Sale on Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary & Commentaries

[R. Mansfield]

Secure Your Study with Anchor Yale! For a limited time, save up to 33% on Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary & Commentaries!

 

For information about the sale, go here: http://www.accordancebible.com/Anchor-Yale-Sale

 

Also, don't miss our recent post about the Minor Prophets in the Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries.

[Daniel Francis]

Any word on Matthew yet??? Admittedly I own the set elsewhere and they have had to remove the volume too (they also stated that they condor the volume of such poor quality they are not trying to get it back). I very much value Albright's volume and just wanted to see if any reportable progress had come???

 

-Dan

[R. Mansfield]

Someone can correct me if I misstate anything here, but I don't believe there's anything specific or new to offer right now, Dan.

 

I can tell you (1) we are actively trying to get it back, and (2) we haven't given up on it. 

 

I'd be willing to wrestle for it, but that's why they don't put me in charge of contract negotiations :-)

[Michael J. Bolesta]

Keep on trying.

[jeremyduncan]

It's brand new, but for me the priority would be Koester's new Revelation volume

[Michael J. Bolesta]

It's brand new, but for me the priority would be Koester's new Revelation volume

Yes that would be nice. The Matthew volume should not be much work since the text was already prepared. Agree it would be nice to have newer volumes.

[Rick Bennett]

The Matthew volume is completely out of our hands. It was already developed and removed because of rights issues on Yale's part (meaning it affects every distribution channel). If or when those issues are solved on their end, we will be able to add back in.

[Michael J. Bolesta]

Thanks Rick

[Timothy Jenney]

Frankly, I am relieved that Anchor's Revelation volume has finally been replaced.

[Daniel Francis]

I know I liked your comment... and I will admit ford's commentary is not my favourite but I did not find it completely horrible.... The new is perhaps not even in the same league as the old, but it wasn't the worst volume in anchor (personally I go back again and again to Psalms because I have many people I respect call them the best Psalms commentary out there but whenever I dive into them I come away with very little useful to me, at least Ford's volume gives you a little something even if very idiosyncratic )... I randomly chose to look at Rev. 11:1 with the new first then the old. 

 

11:1. I was given a measuring reed, which was like a staff. Reeds were used as measuring tools. Ezekiel described a similar scene in which an angelic figure had a reed that was six long cubits in length (Ezek 40:5), and in the DSS the reed was seven cubits long (4Q554 1 III, 18–19; 5Q15 1 I, 2–4). Both types were about ten feet long. In Roman times, measuring reeds ranged from seven and a half to nine and a half feet in length (Heron, Geometria 4.11; 21.13). John compares the reed to a staff, perhaps like those used by shepherds and travelers, which were often a little shorter than a person’s height. In Rev 21:15 an angel uses a measuring reed that seems to be of extraordinary size, but nothing unusual is said about the reed given to John.

and was told. The word “told,” or literally “saying,” has no subject. Some manuscripts assume that the angel of Rev 10 continues speaking in 11:1 (א2 046 1854), but since previous commands came from a heavenly voice (10:8; cf. 10:11) and the voice in 11:3 refers to “my” two witnesses, the speaker could be God or Christ.

“Go and measure. Measuring will define the place where true worship takes place and show that it is protected. This modifies a pattern in earlier prophetic texts, in which measuring had more to do with restoration (Ezek 40–48; Zech 2:1–2; Isa 28:17; Jer 31:38–39) or judgment (2 Sam 8:2; 2 Kgs 21:13; Lam 2:8; Amos 7:7–9) than with protection. Some interpreters suggest that the description of angels measuring in 1 En. 61:1–5 might indicate that the action is for protection (e.g., Boxall; Prigent), but the passage from Enoch has more to do with identifying the inheritance of the righteous than with protection (Black, Book, 231–32; Jauhiainen, “Measuring,” 513–19).

The idea of protection fits a common social pattern in antiquity, when temples and altars were places of asylum. During wartime, invaders were not to violate temples. In the OT people sought protection at the altar (Exod 21:13–14; 1 Kgs 1:50) and took refuge in the temple (Josephus, Life 17–21; Josephus, Ant. 14.339, 447). Greco-Roman temples were also considered to be islands of safety from prosecution or conquest (Strabo, Geographica 14.1.23; Dio Chrysostom, Disc. 31.54; NewDocs 4:168; G. Stevenson, Power, 103–13, 161–64, 293). John’s being told to measure the temple and altar means he is to mark out a sphere of asylum for those who worship there.

“the temple of God. The term “temple” (naos) was used for the Jerusalem temple and Greco-Roman temples. Calling it “the temple of God” identifies it with Israel’s tradition (Matt 26:61; Luke 1:9). At Jerusalem the naos was the central temple building, which included an entrance hall, a forecourt, and an inner chamber, or holy of holies. This design was used for Solomon’s temple, the temple in Ezek 40–48, and the Herodian temple. In the first century CE a table, lampstand, and incense altar stood in the forecourt; the holy of holies was empty. The altar for burnt offerings stood outside the temple (Josephus, J.W. 5.216–25). On the history of interpretation, see §18A. In current scholarship there are two principal interpretations of the temple. The first is preferable:

 

  1.      Image of the Christian community. Readers have been told that each faithful person will be “a pillar in the temple of my God” (Rev 3:12). A temple with human pillars is a community, whose members are considered priests (1:6; 5:10). Israel’s temples had golden lampstands among their furnishings, and the lampstands in Revelation signify congregations and the people who bear prophetic witness (1:20; 11:3–4). Calling the worshiping community a temple was common among early Christians (1 Cor 3:16; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:20; 1 Pet 2:5; Ign. Eph. 9:1; Ign. Magn. 7:2; cf. Aune; Charles; Giesen; Mounce; Murphy; Prigent; Hirschberg, Das eschatologische, 217; Spatafora, From, 164–68).

  2.      Heavenly temple. Some interpreters identify the temple as heaven, where the saints are fully protected (Rev 7:9–17; 12:11). They regard the outer court as the earth, which is dominated by the ungodly. Elsewhere, the temple (7:15; 11:19; 14:15–17; 15:5–8; 16:1, 17) and the altar (6:9; 8:3–5; 9:13; 14:18; 16:7) are in heaven, where worship takes place (e.g., 4:10; 5:14; 7:11). Some Jewish sources equate the sanctuary’s inner chamber with heaven and its outer courts with earth (Wis 9:8; Josephus, Ant. 3.123, 181). Earthly sanctuaries were said to have been patterned after a heavenly model, which was the true temple (Exod 25:9; Wis 9:8; Giblin, “Revelation,” 438; Bachmann, “Himmlisch”; Yarbro Collins, Crisis, 68). A problem with this approach is that John usually makes explicit when he is referring to the temple “in heaven,” which he does not do here; and when angels come out of the heavenly temple, they do not enter an earthly courtyard but remain in heaven (Rev 11:19; 14:17; 15:5–6). In Revelation, the followers of Jesus constitute the temple on earth. Their community is the terrestrial counterpart to the temple in heaven.

 

“and the altar. Altars stood alongside temples throughout the ancient world (Vitruvius, Arch. 4.5.1). The most common term for a Greco-Roman altar was bōmos (Strabo, Geographica 14.1.3; I.Smyr 753.17; I.Sard 98.3), but John uses thysiastērion, the term for altars in Israel’s tabernacle and temples. As already noted, these sanctuaries had an incense altar inside the central structure and another for burnt offering in the open court outside. Revelation combines the functions of the two altars in the single altar before God’s throne within the temple building (NOTE on Rev 6:9). The vision does not elaborate the function of the altar but includes it as a way of showing that God is preserving a community where true worship (proskynein) can take place.

“and those who worship there. John refers to God’s temple and altar and those who worship there, or literally “in it.” He could mean “in the temple” or “in the altar [area]” (4 Bar. 2:10) or “at the altar” (1 Cor 9:13). Whatever is meant, people are in the place of worship. Some translations read that John is to “count” the worshipers (NAB, NIV), but John would not use a measuring reed for counting. The worshipers are in the area that is to be measured by the reed.

 

 

Craig R. Koester, Revelation: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, ed. John J. Collins, vol. 38A, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2014), 483–485.

 

vs.

 

 

 

11:1. there was given. Once again the impersonal passive is used.

reed. This served for a surveyor’s rule. It might have been the cane of the arundo donax which grows along the Jordan Valley, also known as the “giant reed” of Mediterranean lands. It grows in swampy areas and sometimes forms jungles, the habitats of wild animals. It may reach to the height of twelve or even fifteen or twenty feet. Although it can be beaten down by a strong wind (cf. 1 Kings 14:15, Matt 11:7), it is also sturdy enough for a walking staff (cf. Ezek 29:6, Mark 6:8). It appears as a measuring rod in Ezek 40:3, 5, 41:8, 42:16–19. Ezekiel’s reed appears to have been six cubits or nine feet in length.

I was told. Gr. edothē moi … legōn, lit. “there was given to me … saying …” The Greek construction is strange, for the position of the present participle makes it appear to modify the noun before it, which would mean that the staff was performing the action of “saying,” when clearly the speaker is the celestial power that has been speaking all along. Proper construction calls for the impersonal passive. Throughout this chapter the tenses oscillate between present, future, and past. This may indicate the composite nature of the chapter.

The phrase, “and the angel stood,” is added before “I was told” in אc 046, 1854, 2329 al sy Tyc.

sanctuary. Gr. naos. The naos is the sanctuary rather than the temple. In Solomon’s temple there were two courts, 1 Kings 6; cf. Ezek 10:5, 40:17, 20. In Herod’s temple the inner court was divided into three. The gates leading to the innermost court had no doors but there was a great arch, rising to the height of seventy cubits (105 feet) and covered with plates of gold, through which one advanced to the naos or the dwelling of God. Josephus tells us that there were no doors in order to symbolize the invisible and omnipresent character of the heavens.

The naos building was behind the altar. It was made of white marble plated with gold. According to Josephus, War 5.222–24, it was “covered on all sides with massive plates of gold, the sun was no sooner up than it radiated so fiery a flash that persons straining to look at it were compelled to avert their eyes, as from the solar rays. To approaching strangers it appeared from a distance like a snow-clad mountain; for all that was not overlaid with gold was of purest white.” Earlier, in War 5.212, Josephus describes the veil in the naos as “of Babylonian tapestry, with embroidery of blue and fine linen, of scarlet also and purple, wrought with marvellous skill … it typified the universe.” On the door of the naos itself was a golden vine and the bunches of grapes were the size of a man. The naos, therefore, spells mystery in every way. For the spiritualized cult see 1 Cor 3:16–17, 2 Cor 6:16, Eph 2:21. The holy of holies represented the Pentateuch, the holy place the prophets, and the courtyard the writings.

altar … worshipers. The altar of burnt offerings was in the court of the priests, the male worshipers congregated in the court of Israel, and the women congregated in their own court. The sacrificial area was complete with rings for tethering animals and marble tables where the carcasses were cut up. However, the killing of the animals was not as important as the libation of the blood and the rise of the smoke from the burnt offering.

 

 

J. Massyngberde Ford, Revelation: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary, vol. 38, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 168–169.

[Daniel Francis]

The Matthew volume is completely out of our hands. It was already developed and removed because of rights issues on Yale's part (meaning it affects every distribution channel). If or when those issues are solved on their end, we will be able to add back in.

 

I believe you but I am a bit confused... I know it got pulled from Logos a couple years ago but why did Yale have you and Olivetree develop it if they knew it had to be pulled??? YOU may have no good answer but it is a curiosity to me.

 

-Dan

[Rick Bennett]

I believe you but I am a bit confused... I know it got pulled from Logos a couple years ago but why did Yale have you and Olivetree develop it if they knew it had to be pulled??? YOU may have no good answer but it is a curiosity to me.

 

-Dan

 

I don't know the timeline for others, but for us it was pulled after the initial release of the NT. Whether that was an oversight on Yale's part I do not know. 

[Timothy Jenney]

 

I know I liked your comment... and I will admit ford's commentary is not my favourite but I did not find it completely horrible.... The new is perhaps not even in the same league as the old, but it wasn't the worst volume in anchor.

 

 

Ford was given the commentary assignment in the hopes she would collate the notes of her mentor and doctoral advisor (whose name I now forget). Instead, she chose to pursue her own idiosyncratic (good word, that) theory. It was kind of an embarrassment for all concerned when it was finally released.

 

Yes, there are other volumes that aren't great, but I remember this one in particular because my doctoral dissertation was on Revelation. My advisor, David Noel Freedman, was the general editor for the AB series.

 

[Michael J. Bolesta]

Any plans to get the Craig R. Koester volume on Revelation?

[Timothy Jenney]

Michael,

 

Please check your forum messages. I sent you a request for help.

 

Thanks!

[Michael J. Bolesta]

Michael,

 

Please check your forum messages. I sent you a request for help.

 

Thanks!

 

 

I just responded. Shalom,

[Daniel Francis]

 

 

Yes, there are other volumes that aren't great, but I remember this one in particular because my doctoral dissertation was on Revelation. My advisor, David Noel Freedman, was the general editor for the AB series.

 

 

That is very cool. I know David Noel Freedman was a remarkable scholar. I did not know Ford had gone off on her own tangent from what was expected. But I am very happy with the replacement volume. In the case of Logos (not sure of it's exact time frame of Matthew being pulled, but I know within a year) but that always was many years back. I guess rather than being puzzled I should just be glad that you, L and OT all had the Matthew volume for a brief time before having to do away with it. When I saw it in yours and then OT's I had guessed that contract issues had been resolved. I know the rand scheme is nots important but I do think it unfair of Yale having you develop a volume you cannot sell (although in all fairness to yale, perhaps they believed they would have it settled before your or the OT release). So by 2010 at the latest Yale should have known. Anyway to bend a phrase "better to have had and lost than never to have had"....

 

-Dan

[Michael J. Bolesta]

Dan

 

Do you have the Koester commentary in another program (i.e. not Accordance)?

 

I have v 1.0 of AYB NT, so I have Matthew, and did not upgrade so as to keep Matthew. Does Accordance have Koester?

[jeremyduncan]

Koester's is already available in Logos. I may just go ahead and buy it but I would rather have it alongside the rest of the Anchor set in Accordance. I guess I'll just have to see which side wins out, my desire for the volume now, or my desire for continuity

[jeremyduncan]

For what it's worth, I've never read anyone follow Ford's argument that Revelation was written by John the Baptist...

[Daniel Francis]

I do not own Anchor in Accordance (other than the dictionary which I own in both Logos and Accordance). I would suggest no one has ever followed the idea of John the Baptist as author because it seems to be an untenable position. It seems to come from the Johannine community which would be later 1 century and tradition holds JTB was dead before Jesus' crucifixion. And even Josephus has a similar history for JTB (I realize some have stated that JTB and many NT characters were latter additions to Josephus' works, but the works as we have them seem consistent to most scholars and this is not needed unless one takes the NT to be complete fiction).  

 

-Dan

[jeremyduncan]

Ford's Anchor volume takes the approach that Revelation is a pre-Christian work from John the Baptist written before the gospels and possible before Jesus... 

Suffice to say, I am looking toward to having Koester's volume

[R. Mansfield]

John the Baptist. Wow. That's a new one on me. I'd never looked at Revelation in Anchor before today, but I looked at the authorship section after reading the above comments.

 

Since there's a little flame under my name to the left, I suppose it would be unprofessional to offer any kind of value judgment.

 

But wow.

[Daniel Francis]

I do not expect you or any Accordance personnel to know the intricacies of each work... not being an employee I can say there is a lot of BS in your offerings... but that said I would have none of them not there... for one person's heretic is another's Martin Luther. So I will disagree a bit more respectfully than above with some offerings, knowing God alone is the source of truth, and I am only to follow where the Spirit leads. I have no doubt some of my most treasured resources would be seen as worthless or heretical to others. One of the most important thing Ford may offer us is the chance to mentally defend our beliefs and positions  and we may well find a diamond or two among the muddy pebbles: for God uses the most unusual sources to bring in the light at times.

 

-Dan

Edited March 14, 2015 by Dan Francis

[jeremyduncan]

I think I undertsand what you're saying but there's a reason academic work needs to be peer reviewed

Edited March 15, 2015 by jeremyduncan