1-2 Timothy. What do You think is a reasonable authorship view. And what commentaries are the best? And Revelation NTL commentary by Brian K. Blount?

[Unix]

I've got for example AYBC by Luke Timothy Johnson both under Accordance and in print for 1-2 Tim, Wisdom Commentary by Annette Bourland Huizenga, Baker's New Testament Commentary by Hendriksen, NICNT by Philip H. Towner, all under Accordance.

 

Would You suggest to me or to others also the Raymond F. Collins volume in the NTL -series on sale right now? Wikipedia about him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Collins_(priest)

Do I need that authorship perspective or do You even agree with him and suggest it as a good perspective? I've held the Pauline authorship view for several Years now. I've for example read the entire introduction the ICC -series by Marshall five Years ago but not otherwise used that commentary. That introduction sees Pastorals as written after Paul's lifetime, but preserving genuine traditions of the Apostle.

___________________________________________________________
 

What do You think about the Revelation commentary from 2009 in the NTL -series by Brian K. Blount? Reads from the perspective that justice, judgment and anger are the focus of Revelation. The book was written late, not specific. I subscribe to the view of it having been authored during 132-135 AD, so even this commentary's view is perhaps not late enough? I struggle to find any commentaries to my liking.

[Unix]

For translating and textual criticism of 1-2 Tim, would You use NIGTC by George W. Knight III (I have the set under three platforms) or the NTL volume from 2003 by Raymond F. Collins that I mentioned? I don't own the latter but I could buy during this ongoing sale if someone recommends it to me based on what I asked about it:

Would You suggest to me or to others also the Raymond F. Collins volume in the NTL -series on sale right now? Wikipedia about him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Collins_(priest)

So far for 1-2 Tim I've mostly used ECC by Jerome D. Quinn and William C. Wacker from 1999, about the usability of it: Especially helpful on philology. And I may get help with the philology part from a specialist. As well as that I've used Luke Timothy Johnson in the AYBC -series from 2001, and am using it more now.

[lesterchua]

Hi, the letters themselves state that they are from Paul. 

 

I am not sure what your views on the Inspiration of Scripture is but the implication of saying that Paul did not author the letters is that Scripture lies.

 

If Scripture lies, then it cannot be the Word of God because God does not lie, even though every man (and woman) is a liar.

Edited September 5, 2019 by lesterchua

[Unix]

Thanks for entering the discussion, lesterchua, I appreciate!

Yeah that is definitely the best view regarding them - especially books like the Epistles by Paul, but boy is it hard to build a complete library fitting for research that doesn't strongly contend that view in every other volume! I wish I could also get into buying scholarly monographs. I've looked over what commentaries there are, many many times, therefore some of my questions are pretty hard to answer - this question right here is not among the most challenging - I mean I've set up a few pretty big challenges, such as over at the competitor's forum, in the post: https://community.logos.com/forums/p/127666/831007.aspx … where it is possible to contribute (but I don't write, just follow, and take note of what is said and the input). I also sometimes get active on FB. There's also a reddit group I'd like to participate in but where it is hard to qualify to get to post visibly.
My views vary depending on the part of the Bible. I do believe in layers of redactions for many parts of the Bible and I probably have enough commentaries that go into detail about that.
Sometimes I sell off some commentary sets. It happens that I buy back some time later in a bit different configuration or under a different platform.
I've been thinking lately of how to properly couple commentaries and lexicons, i.e. whether the platforms I have where I have most of my commentaries, even are adequate? I did hold off for a time on certain lexicon purchases. But I've had HALOT as well as BDAG, bought used, under Accordance for a fairly long time now. But the problem became more obvious under a certain other platform and I still own a BDAG license for which I haven't chosen the receiving account - since I by now have the essentials I will probably put it under the account which I will gift away (first probably rent away) - it's an account (not an Accordance one) that I've fully paid myself only and for which there isn't a card or even the actual name of the user specified yet.

 

Regarding the exact question of the Inspiration of Scripture: I believe it to have been fairly meaningful that we've got the Bible put together and brought down to us in the way it has, I believe it and a few other texts to be Inspired for the most part. To me, there aren't such an amount of contradictions that it would cast doubt over everything or be overly difficult to handle, I'm not bothered about that and don't seek to harmonize everything, because seeking to avoid or create VERY intricate or sweeping questions is not the way I work as of today. In general, religion to me is not about harmonizing every detail across the board. But I search out deep insight and what has been obscured. I have a fairly matured view of things, but not in the sense of no-longer going in the right direction.
I have a real-life discussion partner who has been able to tell me things, it was a shortcut for me because it would have been a lot of trouble to realize a certain kind of insight all on my own though I would have eventually I suppose. Sometimes it takes someone willing to say the truth.
I would say I believe in almost the entire Bible, in what way I believe depends on matters of History of Peoples, History of Religions, and the extent to which I have gained a correct understanding of hermeneutics. I find myself strengthened in faith by technical discussions and research. For my own life it is important to know what's behind some of the Bible texts that are the most preached ones today or that people base much of their general assumptions on, because I get "thrown around" (or rather I have sought out) circumstances and between people with conflicting views or who have a basic and misinformed understanding even though they in other ways being really great and even admirable people.
The minor parts I don't base my faith on, are the most obscure parts of the Law that I doubt many religious people have followed for Centuries, and the writings that came at a way too late phase in time (though that about what was too late is an intricate and deep discussion to have).
I wish to get deeply informed by more than what's usual to indulge in, for the parts that matter the most to me.
On some questions that still have huge relevance I've already formed an informed opinion where I'm probably not swayed, but I'm not one-sided, I have a pretty sophisticated total view on things if I may say so (which is likely to get confirmed whether it really is so sophisticated):

Hi, the letters themselves state that they are from Paul. 

 

I am not sure what your views on the Inspiration of Scripture is but the implication of saying that Paul did not author the letters is that Scripture lies.

EDIT: tiny typo and small additions

Edited September 5, 2019 by Unix

[lesterchua]

I think I understand your position. A question like yours will inevitably trigger a theological discussion which I think Accordance forbids.

 

Still, I appreciate your asking. One of the key things my teachers have taught me is to always evaluate what is presented as "facts" with what we already know and not be enamoured by the "fancy and new".

 

You wrote "Yeah that is definitely the best view regarding them - especially books like the Epistles by Paul, but boy is it hard to build a complete library fitting for research that doesn't strongly contend that view in every other volume!"

 

I would have thought that it would be easy to find commentaries that are written from a conservative evangelical perspective, I have a library full of them =). Perhaps, you have been avoiding those viewpoints for some reasons? I'm not criticising you, I'm only curious why you would think that the conservative perspective is not "fitting for research".

Edited September 6, 2019 by lesterchua