RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Currid, John. ed. ESV Archaeology Study Bible. Crossway, 2017.
My ESV Archaeology Study Bible came in. Initial thoughts: the hardcover binding is good, but not perfect. It will last through normal readings, carrying to church, etc., but it will not survive rough use. This is an issue w/some Crossway hardcovers.
The study notes are good. To be sure, they have an archaeological slant, so you probably cannot write sermons from them. They are good, though. One does not get the feel they are “skimpy.” For example, they did a good job on Ps. 82 and gave all the options, for example.
The pictures are nice. Some are even in color. I used to think Bible atlases and archaeology were silly, because if the Bible is inerrant (and it is), and if propositions are all that matter, then why bother with facts on the ground? To be sure, I would not use archaeology to try to prove the Bible (because the issues are more complex and people end up looking for Joshua’s missing day or something). On the other hand, it does influence how we read a text. Is the Mt of Transfiguration Mt Tabor or Mt Hermon? It is almost certainly Mt Hermon. Yet, if one is Eastern Orthodox, then he maintains it must be Mt Tabor because of tradition. The words of the text themselves do not directly decide the issue (though they lean towards Hermon).
Although I do not think the ESV is the greatest translation to ever exist, previous archeological study bibles used the NIV, and if the choice is between the ESV and the NIV, then one has to go with the former every time.
My ESV Archaeology Study Bible came in. Initial thoughts: the hardcover binding is good, but not perfect. It will last through normal readings, carrying to church, etc., but it will not survive rough use. This is an issue w/some Crossway hardcovers.
The study notes are good. To be sure, they have an archaeological slant, so you probably cannot write sermons from them. They are good, though. One does not get the feel they are “skimpy.” For example, they did a good job on Ps. 82 and gave all the options, for example.
The pictures are nice. Some are even in color. I used to think Bible atlases and archaeology were silly, because if the Bible is inerrant (and it is), and if propositions are all that matter, then why bother with facts on the ground? To be sure, I would not use archaeology to try to prove the Bible (because the issues are more complex and people end up looking for Joshua’s missing day or something). On the other hand, it does influence how we read a text. Is the Mt of Transfiguration Mt Tabor or Mt Hermon? It is almost certainly Mt Hermon. Yet, if one is Eastern Orthodox, then he maintains it must be Mt Tabor because of tradition. The words of the text themselves do not directly decide the issue (though they lean towards Hermon).
Although I do not think the ESV is the greatest translation to ever exist, previous archeological study bibles used the NIV, and if the choice is between the ESV and the NIV, then one has to go with the former every time.
