ANCHOR HERE & SET "SALE!"

[R. Mansfield]

Discounts on ANCHOR YALE BIBLE titles, publisher's special on NIGTC + new releases for the Accordance Bible Software Library!

• Anchor Yale Bible Commentary (90 volumes)--up to 35% OFF!

• Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (6 volumes)--30% OFF!

• A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (5 volumes)--43% OFF!

• Archaeology of the Land of the Bible (3 volumes)--30% OFF!

• PUBLISHER'S SPECIAL! New International Greek Testament Commentary (13 volumes)--up to 73% OFF!

• NEW! Images of the Church in the New Testament--31% Off!

• NEW! Paul & the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority--31% OFF!

• NEW! Theology and Ethics in Paul--31% OFF!

• NEW! History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel--31% OFF!

 

Special offers featured above cannot be combined with other discounts and will end on August 21, 2017 at 11:59 PM EDT.

 

For more information, see today's blog post!

 

[jarcher]

Was very happy to see the NIGTC sale. Great deal. Thanks!

[Solly]

As usual, Tuesday is an exciting day for Accordance users. I am checking out the NIGTC set and liking what I find about it. Decisions, decisions, decisions! ;-)

[ukfraser]

Solly, i seem to remember a few months ago, us usual suspects pasted rather a lot of material which included nigtc. I have just been reading a few reviews on a few of the volumes, particularly 1 cor, romans and revelation, and from the substantial samples and reviews, totally agree. $12 per 1000page volume, seems like a no brainer, especially if you like it structured. But this thread gives a really good comparison of the heavy weights.

 

https://www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/20719-understanding-2-cor-1314-13/

 

A week to decide.

Edited August 15, 2017 by ukfraser

[JohnABarnett]

NIGTC at that price is simply too good to pass up. Even when I already blew more money on an iPad yesterday than I should have. I came THIS close to buying three of the volumes (to get the 10% off) within the last few weeks. Glad now I only bought one, Dunn's on Colossians.

 

I used to have Beale's volume on Revelation in book form, and that was outstanding. I mean, look at the volume authors. Beale, Longnecker, Bruce, Knight, Marshall. And the rest are no slouches.

 

So I will be springing for this one before the sale is over.

Edited August 15, 2017 by JohnABarnett

[Solly]

Fraser, I agree that getting NIGTC during the current sale is a no brainer—especially now that a friend and I are working with original language studies. John, I am not going to let this one pass by. I really, really liked what I was able to preview within the Google Books system. However, I must go mow the lawn first, because I know what I will be doing once I download NIGTC!

 

Shalom

Joseph

[ukfraser]

Can i suggest Some more knowledgable people write some positive reviews to counteract the current negative and misleading ones. (One man went to mow, went to mow a meadow...)

 

;o)

[JohnABarnett]

Spring has sprung. Twelve additional volumes for less than the price of two. I'd say that's a bargain.

[Diatheke76]

Nothing for me yet again! I'm not complaining, that just means I'm truly blest with my library as I own most of what is being offered this week and what I don't own I don't need

[Ιακοβ]

NIGTC is certainly a must buy at this price for anyone who has an interest in greek or is studying the bible in greek. Although it is incomplete, it is more complete than some of the other similar series, (i.e. Baylors and EGGNT).   

[Brian W. Davidson]

Tried to help:

 

Brian Davidson

August 15, 2017 | 11:08 PM | Fantastic (5)

The reviews below are completely irrelevant to NIGTC. They are not product reviews. They bemoan that digital books shouldn't be as expensive as print books and that when a book is added to the series its digital edition in Accordance should be cheaper than the print volume. Those things have nothing to do with the content of the volumes.

 

These commentaries are fantastic. If you don't like the price, don't buy them. If you find these volumes on sale — as they are now, $150 for 13 volumes 8/15/17 —and you have the money for them, do not hesitate to purchase them. You will not be disappointed.

 

People can write whatever they want for review comments. Just know the below comments are more about people's expectations of how the pricing of digital books should work and not the content of NIGTC.

[Daniel Francis]

If it is not to long could someone share NIGTC Matthew 7:6 COMmENTS. I am trying to make up my mind went to Logos to try and see a feel but you get less than a complete look with only a few paragraphs here and never get much into the comments. Just would like to see one whole treatment and this looks small enough. I cannot read much Greek virtually none. And so some focusing on textual differences are less helpful for me than to see what the comments are like.

 

-dan

Edited August 16, 2017 by Daniel Francis

[Andrew G]

If it is not to long could someone share NIGTC Matthew 7:6 COMmENTS. I am trying to make up my mind went to Logos to try and see a feel but you get less than a complete look with only a few paragraphs here and never get much into the comments. Just would like to see one whole treatment and this looks small enough. I cannot read much Greek virtually none. And so some focusing on textual differences are less helpful for me than to see what the comments are like.

 

-dan

 

as I just purchased it a minute ago, here you go!

 

------------------------------------------

 

2. Do Not Give Dogs What Is Holy (7:6)

 

⁶Do not give what is holy to the dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or [the pigs] will trample them under foot and [the dogs] will turn and tear you apart.

 

TEXTUAL NOTES

 

There are no significant textual variants.

 

Bibliography

 

Bennett, T. J., ‘Matthew 7:6 — A New Interpretation’, WTJ 49 (1987), 371–86. • Lips, H. von, ‘Schweine füttert man, Hunde nicht — Ein Versuch, das Rätsel von Matthäus 7:6 zu lösen’, ZNW 79 (1988), 165–86. • Llewelyn, S., ‘Mt 7:6a: Mistranslation or Interpretation?’ NovT 31 (1989), 97–103. • Sandt, H. van de, ‘“Do Not Give What Is Holy to the Dogs” (Did 9:5D and Matt 7:6A): The Eucharistic Food of the Didache in Its Jewish Purity Setting’, VC 56 (2002), 223–46. • Steinhauser, M. G., Doppelbildworte, 259–80.

 

See further at 5:1–2; 7:1–5.

 

7:6. It is difficult to be sure about the meaning and role of this verse, and many suggestions have been made. Without trying to be exhaustive, I will indicate something of the difficulty posed by this verse through a survey. A considerable body of interpretation improves the parallelism by postulating mistranslation of an original Semitic source (‘what is holy’ becomes ‘a ring/rings’, and the pearls end up ‘on the snouts’ of the pigs), but this is speculative and unnecessary (see below) and does not get us any closer to knowing what to apply the image to.

Sensitive to these concerns, others have postulated that either already in Aramaic or at the point of translation into Greek the existing (and original?) application of the saying to some form of Eucharistic exclusiveness led (on the  [Matt., p. 322]  basis of a ready-to-hand wordplay between ‘ring’ and ‘holy’ in Aramaic) to an interpretive rewording of the first part of the text.⁴⁴⁶ Whatever the value of these suggestions, a Eucharistic reference in Mt. 7:6 has no contextual support.

With either the text as we have it or with a reconstructed text, interpretive efforts have focussed on identifying a suitable referent for ‘what is holy’ and for ‘the dogs’ (‘your pearls’ and ‘the pigs’ are generally seen to share respectively the same referents). The main candidates for ‘what is holy’ have been the gospel message, the Sermon on the Mount, Israel, sacrificial flesh for the temple (possibly disqualified for temple use by blemish, etc.), and the Eucharist. The main candidates for ‘dogs’ (beyond the occasional attempt to take the word literally) have been Gentiles, the Romans, unbelievers, heretics, and Christians not living up to their profession.

When scholars have made serious attempts to fit the verse into its Matthean context, the preferred suggestions have been: a statement to counter-balance ‘do not judge’ (not judging can be taken too far!); an extension and generalisation of vv. 1–5 making the point that stupid acts (such as judging others) bring God’s judgment on oneself; a sarcastic restatement of vv. 3–5 (‘your pearls of helpful criticism are not going to be appreciated’); a relaying of a (Pharisaical?) proverb expressing a restrictive view only in order to overturn it on the basis of the (to-be-imitated) pattern of God’s generosity as laid out in vv. 7–11 to follow; a restriction to be imposed on vv. 7–11 (good things do not come to ‘dogs’ or ‘pigs’).

Von Lips has made the case that, with parabolic materials like this, application should be based on an appreciation of how the imagery and the action function as a whole rather than on a rather allegorical decoding of the elements of the imagery. He has also, by careful exploration of comparative materials, helped to clarify the imagery involved.⁴⁴⁷ Though the interpretation offered here is quite different from his, his work provides basic information for, and the central stimulus from which, my own proposals emerge.

The dogs spoken of here are best understood as scavenging wild dogs.⁴⁴⁸ Such dogs were never fed. They fended for themselves and played a useful role in disposing of organic rubbish in the ancient world. They are to be imagined as always hungry and capable of aggressive and hostile behaviour. Pigs form a contrasting image. They are domestic animals, and they are fed, indeed fattened, for the market. While wild boars may behave aggressively, this is not to be expected of the domestic pig. (This supports the common view that the verse  [Matt., p. 323]  is arranged in a chiasm, with the first consequence clause relating to the pigs and the second reaching back to the dogs.) Both kinds of animals have an interest in food, but that is not to distinguish them from other creatures.

Von Lips has identified a range of proverbial sayings in which something unsuitable is linked with a particular kind of animal to create an image of what is inappropriate; or, more pointedly, inappropriate food for the animal is called on to function in this way.⁴⁴⁹ ‘What is holy’ could refer to various things, but within the imagery emerging its natural reference is to sacrificial meat intended for the temple. This would at one and the same time be highly desirable from the point of view of the dogs, but a profanation of all religious sensibilities. ‘What is holy’ and ‘pearls’ are obviously both inappropriate as food, but for quite different reasons: dogs get rubbish, while what is holy belongs to God; pearls may be very fine for other uses, but they are quite useless as swine food. In proverbial sayings dogs and pigs at times function as a contrasting pair.⁴⁵⁰ We have in Mt. 7:6 not the synonymous parallelism that is normally assumed, but a synthetic parallelism that builds a composite image of inappropriate behaviour out of two somewhat contrasting instances.

How are we to move from image to application here? I suggest that the initial ‘what is holy’ is intended to provide the bridge. ‘What is holy’ belongs to God. That is what is meant by calling it holy. It belongs to him and should be given to him. This fits with the focus on God that has characterised chap. 6 and which seems to continue in 7:1–11. There is an implicit antithesis here between the dogs and God. The absolute antithesis is of the kind found in 6:24 (God and mammon) and can be related to that of vv. 19–20 (in heaven and on earth).

It seems to me that we have in 7:6 a fresh image for the challenge to make God our exclusive priority. In 6:19–20 the imagery was that of storing up treasure, in v. 24 it was that of having an exclusive master, but in 7:6 it is that of dispersing our resources (what we do with the holy and the valuable that we have available to us). In particular the rejected option is a use of our resources that is not focussed on God. An image of ‘spending’ now takes the place of an image of ‘hoarding’ (6:19–20) or an image of serving a master (v. 24) to make much the same point. There is the same assumption of a rejected middle ground as earlier. What is not directed towards God is seen to be as inappropriately dispersed as sacrificial flesh given to dogs or valuable pearls offered as pig feed. The pigs do not value the proffered pearls, and the dogs, stimulated by the taste and smell of raw meat, attack the giver in the hope of gaining more. The outcome here is probably the counterpart to the damage by moth and corrosion and the loss to thieves found earlier.

 

If this understanding is along the right lines, then, while dogs and pigs are certainly negative images, they do not sharply correspond to anything in  [Matt., p. 324]  particular: when it comes to where we should expend our resources, compared to God everything and everyone else is a dog or a pig (neither fitting recipients of our dispersal nor able to appreciate what we can give).⁴⁵¹ The imagery is harsh and clearly not to be taken outside the very specific frame within which it is designed to function. Jesus is once again commending a radically theocentric vision of life.

Edited August 16, 2017 by gugu009

[R. Mansfield]

Heads up! Today is the last day for savings on ANCHOR YALE BIBLE REFERENCE LIBRARY titles, NIGTC, and new New Testament Library releases for Accordance Bible Software. Sale ends at midnight EDT tonight!