jakoeshall Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Where would I report seeming errors in the WBC text? For example in Gen 15:15, the text reads: "The prophecy “You will be buffed in ripe old age” is fulfilled in Gen 25:8." I'm fairly sure "buffed" isn't supposed to be in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abram K-J Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 I don't have a print WBC to compare it to, but there's a "Report a Correction" feature which is at the bottom of the pop-up menu when you right-click a tool like WBC in Accordance. That's just on a computer, though--there's no such feature for iOS yet, so for that I've just taken a screenshot and emailed it later to corrections@accordancebible.com. UPDATE--I just checked the Bible. Looks like "buried" is intended here. Being "buffed" instead of "buried" in old age does seem to change it from a blessing to a curse! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 (edited) Gordon J. Wenham did Genesis both in Word Bib. Com. and in New Bib. Com. H.C.G Williamson did Ezra and Nehemiah likewise in both. Has anyone compared the same-author commentaries in different sets? It would be interesting if they changed mind on interpretations between commentaries. I found this out about Wenham and H.C.G.Williamson as I began the laborious process of listing the commentaries I have in my Accordance program by Book -- something I surely wish Accordance had done for me (both in the sales dept and in the Library of my Accordance program). I have found no easy way to know which author-common-taters I have on a given book, as for example on Genesis. I have to dig up the bulb-roots for myself before I may have my fish and chips. So I am plugging away at the contents of each set. Edited May 1, 2014 by Enoch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilT Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 Enoch, though it was a long time ago. Wenham was required reading in my degree (Word), other students recommended reading the NBC if we did not have time to wade through the Word volume as was seen as a condensed version of the same by many Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 Enoch, though it was a long time ago. Wenham was required reading in my degree (Word), other students recommended reading the NBC if we did not have time to wade through the Word volume as was seen as a condensed version of the same by many Thanks for the info Phil. I have found that there are a number of duplicate authors in different sets, commenting on the same book. You remind me of when I took Church History and Latourette was the text. As I recall: Though I studied enough, I did not do well on the first exam over some really basic questions. I had been snowed by the abundance of data in Lat. and failed to isolate the forest from the trees. After that test, I went to a book store and bought 3 items: 1) a plasticized 1 sheet summary of Church History, 2) a really short summary text of Church History, and 3) another summary text a little thicker. For all future tests, I made sure I new what was in the summaries, and I ended up with an A in the course. I am not sure that the same would work for Wenham, but perhaps so. Some commentaries may indeed contain some vacuous blather. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilT Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 Enoch, I should add that each commentary by the same author may be tailored to a different readership. Examples off the top of my head are: Bock: Baker Exgetical Commentary is for a different audience than his NIV App Volume Moo: NICNT is different to his NIV App Moo: Piliar is difffernt to his Tyndale Commentary France: NICNT is different to his Tyndale France: NIGNT different from his smaller one (can't rember the series) Micheals: NICNT (have not used this) different from his NBC one Thiselton: NIGNT different from his English edition of the same commentary Cranfield: ICC Romans different from his English edition of the same commentary 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abram K-J Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 Thanks for the discussion, guys--I find these comparisons/summaries helpful. Just to note--France's Tyndale volume on Matthew is close to his NICNT volume. NICNT is, of course, more detailed (especially in the footnotes), but when I didn't have time to read both before preaching on passage, I'd just do Tyndale and get most of his major points that he also made in NICNT. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abram K-J Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 (edited) Phil is right. France says (in the NICNT intro): This is not a revision or expansion of that commentary, but a new work. I have made it my practice to write the first draft of the present commentary on each pericope before looking again at what I wrote twenty years ago (and indeed before looking at any other commentaries as well). I hope thus to ensure that priority is given to what I now understand to be the significant issues. However, on at least an anecdotal level, I recall some significant overlap in places. Edited May 4, 2014 by Abram K-J 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 (edited) Enoch, I should add that each commentary by the same author may be tailored to a different readership. Examples off the top of my head are: Bock: Baker Exgetical Commentary is for a different audience than his NIV App Volume Moo: NICNT is different to his NIV App Moo: Piliar is difffernt to his Tyndale Commentary France: NICNT is different to his Tyndale France: NIGNT different from his smaller one (can't rember the series) Micheals: NICNT (have not used this) different from his NBC one Thiselton: NIGNT different from his English edition of the same commentary Cranfield: ICC Romans different from his English edition of the same commentary Thanks for that list, Phil. Now, for $64,000, pray tell us the audiences for each -- please! I am guess that in some cases one might think one commentary was for pietists and the other for scholars??? So from what you are saying, the general rule is that the commentaries are not carbon copies. Edited May 4, 2014 by Enoch 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilT Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 Enoch, The audience for each set of commentaries is described in preface of each volume. For Example Thiselton's Volume on 1 Corinthians answers, in the words of one reviewer, "...everything about the text." Grading commentaries is difficut guys, because the goal at the end of the day is to edify your congregation by what you have learnt from the text. As you have worked out, I am a bit of a commentary nerd. So I tend to look firstly at the scholarly stuff, the Word series, the International Greek and the NICNT or NICOT series. (Says a lot about my training Moore Theological College Sydney, and my evagelical convictions) But as Abraham said, if you don't have time before preaching look at the shorter volumes. Rememember our goal as teachers of the word is to encourage and edify. To do this we need a good grasp of the text but not necessarily to know everything about a minor greek/hebrew construction (well only if it serves to make the text clearer). No Commentaries are not carbon copies. Execpt for Moo on Romans, well nearly. Moo on Romans NICNT was Originally released as Romans 1-8 in the Wycliff Exegetical series in my time at College. The Series was originally published by Moody, with only a couple of volumes, Phil, Rom, Rev, Numbers, and a couple of miinor prophet Volumes. one by Finney and another by Merill I think, from memory. The Series was axed, and the NICNT Comittee, asked Moo to finish the commentary 11-16. This was Published then as one volume. Some of the text of the original volume was redone, some not. I Know this as I used the Moody Volume at College, and then bought and used the NICNT later. A Good back up is the New Bible Commentary, several of the authors have produced volumes in the Word Series or other series that are top rate. I think of Wenham (Genesis), and Clines on Job among others. If I don't have time to read Wenham in the word series will def. read the NBC entry as it tells me what this top Scholar thinks are the chief central points of the passage. Leaving you in God's Care and Grace Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Fyfe Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Would you mind posting which volumes you would classify as "moderate" and/or "liberal"? As a moderate/liberal, I'd be interested in knowing. Thanks! I think that's probably not going to serve you that well - Goldingay on Daniel is reviewed on Amazon for example as liberal, but if an evangelical were to neglect his volume they would be missing out on some brilliant scholarship. Similarly, some may disagree with Dunn on Romans but to neglect his volume is to miss out on much. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Francis Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Goldingay is pretty conservative in most peoples mind. Do;t get me wrong I think he is a wonderful scholar but he is not liberal. -Dan 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilT Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 I second that, think Goldingay is a good scholar. It's really hard trying to classify these authors as liberal or moderate, What helped me is looking at many reviews and finally reading the volumes. As Dr J., has mentioned in another post, "you tend to learn the most from those who you disagree with". Having said that, the Word series is a good series, the quality of the volumes vary. The one series I do come back to time and again is NICOT/NICNT, this seems to be my standard set. The Word series and others follow close behind. I try and read widely and then form a view based on the text of scripture not an individual author. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrscottcce Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 I have used this commentary a couple times now and look forward to getting to know it better. It was suggested to me (hard copy) by a mentor, but when I saw it came out in Accordance, I went ahead and bought it. Which leads me to ask, will Accordance be coming out with the Feasting on the Word series by Westminster John Knox Press? The current software publisher that they use is not very user friendly, and I know without a doubt Accordance could do a much better job with it. Peace, Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Francis Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 I have used this commentary a couple times now and look forward to getting to know it better. It was suggested to me (hard copy) by a mentor, but when I saw it came out in Accordance, I went ahead and bought it. Which leads me to ask, will Accordance be coming out with the Feasting on the Word series by Westminster John Knox Press? The current software publisher that they use is not very user friendly, and I know without a doubt Accordance could do a much better job with it. Peace, Scott Logos and Worsdsearch of course have this fine set. I owned the horrible PDF version originally produced by WJKP and was given a free upgrade to the official replacement Wordsearch version. I ended up getting it in Logos when I purchased the Anglican Gold collection. I will say this a very excellent collection and while worth having. I personally had found it usable in WS (but far less than ideal) and Logos is far less complete since it is identical to the print version where as the official WS version has most of the additional treatments for both streams of the lectionary OT readings (there are still some missing, although I do think all the treatments have been done now). The Logos version is highly annoying in that if one is doing a psalm it puts none relevant results into the Passage guide for some bizarre reason. For anyone using the RCL this is one of the most fanatic resources out there. For anyone not using it you get four detailed treatments of much of the Bible the four treatments are Theological/Pastoral/Exegetical/Homiletical so you get 4 people giving you 4 very different looks at the one text and when I go there I usually find more than a few choice nuggets of insight in at least 2 of the commentary sections. I cannot afford at this time to purchase it in Accordance but if there was ever an upgrade pricing from the official WS edition I would definitely look into it. -Dan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) Logos and Worsdsearch of course have this fine set. I owned the horrible PDF version originally produced by WJKP and was given a free upgrade to the official replacement Wordsearch version. I ended up getting it in Logos when I purchased the Anglican Gold collection. I will say this a very excellent collection and while worth having. I personally had found it usable in WS (but far less than ideal) and Logos is far less complete since it is identical to the print version where as the official WS version has most of the additional treatments for both streams of the lectionary OT readings (there are still some missing, although I do think all the treatments have been done now). The Logos version is highly annoying in that if one is doing a psalm it puts none relevant results into the Passage guide for some bizarre reason. For anyone using the RCL this is one of the most fanatic resources out there. For anyone not using it you get four detailed treatments of much of the Bible the four treatments are Theological/Pastoral/Exegetical/Homiletical so you get 4 people giving you 4 very different looks at the one text and when I go there I usually find more than a few choice nuggets of insight in at least 2 of the commentary sections. I cannot afford at this time to purchase it in Accordance but if there was ever an upgrade pricing from the official WS edition I would definitely look into it. -Dan Thanks for the comment. Now what is the RCL? RCL Recall (calculator function) RCL Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (cruise line; stock symbol) RCL Revised Common Lectionary RCL Royal Canadian Legion RCL Remote Central Locking (vehicle window feature) RCL Recoilless RCL Resources for College Libraries (Association of College and Research Libraries) RCL Remote Control Locomotive (railroads) RCL Representative Council of Learners (South Africa) RCL Radial Collateral Ligament (anatomy) RCL Rotate Carry Left RCL Resistance, Capacitance, and Inductance RCL Radio Communications Link RCL Rate Classification Level RCL Reactor Coolant Loop RCL Radar Controller RCL Ruling Case Law RCL Royal Credit Line (RBC Bank) RCL Repair Cycle Level RCL Robot Command Language RCL Replication Command Language RCL Rapid Center Library RCL Radiological Control Line RCL Radio Control Link RCL Réseau Canadien des Langues RCL Repairable Components List RCL Restrictive Conductive Location RCL Routing, Channel Assignment, Link Scheduling (algorithm) RCL Routemaster Coach Lengthened RCL Road Center Line RCL Reliance Communications Ltd. (India) RCL Reliance Communications Limited (India) My guess would be The Revised Common Lectionary is a lectionary of readings or pericopes from the Bible for use in Protestant Christian worship, making provision for the liturgical year with its pattern of observances of festivals and seasons. It was preceded by the Common Lectionary, assembled in 1983, itself preceded by the COCU Lectionary, published in 1974 by the Consultation on Church Union (COCU). This lectionary was derived from various Protestant lectionaries in current use, which in turn were based on the 1969 Ordo Lectionum Missae, a three-year lectionary produced by the Roman Catholic Church following the reforms of the Second Vatican Council.%5B1%5D -- -- quote from the Wicked Pedia. I had never heard of it before. Thanks for the education Edited January 12, 2015 by Enoch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Francis Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Revised Common Lectionary seems to be so ubiquitous I assumed it was common knowledge in Christian circles. Even among those who have not officially adopted the RCL often they use a lectionary that is pretty close to it. Ordo Lectionum Missae was once called the RC gift to Christianity as a whole. I for one am very happy with the RCL.... -Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) Revised Common Lectionary seems to be so ubiquitous I assumed it was common knowledge in Christian circles. Even among those who have not officially adopted the RCL often they use a lectionary that is pretty close to it. Ordo Lectionum Missae was once called the RC gift to Christianity as a whole. I for one am very happy with the RCL.... -Dan Thanks for the further education. Edited January 29, 2015 by Enoch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts