Bibles Bible Studies Books

I purchased this book because my Rabbi told me this was the most accurate of versions. I do enjoy the tone of the narrator and the way the writtings flow.

This book provides the student of the Torah, and bible in general, an easy to read and accurate translation.

The Tanach (Old Testament in both Hebrew and literal English translation), Stone Edition, makes the Jewish scriptures even more useable with the added feature of commentary from various scholars. Its compact size allows for conservation of space and ease of use. While visiting a worship service at a local synagogue shortly after this purchase, my assistant and I showed the rabbi a Tanach. Before we could ask his opinion, he said, "Oh, excellent! Superb!" I couldn't say it any better. For those interested in in-depth study, but who are not proficient in Hebrew, the Tanach will be a marvelous aid. Highly recommended.

Excellent for studying the Hebraic roots of Christianity. Beautiful book; lots of valuable information; excellent buy.

This is the exact same full size set you'll find in any of the Jewish bookstore, but for half the price. I love Amazon!

everything went well. I wasn't expecting speed so I didn't notice if it was slow. Thanks a lot.

Andreas Kostenberger has provided us with a genuine treat in his new commentary on the Gospel of John. This commentary is in the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament series, which is developing into one of the most useful series of commentaries for those who love God's word.

Like all of the commentaries in this series, Kostenberger's volumn is written from an evangelical standpoint that embraces the Gospel of John as being the authoritative word of God. This work consistently interacts with the Greek text and the majority of major contemporary commentaries on John.

Highlights of this volumn include:

1. It is extremely well written. Even in a series known for its readabilty, Kostenberger stands out as a model of clarity. Rather than simply checking selections, I have read this commentary from cover to cover - and it is a great joy to read.
2. Kostenberger makes outstanding use of footnotes. This feature makes it particularly easy to find both the support for his interpretations as well as dissenting voices. I suspect this feature alone will make Kostenberger's commentary the first one to be pulled off of the shelf.
3. Unlike many commentaries that answer all the questions except the one you are actually asking; this volumn shows exceptional judgment in selecting and addressing questions. Preachers will find this commentary a particulary rich and helpful resource in sermon preparation.

Are there reservations in recommending this commentary? Yes. First, while anyone could benefit from Kostenberger's excellent work - it will be best used by those who have at least one year of Koine Greek. Second, I wish that Kostenberger had been a little more painstaking in making and commenting on his (generally excellent) translation. Two illustrations of this should suffice:

1. Kostenberger translates John 3:19 "This is the verdict: light has come into the world, but people preferred darkness to light; for their deeds were evil." The words translated "preferred" are almost universally translated "loved" and "more than" (i.e. "loved darkness more than light"). The word "loved" is identical to the word "loved" in John 3:16 just 3 verses earlier ("God so loved the world"). It is difficult to see why Kostenberger would lessen the force of this statement from "loved darkness" to "preferred darkness" and he offers no explanation in his text.
2. Kostenberger translates John 3:9 "Nicodemus answered and said to him, 'how can these things happen?'" The commentary points out that nearly all translations of this verse (NIV, NASB, NRSV, NKJV, NLT, ESV, TNIV, et. al.) render this verse "How can these things be?" Kostenberger then writes: "However, the translation 'How can these things happen?' is preferrable" without offering any explanation at all as to why it is preferrable or what difference it makes. Perhaps he thinks it is simply obvious, but the fact that it wasn't obvious to any of the translation committees of all the major English translations of the Bible cries out for an explanation/argument.

These are obviously very minor criticisms. This is a wonderful commentary and belongs on the shelf of every student of John's Gospel.

Andreas Kostenberger has provided us with a genuine treat in his new commentary on the Gospel of John. This commentary is in the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament series, which is developing into one of the most useful series of commentaries for those who love God's word.

Like all of the commentaries in this series, Kostenberger's volumn is written from an evangelical standpoint that embraces the Gospel of John as being the authoritative word of God. This work consistently interacts with the Greek text and the majority of major contemporary commentaries on John.

Highlights of this volumn include:

1. It is extremely well written. Even in a series known for its readabilty, Kostenberger stands out as a model of clarity. Rather than simply checking selections, I have read this commentary from cover to cover - and it is a great joy to read.
2. Kostenberger makes outstanding use of footnotes. This feature makes it particularly easy to find both the support for his interpretations as well as dissenting voices. I suspect this feature alone will make Kostenberger's commentary the first one to be pulled off of the shelf.
3. Unlike many commentaries that answer all the questions except the one you are actually asking; this volumn shows exceptional judgment in selecting and addressing questions. Preachers will find this commentary a particulary rich and helpful resource in sermon preparation.

Are there reservations in recommending this commentary? Yes. First, while anyone could benefit from Kostenberger's excellent work - it will be best used by those who have at least one year of Koine Greek. Second, I wish that Kostenberger had been a little more painstaking in making and commenting on his (generally excellent) translation. Two illustrations of this should suffice:

1. Kostenberger translates John 3:19 "This is the verdict: light has come into the world, but people preferred darkness to light; for their deeds were evil." The words translated "preferred" are almost universally translated "loved" and "more than" (i.e. "loved darkness more than light"). The word "loved" is identical to the word "loved" in John 3:16 just 3 verses earlier ("God so loved the world"). It is difficult to see why Kostenberger would lessen the force of this statement from "loved darkness" to "preferred darkness" and he offers no explanation in his text.
2. Kostenberger translates John 3:9 "Nicodemus answered and said to him, 'how can these things happen?'" The commentary points out that nearly all translations of this verse (NIV, NASB, NRSV, NKJV, NLT, ESV, TNIV, et. al.) render this verse "How can these things be?" Kostenberger then writes: "However, the translation 'How can these things happen?' is preferrable" without offering any explanation at all as to why it is preferrable or what difference it makes. Perhaps he thinks it is simply obvious, but the fact that it wasn't obvious to any of the translation committees of all the major English translations of the Bible cries out for an explanation/argument.

These are obviously very minor criticisms. This is a wonderful commentary and belongs on the shelf of every student of John's Gospel.

I appreciate David's positive review. The purpose of this brief note is to respond to the second of his two criticisms, which is that I do not justify my translation of 3:9 as "How can these things happen?" rather than the more conventional rendering, "How can these things be?"

In short, David's criticism is not valid. It is true that I do not include an explicit rationale. I do, however, refer the reader to the commentaries by Barrett and Carson, implying that I concur with their rationale. All the reader has to do, therefore, is to go to one of these commentaries to find out why I favor this particular rendering.

I realize that sending the reader to another commentary is not ideal, but at times it was necessary to use this kind of shorthand in light of space constraints. In any case, the reader who wants to know why I chose this particular rendering can find out why by consulting Barrett and/or Carson. I hope this helps.

This contemporary anthology features 33 essays by women from a variety of Jewish backgrounds, exploring the biblical passages and liturgical themes for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. The approach is modernist-feminist but with a deep, sincere respect for the tradition and what it can teach us today.

Both Jews and non-Jews will find insights here about two of the more troubling stories in the Bible --the casting out of Hagar, and the almost-sacrifice of Isaac -- both of which are read in the synagogue during the High Holy Days. The Torah tells us only the bare outlines of the story, but does not explore the feelings of the women involved with much depth. But the Bible is not the only sacred text available. Traditionally, Jews have "filled in the blanks" with a process called "midrash" (which means "from searching" in Hebrew) and there is a whole body of this type of literature, which forms an interpretive lens throough which Jews "see" these stories. This book uses both classical midrash and personal insiights to explore some serious questions: Was Sarah justified in demanding that Abraham send Hagar away? How could Abraham have even condidered sacrificing his son? How did this event affect his wife Sarah? Etc. Etc. You may not agree with the opinions offered in this book, but I guarantee it will make you think!

This may be the greatest book I have ever read about the judgment and the leadership in these last days to get us safely to the other side in these last days. It lets one see as the earth fell there was a civilization that did not fall and that this civilization would be here to help us as mankind and the earth takes the next step towards ascention. It gives detailed information on those that corrupted mankind in its inocence and how this was done. It lets us know that there will be leadership set up in the next world. Maybe one of the best things about this book is it is not written to any one type of people, it is written equally to all mankind. It covers the pre-existance in ancient times of the leadership in the next world. It explains plainly some of the metaphores used in this book and the Bible. There is good detail on the punishments and rewards of the judgment. It may be suprising to some to learn how (or who) will decide some of these judgments. It explains how evil survived the flood.

R. H. Charles Translation

This is a translation by R. H. Charles from the Ethiopic Text with a complete analysis and notes. Considered indispensable to students of both the Old and New Testaments in understanding the problems underlying the Bible prophecies.

In its present form the Book of Enoch is made up of various elements belonging to different dates and a diversity of authorship and more properly should be spoken of as "Books" of Enoch. One part belongs to the earlier Book of Noah. The following is an extract from Mr. Charles' quite long and detailed Introduction:
. . . To describe in short compass the Book of Enoch is impossible. It comes from many writers and almost as many periods. It touches upon every subject that could have arisen in the ancient schools of the prophets, but naturally it deals with these subjects in an advanced stage of developement. Nearly every religious idea appears in a variety of forms, and if these are studied in relation to their contexts and dates, we cannot fail to observe that in the age to which the Enoch literature belongs there is a movement everywhere, and nowhere dogmatic fixity and finality.And though at times the movement may be reactionary, yet the general trend is onward and upward. In fact the history of the development of the higher theology during the two centuries before the Christian era could not be written without the Book of Enoch.

From what has already been said it is clear that no unity of time, authorship, or teaching is to be looked for. Indeed, certain considerable portions of the book belonged originally not to the Enoch literature at all, but to an earlier work, i. e. the Book of Noah, which probably exhibited in some degree the syncretism of the work into which it was subsequently incorporated. This Book of Noah clearly embraced chapters 6-11, 54-55, 60, 65-69, 106-107.

. . . Conflicting views are advanced on the Messiah, the Messianic kingdom, the origin of sin, Sheol, the final judgement, the resurrection, and the nature of the future life. There is an elaborate angelology and demonology, and much space is devoted to the calender and the heavenly bodies and their movements. Babylonian influences are here manifest and in a slight degree Greek. . . .
The analysis and notes are an excellent addition to this work, enabling the reader to better understand the subject matter.
Paperback
331 pages

...E. Raymond Capt noted Christian archeologist and historian recommends this version and the Richard Laurence version by (Artisan Publishers)

What a helpful, insightful addition to understanding the Scriptures and theological subjects! R. H. Charles offers an excellent English translation of the Ethiopic Text. His additional notes and analysis contribute added clarity to this work. This book is another fine example of the unique, unusual biblically based books offered by Artisian Publishers.

This Book of Enoch needs to be in the hands of every serious Bible student as an indispensable aid in understanding the New Testament regarding the evolution of theology between 200 BC and 100 AD, and also the Old Testament concerning problem prophetical passages. The book was written by a number of Jewish writers around the second century BC, and was considered inspired Scripture in the century before Christ and up to the third century AD by such early Church Fathers, as Justin Martyr, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian. It was eventually removed from the canon of Scripture in the fourth century and was virtually lost to Western Christendom until the early 1800s AD, when Laurence published the first English translation based upon a single Ethiopic manuscript. There are several other popular versions in print today, but the only translation worthy of serious study is the R.H. Charles edition, published in the early 1900s after twenty years of extensive research. His translation is based upon 23 Ethiopic manuscripts and all available source fragments of the time. Compared to other translations, the Charles version is quite exhaustive in the number of pages (nearly twice as many as other editions). He, alone, offers an extensive, in-depth Introduction of over 100 pages, and a comprehensive analysis and criticism of the text, plus accurate verse numbering. This is definitely the version to purchase without question! Two other important ancient books readers might want to consider are The Book of Jasher Referred to in Joshua and II Samuel (1840 edition), and The Book of Jubilees translated from the Ethiopic by Schodde, offered by Artisan Publishers.

Alter continues here what he started in ' The Art of Biblical Narrative' and applies the techniques of literary criticism to the Biblical text. He does not discard Lowth's discovery of parallelism as the key technique of Biblical poetry but rather sharpens and intensifies the meaning of this concept. He shows the way different kind of parallelism operate in the text. He illustrates how intensification of meaning comes through repetition and variation. He closely reads some of the great Biblical poetry.
This is a wonderful work for all those who love the Bible and all those who love Poetry.

This is one of the books that I was supposed to read for a class but didn't get around to it until now. I am halfway through this book and it is one of the most readable academic books that I've read. It is no wonder that Robert Alter has set and will set the standards by which Biblical litery criticism is judged.

The Bible comes alive under his translations and his insights into the text make this old book new and exciting.

This item is very Great I love it so much I have it on
my two computers at work and at home

I would recommend this to any curious christian, or curious nonchristian! I'm 20 years old and I enjoy using it! It's fun and informative, and the animations are my favorite part

I purchased this as a gift for my wife. Not only does she love it, but our three-year-old son loves the videos. It is very easy to study the Bible, as well as look up information, cross-reference, etc. I saved at least $20 by ordering online. Great purchase!

An excellent Bible Encyclopedia on a computer instead of a set of books! Very easy to use and very excessible!

Love this software!!! I use it on a daily bases, and love the extra's.
The only complaint I have is the scrolling arrow it is a bit to fast, so I use the bar instead. Great resource for any age of beliver.

Yep we get it, its hard to figure out exactly what happened 2000 years ago. So why write a book about it?

Sorry Prof., I've got to think your classes are snoozers not shockers. (but then I don't live in the bible belt.}

Anyone who wishes to learn more about the apostles and the New Testament will find this very interesting and an easy read.

Whether one agrees with Erhman or not this is a fascinating read. He is a scholar who knows the Fundamentalist mind (with Moody Bible Institute in his background), and he takes the biblical text very seriously. He's a great writer and this book is easily accessible to the one who is not a professional.

From the Introduction: "Historians do their best to reconstruct past events based on surviving evidence, but history is not an empirical science that can establish high levels of probability based on assured results obtained by repeated experimentation. History is as much art as science" (xiv).

From Chapter 7: "Has there ever been a Christian figure as controversial as the apostle Paul? It was a new understanding of Paul's letters that led Martin Luther to split from the Catholic Church, leading to the Protestant Reformation and a division within Christendom that continues down to our own day. Churches of all description continue to wrangle over Paul's teaching: some insist that his writings oppose women in the ordained ministry, while others argue just the opposite. . . . Debates over Paul--and over who can claim him--are not, however, a product of the modern age: they go all the way back to New Testament times. . . " (89).

Seminary students are not educated until they're read stuff like this--and not just to laugh and snicker and poke holes. Calvin Theological Seminary, where I was given the boot ("My Calvin Seminary Story") sends students out without seriously interacting with such literature. Here is a good book to seriously explore.

His use of the legendary counter-cultural rock group aside, there are
very few new ideas in this book for those who have already read other Bart
Ehrman books. He opens this work taking familiar passages from the New
Testament, standing them next to passages from extra-biblical documents and asking, "Does the historian accept what is found in the Scripture as being historically accurate and what is found outside of it as inaccurate? On what grounds?" (Introduction, p.xiv) He rightly reminds the reader that every writer, both ancient and modern, has an agenda that must be understood if you are to correctly understand the document, "This is especially true of the early Christian Gospels." (p.10)

Let me state from the outset, I like Bart Ehrman. He is an accomplished scholar; he is a good writer (I enjoy reading his work and typically read every word); and he is a charismatic lecturer (I have sat in on one of his lectures). I agree with many of Ehrman's thoughts and I especially applaud the fact that he is forcing us to think more critically about the New Testament. *sigh* Glad I got that out of the way.

Ehrman challenges you to read the NT gospels "horizontally," meaning to compare stories from Mark's gospel to the same story in Matthew or Luke. His purpose is to make you see the various differences and to question which version is trustworthy. He cites a few examples to get the discussion rolling, something he does in his other books, but his objective is not just to "help" you understand better. I would recommend that a reader have some other materials in front of him when reading Ehrman, thus reading him more horizontally. He has a tendency to present data with only his desired emphasis. Yes, Bart Ehrman has an agenda.

He begins with Peter. The discussion on Peter is not as potent as that on Paul and Mary Magdalene, but he does bring out the various extra-biblical documents regarding Peter which is good for anyone interested in this subject matter. Ehrman always does a good job of introducing extra-biblical works and these are the texts he uses in his study of Peter: the Gospel of Peter, the Acts of Peter, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Letter of Peter to Philip, and the Pseudo-Clementine writings. He gives a good overview of why scholars have doubted the Petrine authorship of the NT documents 1 and 2 Peter. He also does a nice job of illustrating from the early church writings why Peter should not be called the first pope, or even the first bishop of Rome. There is not much else in the section on Peter that demands comment. It is here, however, that I must offer my first scholarly critique - Ehrman consistently points to his other works in footnotes without any explanation. I realize these works are meant for a popular audience and not to be academic writings, but he could do a better job here. For example, Ehrman makes it clear that he believes the sermons of Peter contained in NT Acts are basically nothing more than the author of Acts putting forth his own views in the mouth of Peter. (pp.66-67) This is a text-critical statement, highly relevant in the overall thesis of this book. Yet rather than give the reader some explanation, some supporting data for this extremely important point, Ehrman points you to another of his books on the New Testament in the first footnote.

[If you follow that footnote (I do not yet own that particular Ehrman text) you will likely find that he is referring to a famous passage of the fourth century Greek historian, Thucydides, in his "History of the Peloponnesian War," where he states that he will do his best in the lengthy speeches he records to give the reader the gist of what was said, but that he obviously cannot remember every detail word for word. Most biblical scholars believe that the author of NT Acts does this in the sermons recorded. Fine. But if Luke is the author he would not have been present for Peter's early sermons. It would do the reader good to know that the Greek in the early portions of NT Acts, especially the sermons, is quite different from the Greek in the latter part of Acts where the author is supposedly giving an eye witness account. The early sermons contain Aramaisms, phrases in Greek that are obviously translations of Aramaic. Luke's presentation in the early chapters of Acts most likely comes from early Aramaic sources. Ehrman knows this, or least is familiar with the theory, but has decided not to acknowledge it. As he argues, Peter is supposedly illiterate and it is likely that he
only spoke Aramaic - any writing attributed to Peter (all we have is in Greek) is likely to have been written by someone else, maybe Peter's personal scribe. Ehrman gives a good account of this in chapter one, then does an excellent job in chapter six, showing that it is highly unlikely for Peter to have written any document with his own hand. I laughed out loud in my study while reading his humorous sarcasm on page 76 - good stuff.]

The section on Paul opens in typical Ehrman style, showing how the three accounts of Paul's conversion in NT Acts have differences. Similar to the empty tomb accounts there are differences, yet the basic thrust of the story is the same: Paul is on the road and has a phenomenal (supernatural) encounter with the risen Jesus, and somehow this is witnessed by his traveling companions. Ehrman points out several items to illustrate that "Luke doesn't have the details right." (p.97) Ehrman cites examples that are disputed by other scholars, but he fails to mention this even in a footnote.

On page 98 he points to the sermon recorded in Acts 17 - Paul is speaking to philosophers and says that God has overlooked their ignorance. Ehrman says that Paul would have never said this, pointing to Romans 1: "Would he preach the opposite of what he believed?" Ehrman knows that in Romans 1 Paul is referring to those who "oppose" or "suppress" the truth and in Romans 2 Paul sounds very much like the "Lukan" message in Acts 17. He knows this - he just ignores it.

Another example is his treatment of the death of Jesus (pp.143-144). According to Ehrman, Luke portrays Jesus as wrongly put to death, a miscarriage of justice that leads men to feel guilty, which should then lead them to repentance and forgiveness. Paul, on the other hand, views the death of Jesus as necessary, as an atonement. While I basically agree with this argument, Paul makes statements very similar to those made in the Acts sermons about the death of Jesus (1 Thess. 2:14; 1 Cor. 2:8). My point here is that Ehrman finds problems where there might NOT be any problem.

Having pointed out a few places of disagreement, let me say that Ehrman's discussion on Paul is very good. There are many places where he sounds much like N.T. Wright, but many of these ideas are not new. He never references Wright, but then again, I have never seen Wright reference Ehrman (I have not read more than a couple works of either author).

The section on Mary Magdalene, in my opinion, is the best part of this
book. Ehrman shines brightest not when offering his take on New Testament passages, but when he discusses Gnostic writings. He reminds (or informs) the reader that "not much is said" about Mary in the earliest source documents. (pp.185-187) Mary Magdalene appears more frequently, and with more fantastic flare, as we move further away from the first century - Ehrman's presentation of this is excellent. (pp.248-249) What Ehrman succeeds in doing with this examination of the various Gnostic writings, contrasted with the NT documents, is to illustrate the struggle the early church had with the questions of gender, sexual relationships, and leadership.

Indeed, the early church leaders struggled with many issues as this new understanding of spirituality challenged old ideas of race, class, gender, and nationality. How difficult it must have been during the first century to understand (and apply) Paul's radical statement, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal.3:28) There were bound to be disagreements and struggles!

But let's not invent problems. Ehrman is obviously a proponent of gender equality - he makes equality statements throughout the book. Fine, but he basically accuses Gregory the Great of misogyny (pp.190-192) when he comments on Gregory's homily regarding the anointing of Jesus by the sinful woman. Gregory assumes this woman to be Mary Magdalene. Ehrman finds fault with Gregory's application of this text and states, "The only redeeming feature of her body is when it turns from its dangerous acts (dangerous, that is, to the men concerned) and falls to the feet of the man Jesus in repentance and sorrow. It is the sorrowful penitent who is acceptable; that is the kind of woman these texts seek." (p.192) Yes, Gregory is encouraging his hearers to be sorrowful in penitence, even to the point of falling on their knees...but not just women! In Luke 5:8 Peter does the same thing, falling at the feet of Jesus and saying, "Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!" I am sure Gregory would have the same view of Peter's response.

In the end, I do like Ehrman's challenge to bible-believing Christians to re-examine biblical texts. Faith does not rest on the text, but on the resurrection of Jesus. It is also good to consider the message of various Gnostic writings. There were indeed reasons for many of the ancient documents to be rejected by the early church. Ehrman's examination of some of these extra-biblical documents helps to shed light on why many of these did not garner a significant following and were rejected.

R.A. Baker
Ph.D., Ecclesiastical History

Professor Bart Ehrman has written another engaging and insightful book on early Christianity. He examines three of Jesus's most influential followers through the lens of historical perspective, the bible, and early external writings. He shows great insight in the influence each of these figures had on the history of the Western world. Did you ever think about the fact that the historical Peter had to have been an illiterate peasant who spoke Aramaic and it is impossible that he wrote perfect Greek Epistles that applied more to the later church than the 1st century? We must understand that Paul never met the historical Jesus and barely mentions any history of the real man, instead evidence points to the fact that he was the one who began the "Christ" myth. All the gospels and outside sources agree that Mary Magdalene was the first to witness the empty tomb or the risen Jesus, that makes her the first Christian and the pivot point that began the Christian religion. Buy this book for an education on these three figures and what we can really know about them and their impact on Christianity and Western Civilization. Curious minds will not be disappointed.

Vanhoozer is atypical among evangelicals for his willingness to critically engage the likes of Derrida, Fish, and Foucault. For that, he deserves praise. He is unfortunately all too typical of evangelicals, however, in his reactionary, alarmist response to these thinkers. One of his central arguments is that if meaning doesn't inhere in texts, people can make them say whatever they want and that would be very unfortunate indeed (it would result in interpretive anarchy). Therefore, meaning inheres in texts. Apparently, for Vanhoozer, the fact that something is unfortunate is sufficient to make it also untrue. Allow me to apply Vanhoozer's reasoning in another area: Statement-"Your grandmother died"; Response-"If my grandmother died, that would be very unfortunate"; Conclusion-"Therefore, my grandmother did not die." This is obviously fallacious reasoning, but it is the reasoning central to Vanhoozer's rejection on contemporary literary theories of textual meaning (he has other arguments, of course--this is just an example, but it demonstrates the ethos of the book). (I would fault this argument on other grounds; socialization, location in an interpretive tradition, and orthodox doctrine are all factors that dramatically contrain the range of plausible interpretations without the need to locate meaning in the text itself). Vanhoozer offers similar arguments throughout the book, although he finally concludes by simply stating that the falseness of literary theory can be deduced from his understanding of the trinity. After convincing you in the first half of the claims of contemporary literary theory, he tells you in the second that if you're a true Christian, you can't believe in it.

Books like this will continue to reinforce the "Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" that Mark Noll documented in his masterful book. Evangelicals currently have little if any impact on the academic community outside their own subculture, largely due to their unwillingness to seriously engage and make their beliefs intelligible in light of the best philosophy and science of the day. Books like this are the prime reason why. Evangelicalism is so reactionary, so homogenous, so quick to shoot down anything (or anyone) who is unfamiliar or challenging (witness D.A. Caron's book on the emergent church) that it inevitably results in an environment that efficiently expells all independent thinkers (who usually become intellectual leaders) and either drives them away from the faith or to negative manifestations of it. Vanhoozer's book will only aid and abet the tendency of many (Caron, Dobson, etc.) within the subculture to cloak their own agency behind "the text itself" or a "method" and thus, pass of their own opinions about particular issues as "God's opinion" about those issues. If you're looking for a nuanced Christian engagement with literary theory, I'd highly recommend looking elsewhere: nearly all of James K.A. Smith's books (esp. Fall of Interpretation), Dale B. Martin's Sex and the Single Savior, any book on the history of biblical interpretation (including discussions of the matter by Mark Noll in his books).

Vanhoozer's objectivity in explaining, in plain language, the various, often confusing concepts that confront anyone trying to understand hermeneutic theory is refreshing. I was impressed that Vanhoozer didn't set out to discredit theories with which he didn't agree, but instead explained them rationally and in the end presented his own opposing view(s). His patience with deconstruction theory is impressive. I would recommend this book to any , who like me, appreciate a civil discussion of a controversial topic.

Vanhoozer presents a broadly researched work on hermeneutics and surveys a vast amount of perspectives and literature. With such a wide range of research his conclusions are surprisingly narrow. Vanhoozer prefers to stick to very sharp dichotomies and present extreme ultimatums that typified conservative reactions to the ambiguous "Postmodernism" during the late 1990s and early 2000s. Although it is evident that Vanhoozer has read his sources well, he has failed in terms of reflection. Hence, in dealing with Gadamer, in particular, he concludes that Gadamer's position on the nature of interpretation and text would lead into relativism. Yet I do not find this to be the case, and, ironically, neither did Gadamer! Gadamer refuted various forms of relativism on many occasions. Vanhoozer, however, does not seem interested in any perspective that does not fit into his traditional, rigid hermeneutic. I find there are many, many alternatives (Gadamer being one of them, crf. the book of Hebrews) to the tired old hermeneutics that Vanhoozer recycles.

Unfortunately, Vanhoozer's theory, for all of his research, is merely warmed up meatloaf from the fridge. There is nothing here that truly makes progress or builds upon the quality thinking that has taken place in hermeneutics in the 20th century. I see it as primarily reactionary and alarmist. Vanhoozer's main focus is to try to preserve stable interpretations. But what if hermeneutics is not the "stable science" that we had thought? What if there are unstable elements? What if interpretation (pace Gadamer) involves both the text of the past and the horizon of the present? These are the key questions that Vanhoozer does not satisfactory address. He is too much of an alarmist, too paranoid about losing "stability" in interpretation.

Anthony Thiselton is one of the few conservatives to whom one can turn for a fair engagement with hermeneutical theory and an attempt to formulate genuine thoughtfulness. Thiselton gives Vanhoozer praise for this book, but also nails down one of Vanhoozer's primary weaknesses:
"The attack on anti-representationalism can reflect an equally misguided mirror image when a proponent of the opposite view seeks to reinstate reference and representation, as well as single determinate meanings, to contexts in language that they simply fail to fit. In spite of my immense admiration for Kevin Vanhoozer's Is There a Meaning in This Text? I find an over-readiness to ask whether rather than when defences and attacks concerning reference and determinate meaning are theologically constructive or destructive. It tends to demote the importance of non-referential, non-representational language if we resort to suggesting that the grossly over-simple, over-general, exhausted distinction between meaning and significance, could serve as a panacea for all hermeneutical headaches by the reverend E.D. Hirsch. Hirsch's attempts to revitalize the humanist model of language contained much of value, but unfortunately his conceptual and semiotic tools were too dated and general to address fully the complexities and nuances of the "postmodern" world." (See p. 613 of Thiselton on Hermeneutics)

Thiselton is much more generous than I. Frankly, I have very little patience left with Evangelical voices that are so reactionist and alarmist, lacking any real forward-thinking. We have no theologians with vision and courage. They are often merely products of the machine who recycle outdated theories of textuality. In a recent essay (see "Discourse on Matter" in Hermeneutics at the Crossroads (Indiana Series in the Philosophy of Religion)) Vanhoozer calls his book (Is there Meaning in this Text?) a "lion well roared," with the implication that he does not regret his emphatic statements, even if they were something of an exaggeration. In my opinion this work is sound and fury, signifying nothing. After 20 years or so this will be a dated book, with little more than a historical interest as one of many reactionary and unoriginal pieces of Evangelical theological literature, so much of which winds up in the dustbins of irrelevancy.

Anthony Thiselton is a much better resource than Vanhoozer for hermeneutical theory. His New Horizons New Horizons in Hermeneutics accomplishes everything that Vahnoozer attempted to do, without getting too bogged down in alarmist rhetoric. While I do not agree with all of Thiselton's conclusion, this is a far better resource and renders Vanhoozer's work completely useless.

In my essay "Living and Dynamic" (available on my blog) I specifically address Vanhoozer's hermeneutic while examining the hermeneutic at work in Hebrews as the author recontextualizes the Old Testament. In my opinion, if one does not have the energy to work through Vanhoozer or Thiselton they could always turn to the book of Hebrews for an outstanding example of how interpretation can be living and dynamic, while still caring for and respecting the original context of a text.

Vanhoozer acknowledges the critiques that postmodern continential philosophy offers with respect towards interpreting texts. Yet, the solution that Vanhoozer claims to work, is the solution that postmodern continential philosophy rejects. While it's popular in religion and literature departments to take deconstruction seriously, especially Derrida, in the philosophy departments Derrida is ignored. This is because he is incoherant and self-refuting. Derrida reads like a poorly written philosophy paper. Philosophers have the goal of clearly communicating their ideas; Derrida obfuscates his ideas. The fact that Vanhoozer has choosen to take the criticisms of Derrida seriously is a shame. It would have been better for Vanhoozer to have looked at contemporary philosophy of language and linguistics to seek help for biblical hermeneutics. If Vanhoozer were more familiar with contemporary philosophy of language he would realize that speech-act theory has gone the way of logical positivism. Grice showed that speech-act theory does not work, because words have a meaning apart from use. Regardless of the context or use of the words, there is a still a conventional meaning of a word.

This was a book used for a class I took on Contemporary Hermeneutics, and I found it to be a very helpful book for understanding the epistemological shift that has occurred in the twentieth century, when Derrida, Fish, etc. began arguing that words only point to other words and have no real relation to reality and no possability of containing true meaning. Vanhoozer goes into great detail explaining concepts like refferential/differential meaning in language, the death of the author in postmodern literary criticism, the rise of interpretation based meaning, etc. The whole first half of the book is all about explaining these things, and he is very fair to the proponents of the views he goes about explaining. This is by far the most thorough and thoughtful analysis of those issues that I have come across. The problem I have with the book is the second half.

The second half of the book details Vanhoozer's positive response to these issues as he builds a Christian answer to how we can have meaning in words and texts. He does this by using the Trinity and the Speech Act theory. The problem is that he never explains HOW the Trinity is the basis for communicative meaning. He repeatedly uses the Trinity as a parallel to how communication can have meaning (i.e. the incarnation of Christ being the perfect representation of God), but he never explains how that is the BASIS for his position. He keeps using the Trinity as a sort of metaphor about how it works, and then he keeps saying that it is not JUST a metaphor, but he never explains HOW it actually is more than a metaphor.

The greatest problem I have with the book, however, is the Calvinitic Presuppositionalism which underlies his entire positive Christian response. He assummes the fact that there is meaning and a Trinitarian God, and from that assumption tries to bring them together. Now, I agree that there is meaning and a Trinitarian God, but to someone who does not believe that, he can offer no reason for them to believe it from within the system he builds. He has essentially taken a very pragmatic approach to the issue and said that he wants there to communicable meaning in language, and that in order to achieve this meaning we must believe that it is grounded in the Trinitarian God. In other words, he has shown that communicative meaning makes sense inside the Christian worldview, but he offers no reason to believe that we should be inside the Christian worldview. He has assumed the end he is trying to reach and built that end into his argument that the end is there, so it is really a sort of circular reasoning. That said, I believe that his end is correct, but as an Arminian Christian I think that there is a way/need to actually give evidence that it is the case without just assuming it in the first place.

Please do not misinterpret what I have said to mean that this is a bad book in any way. It is an excellent book, especially the first half. The second half is not bad, but it is a little unclear on exactly how things work and why someone who does not already agree with his conclusion should be persuaded to take Vanhoozer's view. I still highly recommend this book (though you should be aware that it is not an easy read at all), but just keep in mind that if you are not a Calvinistic Presuppositionalist you will have to look elsewhere to complete the picture Vanhoozer has put together.

Overall grade: A+ for the first half, A- for the second half.

You get a booklet and two CDs. They cover the 170 words the NT uses ten times or more, in decreasing order of frequency. It claims these words comprise 70% of the NT, but over 5,200 words remain in the other 30%! Perhaps a follow-up CD is in order with (say) frequencies down to 5 times or more. I'd buy it.

Zondervan's The New Testament Greek Vocabulary package contains a vocabulary guide booklet and two audio CDs read by Jonathan T. Pennington. Its very simple, but effective, concept is to divide words into frequency groups of relatively the same size (about 40 words in each group). The booklet is a print version of the CD word lists, giving the Greek word and the English equivalent.

The obvious advantage of this tool is that one can work on their vocabulary under non-conventional circumstances. For example, many people have long commutes which make for a great opportunity to absorb new vocabulary words. Some types of work also allow for listening to CDs and not being distracted by them. Students can listen to the CDs while studying at home or in the library with headphones while following along with the booklet to complement what they hear with what they see. In the booklet is a large enough gap between the Greek and the English so that one can easily cover up the answers while trying to test themselves.

Unlike many of the popular language CDs available today, Pennington's work focuses strictly on vocabulary. There is no discussion of syntax, except in circumstances which distinguish a preposition's meaning based on its object's case. There are no situational, pre-constructed sentences to learn, such as, pothen ei su; ("Where are you from?"). A language's vocabulary words are the building blocks, and the mortar is its syntax. The mortar should be found in works like Mounce and Wallace, but one should not forsake the very important task of learning the vocabulary.

I presume that the majority of people using this tool are those first learning New Testament Greek. I found it odd that one of the first statements on the CD is, "This program is designed to help you master the vocabulary of Koiné Greek." Learning all the words contained in this package would not make one a master of the Greek New Testament's vocabulary, let alone "Koiné Greek" as the CD claims. It is important to make accurate claims about the language one is learning and the vocabulary in this program only focuses on the vocabulary of a collection of writings found within the wider body of Koiné Greek.

Also, there are certain problems related to learning a language from a CD. The alpha and the omicron are often indistinguishable. When the author says "ay" is it referring to e? ("if") or ? ("or," "either")? Especially if the student is learning new words, the best thing to do is to listen to the audio while following along with the book--at least for the first time.

All in all, the work is well-created. It is intriguing, however, that Zondervan can take two CDs and a little booklet that take relatively a short amount of preparation work (compared to a book) and charge $22.99 for it. In a perfect world this type of a product would come standard with the introductory grammars, but now I am asking too much. What also would be helpful is if Pennington produced a version for the less-common words of the Greek New Testament. Nonetheless, I would recommend the current version to anyone desiring to solidify their vocabulary of the Greek New Testament.

Jonathan T. Pennington is to be commended for his fine work on these vocabulary CDs. I have used them for the past four years, and they have helped me keep up my vocabulary. Probably the most helpful aspect is they help ensure a correct pronounciation. While listening to the CDs is helpful, to get the most benefit, I would recommend listening and using the included vocabulary booklet. Pennington also correctly recommends using the CDs for a short time each day rather than trying to use them for long periods at a time. As a student of NT Greek for several years, I realize that there are no shortcuts or alternatives to hard work. These CDs won't make you a master of the language, but they will give you a good start!

Jonathan T. Pennington reads every word that occurs 10 times or more in the Greek New Testament. The words are arranged in 29 tracks, divided by frequency and presented alphabetically. (e.g. Disc 1, Track 3 contains words that occur 450 times or more in the Greek NT beginning with alla ("but") and ending with hos ("as, like, when, that"). Tracks range in length from 3 minutes 14 seconds to 8 minutes 32 seconds. In his gentle voice, Pennington reads each Greek word, pronouncing it clearly according to Erasmian convention. Then, after a pause for the listener to think of the word's meaning, he gives a gloss--a short English definition of the word. Coupled with a 48 page booklet, this 2-CD set provides a powerful tool for the acquisition of NT Greek Vocabulary.

Verbs are presented in their first principal part only. Nouns are given in the nominative and genitive. Adjectives and pronouns are given in the masculine, feminine and neuter.

Dump these tracks onto your MP3 player and listen to them while you do other things. Pop the disks into your car's CD player and learn while you drive.

A warning: taken in too large doses, these CDs are hypnotic. Listen to them a little at a time or you may find yourself sleep-learning.

If you are studying Greek under a teacher who uses reconstructionist or modern Greek pronunciation standards, these disks are not for you. If you are learning the more common Erasmian pronunciation (ask your instructor) they can be a great help for learning vocabulary.

There is a growing consensus for change in the field of biblical Greek vocabulary pronunciation. No one mentions that this product uses the Erasmian pronunciation. That method is not what biblical Greek era speakers spoke (no one knows what that sounds like)...and it sounds really funny to modern Greek speakers (I have seen eminent American scholars speak with this method in the hearing of modern Greeks who cringe when they hear it).

Of course this is not a problem if you only talk to English speaking bible students who talk about Greek with this pronunciation method. BUT-if you want to travel to Greece, or if you know any Greeks who speak modern Greek, you may find it interesting to know that the vocabulary of the Biblical Greek NT has about a 70% overlap with the vocabulary of Modern Greek version of the NT. (Based on my quick highlighting of the differences between the two version in my BW 7.0 recently).

Because there is a difference of opinion out there on which method is best to use, software products like BibleWorks 7.0 offer both the Erasmian AND the Modern Greek pronunciation.

In addition, a Greek scholar, named Spiros Zhodiates, has produced a NT recording using modern Greek pronunciation (done slowly) so that you can listen to a chapter of that with your Greek NT open and learn how modern Greeks read the Biblical Greek. With his product I like to hold my Greek NT in front of me and follow along as he reads it out loud.

I think some Greek teachers are completely unaware of these things and only consider the Erasmian method. But if you are an evangelical who is studying the bible in Greek because you want to spread the gospel to the world...then I appeal to you to consider building some pronunciation skill in Modern Greek while you are studying the Biblical Greek text.
So for the money, I would recommend you buy Spiros Zhodiates Greek NT recording on CD using the Modern Greek rather than this product.

If you never plan to interact with Greek speaking people...THEN Pennington's work is a five star work worthy of spending your time and money on. So because of that I give this a five star.

I hope this has added something to the well written reviews on this product that was not in the mix for you and that this has helped you see more options before you spend your money!