buy it...

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/570796#Comment_570796

I bought the "top sets", but recently I've come around to share the view that it's much better to own the top commentaries for each Bible book than any number of complete sets whose costs prevent me from owning the top few commentaries.

It is nice to have one base set to start with, although I know that his Hem. and the AYBC are far from complete. But I would agree with you picking the best for each book is the ideal, unfortunately current models of selling makes that very hard. Although I suppose if you are willing to go outside Bible software say to Amazon individual books are out there...and of course there are always paper books.

-Dan

BillS

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/570810#Comment_570810

It is nice to have one base set to start with

[Y]

George Somsel

I like having complete sets since there are frequently links between the various volumes of the sets. I sincerely dislike transliterated Greek/Hebrew since I either need to refer to the original or take the time to back transliterate (which can be a pain). You have been warned off certain volumes of the AYBC set. There are some points to note: 1) Albright is known primarily as an archaeologist and Semitologist rather than as an exegete. 2) Ford's commentary on Revelation is certainly idiosyncratic and has even been disavowed by the authoress herself, but it does make interesting reading. Some of the OT volumes in the series are quite good such as Speiser on Genesis, Pope on Job and Dahood on the Psalms.

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/570883#Comment_570883

Dahood on the Psalms.

I really have to look closer at his volumes, in the past i found them less than helpful to the point I rarely go to it even though i am in the psalms quite often.

-Dan

mab

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/570886#Comment_570886

I had several volumes of this in print form which are rather good if read with care. I bought the NT set not too long ago with the understanding one needs to read from a variety of commentators after you've done your own mining of God's treasure.

FWIW, the only volumes I want in the OT counterpart is Milgrom on Leviticus. I really wish they'd offer by volume instead of set.

Adam Rao

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/570967#Comment_570967

The OT volumes are, by and large, outstanding. Some are a bit on the old side, but others (Propp on Exodus, for example) are very recent as well.