Suggestion: The Queer Bible Commentary

I would love that though not holding my breath. Looking at the resources included in the base packages which largely prove useless to me as a seminarian in a progressive seminary, I don't think Logos is ready for that and neither are the Users. though, really hope they would include it.

I understand and appreciate your efforts.  I really do.  I was given the software as a gift when I entered Seminary.  At this point it is, to me, no more than a glorified Bible because the resources that came with it are too outdated and I am in no way able to purchase the books that would be useful such as a newer commentary set, the New Interpreters Dictionary, etc.  How can Logos/Faithlife/Verbum at nearly 1K (with student discount) not include something as simply as Eerdman's Bible Dictionary? Because of that I have decided not to upgrade.  Sad because of the amount of money that was spent on the software to begin with.

Dan Francis said:

I look forward to the day FL can add every good work and not have a protest.

I still want Dracula.

Rayner said:

if Faithlife doesn't broaden its material, it will limit its market.

Well, I have asked myself recently if perhaps Faithlife isn't spreading itself too thin, what with Noet and all, and so of course I have to disagree completely with this suggestion. Logos is a tool for the serious study of the Bible, and "The Queer Bible Commentary" is not a serious book, and in fact is an insult to any orthodox Christian.

And you say that on what authority?  Sometimes it is not bad to put on a lens other than your own and maybe even read something that may apear uncomfortable.  Also, the software and resources should only be for orthodox Christians?  If you do not like the Queer Commentary, don't buy it  if it becomes available - but to want to deprive others of a resource because of your own beliefs/agenda is simply wrong.

I've always wondered where the idea that limiting others access to wrong ideas is wrong.  No, I wasn't the one that got cited last week for the book burning down the street without a permit.

Now, I agree, letting the marketplace decide means someone else doesn't get to do my choosing (per se).  And so, quid pro quo.  But there are quite a number of the more conservative groups that wonder about making money off of 'wrong'.  And also encouraging 'wrong ideas' (per the wrongness quotient in that denomination).

That was one of the big surprises when I first encountered Logos.  Since then,  I still recognize the belief equation for others.  Even though I'm an Ehrmanite (I got caught not sharing one his latest in our Bart fan club), I'm not uncomfortable with some who would propose that Logos staff concentrate elsewhere.  

MJ, yes ... I think your approach is more even handed. I was hinting at the post below yours.

I don't have a problem with Logos offering this, but with all the things I really want, it's not going to be on my short list...or my medium list. If I ever rise above the fraction-of-the-poverty-line I'm at now, I would consider getting it. But even then, I probably wouldn't read it much. But when doing passage guide searches, it would be interesting to see what this unique perspective has to say, for the sake of curiosity as much as anything. Honestly, I can't imagine it being a font of wisdom, but strange things happen.

Dan Francis said:

it offers me a valuable view on others view of scripture.

I agree that this is a valuable thing, even if that view is entirely opposed to my own view. I find that very little clarifies my own perspective as much as reading constantly those who have a different perspective. Luckily, that gives me a vast ocean of reading material to choose from. [:P]

I guess I'm on the other side of the table from you guys.  First, the Bible, old testament, and new, is not a broad-view type of approach.  It encourages specific viewpoints (and thus the struggles on the Logos forum) that have to rule out other viewpoints as frequently literally 'sinful'.  1st John has to be the poster-child of that perspective. 'Our way or the highway.'

Now granted, Rosie's special trademarked glasses suggest a logical problem.  Who's view??  But that problem belongs to Logos.  I don't remember Logos ever saying not to indicate what one would not want included.  I think their guidance was to be courtious, in the nature of the Logosian coffee table chat.  And if Dan, sitting across the table, suggested this commentary being discussed, I don't feel uncomfortable saying there's better things Logos should be doing.  It's not an unending resource-base.  And who knows ... maybe everyone around the table would laugh at Denise.

I just got the feminist commentary on the Torah, and quite frankly, you don't go far, before you're wildly outside of most Logosians' comfort-zone.  Should it be in Logos?  Maybe? Maybe not?  (I don't really care since I already got it.)  But if someone said 'maybe not', that's Logos' call.  I'm certainly not offended.  And I'm glad Rayner suggested it; else I'd not heard of it.

Now, I'll admit I am 'bugged' by Logos suspicious avoidance of anything in-depth on Bible criticism (manuscripts, etc). All mamby-pamby stuff in my view.  So, obviously you can see I'm not being consistent.

Here is an example from the end of Esther, by Mona West.

Eunuchs

No commentary (especially a queer one) on the book of Esther would be complete without an emphasis on the role of the eunuchs. They are ‘perfect servants’ to the plot of the story. In chapter 1, seven eunuchs are named (Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha, Abagtha, Zethar and Carkas). They function as go-betweens in the battle of the sexes that dominates the opening scenes of the story.

The eunuch Hegai is a queen-maker in chapter 2. He is the one who instructs Esther and positions her to be noticed by the king over all the other women. Also in chapter 2, Mordecai’s discovery of an assassination plan by two eunuchs, Bigthan and Teresh, puts him and Esther in a favourable position with the king as the plot continues to unfold. The hanging of these two eunuchs on the gallows is a foreshadowing of Haman’s demise.

At the crucial scene in the middle of the book in chapter 4, eunuchs along with Esther’s maids will tell her of the mourning of her people. And as Mordecai pressures Esther to come out as a Jew on behalf of her people the only way they are able to communicate is through the messenger efforts of the eunuch Hathach. In chapter 6 the king’s eunuchs usher Haman into Esther’s second banquet, at which his evil plot to kill the Jews is exposed.

In chapter 7 Harbona, one of the king’s eunuchs, suggests Haman should be hanged on the very gallows he had built for Mordecai. Harbona will be the last eunuch mentioned in the book, but his suggestion of the hanging becomes the gateway for the reversal of fortunes of the Jews that will dominate the remaining four chapters of the book.

The eunuchs in the book of Esther function as a ‘third term’ or more precisely as a ‘third mode of articulation’. Their ability to cross boundaries of gender, power and physical space articulate spaces of possibility for the plot. They are able to move between male and female worlds in the story. They can move freely across physical boundaries that other characters cannot, such as the king’s gate and threshold and into the king’s presence. Finally, they are able to move across information boundaries. For all of the story’s decrees and messages, the eunuchs seem to be the only ones with all the information in the story. Indeed they are the ones with the real power.

I honestly don't ever expect to see it, but many years ago it APPEARED the New Interpreter’s Bible wouldn't make it. But it did, now I do know that the NIB has broader appeal than QBC but anything can happen. I mean I certainly won't hold my breath waiting for it but as I said with the NIB, but items like the NIB and the QBC can bring other people to the software. I fully acknowledge that having it in Logos format would be great, but I am content having it in Kindle format, I suppose I could try putting it into a personal book for private use in Logos but it is more something I would hope others would do...

-Dan

MJ. Smith said:

You forgot the sarcasm emoticon

Don't judge, I'm serious. I want the book in my Logos library so it can help in outreach to this marginalized group. In our hyper-sexualized-anything-goes culture, this work is a necessary addition to the libraries of those serious in reaching this subgroup. I'd like to do a "Theology of the Body according to Fifty Shades" series of essays, and this would help me out immensely as I look at the main character's views through the eyes of JPII's masterwork and our overall faith. And I can't wait to analyze the author's motives for naming one of her main characters "Christian".

Looks like a task my nicely tagged Logos library would be perfect for!

Greg Masone said:

I can't wait to analyze the author's motives for naming one of her main characters "Christian".

Snide irony?

Whatever perspective we come from, we all make judgments about which books are most useful, and which are least useful - and I suspect we all find that some are of no use or interest to us at all. (I'm a bookaholic, so that last category is pretty small for me, but there are some in it.) None of us can read everything, just like Logos can't publish everything - we all have to make choices. It's a great service for folks to recommend books that they have found particularly useful, and I suspect it helps Logos when others chime in and agree. There's also nothing sinister in someone else saying that they don't find a suggested book to be useful, whether it be due to the quality of the writing, the quality of the scholarship, or an approach to Scripture that they believe is misleading or unproductive. Logos staff have been doing this for a while; we're probably safe in assuming that they can handle the feedback in a responsible way.

JoshInRI said:

More and more I understand why my Pastor has suggested I stick to The Bible and not scour commentaries.

Commentaries are essential, even if you understand Greek and Hebrew greatly your understanding of the language is likely less than what a 5 year native speaker understands (I do not remember the scholar who stated that was). It is exceedingly important to understand how the passage has been treated historically in the church.  They place it historically with background, bring out greek and hebrew hints that as stated above even some serious readers of the original language might miss, and yes often give applications and hints to daily life.  The QBC is designed primarily for the Queer christian market. It is not bashing the Bible, it is not focusing on the 6 clobber passages as they are sometime called, it is about applying the Bible to ones life situation and how the Spirit is speaking to them. This is not a joke and indeed more than one of these authors have contributed to "serious" Biblical reference works. I remember some people refused to use the NIV (1984) because a lesbian was one of the stylists (no part involved in translation just in helping ensure the flow and it was understandable).

-Dan

Dan Francis said:

The QBC is designed primarily for the Queer christian market ...  it is about applying the Bible to ones life situation and how the Spirit is speaking to them.

That may naturally mean that it has limited appeal outside its particular target market.

Dan Francis said:

This is not a joke and indeed more than one of these authors have contributed to "serious" Biblical reference works. I remember some people refused to use the NIV (1984) because a lesbian was one of the stylists (no part involved in translation just in helping ensure the flow and it was understandable).

Unlike the NIV, the QBC is positioned in a way that suggests it approaches Scripture from a particular perspective. That will make it more appealing to people who share that perspective, and less appealing to those who disagree with it.  To use a completely different example, an Arminian may be perfectly comfortable using a Bible version that included Calvinist scholars on the translation team, but prefer a Wesleyan commentary to a Reformed one.  I grant that the feelings may be stronger for many (on both sides) in this case, but the dynamic is the same.

Dan, thanks for the thoughtful and gracious response. For my part, nothing I've said has been intended to belittle anyone or anything. In the time and place I grew up, civility was considered a virtue. I've not always lived up to my mom's standard of civility (which was pretty darn high), but we keep trying! [;)]

HI Dan

I am in the lifelong process of being healed and delivered by Jesus from same sex attraction as a redeemed, repentant, ever thankful for Jesus's loving sacrifice on The Cross, "working out my salvation with fear and trembling" sinner who values love/grace, and Biblical Truth in equal measure.  

I think your pastor may benefit (as I have) from this library by Paul Copan https://www.logos.com/product/27359/paul-copan-apologetics-collection particularly "Is God a Moral Monster?" book.  (just for the record it may help him see The Bible does not treat slavery as something normal and condoned at all).

I also will say - and I mean to humbly share this with tenderness - broken, thirsty, repenting, homosexual sinners need solid Biblical truth and teaching - not a commentary that hides, masques, colors, diminishes, or shrinks back from what God really intends for all sinners alike - full reconciliation to the type of relationship God always intended for us.

Why let a "queer" commentary further distance us from absolute Truth - God wants us, desires us, and expects us all to pursue a lifestyle He originally intended (a sinless, lovingly obedient one that is only possible through Jesus the Christ).

I personally would not purchase a commentary that actually hides The Truth from me (its challenging enough to discern bias and God's actual unblemished truth in most commentaries anyway...I know as I seek to play catch-up with them in Logos to learn all I can as a seminarian).  

In my brokenness, and as The Holy Spirit permits, I prayerfully seek to patiently, with God's help and Christlike love - not let anyone delude himself - and ultimately lead in a world with homosexuals and others who need to know God loves them but to also personally "hold fast" to Biblical Truth as well.

Reach out - as I do - for the hem of His garment, Dan.  Healing a lifetime of pain is possible.  Following/serving/leading as Paul did - even with a thorn in one's side (I see my own same sex attraction that way though I know the majority of commentators believe Paul's "thorn" was a physical ailment) is also possible.  Our Bible and Jesus points the way.  God help us all in Christ - NOT to be an "abomination" to God - but His beloved - always. 

Lets use Logos together as a tool not to further Satan's lies - but to love all others enough to tenderly/boldly share God's Truth with them.  I have no interest in debate and I harbor no ill will toward anyone imho going full-tilt the wrong direction pridefully adopting and celebrating a homosexual label and lifestyle.

It is my opinion the queer commentary could prove to be useless, pointless, and a disservice to GLBT and other broken, hurting, sinners everywhere. 

Glory to God....Jesus Lead On!

Josh In RI

p.s. I know this is a forum and some may feel strongly about what I have shared and want to respond.  It can be argued I have not adhered to this passage of Scripture already but moderator and others, I will follow Tt 3:9–11 and not respond to any replies in here I assure you.  My aim is a loving one.  Let the admonition (if someone sees one) be from Titus not JoshInRI. I am not seeking division but adhesiveness to Biblical Truth fanning that flame just this once from little ole Rhode Island, a rocky ground for Christ and at the lowest of some Barna studies for Biblical understanding http://www.rifuture.org/providence-last-in-bible-mindedness.html .

// <![CDATA[
var refTagger = {
settings: {
bibleVersion: "ESV"
}
};
(function(d, t) {
var g = d.createElement(t), s = d.getElementsByTagName(t)[0];
g.src = "//api.reftagger.com/v2/RefTagger.js";
s.parentNode.insertBefore(g, s);
}(document, "script"));
// ]]>

Mike - with God's help we can all fight sin in our lives.  Logos is an awesome tool in that pursuit too.  God loves us so much.  Pray I learn well to balance love and truth.  I confess I have a long way to go but I know God is assisting me and will as I seek to Honor Him.

Bless you Josh I hope you find all fullness and happiness in the path you are lead on. 

-Dan