Tell me about the Fortress Commentary

[Solly]

I am intrigued by what I am reading concerning the Fortress Commentary, but I would love to see a copy before I purchase it. Are any of you able to give more information about the set beyond the publishers descriptions and samples. If you use it, I would really appreciate your thoughts about it.

[Gedalya]

Check out the volume in www.amazon.com

[Daniel Francis]

It is one of my favourite smaller commentaries, if it had been a bit more affordable I would have duplicated it in Accordance, this is something I have have only done with a very few key resources. As I wrote in my review sometimes the sections covered seem larger than I would like for a good treatment but it it very good none the less. I will share below a sample from each volume, so you can see for yourself if it is a set that might be useful to you. 

 

-Dan

 

Psalms 1–2: Introduction

 

THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT

 

Psalms 1–2 function as a joint introduction that orients the book to wisdom, torah, and messianic categories (Mays, 42–44).

The first psalm begins: “Happy is the one who does not walk …, stand …, or sit,” before introducing its positive counterpoint as those who “delight in the law of YHWH [torath yhwh].” While the psalm primarily employs wisdom terminology (happy, advice, way), it thus also introduces the key phrase that introduces each of the Psalter’s torah psalms (Pss. 1:2; 19:7; 119:1). The idyllic scene then builds on wordplay, where both trees and humans “prosper/flourish” (1:3), and the psalm ends with characteristic wisdom vocabulary, contrasting the “ways” and fates of the righteous and wicked. The psalmist’s concluding confidence introduces a basic tension, since later laments reflect settings where the righteous do not prosper and the wicked appear to triumph (see Psalms 9–10; 73).

Psalm 2 is a royal psalm that portrays the opposition of rival kings to God and divine support for “his anointed” (al meshiho); while the righteous “meditate” on the law (1:2), the peoples “meditate” on emptiness (2:1). Divine first-person speech underscores God’s connection with Zion and emphatically describes the king as “my son,” language central to the Davidic covenant and common in the ancient Near East, but it is unique here in the Psalms (2:2; cf. 2 Sam. 7:14; Mays, 47). Scholars have proposed the initial setting for this material as an enthronement festival that celebrates the monarchy, similar to those found in other ancient Near Eastern sources. In any case, Psalm 2 depicts the king as a militaristic leader, which prompts a warning directly aimed at would-be rivals. The concluding “Happy is the one …” introduces the only wisdom element in this otherwise royal psalm, which both links back to the start of Psalm 1 (1:1) and introduces “refuge,” a repeated motif in the book. Though initially a royal enthronement song, the fall of the monarchy combined with the Davidic covenant promising a descendant on the throne “forever” transformed it into a messianic one (Psalm 89; 2 Sam. 7:11–17).

 

 

THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION

 

While Christian interpreters identify the “anointed” as Christ, they differ in how this is understood. Both Origen and Jerome saw Jesus speaking in Ps. 2:3, with the latter reading “chains” as “the heavy burden of the law.” Luther, however, saw this Psalm as David speaking of Christ, with the “rod of iron” representing “the holy Gospel, which is Christ’s royal scepter in his Church.” Rather than reading it as directly about Christ, Calvin read Psalm 2 as David depicting his own rule, which then becomes a “type” for Christ (Holladay, 169–72, 193, 197).

While the church fathers’ interpretations of the Psalms articulate a consistent polemic against the Jews that implies awareness of a Jewish audience, there is little corresponding material from [redundant?] rabbinic sources; though it contains some material reaching back to the third century, the Midrash on the Psalms (Midrash Tehillim) emerged in the thirteenth century (Gillingham, 45).

While Rashi articulates his own interpretation of Psalm 2, he also notes that rabbinic tradition read it in light of the Messiah (Holladay, 151). Thus the debate between the emerging Jewish and Christian traditions lay not in whether Psalm 2 was messianic, but rather in whether Jesus fulfilled this role. While Psalm 2 is a significant “messianic” psalm within the Christian tradition, it does not appear in Jewish liturgy (cf. Psalms 72; 110; Holladay, 144).

 

 

THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION

 

Messianic readings of the Bible have had long-standing effects. The biblical claim of YHWH’s strong support for the king and expectation of dominion has been used to support the “divine right” of kings and the imperialistic aspirations of Christendom. Contemporary claims to national “exceptionalism” reflect a similar tendency to read one’s own country as the rightful heir to the status of ancient Israel and thus claim divine sanction for military and socioeconomic domination (see Psalm 18).

The tendency to read into the first-century context later assumptions regarding the parting of the ways between Jews and (gentile) Christians can cloud the mutual understanding of contemporary members of both groups. For instance, on one hand it is problematic to treat first-century documents claiming Jesus to be the Messiah as “Christian,” since Jesus’ disciples and most (if not all) New Testament writers were Jews; on the other, it is also problematic to treat Jesus’ fulfillment of messianic expectation as self-evident (see Psalm 22; Luke 24:13–35). Greater recognition of the diversity of Judaism(s) in the first century as well as the interpretive methods and assumptions of various groups hold promise for improving our understanding of both Jewish and Christian traditions.

 

 

W. Derek Suderman, “Psalms,” in The Old Testament and Apocrypha, ed. Gale A. Yee, Hugh R. Page Jr., and Matthew J. M. Coomber, Fortress Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2014), 551–552.

 

 

 

 

John 1:1–18: The Prologue

 

THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT

 

The opening of John’s Gospel may surprise first-time readers familiar with the opening chapters of Matthew and Luke. Absent are the virgin Mary, the manger, the magi, and all other elements of the “Christmas story.” Instead, the prologue situates Jesus within the relationship between God and humankind that begins with Genesis, and proclaims the universal scope and significance of the Gospel’s salvation story. The prologue’s opening words, “In the beginning,” quote the opening of the biblical book of Genesis (Gen. 1:1). The quotation signals that what follows is not just another biography but a story of life-giving significance for all creation.

 

 

Poetic Style

 

The prologue makes use of “staircase parallelism,” in which an important word at the end of one line is taken up at the beginning of the next: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God” (1:1); “in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness” (1:4–5). Some view this poetic style as evidence that the prologue was a pre-Johannine, independent hymn that was incorporated into the Gospel and adapted to serve as its introduction.

 

 

Wisdom Imagery

 

The prologue’s “Word,” though masculine in both grammatical and human form, is remarkably similar to “Lady Wisdom” of biblical and postbiblical Wisdom literature. In Prov. 8:22–31, Wisdom describes her role in the creation of the world, and the intimate delight of her relationship with God (8:30–31). Wisdom and Logos are closely linked in the writings of the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher Philo (20 BCE–50 CE) and the Aramaic targumim, in which God’s assistant is the memra, a masculine term meaning “word.” This prior linking suggests that the fluidity between feminine Wisdom and masculine Logos is not the Gospel’s innovation.

The phrase “lived among us” (NRSV) is more literally, and vividly, translated as “tabernacled among us,” thereby preserving the allusion to the Shekinah, the divine presence (cf. Tg. Onq. at Deut. 12:5), and the tabernacle that the Israelites constructed in the wilderness (e.g., Exod. 25:9), in which God’s presence was uniquely palpable.

The prologue also introduces key metaphors, figures, and themes that will be developed in the Gospel’s stories and discourses. The metaphors include “light” and “life” to describe Jesus and the opportunity he will provide to humankind, and “world,” a multilayered term—cosmos, in Greek—that can refer to the physical world, to humankind, but also more narrowly to those who refuse to believe. John 1:6–8 refers to John the Baptist as the one who testifies to the “light” but is not himself the light. John 1:17 contrasts the law that was given through Moses with the grace and truth now given through Jesus Christ.

Finally, the prologue draws its imagined or ideal audience into the Gospel’s narrative and theological world. The first person plural in 1:14—“we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth”—situates the reader alongside the narrator as a member of the group that, in contrast to Jesus’ own people, “received him, … believed in his name,” and therefore became “children of God” (1:12–13).

 

 

THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION

 

The church fathers viewed the Johannine account of the Word as complementary to the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke. Augustine (354–430 CE) commented that Christ’s dual nature required two births, one divine—described in John—and one human—described in Matthew and Luke (Serm. 196.1; Elowsky 2006, 3). His contemporary Jerome (347–420) stressed his inability to comprehend how the Word was made flesh, admitting, “The doctrine from God, I have; the science of it, I do not have” (Homily 87, On John 1:1–14; Elowsky 2006, 41).

The opening lines of the prologue have fired the imagination since ancient times. Their “celestial flights” led to the use of the eagle to represent the Fourth Gospel (R. E. Brown 1966, 18). The words were thought to have healing power, and for that reason were used in long-standing custom of the Western church as a benediction over the sick and over newly baptized children and as amulets to protect against illness (R. E. Brown 1966, 18).

 

 

THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION

 

The poetic beauty of the prologue can make the human spirit soar and provide a glimpse of the cosmic context of our mundane existence. But its binary contrasts—between light and darkness, Moses and Jesus, law and truth, acceptance and rejection—also construct a polarized worldview that is both supersessionist and hierarchical. The claim that Jesus—the Word—provides the only path to knowledge of God explicitly invalidates any belief system, including Judaism, that does not include faith in Jesus as the Christ and Savior. By occupying the compliant reading position that the prologue, through its use of the first person plural and other techniques, prescribes, we become complicit in this invalidation.

But we are not required to be compliant readers in order to understand the prologue, or the Gospel as a whole, and appreciate its beauty. Although the Gospel narrator steers us relentlessly toward compliance, we as readers are autonomous and therefore free to choose our own subject positions, to resist the prescribed response, accept it, or modify it, to investigate what may lie behind the polarizing rhetoric, and to raise our own questions, at the same time that we appreciate the Gospel’s language and ideas.

 

 

Adele Reinhartz, “John,” in The New Testament, ed. Margaret Aymer, Cynthia Briggs Kittredge, and David A. Sánchez, Fortress Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2014), 269–271.

[Solly]

Thanks for the reply, Gordon. I had looked at them quickly a few days ago, but just went back through them and found two reviews that began to address my questions when I read them in detail. I know that this commentary will present a variety of views, and that does not bother me. What will bother me is if one side gets predominance. I can handle a discussion of the extremes if they are evenly presented with a discussion of strengths and weaknesses.

[Solly]

Thanks Dan, those excerpts are very helpful.

Edited January 28, 2016 by Solly

[Gedalya]

Solly,

Also check out the "look inside" on

http://www.amazon.com/Fortress-Commentary-Bible-Two-Set-ebook/dp/B00YT7CXGO/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1454013011&sr=8-3&keywords=fortress+press+biblefora sample of the book.

[Timothy Jenney]

Here are links to the customer reviews on Amazon:

 

NT: http://www.amazon.com/Fortress-Commentary-Bible-New-Testament/dp/0800699173/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1454019214&sr=8-3&keywords=Fortress+Commentary

OT & Apoc: http://www.amazon.com/Fortress-Commentary-Bible-Testament-Apocrypha/dp/0800699165/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1454019214&sr=8-2&keywords=Fortress+Commentary

The Set: http://www.amazon.com/Fortress-Commentary-Bible-Two-Set/dp/0800699521/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1454019214&sr=8-1&keywords=Fortress+Commentary#customerReviews

 

 

and the Fortress' write up: http://fortresspress.com/fcob

[Solly]

Thanks to all who provided the links. I have spent several hours reading information about the set and parts of the OT volume itself (Gordon, I keep forgetting about the book previews on Amazon--thanks). I like the idea of the three contexts from various perspectives and much of the actual writing. I found that I am more comfortable with the detail of a many volume commentary--Fortress was just getting interesting, and then the section was finished. Currently I am reading Luz's Matthew 1-7, and it is the detail that I find most useful. My most used commentary set is WBC with some use of EBC, but I am seeking some alternate view points. It looks like Hermeneia, Sacra Pagina, and Berit Olam may be where I am leaning. Again, thanks to all who responded!

[Solly]

Thanks to all who provided the links. I have spent several hours reading information about the set and parts of the OT volume itself (Gordon, I keep forgetting about the book previews on Amazon--thanks). I like the idea of the three contexts from various perspectives and much of the actual writing. I found that I am more comfortable with the detail of a many volume commentary--Fortress was just getting interesting, and then the section was finished. Currently I am reading Luz's Matthew 1-7, and it is the detail that I find most useful. My most used commentary set is WBC with some use of EBC, but I am seeking some alternate view points. It looks like Hermeneia, Sacra Pagina, and Berit Olam may be where I am leaning. Again, thanks to all who responded!

 

I have learned to look forward to Tuesday and the Accordance Special Offers. Today I picked up two commentaries that have been on my wish list a few months: Sacra Pagina and Berit Olam.  I am looking forward to working with these two commentaries. Thank you Accordance!