Bible Interpretation Choices at a Glance

Andrew Baguley
Andrew Baguley Member Posts: 641 ✭✭✭
edited November 2024 in English Forum

Imagine a way to see what different commentators have said about every Bible passage over the last two thousand years in seconds. Look at just your own tradition, or explore other interpretations.  See how ideas are influenced by denomination, theology and the passage of time. 

A few years ago, I suggested it on UserVoice.  It was the nineteenth most popular suggestion out of over 2000. Sadly, when User Voice was mothballed, the idea was dropped, but I still think it would be a great help to many of us – scholars, pastors, and everyone else!

I wasn’t sure how to describe what I wanted, so I called it a database of biblical issues and stances with faceted browsing and graphical functionality. (https://logos.uservoice.com/forums/42823-logos-bible-software-see-feedback-faithlife-com/suggestions/17871697-create-a-database-of-biblical-issues-and-stances-w) Snappy, eh? That’s why the forum post I created to support the idea was titled “How Can I Put This?” (https://community.logos.com/forums/t/133058.aspx) There is more information to explain the idea there, but I was challenged to create a model for how it might work, so I created a spreadsheet based on the book of Jude (https://community.logos.com/forums/p/156612/945098.aspx#945098 – sadly, the link now appears to be broken).  I’ve since expanded the model to include the rest of the New Testament, although if Logos creates it, it will have way more data and look a lot better than an Excel spreadsheet.  If you think it’s a good idea, please vote for it at:

https://feedback.faithlife.com/boards/logos-desktop-app/posts/bible-interpretation-choices-at-a-glance

If you’re still not sure, you may want to download the spreadsheet to take a look.  However, it is over 30,000 rows, so the file is over 25MB, and it’s not pretty.  The filtering is really slow on my computer, so I’ve limited it to the first 200 rows for now.  Suggestions on how to fix this, how to improve the spreadsheet and the idea generally, and offers of help would all be gratefully received.

Note that the data for Jude and Philippians is fuller than the data for other books so far, and many of the questions are more translation-related as they came from SIL International’s Exegetical Summaries series. The final version would include more interpretation questions.

New Testament Issues.xlsm

Thank you for reading this far, and remember to vote here:

https://feedback.faithlife.com/boards/logos-desktop-app/posts/bible-interpretation-choices-at-a-glance

Comments

  • DMB
    DMB Member Posts: 3,086 ✭✭✭

    I couldn't load your spreadsheet on my ipad ... too big/rows. I did look at your earlier analysis examples (Jude). Can you chop your spreadshhet?  The examples look like better handled in a Lexham book. I'm guessing the spreadsheet is a better illustration?

  • Bill
    Bill Member Posts: 391 ✭✭✭

    This would be great in Logos! Thank you again for another great idea and all that work Andrew! I voted[Y]

    Too soon old. Too late smart.

  • Rosie Perera
    Rosie Perera Member Posts: 26,194 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Wow, that is a massive amount of work you put in. Great idea, and great model. I've voted for it. Faithlife should hire you!

  • Andrew Baguley
    Andrew Baguley Member Posts: 641 ✭✭✭

    GaoLu said:

    Thanks, GaoLu.  I have them all, but think they do a different job.  There may be a way of combining the two in the future, with the Lexham Research Commentaries allowing a drill down and greater sense of nuance for what they assess to be the most pressing issues of the day.

  • Andrew Baguley
    Andrew Baguley Member Posts: 641 ✭✭✭

    Wow, that is a massive amount of work you put in. Great idea, and great model. I've voted for it. Faithlife should hire you!

    Thanks, Rosie, for the vote and the recognition.

    I have at times thought working for Faithlife on this kind of thing would be my ideal job, especially having studied and worked in IT before studying theology and working for the church...

  • SineNomine
    SineNomine Member Posts: 7,012 ✭✭✭

    This would be useful to have.

    “The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara

  • Andrew Baguley
    Andrew Baguley Member Posts: 641 ✭✭✭

    There would be many uses for the Bible Interpretation Choices at a Glance feature suggested here: https://feedback.faithlife.com/boards/logos-desktop-app/posts/bible-interpretation-choices-at-a-glance. Many thanks to the 31 people who have voted for it so far.

    When I was previously trying to build interest in this, I created a few forum posts illustrating that it could help us check claims like:

    "Twentieth- and twenty-first-century commentaries continue to conclude...." - see https://community.logos.com/forums/p/169335/979212.aspx.

    "The trend of late has been..." - see https://community.logos.com/forums/p/171781/993822.aspx#993822

    "If all academic questions were settled by vote, the clear winner would be..." - see https://community.logos.com/forums/p/171781/993823.aspx#993823 

    "Most recent studies have shown..." - see https://community.logos.com/forums/p/171781/993824.aspx#993824 

    In the first case, the claim appeared to be at best misleading.

    If you would like to see Logos create this feature, then feel free to vote for it here: https://feedback.faithlife.com/boards/logos-desktop-app/posts/bible-interpretation-choices-at-a-glance

    Thanks.

  • MJ. Smith
    MJ. Smith MVP Posts: 54,952

    There has also been a push for resources that take a broader view of "interpretative choices" as "reception history" e.g..Blackwell Bible Commentaries (whole set) | Faithlife I am less interested in interpretative choices than I would be if there were more reception history resources from which to build them.

    Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."

  • Andrew Baguley
    Andrew Baguley Member Posts: 641 ✭✭✭

    You're right, MJ.  It would be great to see more reception history commentaries, such as the Blackwell Bible Commentaries, although the volumes in this set that I've read didn't do all I would have wanted them to do.  The suggested feature would help to make it easier to write them though.  Hopefully there would be mutual gains, and much better understanding all round.

    I added my vote for the set.  I've been wanting these in Logos for a long time and hadn't been aware of the opportunity to vote for them.

  • Andrew Baguley
    Andrew Baguley Member Posts: 641 ✭✭✭

    Nine months on since I posted this, I still think it’s an idea worth supporting, so I’ve updated the spreadsheet that illustrates the idea.  For an explanation see the first post above. 

    The spreadsheet (below) now includes:

    Introductory questions for all New Testament books;

    More introductions;

    Information on authors (click “Show Info Rows” to see this data);

    Information from bestcommentaries.com where available (click “Show Info Rows” to see this data);

    Tidied information and better presentation throughout;

    A new key to better display the information as I think it should be displayed

         instead of just “x” for yes, support or “blank” for no support or no information, I’m suggesting:

    A

    Absolutely Certain/As Certain As We Can Be

    B

    Believable/Probable

    C

    Could Be True/Possible

    D

    Doubtful/Unlikely

    E

    Emphatically Not/Evidence Heavily Against

    N

    Not Mentioned (or any mention Not Found)

    U

    Unclear/Unknown

    X

    Author not clear

    I’ve applied this to introductory questions to illustrate how it works.

    Feedback would be great.  Votes for the idea would be even better.

    Vote here: feedback.faithlife.com/boards/logos-desktop-app/posts/bible-interpretation-choices-at-a-glance

    Here’s the latest spreadsheet: New Testament Issues - March 2023.xlsm

    Thanks for reading, and for supporting if you do.

  • Andrew Baguley
    Andrew Baguley Member Posts: 641 ✭✭✭

    Logos could use the model developed here for Systematic Theology at a Glance as well.  See: 

    https://community.logos.com/forums/p/215028/1253066.aspx#1253066 

    Don't forget to vote for this project if you haven't already: 

    feedback.faithlife.com/boards/logos-desktop-app/posts/bible-interpretation-choices-at-a-glance

  • DAL
    DAL Member Posts: 10,847 ✭✭✭

    Great idea 💡 Sell it to them, but don’t go work for them! They have a high turnover rate AND they lay off people too much.  I know people mean well when they say “FL should hire you” but that’s the last thing you’d want.

    DAL

  • MJ. Smith
    MJ. Smith MVP Posts: 54,952

    DAL said:

    They have a high turnover rate AND they lay off people too much.

    These are both very much influenced by where they are doing business. Similar companies in the region use contract staff so their staff cuts don't show up as layoffs; college towns in general have high turnover rates. I have absolutely no actual experience of what Faithlife is like as an employer; I'm just saying PNW near the Canadian border is likely quite different from your region.

    Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."

  • DAL
    DAL Member Posts: 10,847 ✭✭✭

    MJ. Smith said:

    DAL said:

    They have a high turnover rate AND they lay off people too much.

    These are both very much influenced by where they are doing business. Similar companies in the region use contract staff so their staff cuts don't show up as layoffs; college towns in general have high turnover rates. I have absolutely no actual experience of what Faithlife is like as an employer; I'm just saying PNW near the Canadian border is likely quite different from your region.

    They used to have a bad policy in the past where people were allowed to just take vacation whenever they wanted.  It was in an article.  I think that did the company more harm than good.

    DAL

  • MJ. Smith
    MJ. Smith MVP Posts: 54,952

    DAL said:

    They used to have a bad policy in the past where people were allowed to just take vacation whenever they wanted

    That's not unusual for small tech companies here. It generally results in people taking less vacation and/or checking email while on vacation. Remember that we are a very different culture than those who live kittycorner from us. We're where one tech company pays everyone the same wage regardless of their duties.

    Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."

  • Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)
    Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) MVP Posts: 23,159

    A few years ago, I suggested it on UserVoice.  It was the nineteenth most popular suggestion out of over 2000.

    Currently 63 votes is tied for 25th Most Votes out of 2,258 desktop suggestions. Another 10 votes would move this suggestion up to 18th (unlike UserVoice limit of 10 votes total with up to three votes for a suggestion, every Faithlife user has unlimited free Feedback votes with maximum of one vote for a suggestion).

    Keep Smiling [:)]

  • Dave Hooton
    Dave Hooton MVP Posts: 36,149

    Feedback would be great.  Votes for the idea would be even better.

    ....

    Here’s the latest spreadsheet: New Testament Issues - March 2023.xlsm

    Had problems downloading as my Firefox browser associated this with a docx file!

    I couldn't use the macros even though I explicitly enabled VBA and Excel macros in Trust Centre.

    As you state we should " see what different commentators have said about every Bible passage over the last two thousand years", I offer the following from my current study in Revelation:

    • Rev 16:14 --  no comment on the gathering or its relationship to Rev 19:19
    • Rev 19:19  -- no comment at all on vs. 17-20!
    • Rev 20:7-8  -- no comment on these verses e.g. recapitulation of Rev 19:19, who is Gog or the Nations?
    • Rev 20:9  -- no comment on the "fire" judgment

    And it gets technical where I'm not looking for technical i.e. original language.

    Overall, it doesn't suit my study method, and it certainly needs a better presentation than a spreadsheet can offer.

    Dave
    ===

    Windows 11 & Android 13

  • Andrew Baguley
    Andrew Baguley Member Posts: 641 ✭✭✭

    Had problems downloading as my Firefox browser associated this with a docx file!

    I couldn't use the macros even though I explicitly enabled VBA and Excel macros in Trust Centre.

    As you state we should " see what different commentators have said about every Bible passage over the last two thousand years", I offer the following from my current study in Revelation:

    • Rev 16:14 --  no comment on the gathering or its relationship to Rev 19:19
    • Rev 19:19  -- no comment at all on vs. 17-20!
    • Rev 20:7-8  -- no comment on these verses e.g. recapitulation of Rev 19:19, who is Gog or the Nations?
    • Rev 20:9  -- no comment on the "fire" judgment

    And it gets technical where I'm not looking for technical i.e. original language.

    Overall, it doesn't suit my study method, and it certainly needs a better presentation than a spreadsheet can offer.

    Perhaps this isn't for you, Dave, but I agree with a number of your comments.

    I'm not sure what the issue is with it being associated with .docx, but I don't think it's a Firefox issue, or anything I've done in uploading the file.  I'm open to suggestions.  The same happened with uploading a spreadsheet to the Theology/Denomination Tags post:  https://community.logos.com/forums/p/54491/1252807.aspx#1252807

    Sorry you couldn't get the macros to run.  The buttons with red text are very slow, but the others should work well.  If anyone finds a way round this, then I'd be happy to hear the solution.  Assuming you have downloaded the spreadsheet and enabled macros on opening it, as well as allowing macros more generally in your copy of Excel, it should work well.

    I'm not suggesting that the model I have posted shows all that it could.  Far from it!  It's based on a small number of resources so far, mainly Richard Bauckham's work on Jude and the Exegetical Summaries series, with Introductions and Study Bibles added, plus a little more from the Evangelical Exegetical Commentaries on Philippians and Jude.  The intention is that it would be far more comprehensive.  I'm not looking for Logos to simply adopt what I have done, but to greatly expand on it.

    That said, if you can recommend resources that address the questions you have in mind in Revelation, referencing the views of a large enough number of other commentators to make it worthwhile, then I'll gladly add rows for each of these questions.

    Is it too technical?  I worked to make the Jude section less technical sounding, while trying not to lose the level of understanding.  I haven't done nearly as much work on the rest so far.

    One of my main comments was that it needed better presentation than a spreadsheet.  That's something else that Logos could greatly help with.  If anyone else would like to suggest better ways to display the data, I'd love to hear.

    It sounds like you agree that Logos could improve the data and presentation, so it still might be helpful to vote: https://feedback.faithlife.com/boards/logos-desktop-app/posts/bible-interpretation-choices-at-a-glance

    Thanks for your feedback.

  • Andrew Baguley
    Andrew Baguley Member Posts: 641 ✭✭✭

    " rel="nofollow">Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) said:

    A few years ago, I suggested it on UserVoice.  It was the nineteenth most popular suggestion out of over 2000.

    Currently 63 votes is tied for 25th Most Votes out of 2,258 desktop suggestions. Another 10 votes would move this suggestion up to 18th (unlike UserVoice limit of 10 votes total with up to three votes for a suggestion, every Faithlife user has unlimited free Feedback votes with maximum of one vote for a suggestion).

    Keep Smiling Smile

    Thanks for the stats, KS4J.  It's so far down at the moment that I'm tracking it based on suggestions with Status: Not Set (https://feedback.faithlife.com/boards/logos-desktop-app?sort=total_upvotes&filter=Not+set).  It's eighth so far, excluding suggestions that are planned, in progress or opinion is being sought.

  • Dave Hooton
    Dave Hooton MVP Posts: 36,149

    I'm not suggesting that the model I have posted shows all that it could.  Far from it!  It's based on a small number of resources so far, mainly Richard Bauckham's work on Jude and the Exegetical Summaries series, with Introductions and Study Bibles added, plus a little more from the Evangelical Exegetical Commentaries on Philippians and Jude.  The intention is that it would be far more comprehensive. 

    I am surprised that those closely related passages are not included, even in a small number of resources that obviously have comments on that Book. But the omission may lie in the method of extracting comments for "each verse" when the commentary covers a range  e.g. Rev 16:14-16, 19:17-21.

    Dave
    ===

    Windows 11 & Android 13

  • Andrew Baguley
    Andrew Baguley Member Posts: 641 ✭✭✭

    I am surprised that those closely related passages are not included, even in a small number of resources that obviously have comments on that Book. But the omission may lie in the method of extracting comments for "each verse" when the commentary covers a range  e.g. Rev 16:14-16, 19:17-21.

    I suspect it's more about the Exegetical Summaries series being more focused on translation.  I haven't included questions regarding discourse units, textual issues, or lexical choice (respectively marked Discourse Unit, Text and Lexicon in the Exegetical Summaries series), as I think these are better dealt with in other ways.  Occasionally questions do cover a range of verses, and this may well increase when other resources are added.

    If you're able to describe how you think the options play out for the questions you've raised, and a range of commentators for each option, then I'll better see what you mean, and possibly be able to add the data to the spreadsheet.  If you can point to a commentary or other Logos resource that describes the options and points to a range of commentators, that would be even better.

    Thanks for engaging, Dave.

  • Dave Hooton
    Dave Hooton MVP Posts: 36,149

    I suspect it's more about the Exegetical Summaries series being more focused on translation.

    I haven't included questions regarding discourse units, textual issues, or lexical choice...

    Having viewed a sampler of the Revelation 12-22 volume, the coverage appears to be verse-by-verse, but if some do not meet your selection criteria then other resources will have to be added  e.g. for the passages I noted as missing.

    If you're able to describe how you think the options play out for the questions you've raised, and a range of commentators for each option, then I'll better see what you mean..

    I prefer "Exegetical" commentaries that explore the content of, and relationship between passages e.g. BKC, Tyndale (TOTC, TNTC), NAC, Cornerstone Biblical, NIC (NICNT, NICOT), NIGTC, Osborne New Testament. A database of "Interpretation choices" focused on translation would be too restrictive.

    Dave
    ===

    Windows 11 & Android 13

  • Andrew Baguley
    Andrew Baguley Member Posts: 641 ✭✭✭

    Having viewed a sampler of the Revelation 12-22 volume, the coverage appears to be verse-by-verse, but if some do not meet your selection criteria then other resources will have to be added  e.g. for the passages I noted as missing.

    Again, I agree, Dave.  More resources should be added.  What I've done is to demonstrate that the idea works.  I'm not suggesting that what I've done contains all the data it should.  Far from it.  I've even offered to add the data for you if you can refer to a resource that already does this well for the issues you're interested in.

    Dave Hooton said:

    I prefer "Exegetical" commentaries that explore the content of, and relationship between passages e.g. BKC, Tyndale (TOTC, TNTC), NAC, Cornerstone Biblical, NIC (NICNT, NICOT), NIGTC, Osborne New Testament. A database of "Interpretation choices" focused on translation would be too restrictive.

    Most of the commentary series you've mentioned are included in the database already.  This project is not about replacing these commentaries.  It's about giving an overview on the more controversial issues.  I don't think anyone thinks the suggested database should replace exegetical commentaries.  If anything it would point to them, which is one reason I think Logos would be a great place for the suggested database to exist.  Feel free to vote at: https://feedback.faithlife.com/boards/logos-desktop-app/posts/bible-interpretation-choices-at-a-glance 

  • Dave Hooton
    Dave Hooton MVP Posts: 36,149

    I have to come back to your stated aim:  "Imagine a way to see what different commentators have said about every Bible passage over the last two thousand years in seconds. Look at just your own tradition, or explore other interpretations.  See how ideas are influenced by denomination, theology and the passage of time." 

    Most of the commentary series you've mentioned are included in the database already.

    This project is not about replacing these commentaries. 

     

    Revelation:

    I have Lenski 1963, NIGTC 1999, and assume Beck 1919 = Beckwith 1919. I have updated NICNT 1997 (unless 1977 is a typo), TNTC 2018 (1987 is the original version)

    I have the one-volume BKC 1985 (Walvoord) which you do not list, and which could replace Walv 1966.

    So, is the "passage of time" going to be reflected by updated versions of a commentary (probably different author) or only by the date range of available/selected commentaries?

    It's about giving an overview on the more controversial issues.  I don't think anyone thinks the suggested database should replace exegetical commentaries.  If anything it would point to them,

    For  Rev 16:14  I find that NIGTC is excellent (has appropriate cross-references), whilst Lenski, NICNT and TNTC also comment on the single verse.

    For Rev 19:17-20  Lenski comments on each verse, NICNT and NIGTC combine 17,18. and comment separately on 19, 20.

    But what do you/FL choose "as an overview on the more controversial issues"? And which ones do you link to?

    So I trust you are getting the idea that it is a very ambitious project when one can use Passage Guide to accomplish similar requirements by:

    • prioritizing commentaries
    • placing exegetical commentaries in one or more collections 
      • public collections assist with this
      • one-volume commentaries allow for missing bible books.
    • differentiating collections by date range if necessary
      • The PG Era may be too broad for some users
      • an updated resource could be in different collections or the same one with a simple change
      • prioritization affects the order of commentaries
    • using Parallel Book sets to choose other volumes for a passage e.g. more technical or background.

    Passage Guide already assists in separating by Type (Exegetical, Expositional, etc.), Denomination, Era and Date/Author are listed with the "Title" (some advanced users modify volume Title/Series to assist identification in PG).

    Dave
    ===

    Windows 11 & Android 13

  • MJ. Smith
    MJ. Smith MVP Posts: 54,952

    I'm suspicious of this approach although I like the idea in principle. The problem in my mind is that the interpretative choices are often at the level of "is the Bible propositional" or at least "is this genre propositional"? Disagreements as to genre are at the heart of many disputes. Or my favorite example of likely right doctrine but this doesn't prove it, reading "ex nihilo" into Gen 1:1. Or how do you handle "pretzel" interpretations where you tie yourself into knots to avoid an apparent contradiction in the text. Or how do apophatic approaches fit in ... or Augustine's every text can be interpreted in terms of God's love ... or Girard's every text can be interpreted in terms of scapegoating ... It seems to me that the project as envisioned really fits only evangelicals and fundamentalists (think fuzzy boundaries not precise groupings).

    Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."

  • Andrew Baguley
    Andrew Baguley Member Posts: 641 ✭✭✭

    Revelation:

    I have Lenski 1963, NIGTC 1999, and assume Beck 1919 = Beckwith 1919. I have updated NICNT 1997 (unless 1977 is a typo), TNTC 2018 (1987 is the original version)

    I have the one-volume BKC 1985 (Walvoord) which you do not list, and which could replace Walv 1966.

    So, is the "passage of time" going to be reflected by updated versions of a commentary (probably different author) or only by the date range of available/selected commentaries?

    It's about giving an overview on the more controversial issues.  I don't think anyone thinks the suggested database should replace exegetical commentaries.  If anything it would point to them,

    For  Rev 16:14  I find that NIGTC is excellent (has appropriate cross-references), whilst Lenski, NICNT and TNTC also comment on the single verse.

    For Rev 19:17-20  Lenski comments on each verse, NICNT and NIGTC combine 17,18. and comment separately on 19, 20.

    But what do you/FL choose "as an overview on the more controversial issues"? And which ones do you link to?

    So I trust you are getting the idea that it is a very ambitious project when one can use Passage Guide to accomplish similar requirements by:

    • prioritizing commentaries
    • placing exegetical commentaries in one or more collections 
      • public collections assist with this
      • one-volume commentaries allow for missing bible books.
    • differentiating collections by date range if necessary
      • The PG Era may be too broad for some users
      • an updated resource could be in different collections or the same one with a simple change
      • prioritization affects the order of commentaries
    • using Parallel Book sets to choose other volumes for a passage e.g. more technical or background.

    Passage Guide already assists in separating by Type (Exegetical, Expositional, etc.), Denomination, Era and Date/Author are listed with the "Title" (some advanced users modify volume Title/Series to assist identification in PG).

    I can see where some of your misunderstandings have come from.  If your buttons and macros are not working, then you may want to highlight Row 7 and the row immediately underneath it, then right click and select Unhide.  This will show all the data, including the references, for the works you cite.  Yes, Beck = Beckwith, 1977 NICNT is the original - 1997 is the revised edition (see page iv).

    However, I'm not sure whether you realise that the spreadsheet is a model to illustrate the idea.  If Logos adopt it, then it would be up to them to decide which commentaries and other studies to include.  Personally, I would think the more the merrier.  Generally, it's not worth including revised editions by the same author, as they rarely change that much.  Revised editions by different authors change radically and are worth including.  E.g. Douglas Moo's updated NICNT volume has often updated the wording, but it rarely takes a different position.  If AI was generating the data (and it didn't need people to spend hours on it), then I would happily include even revised editions by the same author, but otherwise, I suspect it wouldn't be worth the time needed.

    It's not worth questioning the choice of commentaries currently included on Revelation.  This would be a question for the publisher or author of the exegetical summaries volume, as this was what was used.  I've tried to be transparent on my sources of data.  However, it is worth noting that the number of issues and commentaries considered in the Revelation volumes is comparatively low, compared with the other Exegetical Commentaries (see the number in brackets after the book names in row 3).

    Which issues should be addressed?  That's trickier, but the idea is that we all stand on the shoulders of giants, so it would be about going through the more technical commentaries (e.g. NIGTC, ICC, NICNT) and choosing the issues that the expert authors have selected as the issues where different interpreters differ in their interpretation.  One advantage of the database would be that it would succinctly describe the issue, the positions taken and the different commentators taking the different positions "at a glance".  In some cases, it would be clear that evangelicals took one position, while more liberal commentators took another, or reformed interpreters took one position, while Arminian interpreters took another, or that favourite interpretations are preferred in different countries or time periods.  The database would show this much more clearly and quickly than any commentary I've seen so far, and the data could be linked to resources in Logos, so that it could be checked easily.

    Yes, it's ambitious, and it would hopefully continue to grow and become increasingly useful over time, but I think even a small start would be useful for many of us, as we can't keep all that data in our heads very easily, so shortcuts in understanding the issues are helpful.

    Yes, passage guide is useful, and I have voted for some of the changes in allowing it to become more useful, and I have definitely tried to encourage FL to include Denomination information that was previously lacking (https://community.logos.com/forums/t/54491.aspx?PageIndex=1).  However, this suggestion still adds greatly to what is provided.  I'm only too aware that even the 30,000+ row, 1100+ column spreadsheet still doesn't demonstrate the usefulness of the suggestion, but I hope at least some of us can see how helpful the database (with a much better user interface) could be, especially as more data is added.

    Interested?  Vote here: https://feedback.faithlife.com/boards/logos-desktop-app/posts/bible-interpretation-choices-at-a-glance

  • Andrew Baguley
    Andrew Baguley Member Posts: 641 ✭✭✭

    MJ. Smith said:

    I'm suspicious of this approach although I like the idea in principle. The problem in my mind is that the interpretative choices are often at the level of "is the Bible propositional" or at least "is this genre propositional"? Disagreements as to genre are at the heart of many disputes. Or my favorite example of likely right doctrine but this doesn't prove it, reading "ex nihilo" into Gen 1:1. Or how do you handle "pretzel" interpretations where you tie yourself into knots to avoid an apparent contradiction in the text. Or how do apophatic approaches fit in ... or Augustine's every text can be interpreted in terms of God's love ... or Girard's every text can be interpreted in terms of scapegoating ... It seems to me that the project as envisioned really fits only evangelicals and fundamentalists (think fuzzy boundaries not precise groupings).

    Thanks for the comments, MJ.  I agree that the choices are often based on an interpreter's approach to scripture, or guiding hermeneutic, and I would happily add this as another piece of information on an author or resource.  The problem, as I'm sure you're aware, is that this is harder to classify than denomination or country.  If anyone has come across reliable places that classify authors or resources by hermeneutic, then I'll gladly add this.  Otherwise, this may be a development further down the line.

    I'd like to think this won't just fit evangelicals and fundamentalists, though some of the issues will be of more interest to them.  The idea is to incorporate a diverse range of authors, but allowing people to filter it for feminist interpretation, queer interpretation, redemptive hermeneutic or whatever.  Some will want to filter these out. Some may want to only see these, whether because they agree, they are interested in exploring diverse options or they want to understand where others are coming from.

    Some of the issues will be largely unaffected by hermeneutic, but I'd like to think that the database would be useful for exploring how hermeneutic guides interpretation in many other places.

  • Dave Hooton
    Dave Hooton MVP Posts: 36,149

    I can see where some of your misunderstandings have come from...

    However, I'm not sure whether you realise that the spreadsheet is a model to illustrate the idea. 

    It's not worth questioning the choice of commentaries currently included on Revelation. 

    I do realise that the spreadsheet is a model but I chose to provide some examples to illustrate my misgivings about the project. The larger issue is making use of commentaries that I do not have, which may well serve to better address controversial issues (which are largely hermeneutical in Revelation).

    Dave
    ===

    Windows 11 & Android 13

  • MJ. Smith
    MJ. Smith MVP Posts: 54,952

    although this link is dead http://blog.orthotomeo.com/category/examples/  is a similar project. You might be interested in researching how this project failed to see what pitfalls you need to avoid. In the forums I've tracked down SUGGESTION: Bible Tech 2011 - Logos Forums

    Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."

  • Dave Hooton
    Dave Hooton MVP Posts: 36,149

    MJ. Smith said:

    You might be interested in researching how this project failed to see what pitfalls you need to avoid.

    The flow diagram is interesting and is illustrative of what has not been specified in this project.

    Dave
    ===

    Windows 11 & Android 13

  • Andrew Baguley
    Andrew Baguley Member Posts: 641 ✭✭✭

    MJ. Smith said:

    although this link is dead http://blog.orthotomeo.com/category/examples/  is a similar project. You might be interested in researching how this project failed to see what pitfalls you need to avoid. In the forums I've tracked down SUGGESTION: Bible Tech 2011 - Logos Forums

    Thanks, MJ.  That's not much to go on though, now that the blog link is dead.  Are there any particular pitfalls you have in mind?

    Judging by your flow diagram, it did seem to cover a lot of ground really quickly.  This project has tried to move one step at a time, adding something that is useful with each step - author info, list of issues and interpretations.  I can see it moving on to reasons for particular Bible Interpretation Choices, and ways choices affect our application and theology, but I'd rather go one stage at a time, rather than trying to run too quickly.

  • MJ. Smith
    MJ. Smith MVP Posts: 54,952

    Are there any particular pitfalls you have in mind?

    The biggest pitfall is to misidentify what and where the interpretative choice lies. For a concrete example, on the issue of solo, sola scripture the passage usually used in apologetics is 2 Tim 3:16 where at first glance it appears that the solo, sola position either:

    • believe in a frugal God who gives only the minimal (sufficient) amount 
    • have added an "only" to the text that simply is not there

    One can go round and round in discussion and get absolutely nowhere because neither of the above is the interpretative choice. The actual relevant interpretative choice takes place at 1 Cor 11.22 Thess 2.15; and 3.6. which all must make the same choice i.e. it is one, indivisable choice. And the choice is not even of interpretation of Biblical text but of the application of human reason. The interpretative choice is among

    • the oral tradition continues to apply
    • the oral tradition ceases to apply when the writing of the New Testament is complete
    • the oral tradition ceases to apply when the canonization of the New Testament canon is complete

    The reason that 2 Tim 3:16 is read as "only" is not in 2 Tim 3:16 ... it is in the deletion of alternative sources. As for the cessation of oral tradition, I have found no one offering scriptural evidence, only evidence of the "no longer needed" variety which is also not actually an interpretive choice but a matter of human reasoning. I am still investigating the cause of the "no longer needed" hypothesis in terms of its Scriptural origins ... I assume it is the conclusion of the interpretation of some other Biblical text.

    I find many "interpretive choices" are actually the logical result of other choices and cannot be extricated from them despite many authors implying that they can. And I find that often it is very difficult to track down those other choices. But if they are not tracked down, you make some positions look like idjit positions e.g. "it's scripture only because I crossed out the tradition verses from my Bible." This "conclusion" is disrespectful of those holding the solo, sola scriptura position in a way that implies I have been discussing the issue in bad faith. I would not have been listening to understand but to squash ... which is the 2nd major pitfall.

    If I were to continue this example, I would (given my current knowledge) start looking at specific examples e.g. Moravians and at the historical and social factors that forced certain interpretative choices e.g. consensus of the community as an interpretive rule which I would argue is at least the best option among their available options. The is the third pitfall ... ignoring the intellectual, cultural, socio-economic factors that limits the available interpretative options. My all-time favorite negative example was a person who argued that as evidence that the Catholic-Orthodox Church of the fourth century failed to understand the foundational nature of the Bible was that they didn't invent the printing press.

    I guess what I'm saying is that it is easy to mistakenly collect a ton of interpretative choices that are simply the surface effect of actual choices made elsewhere. This allows one to go through the data without ever actually challenging one's own beliefs because you never got to where the challenging issue actually lies.

    Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."

  • DMB
    DMB Member Posts: 3,086 ✭✭✭

    MJ. Smith said:

    I guess what I'm saying is that it is easy to mistakenly collect a ton of interpretative choices that are simply the surface effect of actual choices made elsewhere.

    I like your points (and agree).  In my own theological/interpretive markup (my software), I only attempted to assign per an argument/theology placing a 'foot' there (correctly or incorrectly).  The reason was relative to use; I could then date/order the 'footsteps'.  

  • MJ. Smith
    MJ. Smith MVP Posts: 54,952

    My favorite markup for theology/commentaries is a pitch fork ... you know the kind you use to fill the manure spreader. [;)]

    Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."

  • DMB
    DMB Member Posts: 3,086 ✭✭✭
  • Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)
    Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) MVP Posts: 23,159

    MJ. Smith said:

    Are there any particular pitfalls you have in mind?

    The biggest pitfall is to misidentify what and where the interpretative choice lies. ... I guess what I'm saying is that it is easy to mistakenly collect a ton of interpretative choices that are simply the surface effect of actual choices made elsewhere. This allows one to go through the data without ever actually challenging one's own beliefs because you never got to where the challenging issue actually lies.

    An example to ponder is the Greek lemma.g:σάββατον having both singular and plural spellings. Bible Search of SBLGNT for lemma.g:εἷς BEFORE 2 WORDS lemma.g:σάββατον finds seven verses: six plural Sabbaths for interpretative "first day of the week" in Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, John 20:1, John 20:19, Acts 20:7 while 1 Corinthians 16:2 has singular Sabbath for "first day of the week"

    Could plural Sabbaths simply be more than one day of doing no ordinary work ? a Special Sabbath adjacent to a Weekly Sabbath ?

    Keep Smiling [:)]

  • Andrew Baguley
    Andrew Baguley Member Posts: 641 ✭✭✭

    Nearly eight months since the last major update, I thought I’d update the spreadsheet.  See the first post above for an explanation.

    The spreadsheet (below) is now split into three sections: Gospels and Acts; Pauline; Hebrew to Revelation.  This should make the spreadsheets more manageable and easier to view for some people, although I still keep the data in a single database/spreadsheet.

    As well as increasing the data available, I’ve added the following columns:

    Trad: Traditional View

    Maj: Majority View

    For: Best Work For this View

    Ag: Best Work Against this View

    Over: Best Overview of the Issue

    Each of these has a reference to who has made the claim.  If Logos takes on this project, I hope these would link to the relevant resources.

    I’ve also updated the information from bestcommentaries.com, which has changed fairly radically.

    As always, feedback would be great.  Votes for the idea would be even better.

    Vote here: feedback.faithlife.com/boards/logos-desktop-app/posts/bible-interpretation-choices-at-a-glance

    Here are the latest spreadsheets:

    New Testament Issues - Gospels and Acts.xlsm

    New Testament Issues - Pauline.xlsm

    New Testament Issues - Heb - Rev.xlsm

    Thanks for reading, and for supporting if you do.

  • Andrew Baguley
    Andrew Baguley Member Posts: 641 ✭✭✭

    MJ. Smith said:

    I guess what I'm saying is that it is easy to mistakenly collect a ton of interpretative choices that are simply the surface effect of actual choices made elsewhere. This allows one to go through the data without ever actually challenging one's own beliefs because you never got to where the challenging issue actually lies.

    Thanks for continuing to engage, MJ.  Apologies for taking months to respond.

    You are right, of course, that "it is easy to mistakenly collect a ton of interpretative choices that are simply the surface effect of actual choices made elsewhere".  The attempt to show how interpretive choices are influenced by denomination, theology, location, date, etc. should help to guard against this.  The added columns showing resources that have been recommended arguing for and against each issue should also help.

    When I worked on the Jude data, I tried to show dependencies, when one interpretive choice influenced another.  This hasn't really made it into the current spreadsheets to the same extent, but I'm hoping it will as things progress (ideally by Logos!).

    I'm also hoping that this data will aid further research, rather than be an end in itself.  Just because a stance/view is the majority one or the traditional one doesn't make it right, but the data provided should help to point to the reasons people hold their views, and the reader can decide which of the reasons they find the most compelling.

  • Andrew Baguley
    Andrew Baguley Member Posts: 641 ✭✭✭

    The spreadsheet (below) is now split into three sections: Gospels and Acts; Pauline; Hebrews to Revelation...  

    I should have added links to the spreadsheets for those who struggle with downloading them.  Apologies the format isn't better on shared spreadsheets.  Ideally, Logos would adopt the data.

    Here are the latest spreadsheets, with links to them as shared documents:

    New Testament Issues - Gospels and Acts.xlsm

    Shared document available here: https://1drv.ms/x/s!Al6XZ3KAsP1pgSHPTMa7xik37YOB?e=glDcFO 

    New Testament Issues - Pauline.xlsm

    Shared document available here: https://1drv.ms/x/s!Al6XZ3KAsP1pgSVFbsPFBoZTbKe4?e=KXRkQp 

    New Testament Issues - Heb - Rev.xlsm

    Shared document available here: https://1drv.ms/x/s!Al6XZ3KAsP1pgSRFJZb9uJe7ctBw?e=eMDAlN 

    As always, feedback would be great.  Votes for the idea would be even better.

    Vote here: feedback.faithlife.com/boards/logos-desktop-app/posts/bible-interpretation-choices-at-a-glance

    See the Help Appreciated tab if you can help or you know someone else who can.

    See the Links tab for other related projects that it would be great if Logos took over.

  • Donovan R. Palmer
    Donovan R. Palmer Member, MVP Posts: 2,888

    Andrew - thank you so much for your work on this. This is a HUGE value add to Logos and I hope they incorporate this into the DNA of their future.  

    I voted for your feedback entry as well!

  • Andrew Baguley
    Andrew Baguley Member Posts: 641 ✭✭✭

    Thanks, Donovan.

    I hope others feel the same way... and vote!

  • Andrew Baguley
    Andrew Baguley Member Posts: 641 ✭✭✭

    I've added data drawn from Raymond Brown's Birth of the Messiah and his Death of the Messiah, before adding more data from regular commentaries.

    Here are the updated spreadsheets, with links to them as shared documents:

    New Testament Issues - Gospels and Acts.xlsm

    Shared document available here: https://1drv.ms/x/s!Al6XZ3KAsP1pgSHPTMa7xik37YOB?e=glDcFO 

    New Testament Issues - Pauline.xlsm

    Shared document available here: https://1drv.ms/x/s!Al6XZ3KAsP1pgSVFbsPFBoZTbKe4?e=KXRkQp 

    New Testament Issues - Heb - Rev.xlsm

    Shared document available here: https://1drv.ms/x/s!Al6XZ3KAsP1pgSRFJZb9uJe7ctBw?e=eMDAlN 

    As always, feedback would be great.  Votes for the idea would be even better.

    Vote here: feedback.faithlife.com/boards/logos-desktop-app/posts/bible-interpretation-choices-at-a-glance

    See the Help Appreciated tab if you can help or you know someone else who can.

    See the Links tab for other related projects that it would be great if Logos took over.

  • Andrew Baguley
    Andrew Baguley Member Posts: 641 ✭✭✭

    This is the latest post as part of my continued hope that Logos will add a way to see what different commentators have said about every Bible passage over the last two thousand years in seconds, quickly and easily displaying how ideas are influenced by denomination, theology and the passage of time. (feedback.logos.com/boards/logos-desktop-app/posts/bible-interpretation-choices-at-a-glance)

    I was challenged to create a model.  This is available using the links in the post above.  However, I have just updated the section on Matthew 1-4, adding data from the Hermeneia commentary by Luz and the ICC commentary by Davies and Allison, as well as the positions taken by around 30 Bibles and 30 Study Bibles, across the spectrum, starting with Wycliffe's Translation.

    Amongst a number of other changes, I have added a line to quickly display theology for each contributor.

    The updated data can be found here: 1drv.ms/x/s!Al6XZ3KAsP1pgSHPTMa7xik37YOB?e=glDcFO

    And here: New Testament Issues - Gospels and Acts.xlsm

    If you would like to comment on the new data, please do so here: community.logos.com/forums/p/223491/1302082.aspx#1302082 

    If you still haven't voted for this, please do so here: feedback.logos.com/boards/logos-desktop-app/posts/bible-interpretation-choices-at-a-glance

    Thanks!

  • Mark
    Mark Member Posts: 2,662 ✭✭✭