Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: Critical Commentaries...

  1. #1

    Default Critical Commentaries...

    Hello,
    I think, that virtually all of the users of BW software would like to have in the BW every possible modern critical commentary (OTL, ICC, WBC, AB, FOTL, HK are the most know ones).
    Even more: if it would be possible to browse the Bible text along with the chosen commentary/ies aside of it (like the engine of the parallel versions?), that would be great!!! I'm quite sure that such a volume of additions/changes deserves to be done within the next program version, yet every possible progress has began from imagination...
    I'd appreciate other ideas in the area...
    Sincerely,
    Yuri.
    Guller Yuri
    MA Student, Bible Studies Dep.
    Hebrew University, Jerusalem
    gullerya@gmail.com

    The less time I have left, the more I appreciate it...
    (No, its neither a quotation nor a claim for 'revelation', nothing more then a simple self-expression).

  2. #2

    Thumbs down Wanting commentaries?

    Quote Originally Posted by yugu View Post
    I think, that virtually all of the users of BW software would like to have in the BW every possible modern critical commentary
    Don't number me in that group; I prefer the BW philosophy over the Logos philosophy. I prefer my commentaries in print and my alphabetical tools computerized. So I have happily purchased BDAG, HALOT, and the Tov LXX-MT alignment and would love to see ABD or even the old IDB. But I won't be buying electronic versions of commentaries any time soon.

    Dale A. Brueggemann

    כִּי עֶזְרָא הֵכִין לְבָבוֹ לִדְרוֹשׁ אֶת־תּוֹרַת יְהוָה וְלַעֲשֹׂת וּלְלַמֵּד בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט (Ezra 7:10)


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dale A. Brueggemann View Post
    I prefer the BW philosophy over the Logos philosophy.
    Me too. However, I don't mind if BW adds innumerable commentaries as long as they make them add-ons so as not to increase the price of the base BW version.

    I think it's inevitable that BW and other biblically related software companies are going to be integrating all sorts of tools, including commentaries, into their main programs. As long as they make them optional, I think it's the best of both worlds.

    Some like electronic commentaries; some don't. That's what makes horse-racing, as they say.

    Like you, I generally won't even think about reading a commentary in electronic form, but also prefer the hardcopy editions. However, when I want to search for something in that commentary, the electronic version is invaluable.

    In the same vein, I don't actually read Scripture in BW, but for searching Scripture and other comparison activities, BW is of course irreplacable.

    So in summary, if BW can get them and make them available, all the better... as long as they're optional.

  4. #4

    Default

    Hi,
    Well, your point as well as your preferences are understandable... Me, personally, also not using the electronic texts for thorough reading, but for reference and searching only. Yet, for those who live in a very mobile fashion (like me, most of my study papers were written on the way, at work and at other strange places). Therefore the many texts I'm able to pack into the laptop - the simplier my life will become.
    Anyway, seems i'm in minority with this idea ...
    Have a good week,
    Yuri.
    Guller Yuri
    MA Student, Bible Studies Dep.
    Hebrew University, Jerusalem
    gullerya@gmail.com

    The less time I have left, the more I appreciate it...
    (No, its neither a quotation nor a claim for 'revelation', nothing more then a simple self-expression).

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yugu View Post
    Anyway, seems i'm in minority with this idea ...
    Yuri.
    Oh, I think it might be a tad early to conclude that. There are MANY BW users and only two have responded!

    I heartily endorse the philosophical position of BW with respect to not being a digital library. That's not their calling.

    On the other hand critical commentaries could be construed to fall within that calling.

    I hate reading books on line, but do like them for reference. I hope real books never go out of style.

    But, as a missionary in Argentina, I travel a lot, and books cost a lot to transport, so I, too, want as much on my Hard Drive as possible!

    So...I AGREE WITH EVERYBODY!

    I would encourage BW to add commentary modules when they can, but not to get distracted from their mission. I hope that's not too much of a contradiction.

  6. #6

    Default Pretty small quorum

    Quote Originally Posted by yugu View Post
    Anyway, seems i'm in minority with this idea
    I don't think a response from just Scott and me constitutes a very sure sign that you're in the minority. A larger sampling of BW users would constitute a more meaningful survey result.

    Actually, I agree with how Scott put it too, that as long as they're optional, I can see the use of adding commentaries. I just don't want the price jacked up and the menu system cluttered up to make that possible.

    Dale A. Brueggemann

    כִּי עֶזְרָא הֵכִין לְבָבוֹ לִדְרוֹשׁ אֶת־תּוֹרַת יְהוָה וְלַעֲשֹׂת וּלְלַמֵּד בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט (Ezra 7:10)


  7. #7

    Default

    Count me in the reluctant both/and category but man, that gets expen$$ive.

    The more I use Logos, the more I love my BW for what it does. I mean love it. I used versions 4-6 (maybe as early as 3?), but I love ver 7.

    Having said that, I love what Logos does, too. But what it does is different, and I just don't think BW can do what Logos does without ceasing to be as excellent at what it does.
    Dan Phillips
    Books:Web presence:
    tfo+[]l;w> hw"hy> tr:AT-ta, vArd>li Abb'l. !ykihe ar"z>[, yKi

    s `jP'(v.miW qxo laer"f.yIB. dMel;l.W

  8. #8

    Default Betwixt and between

    I too use both BW7 and Logos, and I use them for different purposes. For the most part, I do my textual, primary source work in BW7. I do my secondary work in Logos.
    Exceptions:
    I have SESB in Logos, so I can more easily see the text variants. In BW7, I get most of what I need using Metzger's Textual Commentary, Wieland Willker's Textual Commentary, the NET Bible notes, and a link in to the laparola site.

    I also use Logos for some Greek searches where its syntactic search tools come in handy.
    That said, BW7 is already full of secondary resource tools that I use: grammars, lexicons, timelines, and map modules. These are all well-integrated and indispensable to my work.

    And don't forget that BW7 also comes standard with:

    • Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897)
    • Fausset Bible Dictionary (1888)
    • International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915)
    • Matthew Henry's Commentary (ca. 1710)

    My main complaint is that these last four resources are of limited value in light of modern scholarship. (I did not say they have no value, so I am only pointing out here that a lot has happened in the last 300 or even 100 years of biblical studies...) These works are satisfactorily hooked in to the biblical texts via the Resource Summary tab.

    I have recommended that BW get the rights to something like the Harper(Collins) Bible Dictionary (one volume, Logos sells it for $30) and the one volume Harper's Bible Commentary (again for about $30). I would probably stay in BW7 more with just those two resources at the tip of my mouse click.

    If BW could get the price down sufficiently--say, get both of them for about $25 total--I would say add them in and raise the base price. Otherwise, it would be perfectly suitable to offer them as addon modules at a price that makes it profitable for BW. I don't want a whole library of secondary works (Logos does this well), but some quick reference stuff would be nice.
    Mark G. Vitalis Hoffman
    Professor of Biblical Studies
    Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg
    ltsg.edu - CrossMarks.com
    Biblical Studies and Technological Tools

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    29

    Default Good Suggestions

    I think that Mark's comments make good sense. I have Logos Gold and appreciate what they are doing. Logos' move toward the linguistic databases is a good one. I still do a lot of language work, however, in BW - and I always will. I would use BW even more if they had an up-to date Bible Dictionary and Commentary. Because of my conservative views, I would prefer the New Bible Dictionary and the New Bible Commentary over Harper's.

    Will

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    6

    Default Commentaries

    Visit www.puritan-books.com for mega olde commentaries
    Barry

    Quote Originally Posted by arggem View Post
    Oh, I think it might be a tad early to conclude that. There are MANY BW users and only two have responded!

    I heartily endorse the philosophical position of BW with respect to not being a digital library. That's not their calling.

    On the other hand critical commentaries could be construed to fall within that calling.

    I hate reading books on line, but do like them for reference. I hope real books never go out of style.

    But, as a missionary in Argentina, I travel a lot, and books cost a lot to transport, so I, too, want as much on my Hard Drive as possible!

    So...I AGREE WITH EVERYBODY!

    I would encourage BW to add commentary modules when they can, but not to get distracted from their mission. I hope that's not too much of a contradiction.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •