PDA

View Full Version : Thinking of a BW6 purchase



brian.gleason
03-13-2005, 07:42 PM
Hello all,
I have been considering a BibleWorks purchase for a while and now that I am preparing to go to Dallas Theological Seminary in the fall, I am wondering what people think of this tool for a ThM - New Testament seminarian. Also, for the BW developers, is there any plans to integrate the New English Translation into the Bible versions supported?

Thanks,
Brian Gleason
brian.gleason@sola-gratia.org
II Timothy 2:15
<><

Joe Fleener
03-13-2005, 08:05 PM
The New English Translation is already available in 6.0. It is not on the CD, but once you install the program and run the automatic updates for the first time it will install NET. The BW version has the complete notes as well.

I would consider BW a "must have" for seminary training!

Glenn Weaver
03-14-2005, 08:32 AM
Dear Brian,

BW will be perfect for ThM work at DTS. It is popular with the students and a number of the profs use it as well.

(I'm a Ph.D. student at DTS.)

Glenn

Mark Langley
03-14-2005, 10:54 AM
Brian,

I personally do not believe you would regret purchasing BibleWorks. It will serve you well in school as well in the future. There is not a better Bible program on the market.

brian.gleason
03-15-2005, 08:33 PM
Thank you gentlemen! Like I said, I've been eyeing it for some time now, but didn't want to cough up the hard earned money if it was something I could live without. I suppose a follow up question would be, what don't you like about it (ie, improvements needed)... perhaps I'll scan these newsgroups!

Thanks again (good luck with the PhD studies, Glen - my uncle earned his from DTS...)

Brian Gleason
brian.gleason@sola-gratia.org
II Timothy 2:15
<><

Michael Hanel
03-15-2005, 09:30 PM
While I suppose there are functional things that it's lacking or falling short in, I'm sure the biggest criticism is that it should have even more content. Granted, I'm not saying it has a lack of content now, but, like a little child, I always want more :) BW does a good job of keeping up with the competition while keeping the cost of the product quite within the reach of students. Considering BW doesn't aim at being a "books" repository, the biggest acquistion that I would always be looking for is more texts (original language (i.e. not English) esp.). Commentaries and such can always be sought elsewhere, but having Dead Sea Scrolls, Early Christian writings, Talmud, etc. at your finger tips would always be beneficial.

Those things aside, I think the two biggest things that BW7 will have up on v6 is that the editor will be much more functional/useful/powerful and Unicode support should also be quite a happy feature now that more and more places are embracing it.

alan1979
03-15-2005, 09:51 PM
Hey Michael,

Any news on how close we are to BW7? Thanks

Alan

Michael Hanel
03-15-2005, 10:58 PM
Any news on how close we are to BW7? Thanks

I think it is delayed one day for every time that question is asked :p No, seriously. I have no idea other than what Mike Bushell or other BibleWorks staff writes on this forum and I think the last official word from them was maybe end of this year, but who knows for certain. I think you can safely say it's still some fair amount of time off in the future otherwise there would be release dates. Until they know when it'll be ready they won't set a release date because they don't want to have to deal w/ us heart-broken users that can't wait :)

DJE
03-16-2005, 02:56 PM
Hi! My name is Dave and I am also very interested in BW6 and just may purchase soon! However, is there any chance we might see the non-canonical gospels (see below) included at some point? These are valuable tools by the way! I also vote for an English edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls (I saw another post on this some place here) and perhaps the Nag Hammadi Library as well.
Peace, Dave


--Sayings Gospels--
Sayings Gospel Q
Gospel of Thomas
Greek Fragments of Thomas
Secret Book of James
Dialogue of the Saviour
Gospel of Mary

--Infancy Gospels--
Infancy Gospel of Thomas
Infancy Gospel of James

--Fragmentary Gospels--
Gospel of Peter
Secret Gospel of Mark
Egerton Gospel
Gospel Oxyrhynchus 840
Gospel Oxyrhynchus 1224

--Jewish-Christian Gospels--
Gospel of the Hebrews
Gospel of the Ebionites
Gospel of the Nazoreans

Mark Eddy
03-18-2005, 11:11 AM
Dear Dave,

Some of the non-canonical writings you mentioned are already available as user-developed add-ons. For example, you'll find the Gospel of Thomas (in 3 English translations) ready for you to download on the Master List Of BW Add-ons Created By Users (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53), the top thread in the forum.

However, you'll never find the text of "Q", because it does not exist. It is simply a hypothetical source (German "Quelle" threrfore the name Q) for various sayings in the canonical Gospels. There literally isn't a shred of manuscript evidence that Q ever existed. BibleWorks concentrates on the Bible. Non-canonical historical texts can be added as databases to be searched. But commentaries or contemporary hypothetical reconstructions are not what BibleWorks is intended to do. Libronix is better for those sorts of things.

In Christ
Mark Eddy

DJE
03-18-2005, 02:08 PM
Dear Dave,

Some of the non-canonical writings you mentioned are already available as user-developed add-ons. For example, you'll find the Gospel of Thomas (in 3 English translations) ready for you to download on the Master List Of BW Add-ons Created By Users (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53), the top thread in the forum.

However, you'll never find the text of "Q", because it does not exist. It is simply a hypothetical source (German "Quelle" threrfore the name Q) for various sayings in the canonical Gospels. There literally isn't a shred of manuscript evidence that Q ever existed. BibleWorks concentrates on the Bible. Non-canonical historical texts can be added as databases to be searched. But commentaries or contemporary hypothetical reconstructions are not what BibleWorks is intended to do. Libronix is better for those sorts of things.

In Christ
Mark Eddy


Thanks Mark! I did find that master list and was amazed by it! In fact, it was the icing on the cake for me in the end. In addition, this forum is so helpful and supportive too. I did read the various postings etc. and was impressed by the community! With my recent (yesterday's purchase) I feel as if I am joining a family!
As far as "Quelle" I realize it's hypothetical. Yet, I have seen what is could be considered Q reconstructed etc. as a single or dual text in The Complete Gospels ed. by Robert J. Miller I think... I just throught it maybe an intresting addition thats all. Otherwise, my use of BW is for deeper study of the bible only.

Thanks Again & God Bless,
Dave

brian.gleason
06-20-2005, 06:23 AM
Thanks everyone for the feedback on the BW purchase. I have, in fact, bought the software and am very impressed. Still trying to get used to the various screen options and searching, but what a great tool!

Gilbert Salinas
06-21-2005, 12:18 PM
You'll be VERY GLAD you purchased this fantastic program.

Wieland has a TERRIFIC commentary at his web site:

Textcritical commentary:
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html (http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html)

There is very much to be gathered in this forum also.

Gilbert

jdarlack
06-22-2005, 09:17 AM
. . . is there any chance we might see the non-canonical gospels (see below) included at some point? These are valuable tools by the way! . . . and perhaps the Nag Hammadi Library as well.Hi there! I've been thinking about a "Q" project. I do not think that the study of "Q" is in any way, shape or form equal in importance to the study of the canonical Gospels. I do, however, think it would be helpful to create a text that has been "tagged" within the Gospels so that on a word per word basis one could easily search on the vocabulary of passages shared by Matthew and Luke, but excluded by Mark. Of course it would also be helpful to tag synoptic agreements in general on a word per word basis.

This seems like it would be a relatively "easy" task for those of us interested in Synoptic Studies. A similar tagging system could be used in the Pentateuch to trace the threads of the Documentary HYPOTHESIS (note, it's only a hypothesis--one to which I do not subscribe--but nonetheless for the sake of apologetics & dialog, still a hypothesis that Conservatives, such as myself, might be willing to "study" and wrestle with).

Would anyone be interested in undertaking such a project in the Gospels or in the Pentateuch?

Another option, besides "tagging" would be to produce a color file that makes good use of background, underlines, etc. that could be turned on or off. The tagging would, however, be helpful for the sake of doing the searches.

Still yet another option would be to put together a Q-synopsis file that put together the proper texts in Luke & Matthew. I think I have done something like this in the past, but I never made it available on the forum. I will check my laptop tonite and post something in the near future.

In the meantime, a "critical" edition of Q is available in an archive online (The Wayback Machine), and it is in a format that could easily be edited & compiled for BibleWorks. I would have done so, and made the text available on the forum, except that the website expressly forbids the reproduction of the text. Take a look here (http://web.archive.org/web/19990219224131/http://www.augustana.ab.ca/~bjors/q-english.htm). See also Peter Kirby's compilation of Q translations, etc. here (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q.html).

Regarding the Nag Hammadi documents, these texts are available online, and perhaps someone could convert them into BibleWorks format. I am not sure about the copyright or permissions that the Gnostic Society holds to these translations, so BW users should tread lightly before compling them. See here (http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhlcodex.html) for the texts online.

jdarlack
06-22-2005, 09:58 AM
I did compile some synopsis files inthe past. One has Kloppenborg Verbin's reconstruction (using Luke alone). The other is a reconstruction that places the Luke passages in parallel with the corresponding passages in Matthew.

The file, "q-kloppenborg-verbin.sdf" is adapted from John S. Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2000) (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?link_code=ur2&camp=1789&tag=oldinthenew-20&creative=9325&path=tg/detail/-/080062601X), 100. Readings not marked <<DOUBTFUL>> or <<PROBABLE>> are considered HIGHLY PROBABLE.

The file, "q-miller.sdf" is adapted from Robert J. Miller, ed., The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1992) (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?link_code=ur2&camp=1789&tag=oldinthenew-20&creative=9325&path=tg/detail/-/0944344496), 249-300.

Ruben Gomez
06-22-2005, 11:48 AM
Jim,

Thank you very much. I appreciate you sharing this material with us.

Best,

Rubén Gómez

Adelphos
06-22-2005, 12:49 PM
A similar tagging system could be used in the Pentateuch to trace the threads of the Documentary HYPOTHESIS (note, it's only a hypothesis--one to which I do not subscribe--but nonetheless for the sake of apologetics & dialog, still a hypothesis that Conservatives, such as myself, might be willing to "study" and wrestle with).

For those interested in this topic, there are three books, in my opinion, that utterly demolish this HYPOTHESIS. Two of these books were written by Robert Dick Wilson, circa 1925. Wilson was fluent in 45 ancient languages and dialects. For a very short example of Wilson's scholarship, see my brief article at --

http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/veracity_of_the_old_testament.htm

The three books are...

1) A Scientific Investigation Of The Old Testament, R. D. Wilson (I had to photocopy mine from the Emory University Library).

2) Studies In The Book Of Daniel, 2 Volumes, R. D. Wilson, ISBN 1-57910-973-X (as far as I'm concerned, this is THE classic defence of Daniel).

3) Ancient Records And The Structure Of Genesis, P. J. Wiseman, ISBN 0-8407-7502-4 (probably out of print, and formerly entitled New Discoveries In Babylonia About Genesis, but now updated by D. J. Wiseman, P. J's. son, an archaeologist and ephgraphist for the British Museum, and later a professor of Assyriology at the University of London).

These three books, as far as I'm concerned, put this HYPOTHESIS in the trash heap, where it belongs. And yet, studying it's foundations, which are utterly devoid of actual evidence, is instructive for anyone interested in the history of OT scholarship.

In that vein, R. K. Harrison does an excellent job of covering this entire topic in his Introduction To The Old Testament, which is also a must read for the OT scholar, in my opinion.

jakemccarty
06-22-2005, 02:36 PM
Thank you for your helpful suggestions, however, you may want to temper some of your posts. Often they sound militant and polemical. The Bibleworks forum may not be the best arena for that tone.

Remember: There are several conceptions of the D-hypothesis and attacking Wellhausen does little to answer the suggestions of Cross. In other words, an argument against the idea that J cannot be an entirely separate document is largely irrelevant to those who see an oral confluence between the so-called J and E source.

It's nice that you've read Wilson in its entirety. I know of far too many who've read a few pages and try to defend his theories whilst not understanding him very well. I, personally, do not have the philological training to follow some his arguments (I am only a newly matriculated PhD student). In the meantime, you may want to peruse a brief article by J. Tigay on something like "Evidence for the Documentary Hypothesis" (which you can find on ATLA) to perhaps gain more perspective on this vexing issue.



For those interested in this topic, there are three books, in my opinion, that utterly demolish this HYPOTHESIS. Two of these books were written by Robert Dick Wilson, circa 1925. Wilson was fluent in 45 ancient languages and dialects. For a very short example of Wilson's scholarship, see my brief article at --

http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/veracity_of_the_old_testament.htm

The three books are...

1) A Scientific Investigation Of The Old Testament, R. D. Wilson (I had to photocopy mine from the Emory University Library).

2) Studies In The Book Of Daniel, 2 Volumes, R. D. Wilson, ISBN 1-57910-973-X (as far as I'm concerned, this is THE classic defence of Daniel).

3) Ancient Records And The Structure Of Genesis, P. J. Wiseman, ISBN 0-8407-7502-4 (probably out of print, and formerly entitled New Discoveries In Babylonia About Genesis, but now updated by D. J. Wiseman, P. J's. son, an archaeologist and ephgraphist for the British Museum, and later a professor of Assyriology at the University of London).

These three books, as far as I'm concerned, put this HYPOTHESIS in the trash heap, where it belongs. And yet, studying it's foundations, which are utterly devoid of actual evidence, is instructive for anyone interested in the history of OT scholarship.

In that vein, R. K. Harrison does an excellent job of covering this entire topic in his Introduction To The Old Testament, which is also a must read for the OT scholar, in my opinion.

Adelphos
06-22-2005, 03:05 PM
In the meantime, you may want to peruse a brief article by J. Tigay on something like "Evidence for the Documentary Hypothesis" (which you can find on ATLA) to perhaps gain more perspective on this vexing issue.

I don't find this issue any more vexing than Jesus Christ did, who attributed the latter four books of the Pentateuch to Moses.

Further, I've never seen a shred of actual evidence for the Documentary Hypothesis. I've seen a great deal of opinion, conjecture, and naked assertions, from Astruc to Driver to some of the more modern critics, who have come up with nothing new or novel, assertions which, every time an archaeologal discovery was made, were refuted outright, such as the assertions that writing didini't exist during the time of Moses, such as the assertions that the Hittites never existed, et cetera, but not a whisper of actual evidence.

But then, I don't consider repeated naked assertions as evidence.

jdarlack
06-22-2005, 03:23 PM
This is the stuff of scholarly discussion, but perhaps not BibleWorks discussion. Could we take this to the "Non-BibleWorks Discussion" area of the forum? :D

Adelphos
06-22-2005, 04:12 PM
This is the stuff of scholarly discussion, but perhaps not BibleWorks discussion. Could we take this to the "Non-BibleWorks Discussion" area of the forum? :D

I think I'm done with it, but that's an excellent idea for anyone who wants to continue. I think you can even get "polemical" over there! ;)

Dale A. Brueggemann
06-23-2005, 12:49 PM
I personally do not believe you would regret purchasing BibleWorks. It will serve you well in school as well in the future. There is not a better Bible program on the market.

I don't think you would regret it either, if you're a Windows user; however, if you're a Mac user, you have access to a superior program in AcCordance. And it's what your NT prof Harold Hoener is using ;-) I've gotten used to using BibleWorks; however, everytime I see Roy Brown, who developed AcCordance, I get a terrible case of envy for my son-in-law, who inherited all my AcCordance software when I had to move to Windows.