The Post-Reformation Digital Library looks to be an enormously valuable resource. Nick Batzig says “This is the most comprehensive collection of free online PDF theological resources. It will be, without a doubt, a massively important site for those interested in pre-20th Century studies.”

There is an enormous amount of helpful theological primary sources available on Google Books, Internet Archive, and other sites. The PRDL helpfully organizes these by category: Reformed, Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Anabaptist, Arminian-Remonstrant, and Socinian-Unitarian. Also included are smaller sections on Early Modern Philosophy and Patristic and Medieval Philosophy.

Since I posted recently on the NIGTC set, I thought I’d put some comments up about the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Overall I like this set. These commentaries are laid out nicely. The shaded section at the beginning of each pericope orients the reader to the flow of the passage. Often, after the verse by verse comments there is a shaded section that summarizes the pericope. These shaded sections help keep the commentary from becoming atomistic. I’m also very pleased that the Greek is printed in Greek font and not merely transliterated.

Here are my thoughts on the individual volumes.

Turner, Matthew – It’s nice to have a volume on Matthew by a Progressive Dispensationalist, especially in light of key eschatological passages like the Olivet Discourse. However, his comments seem exceedingly brief in many places. Perhaps I need to use Turner more, but right now I’m not sure this was the best purchase.

Stein, Mark – This may be a fine commentary, but I’ve not looked into it because I feel as though I have Mark well-covered between Edwards (PNTC), France (NIGTC), Cranfield, Hiebert, and Lane (NICNT). [Note: I just read the RBL Review of Stein’s work; it didn’t incline me toward purchase.]

Bock, Luke –Bock’s 2 volume work is massive. He defends the historicity of Luke and interacts with the Jesus seminar. He deals with the synoptic problem. He includes helpful text critical notes. The commentary proper provides verse-by-verse exegesis, and Bock often helpfully surveys and adjudicates various interpretations. He is not as helpful when it comes to tracing the flow of thought or literary themes of the passage in light of the rest of the book. Nor does this commentary consistently bring out the major theological themes of Luke. Joel Green’s NICNT contribution, though not as conservative as Bock, does a better job on those points. Nonetheless, Bock is invaluable and I’m glad I own these volumes.

Köstenberger, John –I like Köstenberger, and his commentary is not bad. But after reading Morris (NICNT), Carson (PNTC), and Ridderbos, I don’t sense that he is adding anything. He’s in many ways similar to Carson, but Carson packs more in. For this reason, I’ve not bought this volume.

Bock, Acts –This volume is okay. Once again it is light on literary approaches and theology. The notes are moderately helpful, but the lack of synthesis makes this commentary not all I was hoping it would be. Peterson’s contribution to the Pillar series looks to be a fine commentary on about the same level, and in addition to solidly explaining the text it is very strong on synthesis and theology. I prefer Peterson to Bock.

Schreiner, Romans – Douglas Moo has written the finest commentary on Romans (NICNT), but I’m also glad to own Schreiner’s Romans commentary. Schreiner does a good job of tracing Paul’s flow of thought and of explaining Paul’s meaning. Well worth owning. [Do note that in Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ, 205ff., Schreiner humbly corrects some of his interpretations in the Romans commentary]

Garland, 1 Corinthians – I’ve found every commentary by Garland to be helpful. More recent than Fee (NICNT) and more manageable than Thiselton (NIGTC), I’m very glad I own this volume.

Silva, Philippians – I’d rank commentaries on Philippians: Fee (NICNT), O’Brien (NIGTC), Silva (BECNT) [I’ve not looked at the recent PNTC contribution yet]. Silva does a good job showing how the book fits together. I’m glad to own this volume.

McCartney, James – This is newly out, and I hear good things about it. It’s on my look into getting list.

Jobes, 1 Peter – I’ve read good things about Jobes’ commentary, and I’ve found it moderately useful when I’ve used it. But I already have Schreiner (NAC), Grudem (TNTC), Hiebert, Achtemeier (Hermenia), Stibbs (TNTC), Davids (NICNT), and a number of older works. So I’ve not felt a Jobes necessary purchase. (I would rank Schreiner, Grudem and Achtemeier among the most helpful commentaries on 1 Peter. Achtemeier is liberal, but his comments on the Greek are helpful.)

Green, Gene,  Jude & 2 Peter – I’ve not spent a whole lot of time with this volume, but I’ve been impressed with what I’ve seen. But having Schreiner (NAC), Bauckham (WBC), Hiebert, and Michael Green (TNTC), this isn’t a priority purchase for me.

Yarbrough, 1-3 John – This looks to be an excellent commentary on the Johannine epistles. It looks as though between Yarbrough and Carson’s forthcoming NIGTC volume, these epistles will be well covered. This volume is high on my to-get list.

Osborne, Revelation – This is my favorite Revelation commentary. Osborne writes from a premillennial perspective and carefully exegetes the book. His section on the theology of Revelation is also very helpful.

A friend recently asked for my evaluation of the New International Greek Testament Commentary. Below is my reply. I hope it’s helpful.

John Nolland, Matthew – Every time I looked at this commentary, it seemed as though he was spending more time doing redaction criticism than actually explaining the text. I don’t own and I don’t plan to buy.

R. T. France, Mark – This is a good, detailed exegetical commentary on Mark (though take note of the preterist eschatology in the Olivet Discourse). I own it and find it helpful.

I. Howard Marshall, Luke – This is a decent Luke commentary, but I would rank Bock’s 2 volume BECNT and Green’s NICNT volume above it. I do own it and consult it, however.

Anthony Thiselton, 1 Corinthians - This is a massive commentary on 1 Corinthians. There’s so much that it’s a bit overwhelming. Fee (NICNT) and Garland (BECNT) are much more useful for studying large chunks (like chapters). But if you’re going to do some detailed exegesis, this volume will be helpful. I own.

Murray Harris, 2 Corinthians – This is a superb 2 Corinthians commentary. Worth having. I own it.

F. F. Bruce, Galatians - Like most of Bruce’s work, this is a solid commentary. I own it. But there are a number of newer commentaries on Galatians that are in the pipeline that, I think, will surpass this one. I think Carson and Moo are both working on Galatians commentaries for the PNTC and BECNT sets, respectively.

Peter T. O’Brien, Philippians – This is one of the best commentaries on Philippians. It’s a hard call between O’Brien and Fee (NICNT). This is worth having. I own.

George Knight, Pastoral Epistles – Knight is more conservative than some of these other contributors, but his volume is older and thinner. I wish I could recommend him, but I’d go for Mounce (WBC), Towner (NICNT), and Marshall (ICC) before Knight. I’ve found when I use these Knight doesn’t add anything. I don’t own and don’t plan to buy.

Paul Ellingworth, Hebrews – A detailed, helpful commentary, if a bit atomisitc. Still worth having. I own.

Peter Davids, James - I’m not a fan of Davids’ commentaries. I’d go for Moo (PNTC) and the new BECNT commentary on James by McCartney before getting this one. I don’t own and don’t plan to get.

Greg Beale, Revelation – This is the commentary on Revelation from an Amillennial perspective. I don’t own, and I’m debating on whether I need an Amill commentary on Revelation. Maybe, if I’m going to teach eschatology and won’t have a library with it nearby. But other than that, I’m not planning to get.

Mark has continued our dialogue about electronic resources over on his blog, making this round 4 in his scheme of posting.

Response to Mark’s Pros

Cost

The IVP Essential Reference Collection at $80 is a good deal. In fact, it’s a better deal than is currently available. But, the IVP Essential Reference Collection is also a stronger set than many offered; I’m not sure this is representative.

In my personal experience, I’ve never found an electronic set that comes ahead of what I’ve been able to get in print through used booksellers. Here’s how I compare prices. (1) I remove the books from the set that I’m not interested in. (2) I remove the books from that set that I already own. (3) I’d see what the used prices are for the remaining books. I then compare what I’d need to spend to get the books I want in hardback with the electronic pricing. After doing this, I typically find it cheaper to get physical copies of the books.

Part of the cost problem is that electronic books are almost always bought new. There are discounts available, but I typically find buying books used cheaper than buying electronic books new.

Another advantage to buying hard copies is the ability to piece together sets over time. This means that someone with a small book budget can slowly build a quality library.

Convenience

This is often a benefit. Yet there are also some convenience trade-offs. It’s far easier to browse a physical book. If I want to get an overview of a chapter before reading it, I find it easier to flip through a paper book than through an electronic book. I also find it easier to keep a physical book with me for spontaneous reading opportunities. I’m less likely to pull out my tablet for such things (though more likely than when I had a laptop). Of course, a Kindle would be as handy as a physical book for such opportunities.

Portability

This is certainly a benefit to electronic books. But it doesn’t make buying electronic books a no brainer. The pro of portability needs to be weighed against the cons. For a traveling evangelist the benefit of portability will probably outweigh the cons. For those not continually on the move, the cons are still significant.

Searchability

I typically do remember where to find things in what I read (an advantage of print media), but I’m not without the benefits of searchability. If I need to search a book I own, I can typically do so via Google Books.

Quality

I would dispute this point more strenuously than the others. I’m not convinced that buying the Gold package from Logos is the best way for a student to develop his library.

The Logos package is a huge mixed bag. Do I really want Weirsbe’s “Be Series"? No. Do I want the NAC and NIGTC sets? Some of the volumes from each. I’d advice younger ministerial students to start talking with grad students about what books to buy.

A student who carefully puts together a print library with the advice of professors and more advanced students is likely to have a library of more consistently quality than a student who relies on buying various software packages (though a student who wished to go electronic could also have a consistently good library by being selective on what he installs from each package).

Pros for Print Books / Cons for Electronic Books

Cost

I know Mark listed this as a benefit of electronic books, but in my experience, I’ve been able to procure print books at better prices than their electronic counterparts.

Technology

The technology of the codex is quite remarkable.

The data held within a codex is easily accessible. Unlike the scroll that preceded it, the codex is easily scanned, and the reader can move easily from one part of the codex to another. It’s much more difficult to flip though the pages in a Kindle. Even in Logos, unless one is using a large screen, it is difficult to do an initial scan of a chapter.

The codex form factor is optimally designed for reading. The form factor of a laptop (let alone a desktop) isn’t optimal for long reading. The form factor of a tablet is better, though tablets are still a good deal heavier than most codices. Many people have found it far easier to read from the printed page rather than from a typical monitor.

The codex is portable. True, a library of codices are not portable. But a codex (presuming it’s not a large reference work) can be carried almost anywhere. A laptop or tablet isn’t as portable. They’re typically bulkier and heavier. I do acknowledge, however, that a Kindle does maintain the same portability as a codex (and more, since multiple books can be carried on a Kindle).

The codex works well with at least some people’s methods of personal data retrieval. Often I can scan over the books on my bookshelves, recall which book has the information I need, and find that information based on the place in the book (something to do with the thickness of pages on each side of the spread) and the location on the page.

I much prefer this method of data recovery, which involves actually reading and remembering to the acquiring to what may amount mining an electronic database that is rarely actually read. If electronic books are often searched but rarely actually read in their entirety, then the shift from print to electronic media will be pernicious. Some forms of electronic books would be more prone to this than others. For instance, the Kindle is designed for people to read rather than to mine books.

Electronic books have made some great advances, and the various electronic platforms each have various benefits over each other and over the printed book. Nonetheless, the codex is an amazing technological achievement that should not be underappreciated.

Standards

One of the primary reasons I haven’t invested in an electronic library is the lack of standards. A long time ago it looked as thought the STEP format which was interoperable between programs like WordSearch and QuickVerse would be a safe bet because a number of Bible programs were using the same format. Logos now dominates the market. But who will dominate the market in 50 years? In the broader electronic book market, is the Kindle going to dominate? Will that format remain proprietary to Amazon? Will Epub become the standard e-book format? Or will a something else become standard? What happens to books when the software or device used to read them ceases to be developed? Until the standards issue is sorted out, I’m not convinced that I ought to spend thousands of dollars for electronic books.

My friend Mark Ward has proposed that we enter into a discussion of electronic resources. You can see his initial post at βλογάπη.

In our personal discussions, Mark tends to favor electronic resources, and I tend to favor print resources.

This is evident in the amount we’ve chosen to invest in electronic resources. Mark estimates that he’s spend around $3,602 on electronic resources. The only electronic resources I’ve purchased are BibleWorks (version 4, 6, & 7; with the Wallace add-on), the ESV for Libronix, and the Theological Journal Library for Libronix.

This is not to say I’m entirely opposed to electronic resources. I’ve accumulated quite a number of electronic resources for free. There are a number of reasons, however, that I’ve avoided purchasing electronic resources.

I’ll speak of those reasons in future posts, but for now I simply note some of the electronic resources that I’ve accumulated. In addition to collecting a several of the free modules available for BibleWorks, I’ve collected a number of books and articles from around the internet. Below are the electronic books and articles currently listed in my Zotero library.

[snip - the point was that there are a lot of free electronic resources worth gathering]

In Surprised by Hope, Wright does a good job defending the historicity of the resurrection (albeit with problematic concessions about inerrancy; e.g., the illustration of Wittgenstein’s poker, pp. 31ff). He is also correct to point out that the hope of Christians is not a disembodied soulish existence in heaven but a resurrected body on the new earth.

Wright’s main argument about the resurrection and the new creation is correct. Conservative who know they agree with Wright on these points may be surprised by how much they end up disagreeing with Wright along the way in this work.

For instance, because he’s not willing to fully challenge Darwin (83), Wright is forced to concede that death is part of the good creation of God (94-95). This puts in jeopardy the truth that bodily resurrection is the Christian hope in the face of a fallen world. That truth is close to the heart of Wright’s argument in Surprised by Hope, but this concession puts an otherwise good argument off-kilter from what the Bible is actually saying. Wright says, “Death as we now know it is the last enemy, not a good part of the good creation” (p. 99, emphasis added). This is very different from Rom 5:12 (to name just one passage).

Wright is not always quite fair when dealing with other positions. For instance, he brings up Harold Lindsell and Tim LaHaye when discussing dispensational theology, but he nowhere deals with scholarly dispensationalists like Darrell Bock, Craig Blaising, or Alva McClain who have actually made some of the points Wright is making before Wright made them. This is all the more annoying because Wright has a habit of speaking as if he has finally discovered truth that everybody else has missed when often time he seems simply to have failed to do the requisite research in historical theology.

Wright’s aberrant soteriological views also appear in Surprised by Hope. Wright either distorts or fails to mention the Reformation view of justification when presenting his own view on the matter (139f.). Those who hold to the traditional view are "overanxious" and wish to "rigorously exclude" any "mention of works." While such a person can be found, Wright ignores the concerns of a number of careful evangelical scholars who have argued his views on justification contain unbiblical deviations from what Protestants have historically accepted since the Reformation.

In getting justification wrong Wright gets the gospel wrong. In other works, Wright also foregrounds the end of the exile when it comes to the cross (JVG, 592), repentance (JVG, 247-51, 256-58), and forgiveness (JVG, 268-72). As a result the larger story of the Bible about creation, fall, and salvation from sin becomes the story of Israel about election, exile, and return from exile.

This distortion of the gospel is clear in what Surprised by Hope omits. Wright wrote an entire book about the resurrection of Jesus and bodily resurrection as the hope of Christians without actually coming around to telling his readers how they could be saved from sin and included in the resurrection of believers. Though he included a chapter about Jesus as judge, there is nothing to tell a reader how he can escape God’s judgment. Even the section on evangelism deals primarily with mistakes that evangelicals have too often made. Wright does not handle how an individual can be saved from his sin.

Though Wright is correct that salvation is more than an individual’s relationship with God, salvation is certainly not something less than an individual’s salvation from sin. The Fall was cosmic in extent, but it sprang out of the actions of individuals. Likewise, redemption is cosmic in effect, but it too centers on the rescue of individuals from sin and the restoration of fellowship with God.

In the end, Wright’s main argument about the resurrection is correct, but because Wright has so many other central things wrong, the book itself disappoints.

After establishing to his satisfaction the inevitability of a reader-oriented understanding of meaning, Martin then provides examples in which Christian interpretation of Scripture demands a reader-oriented approach.

In the first example, Martin points out that Christians read Psalm 22 in terms of the crucifixion of Jesus. Martin says that this is impossible based on a historical-critical approach. The Psalm was written by an Israelite many years before Christ (probably not by David according to most critics), and thus it cannot be interpreted by authorial intention in a Christian way.

Martin does note that many Christians have appealed to the divine authorship of Scripture, but he does not stop to consider the challenge this poses to his approach. By refusing to consider the possibility of prophecy of some sort and the role of the Divine Author, Martin fails to realize that the Bible actually demands its readers to be socialized into a particular way of reading Scripture.

By refusing to submit to the demands the Bible makes on its readers, Martin is bound to misread Scripture. This is most unfortunate, since by failing to read the Bible correctly, Martin fails to receive the meaning intended for him by the Divine Author.

Martin begins chapter 2 arguing for a reader-response approach to Scripture interpretation. Martin repeatedly says that this approach is "common sense," that it is "empirically" the way things are, and that it is accepted by almost all people except a few holdout theologians. This reader interpreted these statements intertextually with the works of Shakespeare: methinks he doth protest too much.

To argue his case Martin gives several examples in which readers created meaning other than the original intention of the author: the famous Stanley Fish poem of author names, Culler’s nonsense sentence, misspoken Spanish in which the speaker meant one thing and the hearer understood another, the placement of a STOP sign in a museum (giving it a different meaning than it has on the road), and a class assignment to read a phone book as poetry.

But do these examples really demonstrate that readers (as opposed to authors or texts) create meaning? The first two examples merely demonstrate that when a professor gives misleading clues about words stripped of context, divergent understandings can be reached. They seem to say little about normal communication (see Carson, Gagging of God, 114f.). The third statement is an example of miscommunication because the speaker did not know how to ask a question in the correct Spanish idiom. Nonetheless, even in the example, the hearer was after a moment’s reflection able to comprehend the speaker’s intention, and the speaker received the answer to the question he asked. The fourth example merely demonstrates, as Martin intended, that people need to be socialized into a common understanding of symbols. But this does not necessitate an embrace of reader-response theory. Most simply it is a way of saying that people need to learn vocabulary and grammar if they are to read a language. This example also shows the importance of context. The final example shows how existing texts can be creatively reused. Many lines from Shakespeare and the King James Version of the Bible show up in a myriad of contexts, many far removed from the original contexts in which those lines appeared. There is no problem with this unless people try to import these foreign contexts back into Shakespeare or the Bible. In other words, turning the phone book into poetry may be a fine exercise, but if those engaged in this exercise fail to understand that the phone book was created to help people find others’ phone numbers and addresses, there is something wrong.

Martin is aware of objections to his approach. He focuses on the objection that if reader-response theory is correct, then people can make texts mean anything. The result of this is social chaos. Imagine if everyone read the STOP sign as he pleased. Martin replies that this is not the case because people are socialized into how to read. Thus those in a shared community of readers know how to interpret texts together. Thus drivers are socialized to know to stop their vehicles at a STOP sign. Nonetheless, Martin insists that the reader is always the one who gives meaning to the text. The reason so many readers give the same texts the same meaning is due to their common socialization on how to read that text. He intimates that to say that texts have meaning is to say "words [as "marks on the page"] magically or metaphysically have their meaning within themselves" (17).

But those who argue for authorial intention and textual meaning don’t claim that words magically or metaphysically contain meaning. They are happy to view words as signs. Nor does Martin’s talk about socialization undercut a historical-grammatical approach to reading. It simply means that to understand an author a reader must be socialized to read the text according to the norms of the author. In other words, interpreters of Shakespeare are concerned to understand if a meaning of a word has changed between his time and ours. They are concerned to know the various kind of genres in which drama was performed in the 17th century. In other words, one could say that the historical approach to interpretation means that readers should be socialized into the world of the author to understand him. If so, this makes sense of all the empirical, common sense observations made by Martin. It also relieves him of a problem with one of his examples. When he ordered breakfast in Spanish, he expected to receive breakfast. The waiter wasn’t satisfied with his misreading of Martin’s mis-spoken Spanish. Instead he tried to make sense of the authorial intention. Because the waiter did not share Martin’s approach to making sense of texts, Martin received breakfast.

Work, Telford.  Deuteronomy. Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible Edited by R. R. Reno. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2009.

Telford Work organized his comments on Deuteronomy in the categories, “Plain,” “Faith,” Hope,” and “Love.” These categories are meant to roughly correspond to the medieval fourfold sense: plain equals letter, allegorical equals faith (what is to be believed), tropological equals love (that is, what is to be done corresponds to the law of love), and the anagogical equals hope.

In the commentary proper, therefore, each section of text is followed by comments under the headings Plain, Faith, Hope, Love. Work purposely kept his comments on the plain sense to the minimum since, he noted, others have already provided plain sense commentaries that are better than what he could hope to produce (19). 

This does not mean, however, that Work’s commentary is heavy on allegory. His comments often amount to helpful theological meditation and application. For instance on Deuteronomy 1:2-3a, Work notes under the heading “Love” that Israel’s disobedience at Kadesh-barnea not only led to a wilderness wandering but also resulted in Israel gaining land in the transjordan. Work perceptively ties this to Romans 5:20 (26).

Other times Work addresses a theological issue that the text raises for the modern reader. Under the heading “Plain,” he notes the regulations regarding females taken in battle (21:10-14) are hardly what a woman herself would desire (he doesn’t mention potential conflict with biblical ethics elsewhere). He responds to the challenge in the next section (“Faith”) by appealing to Matthew 19:8. The law here is not laying out the ideal. It is seeking to restrain sin while nevertheless making concession for the hardness of the Israelite’s hearts (192).

Work also attempts to make Christological connections when possible. Some of these are forced. For instance, on the passage about not muzzling the threshing ox (25:4), Work ends up talking about harvest imagery used of Jesus’ ministry in the Gospels (224).

Other attempts are more insightful. A comment (under “Faith”) on the requirements regarding a rebellious son notes that this accusation was brought against Jesus (Luke 7:34) but that Jesus was shown to be a pleasing Son (and his enemies rebellious sons) by the resurrection (193).

In general, Work’s commentary provides a light treatment of Deuteronomy’s plain sense and a more detailed treatment of theological connections to the New Testament and Christian doctrine and practice. A number of these connections are insightful; others are a bit of a stretch. Though uneven, there’s enough good to be worth consulting.

Radner, Ephraim  Leviticus. Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible. Edited by R. R. Reno. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2008.

Ephraim Radner recognizes the primary problem with a commentary on Leviticus is the relevance of the book to Christians today. He clearly states in the introduction to the commentary his dissatisfaction with critical and even Reformation approaches to the book of Leviticus.

Historical-critical approaches end up providing an account of the state of Israel’s religion at a certain period. At best, they may comment about the function of the book as a tutor that would lead God’s people into greater (and less opaque) spiritual truth in the future.

Radner criticizes Reformation approaches for being too repetitious. They are right, as far as they go, to make connections between the sacrificial system and Christ. But one can only make this point so often before growing tedious. Radner prefers the approaches of Origen and of medieval Jewish commentators.

In practice, Radner comments very little on the details of the sacrificial regulations but instead launches directly into figural interpretations that range from connections to Cain and Abel to Christological interpretations grounded in Hebrews.

In other sections, however, Radner’s comments are more traditional. In chapter 18, for instance, he addresses the modern questions raised by this passage’s treatment of homosexual behavior before moving to his figural interpretation of the passage as relating to the church as a family.

Overall Radner’s comments seemed distant enough from the actual text that I didn’t come away with a better understanding of Leviticus. In making his commentary relevant for Christians today, Radner seemed to leave Leviticus in the shadows.