How is the Anchor Bible Series received by you Christians here?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Anchor Bible Series
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
I have not received the Anchor Bible Series. I suspect they approve of Bibles saying that Jesus told us to make disciples, something that I think that only God can do so I don't think I care about the Anchor Bible Series. Also, those people doing the Anchor Bible series approve of Bibles saying that love is not provoked. I am sure love gets provoked. Love does not provoke, I am sure that is what was written.
RedDragon94
Love everyone, meditate often
I haven't ever heard of it before. It sounds very liberal.
Never heard of it, never used it. *shrug*
steveb1
Member
The Anchor Bible is extremely well done, the result of faith oriented but critical scholarship. A sterling example is The Anchor Bible Commentary on the Gospel of John, by the late Raymond E. Brown.
So, for those of you who seem to know nothing about it but characterize it as sounding liberal, just what is it that fosters such concern?
steveb1
Member
I know you're asking them, but among conservatives and fundamentalists it is common to disrespect critical biblical scholarship as "men tampering with the pure Word of God", e.g., if the commentary for, say, the Infancy Narratives dares to suggest that Matthew and Luke were not eyewitnesses, that their respective stories are irreconcilably contradictory, that Mary's Magnificat may not have been her own words, but those of Luke placed in her mouth, that Herod's "inability" to locate the infant Jesus is more a literary device than history - etc. - then for fundies any such Bible is heretical , anti-God, and anti-Christ. They perceive it as Satan's work and they adhere only to a literal interpretation - which, of course, critical scholarship challenges at many scriptural points.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I use the Anchor Bible series. On the New Testament side, it's excellent - one of the best commentaries that you can get. I use it for both scholarly study and preaching - it's written by top scholars across many church traditions using critical methods.
Unlike other commentaries, it's more than just a translation / explanation of the Greek text. It has a focus on historical interpretation that other commentaries do not attempt. This approach has produced some lengthy volumes - but they are worth the read.
They included Muslims and Secularists and "other traditions" in a Bible Commentary project.
"Having initiated a new era of cooperation among scholars in biblical research, over 1,000 scholars — representing Jewish, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Muslim, secular, and other traditions — have now contributed to the project."
Not really sure about that.
Make that "many lengthy volumes." I needed a bank loan to pick up the 7 books covering Samuels, Kings, and Isaiah, but they've proven themselves to be a valued resource. I suspect that I'll be picking up more from time to time.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
haha, yeah, that's right.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Hi! At the same time, I'd rather not read some ones fictional 'version' of the Bible, either, as opposed to what is written.
steveb1
Member
Hi. The translation is not fictional, but highly accurate, and where there is ambiguity between translations, the commentary explains why.
RedDragon94
Love everyone, meditate often
Wikipedia says it represents "Jewish, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Muslim, secular, and other traditions". There are going to be a lot of conflicting (probably highly critical) views on the Bible. The one on Matthew mentions the Q document. It might be interesting to read for kicks.
No, it says: "Having initiated a new era of cooperation among scholars in biblical research, over 1,000 scholars — representing Jewish, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Muslim, secular, and other traditions — have now contributed to the project. Their works offer discussions that reflect a range of viewpoints across a wide theological spectrum."
Reflecting the scholarship of people from different traditions is not at all the same as reflecting different traditions.
RedDragon94
Love everyone, meditate often
They are going to bring their religious biases to the table with them no matter what. Without the faith to believe what the Bible teaches you can't really contribute a deeper understanding of it.
Perhaps it is your bias being reflected here. In any event, this is not the forum for such a discussion. Thanks for sharing your opinion.
RedDragon94
Love everyone, meditate often
Objective truth is biased and our experiences can sometimes be edited by additional knowledge of the situation observed, sorry.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I don't know how significant that theological cooperation is. The Anchor Bible commentary is a critical interpretation of Scripture, meaning that critical (read scientific-like) methods are used. So it doesn't matter a whole lot if the scientist is Hindu or Rastafarian, the goal is the same - using a critical apparatus to understand the text. There's still room for whatever you or anyone else wants to make up about the text after it is examined carefully in its many original contexts -- in fact, that experience is welcome and invited -- it's just not very valuable as an authoritative / authentic reading of the original.