Ship of Fools: bible commentaries

Thread: bible commentaries Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029336

Posted by simwel (# 12214) on :

Sorry but I just can find the old thread. May I ask for suggestions for accessible modern biblical commentaries. I do not know Greek but would like something that informs and makes me think from a postmodern 21st century social action perpespective.
Please nothing fundamentalist or evangelical just something balanced and intelligent

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by simwel:
Sorry but I just can find the old thread. May I ask for suggestions for accessible modern biblical commentaries. I do not know Greek but would like something that informs and makes me think from a postmodern 21st century social action perpespective.
Please nothing fundamentalist or evangelical just something balanced and intelligent

That's a rather narrow-minded and rather insulting statement to be honest. To suggest that an 'evangelical' commentary is unbalanced and unintelligent is a highly arrogant thing to say.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

It is funny, though, you have to admit, Mudfrog.

There is a delicious irony - I don't want anything narrow-minded, so I'll narrow-mindedly not accept anything from an evangelical source ...

The thing is, of course, as with anything else, any Bible commentary is going to be written from a particular stance or perspective. That's why we need a range and variety of them.

The best bet, I suspect, would be to get a few commentaries and dip into them, compare and contrast and go with the one/s which suit you best.

Within evangelicalism, of course, there was always Strong's, Cruden's and Young's - 'Strong's for the strong, Cruden's for the crude and Young's for the young,' as the old adage went.

There will be many more besides reflecting a range of viewpoints.

FWIW, it is far from the case that evangelical (and increasingly Pentecostal) perspectives are always dismissed when it comes to Bible commentaries and biblical studies. I was talking to a publisher recently who observed how certain Pentecostal scholars, for instance, had now 'earned themselves a place at the table'.

The paradigm example of a conservative evangelical Biblical scholar whose work was respected beyond his own constituency was F F Bruce - although, arguably, he was nowhere near as fundamentalist as many of those in his own particular network and circle of churches.

I've come across plenty of liberal Christians - and Catholic ones - who tell me they've read certain evangelical commentaries and study notes with profit.

It doesn't 'do' to tar all these things with the same brush. That's just as narrow-minded as the claim that all these authors are closed and narrow minded themselves.

These things cut both ways.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Within evangelicalism, of course, there was always Strong's, Cruden's and Young's - 'Strong's for the strong, Cruden's for the crude and Young's for the young,' as the old adage went.

Erm ... those are concordances, not commentaries.

The (newer) offerings from IVP may be conservative in ethos but their scholarship is drawn from wider sources. The Word Biblical series is pretty hefty. And I've always liked the New International series (nothing to do with the similarly-named Bible translation AFAIK).

There are, of course, many others available.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

[Hot and Hormonal]

Yes, of course, silly me ...

Just shows how out of touch I am these days with my own evangelical background ... [Biased]

I've got an IVP commentary - and it's ok - but I find it rather 'thin' in places. I don't use it an awful lot these days - nor commentaries in general, come to think of it.

I tend to use the scriptures more 'liturgically' ie, as part of my daily prayer office -- but I will occasionally study a book - and will use commentaries or some kind of textual supplement. I recently looked at Mark's Gospel with Rowan Williams's short book on Mark to accompany me.

I ought to do that sort of thing a bit more.

Posted by simwel (# 12214) on :

My apologies if my original message was insulting. It's just that living in the St Edmundsbury diocese,in my opinion the ascendancy of the evangelical wing of the Church has caused such divisions and animosity that one cannot attend a simple bible study without being told what to believe.Hence seeking a more middle of the roadcommentary

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I have to say that the commentaries I use - even the evangelical ones - are not fundamentalist or narrow-minded. It's all scholarship. You'll not sell a commentary of it's not substantial! I want info that takes me to the heart of what a text means - I think the idea that evangelical commentaries are not intelligent is more than insulting it's also way of the mark because I can tell you that the evangelical church has done more for Biblical studies than anyone.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Both positively and negatively, perhaps ...

But yes, on balance, I think you're right, Mudfrog -- and I've encountered RC and Orthodox clergy who would acknowledge as much -- in fact, they admire particular evangelical commentaries even though they don't necessarily agree with all the conclusions that evangelical commentators reach.

In response to the OP, whilst I can see that evangelicalism can often be divisive in an Anglican setting, it's always best to judge any tradition by it's stronger or more positive points than its weaker ones.

To quote the doggerel poem/prayer of the Rev Eli Jenkins in 'Under Milk Wood':

'And Thou, I know, wilt be the first
To see our best side, not our worst.'

One of the difficulties/problems I find within evangelicalism isn't the standard of the commentaries or the scholarship so much as the way it rarely seems to percolate into the pulpits and the pews ...

The same applies to other Christian traditions.

At the risk of sounding elitist, if we were to judge any of them purely on the basis of it's more 'populist' face and front then we'd condemn them all.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

One could perhaps suggest that any 'liberal' or 'progressive' commentaries that may exist would be filled with what the passage doesn't mean, in the opinion of the writer, rather than looking closely at what it does mean according to the text and contexts. [Biased]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I think that's perhaps going a bit too far, there are some supposedly liberal authors who take the text very seriously ... and others who see every text as a hook on which to hang their prejudices and agendas.

What I want in a commentary is an analysis of the text, includes nuances as to what the text might mean; I'd also look for some illumination as to what it might have meant to its original readers, so I can extrapolate that for today. This, I think, is vital, for an "obvious" reading we make might be a totally wrong one.

My experience, however, is that when you come to particularly puzzling bit, the commentaries simply say, "scholars are undecided on the meaning of this verse" ...!

[ 29. July 2015, 12:18: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
My experience, however, is that when you come to particularly puzzling bit, the commentaries simply say, "scholars are undecided on the meaning of this verse" ...!

But if this is the case, it's important to know it. The commentaries should give the various interpretations and the arguments for one interpretation or another. However, they should not suggest that scholars agree when they don't.

Moo

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I agree completely. However, what I really meant was that sometimes they use this phrase - without further comment - to indicate that they've haven't a clue!

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Well, that's the polite academic way of saying it. Some commentaries have a real gift for saying Truly Rude Things™ in the most polite academic way you ever saw, generally in the footnotes. I remember snorting tea out my nose while reading one volume of the Concordia Series (which is overall an excellent, excellent scholarly commentary, though seeing as it's from Lutherans, it's heavy on Greek/Hebrew. But you can skip those bits.).

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

/Tangent/: C.P. Snow, in the "Strangers and Brothers" novels set in Cambridge, observed very keenly the niceties of discreet (but nonetheless vicious) academic back-stabbing. /Tangent ends/

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
My experience, however, is that when you come to particularly puzzling bit, the commentaries simply say, "scholars are undecided on the meaning of this verse" ...!

IME all too often when there is a 'particularly puzzling bit' and I reach for a commentary .... It just says nothing they skip over that bit!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

And then you wondered why you paid out good money for it! [Cool]

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :

Quite. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by DitzySpike (# 1540) on :

My to-go is Fortress Commentary on the Bible. The two-volume set organises commentaries around different interpretive contexts: historical, tradition, modern.

Theological Bible Commentary is consistently interesting.

A good lectionary-based set is Feasting on the Word .

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DitzySpike:
My to-go is Fortress Commentary on the Bible. The two-volume set organises commentaries around different interpretive contexts: historical, tradition, modern.

Theological Bible Commentary is consistently interesting.

A good lectionary-based set is Feasting on the Word .

A word of support for "Feasting on the Word". I now have the whole set and I use them a lot, although they are not too good for individual Bible study.

As always, it depends what you want to use a commentary for and how much detail you want. Do you want a "simple" introduction to the books of the Bible or something more meaty? Do you want a single volume or to build up a set of books?

Starting at the most basic, I would suggest The Lion Handbook to the Bible . It's evangelical in outlook but gives some helpful information about the background to the Bible and a brief summary of each book. Oh - and there's lots of lovely pictures!

For a single volume commentary, I would suggest either the New Bible Commentary (Evangelical) or The Oxford Bible Commentary (not so much Evangelical).

Once you start to go to single commentaries for single books, it all depends on the quality of the commentary concerned. I quite like the Interpretation Series, but that is because it is not a line by line commentary, but more of an aid to preparing sermons. Although we're still in evangelical territory, the Tyndale Bible Commentary series are usually good value for an accessible introduction to a book of the Bible.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by simwel:
Sorry but I just can find the old thread. May I ask for suggestions for accessible modern biblical commentaries. I do not know Greek but would like something that informs and makes me think from a postmodern 21st century social action perpespective.
Please nothing fundamentalist or evangelical just something balanced and intelligent

I understand why your question was critiqued, but I think it would be a shame if we didn't try to answer the best possible version we can intuit of your question. It's been rumbling around my head in odd moments since reading it and some synapses connected when I happened to notice that Dale Martin (at Yale) is teaching a class next semester with the following course description:

quote:

This course first situates "Theology of the New Testament" in its modern (and "modernist") contexts, critiques that practice and genre, and then explores how postmodern, Christian theological interpretation may employ but move beyond historical criticism to experiment with creative, imaginative, but still orthodox readings of the New Testament in today's churches.

And I remembered that he's written a Intro to NT book, and thought you might be interested.

Not a commentary as such, but you'd probably find it interesting and it may well (I've never read it) contain bibliographies that would help guide you to what you're looking for.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

I'm struggling a bit with the concept of a "postmodern bible commentary". I guess it's not exactly a contradiction in terms, but I wonder if "postmodern" there means more than not letting the text get in the way of what one thinks is right?

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

If you're looking for a one-volume commentary, I'd second the recommendations above for the Oxford Bible Commentary or the New Bible Commentary.

If you are looking for individual commentaries on specific books, then it does vary from book to book. There are two or three series of non-technical commentaries which might be a useful starting point. I would highly commend N.T. Wright's "For Everyone…" series of NT commentaries. (The link is to a boxed set, but I would definitely not recommend buying them that way.)

There is also The People's Bible Commentary series with good writers from a number of perspectives.

The third possibility for a good general purpose and non-technical commentary is the Daily Study Bible series. The NT commentaries (again a link to a set) are fundamentally the work of William Barclay, from the 1960s, with a major revision in 1975, and further minor corrections since. Opinion is divide about the 'New' edition. There are also a number of Old Testament commentaries on the same principles.

With all of these, the counsel of perfection is to try before you buy, but second to that you might consider a cheap working copy before you invest in a new book.

Some/many of these series/writers come from an evangelical perspective, but I don't think, on the whole, they push a party line as such.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm struggling a bit with the concept of a "postmodern bible commentary"

So did I, which is why it took me almost two weeks to answer the question. But, thinking about it, while I wouldn't want to treat postmodernism as a homogeneous block, there's a way of understanding that that would be almost patristic. As in, a rejection of modernist ways of reading the text 'historically' that are moored to a positivistic view of history as wie es eigentlich gewesen. It wouldn't be the same as a pre-modern way of reading the text, as we can never undo modernism, but we can move forward from it.

Posted by DitzySpike (# 1540) on :

There are a few options from the 'postmodern' category.

First, the is The Queer Bible Commentary. A mixed bag, but the treatment of Revelations is great.

Global Bible Commentary is also pretty mixed.

The Women's Bible Commentary looks quite consistently good. (Couldn't get the amazon link to work — afraid that Google has to be used)

These are the only single-volume post-structuralist attempts beyond the more traditional socio-historical critical methods that I have come across.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
But, thinking about it, while I wouldn't want to treat postmodernism as a homogeneous block, there's a way of understanding that that would be almost patristic. As in, a rejection of modernist ways of reading the text 'historically' that are moored to a positivistic view of history as wie es eigentlich gewesen. It wouldn't be the same as a pre-modern way of reading the text, as we can never undo modernism, but we can move forward from it.

First, Adam.'s German translates almost to "as it really was", but lacks a proper completion of the "gewesen"... [Biased]

It's an interesting thought, but I'm not sure that it is quite correct. If we caricature "modern" reading as trying to find the one "real truth" of a text, and "postmodern" reading as allowing many readings none of which is the "real truth" of the text (which doesn't exist), then patristic reading would be more to say that there are multiple "real truths" in the same text. The difference between the postmodern and the patristic view is for me that the Church Fathers see their interpretations as "normative in truth" in spite of being acknowledged interpretations. It's the modern swagger in spite of the postmodern multiplicity.

One of my favourite Jewish jokes makes the point I'm trying to get at:

A rabbi was called upon to settle a dispute between two of his followers. The first man poured out his complaints to the rabbi, and when he finished, the rabbi said, “You’re right.” Then it was the second one’s turn. When he finished, the rabbi said, “You’re also right.” The rabbi’s wife, who had been listening to the conversation, said incredulously to her husband, “What do you mean, ‘You’re also right’? They can’t both be right!” The rabbi thought for a few moments, and then replied, “My dear, you’re right, too.”

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
First, Adam.'s German translates almost to "as it really was", but lacks a proper completion of the "gewesen"... [/i]

For some reason the incomplete German tag, sans auxiliary, has become a common (in the right circles of academe) label for a particular form of historical positivism, given probably its most forthright exposition by Leopold von Ranke. (as a Google search reveals -- at least, when logged in as me).

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

There's a discussion here which concludes, towards the end of the comments, that this departure from standard grammar is as von Ranke wrote it.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

It's over twenty years since I did my diploma and I haven't kept up to speed in academic thought.

But even back then, all the teaching and essays were on the basis of "what is the theology behind this text?" rather than "what actually happened?"

How does this post modern approach differ?

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
...all the teaching and essays were on the basis of "what is the theology behind this text?" rather than "what actually happened?"

How does this post modern approach differ?

"What is the theology in front of this text?"

Actually I think much of what passed for an understanding of post-modernism - particularly the more reader-response orientation - was a misrepresentation. Some of the French philosophers who created the depth under post-modernism (at least those who lived long enough) resolved the tensions inherent in "in front" approaches by recourse to the need for far more work to be done in the "behind the text" approaches.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

"What is the theology OF this text" then.

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

For me it's about the original author's intention, because I have to admit that back in the 80s and 90s I struggled to understand what a text on its own could possibly mean, without it being infused with a human element from one direction (authorial) or another (reader/hearer).

So the theology of a text would be found in:

"Understanding what the author intended, by using the words he or she used in the way he or she used them, to achieve an effect by affecting his or her audience."

I can see the force of the post-modern concern to treat each author on his/her merits first, and only after that seeing how the individual meanings (and theologies) may fit together systematically and be applied to current life concerns. It's a piece of hard work, I suspect, trying to stay true to what, say, Matthew intended to effect on a particular subject and what the author of the part of Torah intended, in a way that takes both seriously and yet also coherently.

Just thinking about makes my knees wobble, which is why I rarely get beyond individual authors!

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

I am hopelessly confused. Post-modern means nothing to me except an excuse to make the text mean anything it means to me. Of course the Gospels were selective for a purpose ( John admits this) but it is possible to see behind the selectivity a real, historical, incident. It doesn't take a PhD to identify the "slant" being put upon an incident. Authorial intention is not difficult to identify. Post-modernism seeks to short-circuit the whole process and to end up arguing that the text means anything that rings bells with me. That is subjectivism gone mad.

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

I agree, shamwari. It was a popular part of postmodernism (perhaps not really what postmodern philosophers were on about) because, I think, it gelled with a natural desire to rebel against authority, and for that reason probably had a core constituency in parts of the US more so than elsewhere.

From a secular point of view, reader-response fails to answer the problem of publicly verifiable validity: How can a reader justify his or her interpretation (particularly in an academic environment) when no public justification is required?

From a Christian angle, reader-response fails to answer the problem of authority: How can the Christian texts tell me more about God and how God wants me to live today when I can not know whether my interpretation comes from God or not?

When it comes to commentaries, I suspect the tension lies in being able to justify interpretations sufficiently to assure a reader that he or she is getting something close to answering the Christian questions of who God is and how God wants him or her to live. And obviously doing that without busting the buyer's budget.

Incidentally, that aspect of rebellion inherent to reader-response theory's popularity; perhaps we shouldn't be surprised at that, given Gen. 3's warning on human tendencies!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
I agree, shamwari. It was a popular part of postmodernism (perhaps not really what postmodern philosophers were on about) because, I think, it gelled with a natural desire to rebel against authority

And our natural desire to be self-centred.

quote:
From a secular point of view, reader-response fails to answer the problem of publicly verifiable validity: How can a reader justify his or her interpretation (particularly in an academic environment) when no public justification is required?

Yes; but, of course, PM says that there is no such thing as objective truth, for any view is as valid as any other (even when that is patently absurd).

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

There was in interesting twist, though, to the whole postmodern debate, when Jacques Derrida agreed to enter into regular dialogue with Jürgen Habermas during the last decade of his life. Those two had been at opposite ends of the spectrum when it came to the questions of knowledge and truth, but agreed with each other in that latter stage that although the Enlightenment had a too naive view of objectivity, that did not in itself negate the possibility of obtaining truth (in terms of a valid interpretation). It just meant that those who had been assuming a truth had to work a lot harder at justifying it. Much of what passed for knowledge had in fact been assertions based on assumptions that had not been validated properly.

I suppose we can thank post-modernism for that insight; it burst a bubble.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I think that's perhaps going a bit too far, there are some supposedly liberal authors who take the text very seriously ... and others who see every text as a hook on which to hang their prejudices and agendas.

What I want in a commentary is an analysis of the text, includes nuances as to what the text might mean; I'd also look for some illumination as to what it might have meant to its original readers, so I can extrapolate that for today. This, I think, is vital, for an "obvious" reading we make might be a totally wrong one.

Yes. I agree.

To me, a good commentary helps me get more out of the text. I'm less interested in the commentator's personal opinions, or whether the text fits them or not. Personally, I'm also less interested than we are supposed to be in manuscript history for its own sake.

quote:
My experience, however, is that when you come to particularly puzzling bit, the commentaries simply say, "scholars are undecided on the meaning of this verse" ...!

Sadly, I think that's too often true. Commentaries are too given to paraphrasing the text, thinking that's enough and either not spotting or avoiding the perplexing bits. They also tend to repeat each other.

There's been an interesting example in Jer 41 this week. After the sack of Jerusalem, the Babylonians appoint Gedaliah to run a client regime in Judea. Ishmael son of Nethaniah, a cadet of the royal house, assassinates Gedaliah. He then casually murders eighty innocent pilgrims that happen to come his way. The commentaries pick up on Ishmael's appalling breach of hospitality and his violence. Some pick up on the implications of his royal lineage. What is surprising is that they don't seem to examine what might have been his motivation. Did he see Gedaliah as a Petain like figure? Was he trying to claim the throne? Was he just a man of violence, a bloodthirsty yob? Was he a dogmatic political fanatic of the sort the modern era has seen all too many of? Is he himself a puppet of the king of Ammon?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Isn't the Bible "nice"? [Devil]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Isn't the Bible "nice"?

The episode has a horrible credibility. Ishmael son of Nethaniah would fit very comfortably into the entourages of Slobodan Milošević, the Lord's Resistance Army or if it wasn't for his being inconveniently Jewish, Boko Haram or ISIL

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0