Luther Rice College: Matthew Henry is outdated, but Calvin is not??

[kathleenmariekg]

I don't mean that no one should do this work at all. I am just trying to find my way though all this, and it is a lot to take in. It makes me sad, and it was very late at night when I posted that. I was tired.

I know I am going to choose not to walk down some paths that I am academically prepared enough to start walking down, because I don't think that is the path that has been chosen for me.

I am very grateful for the course that I am taking. I need this overview and I specifically was looking for context and overview when I started signing up for these certificate courses. I intend to finish this course. But even in this course, there might be some opportunities that I don't take as far as I am academically capable to take them. Not out of laziness, but just so that I can focus on something else.

 

[John of Japan]

I watched this video produced by Luther Rice College

What do you all think about this video, especially the parts about quoting Matthew Henry vs John Calvin, and free resources in a college paper?

The Research Process Step 2 Seek Appropriate Resources
Direct link to video
Media Player
Page behind the direct link to the video
The Research Process

03:48 Wrong kinds of sources:

• study bibles
• outdated resources (consistently older than ten years)
• resources available for free on the web

Think about what your notes and bibliography suggest about you to your professors!

04:40 Matthew Henry is good, but written in the 1600's. Outdated. Concerned with the Catholic Church, not German higher critics challenges to Bible authority. That came 200 years later. Does not apply to the Evangelical challenges we face now.

06:26 Finding Germinal Sources
Read the original work. Read John Calvin himself, not someone that wrote about John Calvin.

As a professor, I think I can clear up the confusion. First of all, Matthew Henry is a devotional commentary, not a technical one. For a research paper, I would allow Henry to be quoted in an inspirational sense but not a technical sense. In other words, you could end your paper with a great devotional quote from Henry, but I would mark off if you used Henry's opinion of the meaning of agape (whatever that might be). My grandfather wrote devotional commentaries, so I would take the same approach with him. However, I would allow his theological writings such as Our God-Breathed Book: the Bible.

Now, the syllabus you quoted mentioned Calvin as a "germinal source." This does not mean even Calvin would be a good source for a technical work on agape. In other words, too many sources quote Calvin second or third hand--"According to Smith, Calvin said...." But that does not get to Calvin's context. Unfortunately, many fundamentalist authors do this. For example, some authors gives quotes out of context from Westcott and Hort, accusing them of things they did not actually believe or do (such as that they followed spiritism.)

An older source such as some of the Pilgrim writers, might be used as a technical source because some of their writings are still valid. But even here one would have to be careful.

 

[kathleenmariekg]

As a professor, I think I can clear up the confusion. First of all, Matthew Henry is a devotional commentary, not a technical one. For a research paper, I would allow Henry to be quoted in an inspirational sense but not a technical sense.

Is there a list of specific things to look for when defining whether a commentary is devotional or technical?

Some of these resources that I am learning about are entirely new to me, and the ones that I am familiar with are seen in an entirely different light than what I have been previously taught.

I understand exactly what you mean about some sources being appropriate for one use, but not another, though!

 

[kathleenmariekg]

Is there a list of specific things to look for when defining whether a commentary is devotional or technical?

I'm watching this right now. I can probably research the answer to this question.
LibGuides: Bible Commentaries Guide: Home

 

[Reformed1689]

It really depends on what they mean by outdated....

 

[John of Japan]

Is there a list of specific things to look for when defining whether a commentary is devotional or technical?

Some of these resources that I am learning about are entirely new to me, and the ones that I am familiar with are seen in an entirely different light than what I have been previously taught.

I understand exactly what you mean about some sources being appropriate for one use, but not another, though!

By and large, a technical commentary will deal extensively with the original languages. The primary goal of a technical commentary is to help understand and exegete the text correctly. It may help the reader grow in faith, but that is not the primary goal of a technical commentary, but a secondary goal.

On the other hand, while a devotional commentary may occasionally mention an original language word, it only does so when that fits the devotional purpose. The goal of a devotional commentary is to help the reader draw near to God, grow in faith, and see personal revival. The reader can do this without knowledge of the original languages.

So, the technical A. T. Robertson starts out on John 3:16 with--"This use of gar is quite in John's style in introducing his comments." However, the devotional Albert Barnes starts out with--"This does not mean that God approved the conduct of men, but that he had benevolent feelings toward them, or was earnestly desirous of their happiness."

 

[Van]

It does not matter if a source is "devotional" or "technical" both could be right or wrong. Truth matters.

Calvin was wrong with some of his commentary.

But reading key sections of his commentary is very enlightening.

 

[Reformed1689]

It does not matter if a source is "devotional" or "technical" both could be right or wrong. Truth matters.

Calvin was wrong with some of his commentary.

But reading key sections of his commentary is very enlightening.

WRITE THIS DATE DOWN! I agree with Van!

 

[John of Japan]

To all: This is not about right or wrong, truth or falsehood. It is about how an academic teaches good research and writing through requiring a research paper. All legitimate colleges are the same on this. It is about standards for budding writers, so that they succeed as writers, whether they are published in a journal, book, magazine, tract, or church bulletin.

So, a student may write a paper taking a position that I profoundly disagree with, but the point is not my view of the subject, but whether the student is properly learning how to research and write. I've given an A before to such a paper. I've given a D to a paper which I agreed with, but was poorly written with lousy research.

Someone may object to this, and that is fine. But not in the classrooms at my college or any other. We will simply lower your grade for: improper sourcing, poor footnotes or bibliography, etc. Nothing personal.

 

[kathleenmariekg]

The goal of a devotional commentary is to help the reader draw near to God, grow in faith, and see personal revival. The reader can do this without knowledge of the original languages.

Thank you! I added this to my notes from the video. This really shows how a devotional commentary is not just less.

Thank you EVERYONE. I understand so much better now: both the professed goals of these books and how colleges tell me to use them, but also the between the lines stuff and unspoken biases.

I had started to understand these in my secular law and general education sources, and then was even applying that to the cybersecurity classes. But this is a whole new set of resources, and the level of crazymaking is a whole new level of sophistication.

 

[Reformed1689]

To all: This is not about right or wrong, truth or falsehood. It is about how an academic teaches good research and writing through requiring a research paper. All legitimate colleges are the same on this. It is about standards for budding writers, so that they succeed as writers, whether they are published in a journal, book, magazine, tract, or church bulletin.

So, a student may write a paper taking a position that I profoundly disagree with, but the point is not my view of the subject, but whether the student is properly learning how to research and write. I've given an A before to such a paper. I've given a D to a paper which I agreed with, but was poorly written with lousy research.

Someone may object to this, and that is fine. But not in the classrooms at my college or any other. We will simply lower your grade for: improper sourcing, poor footnotes or bibliography, etc. Nothing personal.

Again, it depends on the context of why you are putting it in the paper and what type of paper it is.

 

[kathleenmariekg]

Someone may object to this, and that is fine. But not in the classrooms at my college or any other. We will simply lower your grade for: improper sourcing, poor footnotes or bibliography, etc. Nothing personal.

I need to hear both sides.

At my old college, I had to learn the rules, before I knew where and when I would be allowed to break them. Or when it was worth breaking them whatever the consequences.

 

[Reformed1689]

I need to hear both sides.

At my old college, I had to learn the rules, before I knew where and when I would be allowed to break them. Or when it was worth breaking them whatever the consequences.

Sometimes the professor will be specific about the types of sources. You just need to be mindful of what is expected. And, if you don't know or don't understand...ask!

 

[kathleenmariekg]

So, a student may write a paper taking a position that I profoundly disagree with, but the point is not my view of the subject, but whether the student is properly learning how to research and write. I've given an A before to such a paper. I've given a D to a paper which I agreed with, but was poorly written with lousy research.

Unfortunately some professors do the opposite, and when dealing with those types, knowing the rules and sticking to the rules steadfastly is how I choose to handle them. Then I can just bring a paper to the tutoring center and ask how to improve it. It is a bit passive aggressive, but it was how I survived Composition 101.

 

[kathleenmariekg]

Sometimes the professor will be specific about the types of sources. You just need to be mindful of what is expected. And, if you don't know or don't understand...ask!

I am the asker of a class. LOL. Other students sometimes want to crawl under their desks, before I am done having the assignment clarified down to the last detail.

 

[John of Japan]

Unfortunately some professors do the opposite, and when dealing with those types, knowing the rules and sticking to the rules steadfastly is how I choose to handle them. Then I can just bring a paper to the tutoring center and ask how to improve it. It is a bit passive aggressive, but it was how I survived Composition 101.

Sounds like you have the right attitude.

 

[Yeshua1]

I could quote Leon Morris' New Testament Theology in my research paper? I have access to that.

Not within 10 years but anything by Him is excellent!

 

[Yeshua1]

As a professor, I think I can clear up the confusion. First of all, Matthew Henry is a devotional commentary, not a technical one. For a research paper, I would allow Henry to be quoted in an inspirational sense but not a technical sense. In other words, you could end your paper with a great devotional quote from Henry, but I would mark off if you used Henry's opinion of the meaning of agape (whatever that might be). My grandfather wrote devotional commentaries, so I would take the same approach with him. However, I would allow his theological writings such as Our God-Breathed Book: the Bible.

Now, the syllabus you quoted mentioned Calvin as a "germinal source." This does not mean even Calvin would be a good source for a technical work on agape. In other words, too many sources quote Calvin second or third hand--"According to Smith, Calvin said...." But that does not get to Calvin's context. Unfortunately, many fundamentalist authors do this. For example, some authors gives quotes out of context from Westcott and Hort, accusing them of things they did not actually believe or do (such as that they followed spiritism.)

An older source such as some of the Pilgrim writers, might be used as a technical source because some of their writings are still valid. But even here one would have to be careful.

Agreed, as the KJVO critics of those 2 especially make it seem that they were satanists!

 

[kathleenmariekg]

Not within 10 years but anything by Him is excellent!

I have much greater access to books than articles. I have access to Leon Morris.

The video listed the following commentaries as technical:
The New International Commentary
Baker Exegetical Commentary
Word Biblical Commentary

Do these agree/disagree with Baptist teaching?

 

[Yeshua1]

Is there a list of specific things to look for when defining whether a commentary is devotional or technical?

Some of these resources that I am learning about are entirely new to me, and the ones that I am familiar with are seen in an entirely different light than what I have been previously taught.

I understand exactly what you mean about some sources being appropriate for one use, but not another, though!

Devotional ones will be concerned with how to apply and use what the Bible stated, while technical ones get into things such as historical backgrounds, The original languages, and really into foot notes and bibliography!