IVP - Addenda & Errata - Biblical Studies Archives

October 31, 2011

Demythologizing Bultmann

There are two things that every student of theology should know about Bultmann. The first is the proper meaning of the term demythologize.

I sometimes find writers—even ones who really should know better—implying or stating that Rudolf Bultmann’s program of demythologizing was a kernel-from-husk operation. That is, Bultmann was attempting to strip away the husk of myth that encapsuled the historical kernel of Jesus in order to grasp the historically certifiable facts. This is critically mistaken and editorially annoying.

Continue reading "Demythologizing Bultmann"
Posted by Dan Reid at 1:01 PM

September 22, 2011

Gimme an R! Gimme a C! Gimme an S! What's It All About?

I have before me the handsome first volume of the Reformation Commentary on Scripture, brought to us under the general editorship of Timothy George. This volume is on Galatians and Ephesians and is edited by Gerald Bray. It is numbered 10 in the New Testament series. All told, with the thirteen volumes on the Old Testament and fifteen on the New Testament, there will be twenty-eight volumes. Galatians and Ephesians is a great pair of books to start off this series!

Galatians RCS.jpgWhen we first proposed this series as a worthy successor to the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, some met the idea with understandable caution: “Don’t we have Calvin’s and Luther’s commentaries?”

Continue reading "Gimme an R! Gimme a C! Gimme an S! What's It All About?"
Posted by Dan Reid at 1:28 PM

November 11, 2010

The iPad Commentary

There are plenty of biblical commentaries that look like they were produced on a cranky old manual typewriter. And there are plenty of very big commentaries that look like they were produced on high-caloric computers with no word counter. But what would a commentary produced on an iPad look like?

Continue reading "The iPad Commentary"
Posted by Dan Reid at 8:11 AM | Comments (3) are closed

September 29, 2009

Multi-View Jesus Remixed

As I promised last week, here is a redacted conversation between our questers (Price, Crossan, Johnson, Dunn and Bock)of The Historical Jesus: Five Views, which is due to be published soon. Modern conventions of authenticity make me reluctant to exercise a freer editorial hand. But think of it as a sort of trailer for the book.

Continue reading "Multi-View Jesus Remixed"
Posted by Dan Reid at 9:14 AM

September 23, 2009

Multi-View Jesus

It is often said in our editorial halls that IVP’s multiple-view books are a signature item, representative of our editorial ethos. As they would say in the world of tweets, “They are just so-o-o IVP.”

Continue reading "Multi-View Jesus "
Posted by Dan Reid at 3:28 PM

May 28, 2009

The Lost World of Genesis One (Part Two)

Over the years I’ve learned that John Walton has some very important things to say about Genesis 1. A few years back I suggested to my colleagues that we should ask John to write a straightforward and readable book that would put his work on the table for anyone involved in the “origins” debates. They agreed. I asked John. He agreed. Now we have that book.

Continue reading "The Lost World of Genesis One (Part Two)"
Posted by Dan Reid at 5:28 PM | Comments (3) are closed

May 26, 2009

The Lost World of Genesis One (Part One)

Several weeks ago, In his Christianity Today review of Davis Young and Ralph Stearley’s The Bible, Rocks and Time, Marcus R. Ross of Liberty University was not satisfied with the authors’ handling of the six days of Genesis 1. Young and Stearley are critical of various views favored by young earth creationists (YECs), but in Ross’s view, they do not make a “positive case” for their favored “framework hypothesis.” Ross maintains that the YEC view is not built on simply one chapter of Scripture, Genesis 1, and that while Young and Stearley have given YECs much to think about, in their focusing on only the first chapter of Genesis, they have not gone far enough.

Continue reading "The Lost World of Genesis One (Part One)"
Posted by Dan Reid at 5:26 PM

October 1, 2008

Research Worthy of the Name

In the late 1940s, when the Tyndale Fellowship was getting underway in the U.K., F. F. Bruce expressed this hope for “The Tyndale Fellowship for Biblical Research”:

No such conclusions [he is referring to pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic biblical scholarship] are prescribed for members of the Tyndale Fellowship. In such critical cruces, for example, as the codification of the Pentateuch, the composition of Isaiah, the date of Daniel, the sources of the Gospels, or the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles, each of us is free to hold and proclaim the conclusion to which all the available evidence points. Any research worthy of the name, we take it for granted, must necessarily be unfettered. (F. F. Bruce, “The Tyndale Fellowship for Biblical Research,” The Evangelical Quarterly 19 (1947) 52-61)

This is a point well remembered today, over sixty years later, when it seems that some forces within evangelical scholarship (and no commentary on Tyndale Fellowship is intended here!) would indeed like to fetter research and its results (declaring what is in bounds and what is out, sometimes on question-begging grounds), often by appealing to the evangelical past. Well, the evangelical past was not all of one mind, just as it is not today.

Posted by Dan Reid at 4:59 PM

June 4, 2008

The abc's of Verse Citations

Biblical scholars, in an effort to be precise in their citations of chapter and verse, will sometimes append a letter to a verse number to indicate what part of a verse they have in mind. So we might have Psalm 23:4c. But why?

A draconian editorial response might be that these references should never be employed since there is no 4a or 4b or 4c designated in the text! In your effort to be precise, we precisely don’t know what you are indicating! Does each letter indicate a clause? Would this be in English translation or in Hebrew? (Depending on the translation, it might make a difference.) What are the rules for this designation and where may we go to find them? Are we all agreed on these rules? Or do we make them up as we go along? One does not have to be a pedant to find this annoying. (Or does one? Have I been in this business too long? That's a rhetorical question!)

Continue reading "The abc's of Verse Citations"
Posted by Dan Reid at 1:40 PM | Comments (2) are closed