A Working Library

In order to adequately and accurately study and learn from God’s Word, one needs more than simply an English Bible, the indwelling Holy Spirit, and a reasonably open attitude. Whilst the aforementioned considerations are primary, they are not exhaustive, given that they do not directly address a number of factors that, strictly-speaking, are non-spiritual in orientation, but impact directly upon the spiritual meaning of a given passage.

We modern, western, ‘post-theology’ Christians are separated from the biblical narratives by at least two thousand years. Predominantly we live in alien countries, we enjoy a shared culture that is markedly different to that experienced during the biblical period, and we speak, read and write in completely different languages to those spoken by the original Bible authors. All these factors place us at a very real disadvantage when it comes to understanding just what it is they wrote of and about. Add to this the reality that each one of us approaches the Bible with a host of theological, cultural and practical presuppositions and pre-understandings[1], and it becomes clear that simply reading a Bible will not automatically ensure that it is understood properly.

The aim of this essay is twofold. First, it is to provide an apologetic for the establishment of a personal reference library in each Christian home. Second, I aim to provide a very basic bibliography that will meet the needs of the average Christian in his or her study of God’s enduring Word. Additional reference works are included for consideration by those fulfilling a pastoral/teaching role.

Irrespective of one’s general level of formal education, as Christians we have an obligation to God to study His Word, and to set about learning as much about Him and His will for our lives as we are able[2]. This obligation requires both consistent and persistent, personal daily devotion. However, it is my experience that a majority of Christians lack the motivation more than the means to making such an end a tangible reality. For whatever reason, a collection of solid biblical reference tools is viewed as neither a priority nor even a consideration in many Christian homes.

It should be borne in mind that each of us has different reference requirements based on our own circumstances. Distinctive callings, levels of training and personal, financial circumstances will mitigate the extent to which each of us is able (or willing) to build his or her own reference library. Not everyone seeks to be a biblical scholar, needing hundreds of technical volumes, and living by Erasmus of Rotterdam’s creed[3]. Throughout this essay, therefore, I will continually place stress upon the ‘reference’ aspect of the idea, given that the aim is to recommend the acquisition of affordable and useful tools that will better enable a believer to learn from God’s Word. General ‘Christian living’ books, therefore, will not receive a mention, important as they may be.

In the introductory paragraphs, I alluded to the fact that there are several considerations that functionally and practically separate us from the biblical authors and their writings. It is for this reason that we must attempt to minimise the difference in ‘horizons’ between the biblical authors and ourselves[4]. Having access to a range of quality, well-researched and well-presented reference materials will better enable each of us to do this.

Ultimately, the ‘gulfs’ or gaps in our understanding and experience of the Bible, it’s people, events and times, will relate to one of the following three, broad classifications:

Our immediate aim, therefore, should be to secure reference works that provide us with the detailed knowledge that we may be lacking in these specific areas. To do so will by no means make us infallible interpreters, however, we will be better equipped to make reasoned decisions each and every time that we approach a Bible text[5].

Perhaps one of the most common of mistakes made by well-meaning Christians when interpreting Scripture, is the assumption that the people in the Bible thought, lived and experienced in the same way as they do themselves. This rather naive assumption could not possibly be further from the truth. As but one example, how does the modern Christian reconcile the fact that the God of the Old Testament (OT) is often portrayed as a Warrior? God frequently appears to be bloodthirsty, unforgiving, and perhaps even malicious – characteristics that would seem to be diametrically opposed to the image portrayed in the New Testament (NT). Or what are we to make of the apparent contradiction in the teaching of Paul concerning the roles and functions of women in the church[6]? The answer lies, partially, in properly appreciating the cultures and social circumstances in which the recorded events took place. Frequently, contradictions are later found to be much less ‘contradictory’ then was first assumed.

When theology and doctrine are built upon passages that are not culturally discerned, incorrect teaching, with incorrect understanding and application will be the eventual result. An equal error is often made when churches attempt to replicate the cultural norms of a previous age. It is important to bear in mind that the timelessness of the Word of God lies in its message, and not necessarily in the medium used to present the message.

It would probably be true to affirm that most of us live in relatively comfortable, urban societies. When we read passages in both the OT and NT, we immediately encounter geographies that are alien to our own. Consequently, we will often miss a range of subtle, nuanced messages that the author wished for us to understand, and which may even have been pivotal to his entire message.

For example, when we read of the mass baptisms in Samaria[7], we unconsciously picture in our minds images of multitudes being immersed in a river, pool or oasis, as that is what ‘baptism’ means to us. However, when we learn that there was no known standing body of water in Samaria capable of fulfilling such a requirement at the time, we discover that we may need to reassess our theological assumptions and pre-understandings. Particularly when we reflect on the fact that ‘baptism tanks’, or ‘fonts’, were not used by the Church during the first two centuries of the Common Era.

In a similar vein, can we truly understand the rigors that were faced during a journey from Syrian Antioch to Macedonian Philippi? Or, for that matter, the time it took Paul and his companions to complete such a circuit? Further, do we truly comprehend the way in which Paul’s letters were later circulated to the churches that he established in this region? Next, how does our understanding of the date and place of the composition of Galatians affect our understanding of the message contained in Hebrews? These are questions that many of us have never stopped to consider, but are vitally important to understanding the biblical events that we read about.

It is a fact that only very few Christians are fluent in the biblical languages – Hebrew and Greek – yet many more often seek to present an impression to the contrary. Personally, I am acutely aware of untold abuses and theological ‘smoke-and-mirror’ tricks that have been introduced by unlearned yet often well meaning people, in a range of Christian churches and settings. Sadly, however, once a perspective on a given word or passage has been grasped by the average Christian (is there such a thing?), it is almost impossible to convince the person that what they currently believe to be true is, in fact, false.

Anecdotally, each of us can probably recall instances during a Sunday message when we have heard the words: “…this particular word means ‘such-and-such’ in the Greek.” All too frequently, however, little more than a Strong’s Concordance, or a Vine’s Expository Dictionary had been consulted, and the meaning most in accord with the speaker’s preferred impression was chosen from two or three valid alternatives. Of course, never mind the vital issues of grammatical context: case, mood, aspect or tense; or, for that matter, the relevant theological or literary context in which the word or phrase appears within a passage or book, by a particular writer[8]. What frequently results is an impression contrary to that intended by the original author is presented by the speaker, and accepted as fact by the naive audience. This abuse can have critical implications, especially when theologically significant concepts are tied to specific English words: grace, belief, faith, salvation and so forth[9].

For these, and similar reasons, I strongly urge people who have not been trained in the biblical languages to avoid basing their understanding on the information provided in dated, entry-level lexica such as Vine’s Expository Dictionary; and that they eschew completely the practice of Concordance-driven ‘word-studies’. Without a thorough grounding in the grammar and syntax of Hebrew and Greek, it is unlikely that any Christian will derive exegetically responsible results, and certainly not without consulting very widely, the existing and extensive primary literature. It is a sad fact that many of the articles that appear on this website have been written specifically to address a number of very serious doctrinal errors, that have resulted from untrained, unlearned Revivalist pastors propagating and promoting this irresponsible practice.

I would suggest that the most effective and efficient way to gain theological advantage from informed language studies, is for the average Christian to consult various of the available Bible commentaries, which were written by established and expert biblical scholars. There exists in print a broad range of general, or non-technical, volumes that provide insight into exegetically significant words and phrases, yet present the pertinent information in a manner that is readily digested and understood by everyone. Most believers would, therefore, likely find one of the available and reasonably priced single-volume commentaries adequate in meeting their personal study needs. However, teachers and pastors should possess at least one, preferably two or three, multi-volume commentary sets. This is to ensure that a wide perspective on the issues is considered, and not simply a narrow focus that directs, rather than suggests, the reader to reasonable interpretive outcomes.

Now that I have provided a brief, and I hope reasonable, defence for the developing of a personal reference library, I would now like to address certain of the volumes that, in my opinion at least, deserve some consideration based on merit and ease of use. The following reference works are those that I have personal experience in the use of, on a regular basis. In the main the suggested titles meet the needs of ‘average’ Christians rather than formally trained biblical scholars. However, there does exist a significant overlap between the needs and tools used by both groups. The list, as presented, should by no means be considered exhaustive, and should be supplemented by further purchases as growing experience, spiritual discernment and financial circumstances allow. Importantly, I believe it to be fundamentally necessary to include within one’s library, reference works that present a theological perspective that is not necessarily shared by the reader. This forces one to wrestle with the concepts that are presented, thereby ensuring that a more mature understanding and appreciation of one’s beliefs results.

In selecting a study Bible, several factors need to be considered. First, and foremost, is the textual tradition that underpins the translation. Is the Bible version based on a specific family of manuscripts (such as the so-called ‘textus receptus’ that underpins the KJV and NKJV), or is it derived from an eclectic text that drew on the entire manuscript evidence (the NIV, NRSV)? In reality, given that no two original manuscripts completely agree in every respect, it is probably preferable to have at least one version from each.

Next is the important issue of translation theory. Some versions are the product of what has been labeled the ‘formal equivalence’ method of translation (such as the KJV, NKJV and NASB). The term itself is a misnomer, as one cannot achieve a strictly formal equivalence from one language to another, due primarily to differences in vocabulary, semantics, syntactical structures and grammar. Loosely defined, however, a ‘formally-equivalent’ translation seeks to replicate the sentence structure of the original text as closely as possible. This may be beneficial in better identifying significant grammatical structures that can exercise a marked effect on one’s theology. At the other end of the spectrum is the theory of ‘free-equivalence’. Put simply, such a version is less a translation than it is a paraphrase (for example, the Living Bible). Whilst very easy to read, one is, in reality, reading the interpretation and perspective of the composer more so than the original authors. Somewhere in the middle lies the method known as ‘dynamic-equivalence’ also referred to as ‘functional-equivalence’ (the NIV and NLT are good examples of this theory placed into practice). Whilst this method certainly involves a measure of interpretation (as do all the theories in any case), the guiding concept it is to present not only the structure but also the intent of the message as well.

Finally, it becomes necessary to consider the theological leanings of the translators. Is the version the product of one denomination (such as the JB), or of representatives of many (NRSV, NIV, NLT, etc)? Clearly, theological bias will be less of an issue if the committee is representative of a diversity of perspectives and views.

My recommendation, based on the above primary considerations, would be that at least one version based on each consideration ought to be purchased and used. Therefore, I would recommend the following:

Both versions provide an accurate and idiomatic rendering of the original texts into Modern English, with both versions being based on an eclectic text and functionally-equivalent translation process [10].

These versions sought to update the language of the KJV yet attempted to remain true to the syntactical structure of the Hebrew and Greek texts. By consulting either version, and by comparing it with the NIV or NRSV, one is able to better discern the range of meaning that may be inherent in any given passage.

Both of these versions have been written to ensure that meaning is imparted, and, therefore, ought to be considered for use as one’s devotional or reading Bible. The are translations rather than paraphrases, and are derived from the best of the critical Greek and Hebrew texts available.

A brief word on the KJV is also in order. Although all Revivalists cut-their-teeth on the KJV, my unequivocal recommendation is that this version be relegated to the bookshelf to gather dust. Many people have an unusually high regard for the KJV that is based more on superstition or misinformation than on the facts as they truly are. In short, the KJV represents the textual labours of only one man (Erasmus of Rotterdam), who built his Greek version on only seven, poor in quality, incomplete and late (the earliest being the 12^th century) original manuscripts. Whilst certainly worthy of being called the Word of God, the KJV suffers from too many flaws (textual, cultural and linguistic) to be of solid, practical use for today. A point worthy of note is that this version is the Bible of preference for the vast majority of all pseudo-Christian cults, sects and aberrations of the Christian Church. The reason this is so is simple – the lack of clarity enables the cults to misrepresent the proper teachings of Scripture to their people.

The Bible in English is the primary doctrinal tool used by most Christians. There are numerous aids that enable the believer to derive the most value and benefit from his or her Bible study, and include: concordances, handbooks, atlases and the like. I would like to briefly review several of these.

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible was the mainstay for many years; however; its continued utility is seriously hampered by it’s being based on the KJV of the Bible, and that it was prepared before the discovery of the extensive Greek papyri. Consequently, many of the Greek definitions contained in Strong’s are incomplete, dated and occasionally quite misleading. The NIV Exhaustive Concordance fully incorporates all the salient features of Strong’s, but is linked to the modern NIV translation.

2. Marshall, Millard, Packer, et al., New Bible Dictionary, 3^rd ed., IVP, 1996.

The role of a Bible dictionary is to provide background information on all topics, persons, places and events discussed within Scripture. Many Revivalists would be familiar with Smith’s Bible Dictionary, which remains a valuable tool. However, like Strong’s Concordance, it is now seriously dated, and thus provides information that is, at best, incomplete; at worst, misleading. The New Bible Dictionary provides a wealth of practical background information presented within a clearly evangelical framework.

The IVP Dictionary series (which also includes the following two entries) is designed to condense the findings of scholarship worked around the themes of Jesus/Gospels, Paul and his writings, and the development of the NT canon. The practical information contained in these volumes is massive, and should be consulted by pastors/teachers when preparing their messages.

5. R.P. Martin, et al., Dictionary of the Later New Testament and its Development, IVP, 1997.

The role of a theological dictionary is to provide detail on theological/doctrinal themes that impact directly upon Christian understanding. Consequently each topic (for example, baptism) will be addressed at length, from a range of perspectives, and taking into account the understanding of the various branches of the Church and those outside it over the course of history. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, as the title suggests, provides this detail from an evangelical perspective and framework. Again, this reference tool ought to be widely consulted by pastors and teachers.

The primary role of a commentary is to provide comment on a specific issue or range of issues. This volume delivers, in commentary format, a broad overview of the relevant historical and socio-cultural background material that is necessary to situate the text in its original setting. All Christians would derive considerable benefit from this volume, and its sister volume on the OT.

8. Wenham, Carson, et al., New Bible Commentary: 21^st Century Edition, IVP, 1994, or W. Elwell (ed.) and/or the Evangelical Commentary of the Bible, Baker Books, 2000.

Both of these single volume commentaries provide a passage-by-passage exposition of every book in the Protestant Bible, highlighting significant grammatical and cultural issues that ‘flavour’ one’s understanding of the text. Both incorporate a wealth of background/survey information, and so should be consulted by Christians in the course of their Bible study. Importantly for some, they are written from an evangelical perspective.

This series is widely viewed as being among the best of the homiletical (preaching) commentaries currently available. For each passage of the Bible, an original context is presented, followed by a bridging context, then, finally, by points for application in the lives of Christians today. These are non-technical works; in other words, they do not delve into aspects of Greek grammar, historical or comparative philology or similar technical issues. Written by evangelical scholars, and designed for pastors and teachers lacking training or facility in the biblical languages, Revivalist leaders would benefit greatly from consulting this series when preparing messages and formulating teaching.

Again, this is a homiletic rather than a technical commentary set. Unlike the above, however, this series has more of a teaching than a preaching focus. It would be well suited to home group and Sunday school settings.

This section of the bibliography seeks to introduce a range of supporting tools that discuss issues related to the Bible and doctrine that are not fully addressed in the above volumes. Some would be of interest to many; some would be more of interest to pastors and/or teachers.

10. G. Fee and D. Stuart, How to Read the Bible for all its Worth, Zondervan, 1993; and How to Read the Bible Book by Book, Zondervan, 2001.

The former work is a popular/entry-level introduction to biblical interpretation, and discusses a range of issues about which many Christians are completely unaware. The latter volume builds on the former. Both would be of value to the average Christian.

Know the Truth presents Christian doctrine in a systematic and easily understood way, and is aimed primarily, again, at the average Christian.

12. W. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, IVP, 2000 or M. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2^nd ed., Baker Books, 1998.

Either of the above two introductory systematic theologies will provide the pastor/teacher with a systematic overview of the entire Christian corpus of teachings, on the range of primary doctrines.

This volume is not for the feint-hearted. Although geared for practical pastoral use, it anticipates a great deal of knowledge (and learning) on the part of the reader. Although Dr Fee incorporates a section on the exegetical process for pastors who lack any Greek training, the volume was designed specifically for those who have developed a measure of ability in the Greek language. This being said, there are tangible benefits to be gained by Revivalist pastors studying this work.

Perhaps one of the best of the introductory, technical presentations of the art and science of biblical interpretation currently in print. Although not geared towards the average Christian necessarily, this work certainly ought to be consulted by those involved in the preaching and/or teaching of Christian doctrine from the biblical texts.

Dr Patzia’s book provides a very useful guide that addresses the development of the New Testament as Christian Scripture. There is information on subjects from the nature of the original writings, through textual criticism, through to the nature and extent of the NT canon. A believer will increase in his or her understanding of issues such as the relative strengths and weaknesses of the various Modern English Bible versions, through a careful study of this text.

Anyone interested in the way the Christian Scriptures have been transmitted, copied and preserved will find this volume to be a real gem. Well researched and lucidly written, the appendix that deals with the issue of ‘layers of meaning’ in any given text makes the purchase of this book well worthwhile.

This volume charts the development of the Bible from original texts through to the most modern of English translations. It is very easy to read, full of insight, and has a very helpful summary and comparison of the many modern versions; including an article on the modern debate over the KJV. I rate this volume highly.

Every believer ought to have a working knowledge of the history of the Christian Church, as the old dictum rings true: "...those ignorant of history are most likely to repeat its errors." This is certainly true of the Revivalist groups, who have struggled with issues and practices that were dealt with by the Church long ago. Sadly, Revivalist 'historylessness' is entrenched within the fellowships, and has led to unecessary pain and suffering. Dr Shelley's book provides a very readable survey of the ups and downs faced by the Church since 30 AD, and will go some way to addressing many of the issues.

It is my intention to regularly revise this essay from time to time, adding newer works that I believe might be of benefit.

[3] Erasmus was the medieval scholar who produced the Greek text underpinning the KJV of the Bible. When in possession of money, he is reputed to “…have purchased books first, food second and clothes third.”

[4] This statement refers to the concept that perspectives, or ‘horizons’, are shaped by a lifetime of experiences. Our shared Western, 21^st century, post-Christian culture presents us with a radically different ‘horizon’ to the one Paul experienced. To properly understand what Paul wrote, however, we need to view his ‘horizon’ albeit from a considerable distance.

[5] Considerable study in a range of related and complementary fields is necessary to reduce interpretative errors to a minimum. Theology, languages and anthropology, archaeology and sociology are several of these necessary disciplines. It is recognised that the “average” Christian will never undertake such a broad and diverse range of studies: either formally or informally.

[9] See the article on Acts 2:38 for an example where simple grammar clearly disproves the pivotal Revivalist understanding of the ‘salvation message’.

A Working Library

Building a reference collection

By Ian Thomason