I am writing this primarily as a response to Dave Teague's one-star review. I do not want his review to prejudice people from considering this product.
First of all, I would describe this as a "moderate evangelical" study Bible. By "moderate," I mean somewhere between conservative and liberal, not fitting comfortably with either. On occasion, however, Dobson definitely tilts in a progressive direction. While he does not explicitly affirm homosexual unions, he indicates (in Leviticus 18 and Romans 1, for example) that the homosexual practices are probably abusive or involving cultic prostitution. Obviously, that leaves open the door for those who want to affirm gay marriage in the church. Buyers should also be aware that Dobson prefers to leave things "in tension" (as he likes to say), often giving multiple interpretative options. I am not always a fan of Dobson's notes. Teague's review, however, does a disservice to this Bible. Here are my replies to each of his complaints:
The study notes do not imply that YHWH and Elohim are two different gods, much less do they support any sort of Gnostic demiurge. The footnote for Gen 2:4 clearly indicates that we are dealing with different ways to understand the character and personality of God. Every scholar, including the vast majority of evangelicals, recognize that the texts which use Yahweh are more "immanent" in their understanding of God and his agency, whereas the Elohim texts are more "transcendent." Since God is both immanent and transcendent, this variety in the traditions is appropriate and should hardly cause concern for any believer. Moreover, there is overlap, and no one believes that these are strictly segregated in the Hebrew Bible (Protestant OT). Most of the more liberal scholars will use these differences as a basis for widely differing theologies (and textual traditions), but Dobson does not go there...thankfully.
As for Gen 4:1, the note does not casually "mention" that Eve had sex with either the serpent or a fallen angel. It states that, "Ancient interpreters tried to explain this phrase by positing that...," which he footnotes with a citation. Of course, Teague wants an explicit rebuttal, but Dobson was merely indicating what an ancient interpretive tradition believed as he does throughout (Rabbinic, for instance), which is the whole point of this study Bible. He is not endorsing the interpretation, nor is he stating that we should endorse it.
As for Deut 4:35, how on earth does "monotheism is born" suggest that it was "just an idea that someone invented"? Seriously. The text is clearly a proclamation from Moses, predicated on the prior revelation to Israel of the one and only true God.
And, lastly, I highly doubt that Dobson believes that first-century interpretations are "more correct simply because they come from the time of the New Testament." But he does believe that it is helpful to know what these interpretations were, as we engage in dialogue with them in order to interpret the text. I think that the speculative interpretation at Gen 4:1 is wrong, but I am glad to know what an ancient interpretive tradition believed. Moreover, the title "first-century" is a bit of a misnomer, because the interpretations come from both early church and Rabbinical traditions that post-date the first-century. That is my one quibble with this study Bible. Otherwise, I am highly impressed by the quality of the scholarship. No study Bible is without faults, but I think this is a worthwhile contribution to one's Bible collection.
No comments:
Post a Comment