Which commentary for?

Jeremiah said:

I'm wondering can anyone recommend a commentary available in logos which takes an approach similar to M Dahood's i.e. heavy leaning on philology?

There are very few, if any, commentaries that have the focus on language as Dahood does. (Some would add 'thankfully!'). Most good technical commentaries obviously use philology to understand the text, but will have that as one tool of many.

If you want to focus almost solely on language/translation, the only sets I can think of that you might find helpful would be the Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament and Baylor Handbook on the Hebrew Bible. Other commentary sets, whilst obviously seeing language/translation as important, will also emphasise such things as form, cultural context, theology, etc.

I'm pasting the comments on Jonah 1:1, so you can get a feel for what's on offer:

Narrative discourse—mainline. The presence of the wayyiqtol form indicates that the narrative opens on the mainline. וַיְהִי is best understood as a discourse marker, signaling the beginning of a narrative that presumably follows a preceding event or scene. Or to put it differently, the verb signals that “it is therefore part of the mainstream of a greater narration” (MNK, 331–32). The obvious problem is that it stands at the beginning of the book—with no preceding event clearly in view. Perhaps the narrator’s deviation from normal Hebrew construction and unexpected use of conventional language at the beginning of the book suggests the unconventional nature of the remainder of the book (Trible, 1994, 125).

וַיְהִי. Qal wayyiqtol 3 m s from הָיָה. When וַיְהִי appears elsewhere, an impersonal subject is often understood, rendering the phrase, “and it came to pass,” or “and then it was” (Gen 4:3; Ex 19:16; Esth 1:1), yet in these instances rarely is there a noun provided to serve as subject of the verb. In Jonah 1:1, however, the subsequent noun, דְּבַר־יְהוָה, operates as the subject, thus rendering the phrase, “Now the word of the LORD came.…” Sasson attempts to render the verb temporally, “When the LORD’s command … was” (67), but such a rendering makes the transition to the main clause in the next verse awkward. Kamp suggests that the transition marker וַיְהִי actually serves to divide the text of Jonah into five episodes or narratives (1:1–4a; 1:4b–2:1a; 2:1b–11b; 3:1a–4:7c; 4:8a–11c). See Kamp, 89–91.

דְּבַר־יְהוָה. The construct phrase indicates a relationship of possession (MNK, 198). Other grammars refer to this as a “possessive genitive.” The verb + subject phrase (וַיְהִי דְּבַר־יְהוָה) + אֶל “is found only when contexts and circumstances regarding the prophet and his mission are already established” (Sasson, 67), as often seen in the Elijah narratives.

אֶל־יוֹנָה. The prepositional phrase serves as a complement to the verb, with the preposition marking the indirect object.

בֶן־אֲמִתַּי. The construct phrase stands in apposition to יוֹנָה. The absolute noun in the construct phrase functions attributively. On the role and frequency of the appositional phrase in Hebrew, see WO 226–34 (see AC, 21–24; JM, 477–81).

לֵאמֹר. Prep + Qal inf constr. The infinitive form of אָמַר is best understood as having “become grammaticalized as a complementizer” (Miller, 206). The absence of typical features associated with an infinitive, particularly the governing of objects, adverbial phrases or prepositional phrases, suggests that it has retained a different function, namely that of a complementizer. Miller explains that “a complementizer precedes its complement without intervening constituents” (207). In the present sentence, לֵאמֹר appears at the end of the quotative frame (initial clause) and introduces the complement, i.e., the quotation of direct speech. In addition to functioning as a complementizer, לֵאמֹר also functions as a discourse switch cue, noting the shift from narrative discourse to hortatory discourse.

I don’t think you’re likely to find a ‘Dahoodian’ commentary. The Dahood talent seems to be author specific.  For example, Anchor’s Nahum looks at logosprosodic analysis, and musicality.  You sort of have to bounce across AYB, Hermeneia (a few), Continental, and ICC (both some early ones, and more recent). Then monographs and journal articles. Messy but invaluable.

Jeremiah said:

I'm wondering can anyone recommend a commentary available in logos which takes an approach similar to M Dahood's i.e. heavy leaning on philology? I glanced at "berit olam" and it seemed very basic.

I found this list of commentaries to be quite useful, perhaps you may find it useful as well. Berit Olam is not philological in its approach it is literary and for this, it is quite useful. Here's the link https://library.tiu.edu/commentaries 

I hope you find what you are looking for.

--Beloved

Despite the inequalities within series, there are series that are definitely more scholarly than others. If I could acquire one series out of MM discounted sets, it would be Anchor. Surely you will find plenty of material to work with across the series even if you are disappointed in some volumes or lines of interpretation. Also, many Christians have not caught on the value of the Apocrypha to understand ancient Judaism and as background to the NT. There are few sets that include commentaries on them (Anchor, Hermeneia). These may be the only scholarly commentaries you will find on these books. 

In Anchor, there are some monumental volumes: Milgrom on Leviticus remains the towering work on this biblical book. Fox on Proverbs is also very good, etc. Though personally I am not a fan, Anchor also includes Dahood.

Of course, Anchor does not cater to Evangelicalism and may be found to be "liberal" scholarship. Perhaps it would be better to express this not so much as Evangelical vs not Evangelical but as encouraging vs ignoring or downright undermining faith. If you are able to ignore that noise (if you so desire) and focus on the data, then it is a useful series to own especially at such a discount.

Keep in mind also that it is much cheaper per volume to acquire series than to hand pick volumes from different series. In the long run, you can save more also by getting a greater dynamic pricing discount when you own series than if you own fewer commentaries. 

Francis said:

Also, many Christians have not caught on the value of the Apocrypha to understand ancient Judaism and as background to the NT. There are few sets that include commentaries on them (Anchor, Hermeneia). These may be the only scholarly commentaries you will find on these books. 

Amen. That is why I value the New Interpreter's Bible so much. I have anchor and find them good but still get more out of NIB on average. I know there was no NIB in this years MM. But just thought I would interject this minor point.

-dan

Francis said:

Also, many Christians have not caught on the value of the Apocrypha to understand ancient Judaism and as background to the NT. 

...

Of course, Anchor does not cater to Evangelicalism and may be found to be "liberal" scholarship. Perhaps it would be better to express this not so much as Evangelical vs not Evangelical but as encouraging vs ignoring or downright undermining faith. 

Not disagreeing per se, but the more I llook at the apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, Qumran, and later (?) talmud, the more I wonder exactly what an average judean in the 1st century might believe (and therefore what might be valid background).  Even Philo seems odd.

Regarding 'liberal' scholarship, I regard anything after Didache as liberal ... created creeds, demands for sign-up etc,  And at least at our church (super-conservative), that's ok.  And so, the liberal scholars questioning evangelical claims is a conservative behavior.

Denise said:

Not disagreeing per se, but the more I llook at the apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, Qumran, and later (?) talmud, the more I wonder exactly what an average judean in the 1st century might believe (and therefore what might be valid background).  Even Philo seems odd.

That's a bit off-track but I would agree to say that it is difficult to gauge first-century Judaism (esp. in Palestine) based on the extant literature which could very well represent smaller groups or fringe movements. As for Philo (and Josephus), they are hybrids and expatriates. Putting the pieces together is difficult, but it makes sense that Judaism prior to the destruction of the Temple should have been fragmented since the national and religious situation was so messy and there was plenty of room for factions.  

Denise said:

Regarding 'liberal' scholarship, I regard anything after Didache as liberal ... created creeds, demands for sign-up etc,  And at least at our church (super-conservative), that's ok.  And so, the liberal scholars questioning evangelical claims is a conservative behavior.

I kinda expected you to say something about this! [:)]