Anchor Yale Commentary

Page 1 of 1 (13 items)
This post has 12 Replies | 2 Followers

Posts 469
Michael Kinch | Forum Activity | Posted: Fri, Oct 13 2017 7:42 PM

How would you compare the Anchor Yale Commentary with other popular commentary sets?

Posts 9914
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 13 2017 9:12 PM

You'll likely need to expand on your background, or what you're hoping for?

A lot of opinions:

https://www.google.com/search?q=site:community.logos.com%20ayb%20anchor%20yale%20-dictionary%20-reference 


Posts 4712
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Oct 14 2017 7:09 AM

It is highly quoted, so if following an author's trail of evidence is important, it is good to have. Generally, though, it is on the liberal side, meaning that it accepts and promotes DocHype (J, E, P, D) and theories of influence from ANE documents and culture. Some of the contributors have no problem suggesting textual emendations to smooth out perceived textual difficulties. All in all, because it is so often quoted, it is a good set to have even if you don't find yourself agreeing with the contributors' views.

Posts 9914
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Oct 14 2017 8:25 AM

David Paul:

Generally, though, it is on the liberal side, meaning that it accepts and promotes DocHype (J, E, P, D) and theories of influence from ANE documents and culture.

Quite true, and well within common usage these days. But 'conservative' is relative to churchmen historical claims ... the text makes no claim to its source either way, nor is there any requirement the Diety need communicate per the desires of the churchmen. The liberals are the claimers or 'adders' (in both senses).


Posts 271
Jeremiah | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jul 22 2018 2:37 AM

I bought AYB recently. I'm working through some stuff in Deuteronomy now and I noticed there is only a volume for Dt. 1-11. Is the whole book not covered?

Is there just a delivery bug or something?

Thanks in advance

Dead languages are my mid-life crisis

Posts 560
Scott E. Mahle | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jul 22 2018 4:33 AM

Jeremiah:

Is the whole book not covered?

The original author passed away before finishing the book and it has never been completed.

Logos Series X Pastor’s Library | Logos 3 Leader’s Library | Logos 4 Portfolio | Logos 5 Platinum | Logos 6 Feature Crossgrade | Logos 7 Essential Upgrade - Large | Logos 8 Methodist & Wesleyan Platinum and Academic Professional

Posts 995
EastTN | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jul 22 2018 7:16 PM

Denise:

...  But 'conservative' is relative to churchmen historical claims ... the text makes no claim to its source either way, nor is there any requirement the Diety need communicate per the desires of the churchmen. The liberals are the claimers or 'adders' (in both senses).

Part of the difference is the questions that are asked.  AYB - along with most other "liberal" commentaries - tends to ask questions such as "what's the history of the composition of this document," or "what can this document tell us about the theological disagreements current when it was written," or "what can we infer from it about the evolution of religious thought in Israel," or "what does it suggest about the power structures in Israelite society?" More "conservative" commentaries tend to ask questions along the lines of "what God telling us through this text," or "how does this fit into the rest of God's revelation," or "how does God intend for the church to use this today," or "what principles does God articulate here that we should apply to our lives?"

Of course, there are some hugely important theological and philosophical issues that lie behind these differences in approach - and they aren't always explicitly articulated. But which type of commentary will be most useful to you depends on the reason that you're studying the text.  And, of course, the questions you're asking will depend on your view of revelation, inspiration and the authority of the biblical canon.

Posts 26014
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jul 22 2018 7:55 PM

It's important to keep two issues separate:

  1. What critical method(s) are used by the commentator? This is important because it tell you what questions are being asked and answered e.g. text critical, reception history, socio-cultural, historical, semiotic, theological, literary ...
  2. What is the stance of the commentator i.e. conservative or liberal perhaps better described as traditional or experimental ... recognizing that experimental may become traditional or may become a dead end footnote.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 995
EastTN | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jul 23 2018 7:27 AM

MJ. Smith:

It's important to keep two issues separate:

  1. What critical method(s) are used by the commentator? This is important because it tell you what questions are being asked and answered e.g. text critical, reception history, socio-cultural, historical, semiotic, theological, literary ...
  2. What is the stance of the commentator i.e. conservative or liberal perhaps better described as traditional or experimental ... recognizing that experimental may become traditional or may become a dead end footnote.

That can be a useful way to think about it, but I think it's also important to understand how these issues are interrelated.  That's in part because I see the distinction between "conservative" and "liberal" as running a bit deeper than whether an interpretation or critical method is traditional or novel.  Whatever terms we may use to make the distinction, the questions we ask of the text will inevitably be affected by whether or not we believe it conveys a message from God that's intended for us. If the answer is "no," the questions we ask will be limited to those we would ask of any other ancient religious text.  If the answer is "yes" then we may ask those questions - but we'll ask others as well, questions that would be ruled out as wrongheaded or irrelevant by anyone who believes the text is not inspired.

Posts 271
Jeremiah | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jul 23 2018 8:14 AM

Scott E. Mahle:

Jeremiah:

Is the whole book not covered?

The original author passed away before finishing the book and it has never been completed.

Wow, so this was published in 1995. I'm amazed AY didn't want to take the past 2 decades to actually finish the commentary on the Torah!

How can this be?

Dead languages are my mid-life crisis

Posts 9914
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jul 23 2018 8:25 AM

Jeremiah:

How can this be?

Well, they're still missing Matthew (the original one NA). That was decades back.  My impression is AY wasn't in the Torah or gospels business. It seemed sort of author-based and then choose-a-book. Kind of presenting views ... I think similar to MJ's point.  And some fascinating ... Andersen of the Andersen Forbes duo always surprises me.


Posts 271
Jeremiah | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jul 23 2018 8:51 AM

Denise:

Jeremiah:

How can this be?

Well, they're still missing Matthew (the original one NA). That was decades back.  My impression is AY wasn't in the Torah or gospels business. It seemed sort of author-based and then choose-a-book. Kind of presenting views ... I think similar to MJ's point.  And some fascinating ... Andersen of the Andersen Forbes duo always surprises me.

Ah, that actually makes sense.  I had noticed there was no Matthew before I bought; I also thought it was weird but was willing to bite anyway. 

I'm less irked now that I see the method. Thanks

Dead languages are my mid-life crisis

Posts 1593
Ken McGuire | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jul 23 2018 11:54 AM

Denise:
Well, they're still missing Matthew (the original one NA).

Sort of. Back when I was in school in the 1990's, the (then) Anchor Bible did have volumes on all four gospels. The thing is that the volume on Matthew was not useful - and the volume on Mark was barely useful. Matthew (Albright and Mann) was one of the first ones - and then the intended audience was "to make the Bible accessible to the modern reader." At that time that meant that they avoided as many deep technical issues as they could, as well as the extensive documentation of who all has said what about the text before. Add in the fact that it was written from a minority perspective it wasn't even viewed as a useful introduction to "modern" study.... The Mark volume by Mann was a longer treatment - on a shorter book - and its additional depth made it somewhat useful for research, although I was not aware of it as anyone's primary choice on the work.

Since then, of course, they have replaced that Mark volume with one that is generally much more respected. But the Matthew one has not yet been. I have no insight about why they have not yet done this. I suspect it has been assigned to someone who just hasn't done it yet.

The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann

Page 1 of 1 (13 items) | RSS