The Next Chapter in the EEC

Page 2 of 4 (66 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 Next >
This post has 65 Replies | 9 Followers

Posts 4118
Mattillo | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 20 2020 10:41 AM

elnwood:

Speaking of plagiarism, Köstenberger, the new New Testament editor, had his John commentaries in the Baker Exegetical Commentary Series and Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary Series pulled for plagiarizing Carson's commentary.

Given that EEC has already had one commentary pulled for plagiarism, Köstenberger seems like an odd choice.

I believe Kostenberger actually had his own volumes pulled.  If I remember correctly after the O'Brien thing he looked over his own work and found the errors and had them pulled.  I wish they would have just updated and made a new one but this will be his chance to correct that and add more.  The BECNT was from 2004 I believe so 15+ years of extra knowledge? :)

Posts 482
elnwood | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 20 2020 10:49 AM

This is Kostenberger's announcement:

https://www.biblicalfoundations.org/letter-dr-kostenberger/

As I understand his statement, he did not find the errors, but someone else brought it to his attention. And while he contacted the publishers, it was the publishers' decision to pull the volumes, not his.

Posts 4118
Mattillo | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 20 2020 11:29 AM

Ah I stand corrected

Posts 2784
Forum MVP
Ted Hans | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 20 2020 11:48 AM

Mattillo:
The BECNT was from 2004 I believe so 15+ years of extra knowledge? :)

I take it you are aware of his 2009 volume the Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters: The Word, the Christ, the Son of God (Biblical Theology of the New Testament | BTNT) https://www.logos.com/product/26690/a-theology-of-johns-gospel-and-letters-the-word-the-christ-the-son-of-god

and his The Gospels and Acts HB (Holman Apologetics Commentary on the Bible) Hardcover – 1 Oct. 2013 https://www.amazon.com/Gospels-Holman-Apologetics-Commentary-Bible/dp/0805495304/ref=sr_1_fkmr2_1?dchild=1&keywords=The+Gospels+and+Acts+HB+%28Holman+Apologetics+Commentary+on+the+Bible%29+Hardcover+%E2%80%93+1+Oct.+2013&qid=1590000364&sr=8-1-fkmr2

Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ

Posts 23
Mark Maloney | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 20 2020 12:08 PM

dear friends,  when you look at the New Testament books published they contain commentary on 442 verses of the New Testament which itself consists of 7957 verses.  This works out at 5.5%.  this gives an estimated completion date of 2183. I am hoping to have retired by then and so won’t make much use of the last few commentaries! 

Posts 4118
Mattillo | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 20 2020 12:11 PM

Ted

I have heard of the BTNT but I do not own it. I just assumed it was more of a theology versus a commentary. Not familiar with the other one but it looks more akin to a study bible?

Posts 2784
Forum MVP
Ted Hans | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 20 2020 12:24 PM

Mattillo:
I have heard of the BTNT but I do not own it. I just assumed it was more of a theology versus a commentary. Not familiar with the other one but it looks more akin to a study bible?

Okay Mattillo, you do have a point. I will be comparing his Baker's volume with his EEC volume when it come out for fresh material

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (1:1): In this opening verse of John’s Gospel, God is set in relation to the Word. The Word, which in verses 14-18 is clearly identified as Jesus Christ, is an eternal being that existed prior to creation. However, it is not simply that the Word was with God (so, too, was Isaiah’s personified Word and Wisdom), but John refers to the Word itself as God. This is quite a claim coming from a Jewish monotheist. From the patristic era (Arius) to the present (Jehovah’s Witnesses), some have argued that, because there is no definite article in front of theos, this verse merely identifies Jesus as a god rather than as God. Interestingly, around 1950 there was a change in how Jehovah’s Witnesses dealt with this verse. Before 1950, they carried a copy of the American Standard Version of the Bible. However, the problem they faced was that the ASV rendered verse 1 accurately with the phrase “the Word was God.” In an effort to resolve the difficulty this rendering posed for its theology, the Watchtower Society (the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ publishing group) issued its own translation of the Bible, which rendered the verse as “the Word was a god” (Reed 1986, 71). However, there are several reasons why this translation is inaccurate.

First, John, as a monotheistic Jew, would not have referred to another person as “a god.” The Jews had no place for demigods in their belief system. Second, if John had placed a definite article before theos, he would have abandoned the distinction between the two persons he established in the previous clause (“the Word was with God”). Third, the view defended by Jehovah’s Witnesses misunderstands Greek syntax. It is common in Greek for a predicate noun to be specific without having an article. For example, later in this chapter reference is made to Nathanael’s confession of Jesus, “you are the King of Israel” (1:49), with no article being before “King” in the Greek (for other NT examples of this construction, see 8:39; 17:17; Rom 14:17; Gal 4:25; Rev 1:20). From these examples, it is clear that the lack of an article in Greek does not necessarily imply indefiniteness (“a” god). Finally, John could have used the word theios if he were simply trying to say that Jesus was “divine” (i.e., that he had God-like qualities) rather than being God himself. The anarthrous (article-less) theos is most likely used to explain that Jesus “shared the essence of the Father though they differed in person” (Wallace 1996, 269). As D. A. Carson explains, “In fact, if John had included the article, he would have been saying something quite untrue. He would have been so identifying the Word with God that no divine being could exist apart from the Word. In that case, it would be nonsense to say (in the words of the second clause of this verse) that the Word was with God” (1991, 117).

The Word was with God, and the Word was God (1:1): Critics often say that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is unbiblical. While it is true that no verse specifically spells out that God is “three divine persons in one essence,” as our historic creeds have stated, the fact is the biblical witness demands the Trinitarian doctrine. The present verse disproves any monistic model of God, for the Word is at one and the same time “with” God, meaning there is some way of making distinction between Word and God, while at the same time the Word is God. Hence from this verse one would conclude that there are at least two personal beings united in the one godhead. A sampling of other verses supporting Trinitarianism includes Genesis 1:26; Isaiah 9:6; Matthew 28:19; 1 Corinthians 2:10; and Colossians 1:17.

The true light, who gives light to everyone, was coming into the world (1:7, 9): Some have used these verses to teach that all people will in the end be saved through Jesus, a view called “universalism.” Yet, this confuses the desired with the actual result of John the Baptist’s testimony concerning Jesus. In other words, while God desires all people to believe (cf. 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9), this is not the actual outcome, because not all people will in fact believe.

John does not speak here of internal illumination in the sense of general revelation (contra Morris 1995, 84), but of external illumination in the sense of objective revelation requiring a response (Brown 1966, 9). The rest of the Gospel illustrates clearly that not all did in fact receive the light, though it was available to all through Jesus’ presence and teaching (Borchert 1996, 113). In the present verse, John is emphasizing the universal scope of Jesus’ coming and the potential spiritual enlightenment available to all who believe, an enlightenment available not only to Jews but to all people (cf. 1:12-13; 3:16; 10:16; 12:32; cf. 1:10; 3:19-21).

Reading the verses following verse 9, it becomes increasingly apparent that John is not proposing a form of universalism: “He was in the world, and the world was created through Him, yet the world did not recognize Him. He came to His own, and His own people did not receive Him” (1:10-11). Even though the world was created through the Word (an echo of 1:3), it did not recognize that Word, because it was estranged from him (Ridderbos 1997, 44). Yet the world should have recognized the one through whom it was made. Keener is correct to point out that “God did provide the light for all humanity in Jesus’ incarnation [for instance, T. Levi 14:4 says that the law was given to ‘enlighten every person’] just as in the Jewish tradition he provided the light of Torah to all nations at Sinai. But just as the nations rejected Torah, so the world rejected God’s Word made flesh” (2003, 395).


Holman Apologetics Commentary on the Bible - Holman Apologetics Commentary on the Bible – Gospels to Acts.

Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ

Posts 4126
SineNomine | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 23 2020 4:01 PM

Are any more EEC volumes going to come out within the next 18 months?

Posts 7543
DAL | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 25 2020 4:48 AM

Leo Wee Fah:

For those who do not have Köstenberger's BECNT on John, they may be glad that he is now doing for EEC. 

I hope is a correction plus new material of the now gone BECNT on John.  Even if he replicated most of the material, it’d be like a new commentary since the others are out of print due to an academic mistake which I don’t think it was intentional.

Maybe they could invite O’Brien and have him correct his volumes and publish them as part of the EEC series.  I definitely wouldn’t mind and it’ll help speed up the process in pumping new volumes out.

I think the series was supposed to be finished or almost finished by now, but hey, it’s a huge undertaking to write a full fledged commentary on the entire Bible.

I hope/wish they do the apocryphal books too (deSilva comes to mind for those).

Anyway, great technical series but useful for everyone.  Keep them coming! 👍😁👌

DAL

Posts 4118
Mattillo | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 27 2020 8:05 AM

Jake Mailhot:

Mattillo:
How do we get the updated artwork to appear on our computers?

This is being investigated. It's unclear what the issue is currently.

Any updates? Covers still haven't updated on desktop

Posts 3883
Forum MVP
Friedrich | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 27 2020 10:26 AM

DAL:

Leo Wee Fah:

For those who do not have Köstenberger's BECNT on John, they may be glad that he is now doing for EEC. 

I hope is a correction plus new material of the now gone BECNT on John.  Even if he replicated most of the material, it’d be like a new commentary since the others are out of print due to an academic mistake which I don’t think it was intentional.

Maybe they could invite O’Brien and have him correct his volumes and publish them as part of the EEC series.  I definitely wouldn’t mind and it’ll help speed up the process in pumping new volumes out.

I think the series was supposed to be finished or almost finished by now, but hey, it’s a huge undertaking to write a full fledged commentary on the entire Bible.

I hope/wish they do the apocryphal books too (deSilva comes to mind for those).

Anyway, great technical series but useful for everyone.  Keep them coming! 👍😁👌

DAL

i'm trying to remember: was the series bent toward a premillenial or dispensationalist perspective?

I like Apples.  Especially Honeycrisp.

Posts 4118
Mattillo | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 27 2020 12:59 PM

Friedrich:

DAL:

Leo Wee Fah:

For those who do not have Köstenberger's BECNT on John, they may be glad that he is now doing for EEC. 

I hope is a correction plus new material of the now gone BECNT on John.  Even if he replicated most of the material, it’d be like a new commentary since the others are out of print due to an academic mistake which I don’t think it was intentional.

Maybe they could invite O’Brien and have him correct his volumes and publish them as part of the EEC series.  I definitely wouldn’t mind and it’ll help speed up the process in pumping new volumes out.

I think the series was supposed to be finished or almost finished by now, but hey, it’s a huge undertaking to write a full fledged commentary on the entire Bible.

I hope/wish they do the apocryphal books too (deSilva comes to mind for those).

Anyway, great technical series but useful for everyone.  Keep them coming! 👍😁👌

DAL

i'm trying to remember: was the series bent toward a premillenial or dispensationalist perspective?

I don't know in regards to the entire series but the Daniel volume takes the premillenial view (see below).  He does give a really nice overview of all the interpretations before this though.  I didn't know there were so many!

Revelation still has Michael Stallard listed whom I believe is a dispensational person... I could be wrong though

(h) Messianic Postponement View (Prophetic-Year Calculation)

This view is similar to the preceding but takes as its terminus a quo the authorization to Nehemiah in 444 bc and bases its calculations on “prophetic years” (having 360 days) rather than solar years. As with the preceding view, the final “week” is taken to be the seven years prior to Christ’s return when the antichrist makes a covenant with Israel.

Adherents. R. Anderson, A. J. McClain, J. Walvoord, C. L. Feinberg, P. Feinberg, H. W. Hoehner, J. D. Pentecost, and J. P. Tanner.

Description. This is a literal approach that understands the “word/decree” of Dan 9:25 as referring to a word from Artaxerxes in the year 445/444 bc, authorizing Nehemiah to return to Jerusalem to rebuild it and its walls. The first seven “weeks” are understood as the next forty-nine years when presumably the city of Jerusalem and its walls were being rebuilt. The “years,” however, are meant to be understood as prophetic years of 360 days each. The sixty-nine “weeks” of years (7 + 62 = 483 years) would then extend from 444 bc to ad 33, the more commonly recognized year of Christ’s crucifixion (as demonstrated in section v above).

Like the previous view, the final “week” does not immediately follow the first sixty-nine weeks, but is postponed. It is fulfilled when the antichrist makes a covenant with the Jewish people (v. 27) that initiates the final seven years leading up to Christ’s return.

Evaluation. The primary concern over this proposal is that the mathematical calculations can only be made to work by assuming years of 360 days (a prophetic year) rather than solar years of approximately 365 ¼ days. Nevertheless, this is the view adopted in this commentary, a defense of which is given in the following section.

Posts 3883
Forum MVP
Friedrich | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 27 2020 2:10 PM

Thanks, Matillo.  I had thought there was an intentional bent toward that view for the whole series, this seems to point in that direction.  Just good to know.

I like Apples.  Especially Honeycrisp.

Posts 18
Patrick Lacson | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 5 2020 12:51 AM

Hi Jake, 

Thanks for the update.  Why can't Logos sell the individual volumes separately?

Patrick

Posts 2784
Forum MVP
Ted Hans | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 5 2020 12:57 AM

Patrick Lacson:
Why can't Logos sell the individual volumes separately?

They do, check here https://lexhampress.com/search?query=Evangelical%20Exegetical%20Commentary&sortBy=Relevance&limit=30&page=1&ownership=all&geographicAvailability=all

OR here on the Logos website https://www.logos.com/search?query=Evangelical%20Exegetical%20Commentary&sortBy=Relevance&limit=30&page=1&ownership=all&geographicAvailability=availableToMe

Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ

Posts 18
Patrick Lacson | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 5 2020 11:16 AM

It seems only some are available as separate.  I wanted the EEC for Deuteronomy by Abner Chou.

Posts 105
LogosEmployee
Jake Mailhot | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 5 2020 11:20 AM

Patrick Lacson:

It seems only some are available as separate.  I wanted the EEC for Deuteronomy by Abner Chou.

Unfortunately, Chou's volume on Deuteronomy hasn't been published yet. It's only available in the full 44-volume collection. Once it's been published, it will be available for purchase separately.

Posts 24
JimTowler | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jun 8 2020 12:35 AM

Jake,

I guess its good that things continue to move on, however a number of us that paid full price back in 2011 or so are still waiting.

I'm mostly over the pain around us being told that it would never be cheaper etc etc etc.

But every time I see one in free book of the month, and get another for some tiny amount, or the now 20% discount, it still hurts.

I picked up a new (but old, ex lease) PC two weeks ago, so finally after no useful home PC for a year or two, I've now got Logos downloading and rebuilding its indexes. So I look forward to the recent EEC Daniel.

Regards,

Jim Towler

Posts 4834
Forum MVP
Mike Binks | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jun 8 2020 1:49 AM

Jake Mailhot:
It's only available in the full 44-volume collection. Once it's been published, it will be available for purchase separately.

I purchased the full set at the time the series was announced but don't have the Deuteronomy volume.

Please may I have it. I did pay for it some time ago.

Posts 2024
Kenneth Neighoff | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jun 8 2020 2:59 AM

Mike Binks:

Jake Mailhot:
It's only available in the full 44-volume collection. Once it's been published, it will be available for purchase separately.

I purchased the full set at the time the series was announced but don't have the Deuteronomy volume.

Please may I have it. I did pay for it some time ago.

Mike, the Deuteronomy volume is still being written.   You will get it when it is finished.  

Page 2 of 4 (66 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 Next > | RSS